Re:Lieberman tells Web users to ‘relax’ about ‘kill switch’
by gojomo on Monday June 21, 2010 @12:12AM
(#1447918)
In an actual war or emergency, what are the chances ISPs would refuse a presidential request? Are major ISPs typically stubborn and obstructionist in the face of major security threats, or cooperative?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Lieberman tells Web users to ‘relax’ about ‘kill switch’
by jawn on Monday June 21, 2010 @12:28AM
(#1447955)
To follow up on this point, a portion of revenue of most ISPs and telcos comes from contracts with the federal government.
In a time of emergency and war, a large multinational is not going to bite the (large and powerful) hand that feeds them.
A related current example is BP with the oil spill. BP could very well have said fuck you to the Obama administration and not set aside a compensation fund. However, this would have been done at the cost of current and future federal government contracts.
Re:Lieberman tells Web users to ‘relax’ about ‘kill switch’
by younata on Monday June 21, 2010 @12:32AM
(#1447960)
in an actual war or emergency, the president would issue one of those things called "executive orders" - basically laws that don't need to go through congress.
There is no justification for this bill to exist, other than because these senators decided "If China can do it, then why can't we?"