This seems a bit overboard...

I'm not trying to weigh in on one side or the other, but I'm sure the first time Police in riot gear showed up, people thought it was excessive or whatever. I'm not saying PM Cameron is right or wrong... just saying public safety and government will always change/adapt along with developing technology.

Amber alerts, reverse 911 calls, Twitter town hall events, lo jack, upcoming 911 text messaging, etc. etc.

Reminds me of what was(is) happening in the middle east...that says a lot!

"Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill." - The free speech advocates are going to have a field day with this one.

News report tonight said 1 in 10 retail establishments have been victimized by flash mob shoplifting. Some of them turn violent. The reaction by law enforcement so far has not kept up with this new trend.

In the USA, POTUS can shut down the internet for up to 120 days without Congressional approval for National Security. There is also a pending bill that would allow DHS to do the same, independent of POTUS or Congress. I guess the moral is, if things get really dicey, don't think that you can rely on electronic communications like Skype or Vonage, or on the internet for information like first aid, water purification, weather, etc... I'm sure any country would do this if conditions were right. As they say, it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

I want to slap him in his **** smarmy face.

XJ-linux said:

In the USA, POTUS can shut down the internet for up to 120 days without Congressional approval for National Security. There is also a pending bill that would allow DHS to do the same, independent of POTUS or Congress.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell reading around the web, it is possible but not at all clear if they could turn it off completely or simply fragment it at best. Killing the local access from cell phone companies would be far easier than severing all the lines it seems. ISPs could do it but there is no real "master kill switch" and forcing a company like Time Warner or VZW to terminate all services might be more difficult here than elsewhere.

What the successfulness or impact of such an action would be is debatable and would, IMO, serve to only anger what one could assume would be an already angry populace.

Tough call all around. Personal freedoms always take a hit when public security becomes an issue.
In the end it comes down to the people to settle things, there are never enough police to force peace if the populace have collectively decided to ignore laws and societal norms.

You can understand his thinking, but i doubt it will come to any effect. There would be too much of an outcry from the general public based on what a (in proportion) small amount of people have done. No there has to be another way.

Razormac said:

Tough call all around. Personal freedoms always take a hit when public security becomes an issue.

Click to expand...

+1 When I look at the DHS, TSA and ATF, I have to wonder if Bin Laden didn't really come out as "the winner".

XJ-linux said:

+1 When I look at the DHS, TSA and ATF, I have to wonder if Bin Laden didn't really come out as "the winner".

Click to expand...

To be fair, the ATF was a bunch of goons long before 9/11.

baggss said:

To be fair, the ATF was a bunch of goons long before 9/11.

Click to expand...

Don't get me started on THAT.