Seems pretty simple, doesn’t it?
ISIS recruits new members in no small part via the internet. So why don’t we simply just shut off the internet to ISIS? No, we can’t do that, says obama’s FCC:
“Isn’t there something we can do under existing law to shut those Internet sites down?” Barton asked. “And I know they pop up like weeds, but once they do pop up, shut them down and turn the Internet addresses over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies to try and track them down.”
“We cannot underestimate the challenge,” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded. “I’m not sure our authority extends to [shut down the websites], but I do think there are specific things we can do.”
Wheeler similarly told Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) that the commission does not have the authority to target the social media accounts of gang leaders in the United States that are contributing to urban violence.
“We do not have jurisdiction over Facebook and all the other edge providers. We do not intend to assert jurisdiction over them,” Wheeler said.
But the chairman said he can use the FCC’s bully pulpit to press tech CEOs on the issue, such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.
“I will call Mark Zuckerberg this afternoon to raise the issue you’ve raised and the issue Mr. Barton raised. And I’m sure he is concerned as well and he’ll have some thoughts,” Wheeler said.
Many major social media companies have abuse policies that prohibit and remove accounts that are flagged for promoting terrorism or violence.
Wheeler offered other areas where the commission could take action. He specifically mentioned the rash of vandalism to fiberoptic cables in the California Bay Area.
Local news outlets have reported on cuts to private fiberoptic cables owned by major telecom companies such as AT&T that provide the backbone of Internet service. AT&T has offered a quarter million dollar reward for information about the attacks.
While law enforcement has the authority to investigate the crimes, the FCC maintains a confidential reporting system that requires various telecommunications carriers to report outages around the country.
No, obama won’t shut off the internet to the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa because they have “rights”:
“Taking out the Internet” isn’t a straightforward operation, Atkin replied. The Islamic State and other guerrilla/terrorist forces often rely on civilian infrastructure, so shutting down their Internet service provider also cuts off legitimate civilian users in a wide area. “How that effect occurs has greater impact than just against the adversary and we have to weigh that into all our operations,” he said, “whether that’s a kinetic or a cyber operation.”
After some additional back and forth — ending with an awkward silence from the administration witnesses — Thornberry reserved further questions for the classified hearing. “Okay, well, we’ll talk more about it,” he said, “but, again, I am not yet reassured.”
The administration’s position is that cyber operations must follow the same laws of war as physical combat, and that cyber attacks require the same kind of review as kinetic strikes. That includes such considerations as collateral damage — e.g. in shutting down the terrorists’ Internet access, do you take it out for innocent civilians as well? — and proportionality — is the damage to civilians excessive for the military gain?
“Our operations in cyberspace are subject to the same rules as every operation, so we’re constrained by the laws of armed conflict and other limitations,” said Lt. Gen. Kevin McLaughlin, deputy commander of CYBERCOM. “We feel like we have the authorities and flexibility we need.
Yet obama has no problem taking away Assange’s “rights” without his being convicted of anything. Assange has been deprived access to the internet while a refugee (notice how some refugees get treated better than others?) Ecuador has taken responsibility for the shutoff:
Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry published a statement on Tuesday saying it “exercised its right” to “temporarily restrict access to some of (WikiLeaks’) private communications network within its Embassy in the United Kingdom.”
The statement says the temporary restriction would not prevent WikiLeaks from “carrying out its journalistic activities.
The statement mentions the “wealth of documents” published by WikiLeaks that have impacted the US election campaign, and that the government of Ecuador “does not interfere in external electoral processes, nor does it favor any particular candidate.”
Both the US and Ecuador denied that they conspired to silence Assange :
The statement, in which Ecuador stressed that it “does not yield to pressure from other states”, followed claims by WikiLeaks that John Kerry, the US secretary of state, had requested a private meeting with Ecuador last month – during a visit to Colombia to show support for a peace deal with leftwing rebels – specifically to ask the country to block Assange.
The one thing you can bet your life on is that once obama denies the US had a hand in this it is absolutely true. He’s gotten to the point that he knows the left will swallow anything he says without question. He has become dependent on their stupidity and they do not let him down. You will believe the US had nothing to do with silencing Assange if you were stupid enough to believe you could keep your plan and your doctor no matter what.
It’s lucky for Assange he’s not taking refuge in Afghanistan or Iraq. Obama would not have simply deprived him of his free speech, He would have killed him already in a drone strike.
There is no shortage of irony here either. obama blathers on about the Russians trying to interfere with US elections but obama felt fno qualms about interfering with Israel’s elections.