From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ryn0f-0006nd-0w for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:19:41 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DD96CE0D34; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CBA0E0F87 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcit16 with SMTP id it16so4236118bkc.40 for ; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mikemol@gmail.com designates 10.204.10.89 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.204.10.89; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mikemol@gmail.com designates 10.204.10.89 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mikemol@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=mikemol@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.204.10.89]) by 10.204.10.89 with SMTP id o25mr7805592bko.14.1329581883521 (num_hops = 1); Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:18:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4ljevcSCuVxM2Mpg0cHT3qfVpgzktT/MSEbLIDFjcis=; b=u8THWTmxNRev/puOxfv2w9dVpQ2bhPmyF/MWACCyGLtTQfoIUqqv5IYQvwXHHZ9iCi GsCF9GR2GqxEonIjIYgCHVkj0+MZBbGIWmX0udVPiRizPJQX5Cq3i29SVHYiiYkLHYSx k4xLnBzkV6MWoaZ4TyPXX087jfJ9g3nHTArUM= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.10.89 with SMTP id o25mr6368676bko.14.1329581883441; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:18:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.205.124.129 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:18:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F3FC50B.3010001@gmail.com> References: <4F3F7CBA.9020600@gmail.com> <20120218124409.43286f16@khamul.example.com> <4F3F92C0.3060506@gmail.com> <1971113.3a2zZ3o5ps@localhost> <4F3F9BFF.9070104@gmail.com> <20120218164058.65c82d3d@khamul.example.com> <4F3FC50B.3010001@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:18:03 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Somewhat OT: Any truth to this mess? From: Michael Mol To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 63ebca2c-dfc2-458e-8ac1-1707d9a60211 X-Archives-Hash: 6b8457d572056135e7367ca91845856f On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:39:27 -0600 >> Dale wrote: >> >>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>>> Am Samstag, 18. Februar 2012, 06:00:00 schrieb Dale: >>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't really think they can unless they just cut power to all the >>>>> computers. =C2=A0After all, the internet is supposed to be redundant >>>>> right? If there is a few computers still running that have a >>>>> connection, it is still working. =C2=A0Sort of anyway. >>>>> >>>>> Does make one wonder tho. =C2=A0They have been talking about having a >>>>> internet "off switch" but I'm not sure it would be that easy. >>>> >>>> basically, yes. Take down the core routers and backbones and >>>> everything falls apart. >>>> >>> >>> But how long would it take to actually do this? >>> >>> Another thing, the Government, especially the military, uses the >>> internet too. >> >> Not quite. They use the same internet *technology* you do, not >> necessarily the same internet *devices*. >> >> > > > What about banks? =C2=A0Credit cards? =C2=A0Heck, even food stamp cards? = =C2=A0Would > phones work? =C2=A0I'm not just thinking about Vonage or Skype either. Banks, credit cards, etc. mostly operate on leased lines (Think T1, T2, T3...) and landlines (point-of-sale vending, though that's changing. ATMs also operate on landlines, and I don't believe that's changing.). You'd still have access to your money. You'd just have to go to a bank branch or an ATM. This whole thread is full panicked reasoning. The biggest risk we face is a scenario like Iran or Egypt's, where the government requires controls on border routers. Most likely, they'd do it at the ISP level, not at the core router level. That said, they could conceivably demand core router operators acquiesce to their demands, but the worst you're likely to see there is some network blocks' being dropped offline. And it's not so easy to take the Internet down with injected BGP routes any more, either; most network operators apply some sort of filtering. --=20 :wq