06-21-2010, 11:05 AM
the cut off switch isn't about censorship as far as i know. it's about staving off cyber terrorism.
as for it being unconstitutional. i'd agree except for their excuse of protecting the country from outside invasion during times of war.
i think they're trying to redefine what war and terrorism is in order to have more control. during war military rules have precedence over civilian law i think it's in the constitution somewhere lol.
the thing is, the cut off or patch could and probably would be used in a similar way china and iran use theirs.
lets take file sharing. all they'd have do is show one file connected to terrorism on tpb and wham they could say they were scared of a cyber plot. all isp who allow tpb to run get terminated from all contact with the usa. i can't see that happening but is it possible? if it then it really scary shit.
as for it being unconstitutional. i'd agree except for their excuse of protecting the country from outside invasion during times of war.
i think they're trying to redefine what war and terrorism is in order to have more control. during war military rules have precedence over civilian law i think it's in the constitution somewhere lol.
the thing is, the cut off or patch could and probably would be used in a similar way china and iran use theirs.
lets take file sharing. all they'd have do is show one file connected to terrorism on tpb and wham they could say they were scared of a cyber plot. all isp who allow tpb to run get terminated from all contact with the usa. i can't see that happening but is it possible? if it then it really scary shit.