Government May Block Websites During Pandemic - Swine Flu May Infect Internet

[Alpha]

Well we all know that THEY hate the internet and would do almost anything to destroy it. Here they can hit a few birds with one stone :angryfire:



Government May Block Websites During Pandemic (http://www.infowars.com/government-may-block-websites-during-pandemic/)


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Securities exchanges have a sound network back-up if a severe pandemic keeps people home and clogging the Internet, but the Homeland Security Department has done little planning, Congressional investigators said on Monday.


The department does not even have a plan to start work on the issue, the General Accountability Office said.


But the Homeland Security Department accused the GAO of having unrealistic expectations of how the Internet could be managed if millions began to telework from home at the same time as bored or sick schoolchildren were playing online, sucking up valuable bandwidth.............


Full Article (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2620750120091026)

[Divinorumus]

Well of course once they have you all locked up within your respective pens they will be cutting off your ability to communicate as well as keep informed on what the #$%@ is gonna be going on during this whole faked pandemic and martial law thang. Ya better all plan your coordinated riot dates now before you loose the opportunity to do so later, ha.

[MuseNoir]

Okay... NOW I am pissed.

I heard this on the radio this morning (KFI in Los Angeles)... just stated briefly as fact. I could hardly believe what I'd heard, so I googled later and found this article.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2009/tc20091027_902353.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

Sounds like the H1N1 will be used as an excuse to start blocking internet sites in the interest of the economy.

What a load of ***t.

I am sorry, but most jobs cannot be done at HOME over the internet. People out sick with the flu will not crash the internet!!! This was NOT an issue that was brought up when millions became unemployed and were home looking for jobs or online!!!!

Really important that we watch this story develop and keep an eye on this one. This could open the door to all kinds of sites being blocked or taken down. For our best interest, of course.

[emowaffles]

Dude, this is a god damn conspiracy! The government is all hyped up on spreading panic about a disease that has the same effects as the normal flu. Congress is thinking of giving the Executive Branch the ability to "temporarily stop" the internet, (obviously because Obama is trying to eliminate all opposing viewpoints) and this could be their chance!

[MuseNoir]

Yeah.... I know... as much as I consider myself a conspiracy theorist, I can't wrap my mind around this one... hearing it on the radio this morning really threw me.

[emowaffles]

I also remember hearing on the radio something about doctors being instructed to report the NORMAL flu as a case of H1N1. So the government will be able to consider it an epidemic, which all of a sudden slightly ties into them "rationing" the internet.

[Divinorumus]

The government is all hyped up on spreading panic about a disease that ...

It's FAKE! Don't you see, when the economy crashes, because the dollar just died, and you are now penniless, jobless, starving, and mad, they don't want you out on the streets rioting. They want you home, hiding, under the bed, from the big bad pig bug. And that's where you'll stay, until the reptilians round you all up. And when it starts, you won't be able to tell anyone, because you'll have no way to communicate with them.

[MuseNoir]

If they want people to stay home, then they are being very short sighted in thinking they can limit the internet. That may be the thing that brings people to the streets.

[emowaffles]

Yes, i know it's BS by the government. but lol reptilians,

[Divinorumus]

Looks like some straggler counties are finally getting around to getting ready for all this: County Buys Mobile Morgues (http://www.turnto23.com/news/21444759/detail.html) ("Bring out your dead!" ... DING ... "Bring out your dead!" ... DING ...)

[Judee]

Looks like some straggler counties are finally getting around to getting ready for all this: County Buys Mobile Morgues (http://www.turnto23.com/news/21444759/detail.html) ("Bring out your dead!" ... DING ... "Bring out your dead!" ... DING ...)

Wow! That's a pretty unbelievable news story Div, and yet it's true! Either this is getting to be mass hysteria, or 'they' know something they're not telling us!!! :bigeyes2:

[axl]

Okay... NOW I am pissed.

I heard this on the radio this morning (KFI in Los Angeles)... just stated briefly as fact. I could hardly believe what I'd heard, so I googled later and found this article.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2009/tc20091027_902353.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

Sounds like the H1N1 will be used as an excuse to start blocking internet sites in the interest of the economy.

What a load of ***t.

I am sorry, but most jobs cannot be done at HOME over the internet. People out sick with the flu will not crash the internet!!! This was NOT an issue that was brought up when millions became unemployed and were home looking for jobs or online!!!!

Really important that we watch this story develop and keep an eye on this one. This could open the door to all kinds of sites being blocked or taken down. For our best interest, of course.


I wonder ----------what sistes they will monitor 1st :bandit:

[Alpha]

Here's more on this.

Has anyone every heard of "The Cybersecurity Act"....that's a new one for me :angryfire



Homeland Security Could Block Websites During Swine Flu Pandemic (http://www.prisonplanet.com/homeland-security-could-block-websites-during-swine-flu-pandemic.html)



The government is being encouraged to prepare to block websites and Internet traffic in the event of a worsening swine flu pandemic that results in network congestion, a move that represents a potential end run around the agenda to regulate the world wide web.



A report by the General Accountability Office warns that a severe pandemic, or a worsening of the H1N1 outbreak, could result in 40 percent absentee rates at work and school, meaning that the Internet would be overloaded with people working from home as well as bored children sucking up bandwidth via online gaming........


The agenda to introduce government control and regulation of the Internet has accelerated since President Obama took office.



The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773), introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) in April, gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)


....... (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)


During a hearing on the bill, Senator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet,” while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)



i8PCmLPPVnA Full Article (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)



Rockefeller: Internet is "Number One National Hazard"

According to the great-grandson John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the "number one national hazard" to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama's current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.

"It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet," Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama's choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber "attacks" launched against the Department of Defense every day. "Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it. People say, well it's China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing."
Jay Rockefeller's comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance - or if not ignorance, outright propaganda. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded.
"Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism," writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. "Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are 'air-gapped,' making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal."


"Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism," Weimann continues. "From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term 'cyberterrorism.' The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology."
"The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens," notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that "a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable." In other words, Rockefeller's example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious "hazard" to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.
So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).
However, the real threat to internet freedom is currently posed by IT and ISP corporations, not the government.


As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones' flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google's continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones' films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well.
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)

(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/04/should-obama-control-internet)

[VOguy]

Bizarre logic at best. I can see sick people would take up more bandwidth, or that sick people would post mistruths, and perhaps that's what they are worried about.

The question becomes, what is the criteria, and what web sites are blocked. The I.W. or MSNBC?

[Alpha]

Bizarre logic at best. I can see sick people would take up more bandwidth, or that sick people would post mistruths, and perhaps that's what they are worried about.

The question becomes, what is the criteria, and what web sites are blocked. The I.W. or MSNBC?

Yes....and what about this Cybersecurity Act 2009 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773)

I am not American....did all you know about this? Did you watch and see what Rockefeller said??

Do you really think "they" have the right to control it just because they say so without any other justification because they said so?? OMG.....or that some regular citizens would post "mistruths"...what is that??..their opinion not aligning with the projected, orchestrate status quo?? :sad:

So if they have "criteria" is that o.k.?? to block and sanction freedom of thought and expression, regardless how off base or wrong it may or may not be??

What are they really worried about???..and I doubt that it's about bandwidth..:sigh1:

It's all about taking away our freedom of speech and expression with another PRS ( problem, reaction, solution) IMHO....they've done it again and again and they are doing more.

How long will the majority fall for this utter BS??...sorry VO...not directed at you...I am just so angry right now about so many things....

[MuseNoir]

Yes, I posted this a couple days ago here....

http://www.imaginativeworlds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15641&highlight=internet+swine+flu


For those who may defend this as smart and proactive, lets not forget that all of the unemployed people who are NOT AT WORK have NOT crashed the internet.

This is infuriating and we need to watch this story very carefully.

[VOguy]

Well, all I can say is, I'm glad I'm a ham radio op. If they do take down portions of the Internet, it's going to be frustrating as hell, especially if they start messing with e-mail, etc.

No, Alpha, I did not catch it on the news feeds. We had some things going on at work which had me sidetracked, and sort of making me want to pull an "Art" and retire again.

I plan on having lunch with a fellow I know that works for a large service provider and is sort of a local Kevin Mitnick. He's on the inside of this stuff, so it should be interesting to pick his brain on some things and see where the truth lies.

The more I think of it, the only right reason for shutting down sites is, for example, if someone was to come on the I.W. and start posting bogus data, claiming that 5,000 people in St Thomas Ontario are on the death beds and authorities have already cremated 1,000 without family consent.... OK, I can see the authorities shutting down the place because they don't want rumors being the fodder for panic. However, I don't see them shutting down legit news sites like MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, etc. I think they will go after those who have a tendency to promote panic rather than provide sane information.

[MuseNoir]

, I think they will go after those who have a tendency to promote panic rather than provide sane information.

And what they have done is not promoting panic?

Here is what I know... at work they have IW blocked... so whatever criteria that may (or may not, hopefully) be used to determine what sites to block is already in use.

VO -- looking forward to what you learn after you talk to your friend... give us a recap please! :)

[Delphine]

More control...a little here....a little there.

I've been watching Jay Rockefeller's name pop up. The man scares me.

[earthist]

And what they have done is not promoting panic?

Here is what I know... at work they have IW blocked... so whatever criteria that may (or may not, hopefully) be used to determine what sites to block is already in use.

VO -- looking forward to what you learn after you talk to your friend... give us a recap please! :)
At work? Are you talking about your friendly company sysadmin imposing company policy to make people work rather than surf around, or are you talking about your company's ISP?

Assuming it's the company guy/gal, consider it a good thing; s/he was probably reading over your shoulder. Take it as a warning not to do personal email at work, too.

No doubt it feels like a violation of privacy, but it's a common practice, and it's perfectly legal. At some point, you almost certainly signed some sort of "conditions of use" doc for your work computer, and if you check, you'll see it's in there that they can do that stuff.

Not saying I agree with it, mind you, just reporting what I know. Once upon a time I was one of those sysadmin type folks. I never personally read any personal stuff, but they made us back up and keep everything for a number of months in case it got subpoenaed by an FOIA request. I was in a public University where that could happen.

[VOguy]

And what they have done is not promoting panic?

Here is what I know... at work they have IW blocked... so whatever criteria that may (or may not, hopefully) be used to determine what sites to block is already in use.

VO -- looking forward to what you learn after you talk to your friend... give us a recap please! :)

I.W. is blocked at our work too, as are many sites. Not the function of our ISP but more because of our IT department. For example, Facebook and Myspace are blocked, because they don't want employees blogging and not working. We can request a waiver for "news research", but if caught doing something personal on the site, the axe does (and has) fall.

Certainly, Muse, the words that the government uses, which are propagated in news reports, do promote a good amount of panic. It's reasonable to think that folks such as ourselves, (who seem to be more in turn to the tone of the words), see this as both a violation of the need to seek information and speak out minds, and also a perceived threat when government tries to help us.

I've been following some of the Net Neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality) issues, as well as the F.C.C.s statements (http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/net-neutrality-announcement/) take on everything.

The thing that is painfully obvious is that we ride a very thin line between our needs being handled by a private entity, (such as an ISP), and the government. The Internet is like a pathway that we walk where we don't own the ground. So the question is, does the private companies have a right to tell us how to walk or walk to, or does the government set the criteria.

Muse, I will be happy to provide any information I can about this. I will have to keep his name out of it, as he's one of the ___ magnets that has always gotten in deep because of what he does. The worse time was when he got in trouble with the N.S.A. :D

[MuseNoir]

I am not disagreeing that a lot of sites should be blocked at work... that's not my point. My point is that it is easy to choose what sites are "non-essential", and that was my example. I know IW is blocked there, not because I try find ways not to work, but because in the lunch room they have computers that are set up so people can use them during their lunch. I tried a few sites from the lunch room one day, and IW is blocked there too.

Keeping people off sites like facebook is a joke, since everyone checks them all day long on their iPhones or Blackberries! Not me, of course, I dont pay for web access on my phone! But I am just saying... it is pretty common.

[Alpha]

I am not disagreeing that a lot of sites should be blocked at work... that's not my point. My point is that it is easy to choose what sites are "non-essential", and that was my example. I know IW is blocked there, not because I try find ways not to work, but because in the lunch room they have computers that are set up so people can use them during their lunch. I tried a few sites from the lunch room one day, and IW is blocked there too.

Keeping people off sites like facebook is a joke, since everyone checks them all day long on their iPhones or Blackberries! Not me, of course, I dont pay for web access on my phone! But I am just saying... it is pretty common.

I totally agree with you here Muse.

Not only is there a judgment call in this, according to what criteria which is certainly not clear, but also the implications that the next step perhaps is deeming that which is undesirable and that is control and censorship of free speech, thought and interaction.

I highly doubt that bandwidth is the issue at all here, as a you point out the net is heavily used globally, not only from PC's, but from iPhones, Blackberries etc. It is illogical to think that in a "pandemic" where people are too ill to sit up, that bandwidth would increase to any critical degree or service....it's all a huge ruse IMO to further strip us of access to information and freedom speech.

BTW Muse, I apologize that I missed the other thread you started on this topic. Do you mind if I merge the 2?

[Divinorumus]

I tried a few sites from the lunch room one day, and IW is blocked there too.
Most businesses use commercially purchased web traffic filters and/or filter services. These services block sites that contain certain keywords, or excess of certain keywords. Some examples would be those words that make certain overly sensitive peoples ears bleed when heard (lol) or even words like marijuana and hallucinogens, etc. While I was in the hospital last year I could not access my own website because of this. While I didn't have anything about illegal drugs on my site, I did have a lot of stuff on there about the use of legal plants (teacher plants .. I guess some people still have a problem with that even when certain teacher plants are still legal). Anyhow, you can get around this if you can access a proxy site whereupon you can get to a desired site through it. You could even set up a proxy server on your own computer at home and surf through it from work (you can make it secure too so that nobody on your network at work can tell what in the heck you are doing, other than accessing your proxy server at home).

[MuseNoir]

So, if sites are blocked by Homeland Security due to the Pandemic, are you saying there is a way around THAT? What do you think?

[MuseNoir]

I highly doubt that bandwidth is the issue at all here, as a you point out the net is heavily used globally, not only from PC's, but from iPhones, Blackberries etc. It is illogical to think that in a "pandemic" where people are too ill to sit up, that bandwidth would increase to any critical degree or service....it's all a huge ruse IMO to further strip us of access to information and freedom speech.

BTW Muse, I apologize that I missed the other thread you started on this topic. Do you mind if I merge the 2?

Yeah, you said it, Alpha... I just won't believe that the flu will have a greater impact on bandwidth than all those without work. When I was unemployed I was online all day looking at job boards, posting resumes, writing letters, filing for unemployment etc etc... it was crazy. And, the month I was laid off, there were a quarter million people laid off just that month...!!!

Yeah, merge the threads if you wish, that would be good! Mine wasnt all that long though!

[Divinorumus]

So, if sites are blocked by Homeland Security due to the Pandemic, are you saying there is a way around THAT? What do you think?

A lot depends upon how they do it. For example, if they wanted to block access to imaginativeworlds.com, they could do this by simply removing the DNS entry worldwide. However, if you know what the IP address is for imaginativeworlds.com, and if it resides upon a server all by itself (or has its own unique IP address), you should still be able to access it (if it resides on a server with a single IP address where there is more than one domain pointed to it, then it would not work). Of course, once you got the initial page to load using the IP address, you would likely have trouble clicking on any link because it would try to refer you the the URL address as opposed to using its own IP address. All that depends upon how the webpage is constructed. And, images (as well as all other loaded resources) referenced using an unresolved URL would of course not display when the page loaded.

Some of this will get messy too, particularly trying to restrict access to a site that is hosted on a server with multiple sites that resolve to the same IP address. There are a lot of such sites/servers at akamai for example that are like this.

They can also stop selected IP traffic with specific port numbers. In this way they could have all the backbone providers dump all traffic within the port ranges used for most video sites. PRESTO, video EVERYWHERE won't be able to be played streaming (I imagine you could still access it by downloading it directly instead of streaming it through a video player or webpage). But yeah, that would likely be the first and easiest thing to do is to shunt selective ports related to high bandwidth requirements.

Some things you really wouldn't want to shut down, such as all those people who have VOIP as their primary and maybe only phone service.

Another thing too is that I've noticed there are hooks within all these latest browsers that keep phoning home, even when you disable automatic updates. Firefox still attempts to access a mozilla or something website and tries to periodically download and update something related to your browser (that's a FACT, and automatic updates is turned off, so what the #$%@?). I've traced it and rather than restrict it on my own router, I patched Firefox and invalidated all those hardcoded URLs and IP addresses. It's quite possible that the government already has access to a method to individually restrict YOUR BROWSER. What this means is that YOU may not be able to access certain sites because YOU aren't special enough, but those with the right override code could. That would be what I would expect them to do next, is to quietly and secretly put a patch into your browsers to restrict access too.

Another thing they can do too is to simply have ALL internet traffic SLOWED DOWN. They could do this on the backbone networks working through the few large providers instead of having thousands of little ISPs be responsible for implementing any restrictions. They wouldn't have to restrict any sites, just slow everything down enough that you can't do a whole lot. This would be a piece of cake to implement, since you know what IP addresses belong to servers and which belong to user computers. And then those users that require faster access could access a website where they could enter whatever authorization needed to temporarily remove their IP address from that restriction.

Lots of things can be done to selectively shut or slow things down, and all the required hardware and software to do this already exists within the infrastructure, so all they really need is a procedure/policy to implement it all, which I'm sure they already have. I'm sure they won't be able to stop everything and everyone, because all traffic does not flow across the same paths, but so long as they can stop MOST of it I'm sure that would be sufficient. You might be able to access a restricted site because you live in the same city as some particular server, but others around the world might not, but that might be sufficient to reduce all that traffic in the event it's needed in case of an emergency.

[VOguy]

I am not disagreeing that a lot of sites should be blocked at work... that's not my point. My point is that it is easy to choose what sites are "non-essential", and that was my example.

I understand. Blocking is usually the result of "someone's" choice, or a criteria. As such, if I were in power, I could block or pass I.W. and it doesn't make me right, it just gives me the ability to do it.

I'm not saying that what they are doing is correct, it's just that they have the power to choose what we can see and what we can't see. The question is, whom has the right to judge and choose sites?

The problem is that you, Alpha, and I have no choice in the matter. As long as the Internet is wired through backbones and hubs, they (whomever they are) can turn off anything.

[VOguy]

Yeah, you said it, Alpha... I just won't believe that the flu will have a greater impact on bandwidth than all those without work. When I was unemployed I was online all day looking at job boards, posting resumes, writing letters, filing for unemployment etc etc... it was crazy. And, the month I was laid off, there were a quarter million people laid off just that month...!!!

Text in a broadband era is of no threat to bandwidth. The only problem would be if everyone got sick and decided to download all the Mpeg2 videos of movies on the net, (ie: Torrent downloading), That sucks bandwidth.

But if I get the flu, my butt will be in bed and not downloading movies.

The issue is entirely about preventing discussions and viewpoints that the government don't want you to see. Nothing more.

[earthist]

A lot depends upon how they do it. For example, if they wanted to block access to imaginativeworlds.com, they could do this by simply removing the DNS entry worldwide. However, if you know what the IP address is for imaginativeworlds.com, and if it resides upon a server all by itself (or has its own unique IP address), you should still be able to access it (if it resides on a server with a single IP address where there is more than one domain pointed to it, then it would not work). Of course, once you got the initial page to load using the IP address, you would likely have trouble clicking on any link because it would try to refer you the the URL address as opposed to using its own IP address. All that depends upon how the webpage is constructed. And, images (as well as all other loaded resources) referenced using an unresolved URL would of course not display when the page loaded.

I used to have fun using the local HOSTS file for IP resolution. Have they overridden that these days?

[Divinorumus]

I used to have fun using the local HOSTS file for IP resolution. Have they overridden that these days?

You can still manipulate that as well as your own router if it has such capabilities. The thing that might stop ya from exploiting that would be any phishing software.