Talk:Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act

Untitled

There is considerable doubt that a kill switch in the US will 'shut off' the internet, rather it is expected to severely cripple the network so more information about what this may do is needed.

      Good bye Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.252.153 (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC) 

Split proposal

As I have stated on Talk:Kill switch, IMO we should have an article on internet kill switches in general. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• NO - There is no such thing as an "Internet Kill Switch". There are basically two methods: 1) disconnect the Internet from the outside is to turn off the international ports on the nation's border routers. 2) Remove entries for key destinations from DNS servers.

How Egypt Switched Off the Internet  kgrr ^talk 22:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The term is not used literally. There is no need to ask for approval to split the article from this one, just create it so long as there are sufficient sources.μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Inadequate opening paragraph

Until the opening paragraph is significantly changed to give actual information, it is very difficult to make up one's mind about "whether to split this article" or about the bill itself for that matter.

The opening paragraph, other than telling us the name and date and authors, merely states that "the purpose of the bill is to" which does not tell you what the bill dose; any politician in any democratic or dictatorial (or int between) country can introduce a bill which he says has this or that "purpose" but that alone tells you nothing; it's what the bill's contents are that matter. The emotionally charged but vague quote in favor, by Collins, if it belongs at all in the article at all, certainly does not belong in the opening paragraph; that is way off base.

The rest of the opening paragraph merely tells us the name of the "office" and name of the "center" that would be created; again, giving names of "offices" or "centers" that would be created tells the readers nothing about the specific mandate and specific powers these bodies would have; in other words, the opening paragraph is simply "content-free" (on the substance of the law certainly); empty of the key critical substance as far as informing people about what the legislation actually creates, allows, new powers it would give to these institutions, etc.

Suppose China just proposed a new law called the ABC act, co-authored by Mr. X and Ms. Y, and which will create a new Office Of ZYX and a Center For WXY. What do you think of their law? Is it a good one? A bad one? What on earth does the law actually do? The answer of course is that we don't know because citing such things tells us nothing. Adding "Mr. X stated 'China cannot afford to wait for a "cyber 9/11" ' " wouldn't fix that either, would it? If there was a notice that this is merely a "stub", then no complaints and thanks to those who started it, I have no criticism of them. But there's not note saying it's a stub, controversy is starting, and now a vote on whether to split the article before the actual content of the law this is supposed to be an article about, is clear? Let's get the horse before the cart, please.. Harel (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Image removed

I've removed the following image from this article: File:Internet_Kill_Switch_-_Not-Aus_-_Emergency_Off.svg. This is for several reasons: firstly, it's not an official image, and including it here might imply otherwise; secondly, it doesn't really add to the understanding of the article in any way; and finally, it just looks silly and amateurish. I wouldn't object to an image of an actual Internet Kill Switch, but since the concept is currently purely hypothetical, I suspect none exists. Robofish (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

recent edits

I have reverted some recent edits which are reported as facts but which are statements by the bill's authors as to what the bill will do - which is basically the same thing as quoting a company's promotional stock offering prospectus as if it were fact. We could somewhat ameliorate the POV problem by attributing the edits: e.g., "The bill's crafters say..." but this would still amount to essentially self-published self promotion. What is really needed is independent notable third party comment. μηδείς (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

no updates

its been two years since this bill was proposed, so did it pass or not? I can't seem to find anything after its proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.113.58 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at UC Berkeley supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)