Limiting bandwith during a Pandemic:
[
link to www.techrepublic.com]
Direct GAO link discussing the need:
[
link to www.gao.gov]
I don't think we can include Reuters links but they had one titled SEC and Homeland Security need Web backup, GAO says on Oct 26, 2009 which details this issue. You can look it up yourself. It discusses blocking websites during a pandemic to assist bandwidth for government use or for critical infrastucture. As such many sites like this one, you'd have difficulty getting to it.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would leave it up to the discretion of the President to decide on shutting down the Internet during a crisis which is entirely up to his discretion. Do you need more links? There's definitely more.
GAO-10-8 listed above discusses using the Internet during a Pandemic as a means of education in case schools are closed. That information is within the link above.
Question for Useless Cookie Eater, am I still illogical and nonsensical now that I've demonstrated that the US government has specifically considered doing precisely what I stated?Yes.
1) Because LOTS of things are CONSIDERED that will never happen.
2) Again, even if the government were to go rogue and ignore the rule of law, people will find other ways to communicate as I noted earlier.
3) If they do shut down the internet, that would only be a symptom of a larger problem going on....and it is highly probable that all hell has already broken loose.....and it won't be over a pandemic.
1.So they spent millions preparing for something that won't happen? Maybe. Polticians piss money like crazy. Maybe they're listening to experts who don't know what they're talking about. Maybe all the historians are in cahoots with them. Medical staff and educators too.
2. Yep, we could run telegraph wires. If we have power. Military field phones have self-crank generators. There's that. Not too many around. We could wire up some from army surplus. Wrote about that in the last month. Not any Internet browsing over that though.
3. So are you not going to even admit that I was right about their plans about IP blocking, bandwidth reduction, lack of domain refferal in the face of the GAO report?
Are you that kind of person that won't admit to be wrong when someone provides you with evidence, when you discounted their statements as to their veracity. Seem weak and the actions of a real lightweight.
1) Yep....plenty of ways they waste cash....and they don't care. It lines someones pockets. They don't care....and yes....the internal corruption is malignant so all industries have at least SOME people who are part of that "mafia"
2) Maybe telegraph, but those are easily spotted and cut.
It would be easier to use the BBS scenario I mentioned or HAM digital networks, and/or phone systems with existing lines for data transfer. Lots of ways. Humans are very inventive when they need to be. Necessity is the mother of invention.
3) Nothing to admit about you being right really. No offense. They COULD do many things....but shutting down the internet over a pandemic is unlikely. It's more likely they do something like China does with it's citizens in blocking certain websites....but there are numerous ways around that too. CAN they block it....SURE.....but it won't be done by LEGAL Constitutional means.
Overall I think we are on the same page but I don't agree with you about what is a trigger point for that happening.
A list of the points you made:
“...and what this has to do with a pandemic....I have no idea. (concerning the Internet)
2) URL wouldn't work? Based on what criterion?
....and why would they block it?
Is news of a pandemic something that requires ISP's to block off a website.
Illogical and non-sensical. Sorry.
3) There are ALWAYS ways to get around things.
They could NEVER fully shut down communications between people.
In the VERY worst scenario the old DIALUP BBS's would come back to life within 24hrs.....and they cannot control them.
Question: Do you see that some aspect of dealing with pandemics has to do with control of information about pandemics via the Internet?
Question: Do you see that URLs wouldn't work, that they plan for them not to work if it's in the government's best interest? That they might block websites based upon their own documentation. Note that the information is from the GAO, they're accountants thinking about logical things that must be done and largely nonpartisan.
Question: Do you see that communications being down is a common scenario in tabletop exercises based upon experts and that it's something they anticipate that will happen? That if such events occured and telecoms were commendeered that BBS's would work because there wouldn't be telephone communication save for government and criticial infrastructure workers?
No one said it would happen. I said it was what they planned or anticipated. When discussing this before with some preppers, packet radio comes up. I'm not a HAM radio guy, but I know that you can send things like email, deliver data, that way. Since one of the Congressional laws in THOMAS was about seizing HAM radio commuications and perhaps using amateur HAM radio operators, seems implausible to expect communicationt that way.
Regular HAM radio would still be used. Most serious preppers have at least a HAM radio, if not a way to broadcast.
Since a pandemic is global by definition versus an epidemic which can be nation-wide, if a pandemic is everywhere, then I doubt we could just reroute traffic through another nation using things like hidemyass.com. Now that seems very implausible since they also have all the same utility and telecom issues, plus their own government responses.
