|
|
|
February 16, 2006
Best way to shut down the blogosphere, by far . . .
At the risk of sounding painfully naive, here's a worrisome thought: Without electricity, the country would shut down.So would the blogosphere, which is an even worse prospect. Every time I've experienced a power failure, I am unable to blog or read blogs, and it's been very annoying. In the event of a national emergency, this would be more than annoying -- especially if shutting down the Internet was the whole idea. (A couple of years ago, an ordinary power shutdown screwed up ebay big time. Imagine what could be done intentionally.) I don't mean to make light of this, nor do I mean to get all greenie weenie about "alternative energy sources," but wouldn't it be nice to have solar backup or some other redundancy factor built into the Internet? The technology would seem to be available. Solar powered computers like these strike me as a no-brainer: All of the Solar Utilities Network's web pages are built and maintained on a solar-powered computer. Why? Because, just between us (don't let them hear) we don't trust our beloved local electrical monopoly to supply us with an unbroken stream of within-spec electrons …and NEITHER SHOULD YOU.Decentralization being the original idea of ARPANET, I'd like to hope that there are enough solar-powered nodes to keep information alive even in the event of a massive power grid shutdown. I'd like to do more than hope. Does anyone know? I did see this report, which cheered me somewhat: Dateline: 8/14/2003How long would the backup power systems last? My concerns are more about the Internet survival during a possibly prolonged emergency than a temporary loss of traffic.... Is "pulling the plug" a feasible form of censorship? Let me outline a nightmare scenario, based on a plausible nightmare. My question is not whether this would be legal, but whether in theory it would work. I hate it when people end the game by overturning the board, but mean people sometimes suck. MORE: A Defense Tech post argues that terrorists would be unable to shut down the power grid. But does that mean that it couldn't be shut down by the government? My concern is that the existence of centralized power to "protect the infrastructure" might tend to include the power to destroy it. posted by Eric on 02.16.06 at 11:45 AM
Comments
Crazy: lj · February 16, 2006 09:24 PM Dave I hope you're right. The way people were talking after 9/11 scared me though.... Eric Scheie · February 16, 2006 10:22 PM Shutting down the grid would require the complicity of a large number of organizations, both state and federal, acting in concert, along with the compliance of all of the regional security coordinators, utilities, load-serving entities, and generation companies. It'd never happen. Taking out the whole grid would require coordinated EMP attacks at key infrastructure points throughout the country, and even then it might not do the trick. Some alphabet soup for you: Federal level: Regional level: Independant System Operators: The number of utilities, IPPs (e.g. the company I work for), & LSEs (load serving entities) are too numerous to count. Of course, the president could attempt to just ramrod the whole thing through executive order, but it'd almost certainly be ignored. If it were to be obeyed, the amount of paperwork and coordination necessary would take weeks at least to put in place. If he used the national guard to enforce it, he'd have to send them to ~50 different locations at a minimum, and that might not even be enough. Plus, Texas (a.k.a. ERCOT) is completely detached from the national grid apart from 3 DC lines, and since it's not interstate, it ignores all federal grid regulations. Beck · February 17, 2006 11:14 AM Beck, I don't think he is talking about destruction of the grid, I think he means someone someplace with a pile of guns saying "switch it off until we tell you to turn it back on." And even at that, I don't think we would be totally down. There are too many people with cell phones and blackberries that would still be able to get to generator backed up servers. Phelps · February 17, 2006 01:05 PM Thanks Beck. I'm feeling better now. But as to the cell phones, aren't most of the repeater towers on the grid too? Eric Scheie · February 17, 2006 11:39 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I am sure that the 'government' COULD shut down the power grid if it wanted to. Whether a small group of power hungry people inside the government could do so strikes me as unlikely.
If their goal is to shut off the internet, it seems it would be much easier to shut down telecommunications companies and cable providers than the grid anyway.
I am pretty sure that no matter how 'power crazed' a group was, the last thing they would want is millions of people panicing in dark houses with no access to information after a major attack. They would want to reassure everyone that someone is in control and the Government is on the job. This would mean that they would need to keep power availible for television and radio broadcasts.