Slashdot Mirror
Emergency Government Control of the Internet?
TheZid writes "A newly proposed bill would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency.' As usual, our government is trying to take away our privacy by citing security. What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform? What counts as an emergency? Can political opponents be deemed a cyber-security emergency?"
That'd be like turning off the power grid if there was an emergency... What's the point?
If the government is being attacked, then I would think they would want to take themselves off the 'net, but taking off everyone is just stupid.
Someone needs emergency control to disconnect Uncle Sam from the internet.
red or blue pill... actually if it helps defend their systems then let them do it. As long as they aren't disconnecting me from the internet then fine.
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for, but also to our country as a whole. Look back in history and see how 'Empires' in their death throes squeeze more and more, tighten controls more and more to hold onto what is obviously disintegrating.
It's like a fistful of sand, the harder you squeeze, the more that slips through your fingers.
Pax Vobiscum
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?"
Jesus christ man, leave something for the comments!
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies?
Perhaps he could have a big red button on his desk labelled "BAN", and could amuse himself by disconnecting people that make fun of him? The summary seems a little alarmist...
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.
as millions lose access to Facebook, Twitter, and [ahem] Slashdot...
I'm glad i live in the UK. We're years behind just about any country with just about anything technologically advanced.
I've seen the future, stock up on alien-zombie repellent, I kid you not
What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?' Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform? What counts as an emergency, can political opponents be deemed a cyber security emergency?
Politicians in this country are all PR/marketing super-talents. Do you think they will or need to do something this unpolished?
... welcome our new internet overlords!
"What actually counts as a 'Cyber-Security Emergency?'" I think that when I can't watch pr0n.
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on the Internet. Shutting down the Internet is the same as shutting down the economy.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
Comment removed based on user account deletion
2. From the actual Bill:
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;
(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security"....
This meaning that basically any government related network such as national power grids, water plants. (Things that don't need to be accessible from the internet to begin with) will be under the control of the president during a time of an emergency.
This doesn't affect the (Internet) as a whole. The internet is not a central computer that sits in a government warehouse with an On/Off button. The internet is a protocol, not an object. Basically it is the collection of various servers and networking devices from all over the world.
You simple can't just "Turn it off" which is what many people are fearing.
So in short, if we the united states was under some kind of Cyber attack, the President could not turn off (Slashdot.org, digg.com, weather.com) but they could control the networks of those that are government related.
I still haven't read through the entire bill yet, but that seems to be the basic summary.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
The governments can close roads for security reasons. Same for airports and a myriad of other physical entities. However, when it comes to the internet, everyone get's their panties in a bunch. If this were a country like Iran or China, then yes, a proposal like this would be unsettling to say the least. However, I'm not as pessimistic about Uncle Sam's motivations and considering how incompetent corporate security is in many sectors, I don't see this as a bad thing. It just seems like this posting is a typical "angry american", knee-jerk reaction to a well-intentioned government proposal.
You never know when terrorists might try to launch an political campaign that opposes the President.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
[quote]A newly proposed bill that would give Uncle Sam the power to disconnect private sector computers from the internet in the event of a 'cyber security emergency'. As usual, citing security our government is trying to take away our privacy.[/quote] How is this the government trying to take away our privacy? I think you mean free speech.
You can't disconnect this dissenter. I'll just connect to a different internet.
Well, I can't think of anything better than the UN, but I'm still not entirely happy with it.
All it takes is one security slip up ... internet killswitch for the win...
"As usual, citing security our government is trying to take away our privacy."
Not sure how any of this affects our privacy....more of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater kind of thing.
Is there any way to create a new ISP that rejects the governments authority?
No we will not monitor our customers.
No we will not limit their bandwidth.
As long as they pay their bill they will receive service.
No we will not keep IP logs, and any we need to keep for connection purposes we will never divulge under any circumstances.
We maintain that we are nothing more than conduit of information, and we do not care what that information is.
Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?
I think people who believe this level of stupidity deserve to be disconnected from the Internet. They are fucking damage, and I'm getting tired of routing around them.
"The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection. "
I HAVE A BROADBAND CONNECTION AND I AM NOT AFRAID TO USE IT!!
al gore invented the internet, al gore will disconnect your ass if you're not careful. He still has the master key, you know. and the only map to the innertubes that shows the secret layer location of both steve jobs and bill gates.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
And what evidence do you have that the current Administration would have a problem with that?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
How did this make it to the front page of /.?
I'm sure that this is being done with good intentions. Ignoring abuse, consider the possibility of a DDOS attack launched from private compromised computers. My guess is that the intentions here are to be able to go in and shut those systems down mitigating an organized attack. With the growth of both organized crime as well as other nations in the field of computer based warfare, it seems like at least a sensible precaution to be able to defend ones self. The problem herein lies in potential abuse of these powers and if there is any accountability either before or after the fact. Imagine a different situation where post election violence erupted and the government began shutting down all avenues of communication including systems that run programs like twitter that donâ(TM)t need to be accessed directly from a computer. Not say it's fool proof but it could disrupt any sort of wide spread organization.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Look, there are a TON of legitimate complaints about this bill.
Abuse of government powers in violation of free speech for political gain, etc, shouldn't be included. Those issues have already been addressed... the federal government already has the ability to step in and limit free speech in private channels if there is clear and present danger. The potential for abuse is already there, and has been there all along. This bill in no way affects that.
Your ridiculous leading questions detract from the real issues, which are outlined in TFA (for people that oppose a bill like this).
IMO, instead of "ZOMGWTF Totalitarian State Abusing Government Powers for Political Gain!", the real issue here is that critical infrastructure is in the hands of private for-profit corporations. These companies have the ability to hamstring the US economically through unilateral action (or even by accident). Critical infrastructure should be nationalized, in my opinion, or at the very least very closely supervised to ensure it is secure.
But I imagine that my views are contrary to the majority of slashdotters, and I expect to be modded into oblivion. No one wants the goobermint in their internets, even when oversight is necessary to maintain the integrity of our economy (such as it is), especially in the face of a directed and concerted attack on that infrastructure.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't know whether this newly announced policy is at all a good idea. But I can't tell from the reporting whether it's even what the headlines say. Those headlines lately have been telling us the government is going to execute grandma rather than pay for her back medicine, and other crazy talk based on nothing.
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years? While the government was spying on every American's email and phone. While it was infiltrating nonviolent political groups with troublemakers and spies. While it was torturing people to death around the world. While it was invading Iraq for no good reason, lying all the time. While it was kidnapping people into prisons without any charges or basis for them. While it was feeding banks as much credit and deregulation as they could stand until they went bust, then handed them more $TRILLIONS. While it stopped collecting taxes from rich people, even as bridges collapsed and cities drowned.
Where the hell were you then? Or do you suddenly get up in arms only when your porn might get cut off during a massive cyberattack, for which you'll blame the government instead of the attackers? Or maybe it has something to do with a Black Democrat being "the government" for a while, instead of a nice White Republican.
Where were you for 8 years? If you weren't submitting those stories or too busy stopping them to post, then go back under whatever rock you came from. The rest of us are trying to clean up that mess, and you're tracking it all over the floors.
--
make install -not war
The writers of dystopian science fiction are getting a great boon from the current administration, if no one else is.
=====
Drudge is an AGGREGATOR of news stories.
He includes the likes of the NYtimes as well...
Nice try.
(MOD ME DOWN FOR POINTING OUT REALITY IN THE FACE OF A FECKLESS/WEAK LEFTY SMEAR ATTEMPT!!!)
Concerned about privacy (for private networks)? Absolutely! Valid concern! Bravo! Concerned that Obama's gonna take Drudge offline because he covers a tea party event? You are a moron and RTFA
Step 1. Screw up the economy by spending like drunken sailors and pay their cronies billions in useless fiat currency.
Step 2. Hype the "Svine Fluuuuu" all over the news and internet as much as Y2K was hyped.
Step 3. Push through a "Svine Fluuuuu" vaccination that is actually filled with all sorts of poison additives like mercury and squalene
Step 4. Forcibly inject people with this vaccine and if they refuse either fine them a thousand bucks a day or throw them into interment camps.
Step 5. When general population "wakes up" to the fact they are being killed the elites press the big "Disconnect Internet" button.
Step 6. With millions dead they impose "martial law" on all of us in the guise of "Restoring order"
Step 7. ???
Step 8. Control the world with a monarchy lording over serfs (the regular folks who survive).
Of course this is what the tin-foil hatters will be going on about when they hear about the Internet control scheme.
Sad thing is the tinfoilers are actually starting to make sense thee days and it scares the crap out of me.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Unfortunately, whomever controls the root DNS servers largely controls the Internet.
In a past life, I worked for Network Solutions as a DNS/Registry/Registrar guy. This was back in the late 90s when the Internet was still more or less a nascent thing. We were exceedingly careful when making changed to DNS entries, especially the TTL (time to live) settings. TTL settings can make or break a website, and these days with most sites being very dynamic in nature, whomever controls the root servers is the man.
Undersea transmission lines, backhoe to the fiber, natural disasters, botnets, worms, viruses, ddos, slashdotting - and to add icing to the cake, a presidential killswitch? Brilliant.
It's an emergency! Someone posted a less-than-faltering picture of the President! Close it down, now!
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
It'll be great when time.nist.gov goes down >_
How are they planning on doing this? It's not like the government has boxes at every ISP and backbone that they can just flick a switch.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I don't think this is really that outlandish. Considering that the Obama administration has recently appointed new chairs for the Internet or the number of posts, on Slashdot alone, that talk about how internet security is the new method for waging wars, what about this is surprising people?
No one likes the idea of losing freedoms during peace times, but the second something terrible happens, people will throw it away for a blanket.
Let's face it, the majority of people out there have no idea how a computer works. It is essentially magic to them. They don't know what a "Zombie" computer is or that they are possibly assisting in a DDOS attack. The government may need to act and unfortunately they won't be able to discern who is a good computer user and who is not, so everyone is going to get cut.
I gotta go start chiseling naked women into rocks as a backup solution!
Monstar L
You write:
"Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?"
Hmm, have you been attending town hall meetings armed with your guns, bubba?
Quick, call Faux News, they want to hear from you!
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Would he disconnect the entire Internet if his raid was about to wipe just to avoid the repair bill.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
While it's quite a lot of things, being disconnected from the Internet is NOT a breach of my privacy. I hadn't heard that Echelon was dismantled, so I'm pretty sure that anything I send out unencrypted is being parsed (and anything encrypted stored for future reference) even without this particular emergency order. My stuff on my computer is still on my computer.
And I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but frankly it's about time that this kind of thing was talked about and put into law. The bits of the Internet that are on sovereign US territory are most certainly vital national infrastructure by now, and the law needs to be updated. It's long past time that the US government, and the US population woke up to the threat vectors presented by the Internet, and deal with the hard questions surrounding what to do when the "cyber war" eventually happens, whether it's concerted non-state entities mounting an attack against Internet connected infrastructure or government/military Internet areas, or state entities. If we have finally decided, or are close to deciding, what level of "attack" through networks constitutes a declaration of war (and if we haven't, we damn well should be doing THAT too), then the POTUS as Commander In Chief needs to be able to do the kind of crap you do in an attack on your country. And putting into law is a LOT better than letting whomever is the President at the time make up his powers in that situation from the ether like the Bush Administration did. This particular bill may or may not be the correct answer, I haven't read it. Something like this, however, is going to and should be put in place. I'm all for using the political process to make it the best possible bill, but acting like the government shouldn't ever be able to do this kind of thing is fantasy.
amen
the government only means well when trying to create legislation to effectively deal with internet attacks. its mundane in language not because its a sneaky conspiracy to slip all-encompassing power to an ideological monopoly, but because its simply mundane in purpose as well
but of course, the legislation is fucking retarded: there are much better ways to deal with cyberattacks like ddos than to pass pointless wasteful backfiring laws
but instead of simply pointing this out, we have a million screaming fear-addled nitwits who believe this is some sort fascist march. the stupidity of the government's proposal is only matched by the fear-addled stupidity of the responses to it like you see in the comments here
no, dimwits, this is not overturning the constitution and all the blood and sacrifice of the american revolution. no morons, this is not 1984 or the rise of nazism or agent smith or emperor palpatine or whatever else goes on in your paranoid schizophrenic fantasy life
your government means well, its just stupid. period, end of story. that really is the truth. but you who react to it like its fascist armageddon are fear-addled hysterical twits that are certainly no better than your government's stupidity
yes, you with your adrenal glands firing on all cylinders and your cold sweats and your demagoguery-stoking images and the battle hymn of the republic going off on full alarm in your head: calm the fuck down you low iq high adrenaline twit. a raccoon in the throes of fight-or-flight spasms after you turn the porch light on in the middle of the night has a leveler head than some of you
why don't some of you go buy automatic weapons and some tins of tuna fish and move to the high sierras and leave the job of corralling the well meaning but idiotic public servants back towards common sense to MUCH leveler heads than yours
k, thanks!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
we will set up darknets.
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on air transport. Grounding all planes is the same as shutting down the economy. And in the wake of the emergency on September 11 2001, temporarily grounding all planes was the only sane thing to do.
The specifics of this proposal may indeed be too broad. But the general idea of cutting the wire to compromised systems and networks in the event of an emergency, is not a bad one.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
otherwise I might see some posts with wildly hysterical hypotheses of what is for sure gonna happen that have nothing to do with the actual bill in the article.
looks like legislators were watching Die Hard 4 thinking it was a documentary
.by increasing internet speeds and giving free access to all media everywhere? That would shut down the country in an hour, thus preventing revolution.
.
Great Scott Man! I've discovered their evil plan!
----
Custom Tinfoil hats - cheap! Get yours today!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
The current Administration is afraid of the Citizens. I Wonder why that is? Could it be out of control spending? Congressional leaders(?) calling concerned people a rabble? Those same Congresscritters doing what they want in spite of the wishes of their districts?
No wonder the far left are the ones who push for gun control, their policies are the ones that will cause armed insurrection.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Lawrence Lessig already warned us about this, though he predicted it would occur after whatever this 'cyber-security emergency' is. See the short video here.
The writers of dystopian science fiction are getting a great boon from the current administration, if no one else is.
=====
Drudge is an AGGREGATOR of news stories.
He includes the likes of the NYtimes as well...
So Drudge does not discriminate against any dystopian authors...NT Times included.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
and we're here to help you.
Anyone is a fool to trust the government. But, "Does the president now have the option of disconnecting people when they disagree with his policies? Disconnect bloggers that criticize his health-reform?"
The article is decidedly partisan. I sit here near the middle. From the year 2000 to 2008, I heard the dems blaming the repubs for infringing on our rights with the unpatriotic act. I hear the same cries now, but they are coming from the other side. Nothing new, really.
And, the dems and repubs are all a bunch of chumps, because it's the GOVERNMENT pushing for this. No matter which party is "in charge", the governmental framework that they are "running" pushes for more and more control. One year, it's republicans whining for control for the sake of security. The next year, the dems are whining for more control, "Think of the children".
Grow some balls, people. Kick them all out of Washington. Stop reelecting the same old party, and the same old people. Cut funding and cut personnel for every government agency in half, and stop paying pensions to elected officials. Then, we can sit down and start cutting the worthless crap out of the US Code.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Can I say here that I really hate that evil "mr. burns" filth of the earth eugenicists wanna be Jay Rockefeller.
He has been pushing for controlling and limiting the Internet for a long time. He is one of the few people I sincerely hope catches a good case of cancer and dies.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The basic point being that not all legislation is designed to somehow restrict our freedom or do us harm.
True. We're not paranoid because it might be an evil conspiracy. We're paranoid because eventually somebody will try to abuse this law (or any other). That's the reason we have a bill of rights to restrict the democratically elected government.
I'd say we should allow this, but only when declaring martial law. Declaring martial law is such an extreme measure it will only be taken when absolutely essential.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
So if we slashdotted the White House, could we cause them to declare an emergency and shutdown the Whitehouse? How long could we maintain such an emergency?
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Someone is *wrong* on the Internet!
(MOD ME DOWN FOR POINTING OUT REALITY IN THE FACE OF A FECKLESS/WEAK LEFTY SMEAR ATTEMPT!!!)
Uh, can they just mod you down for being so dense and paranoid that you have lost any sense of irony you may have once possessed? But thanks for calling me "Lefty." That one's a first...
they can do that with electricity, radio, TV and very other orm of communication.
Historically speaking, it hasn't been an issue.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You guys clearly unaware of current government controls. In fact they can easily take down almost any network if they needed to, even with the current laws. Plus, I doubt that bitching about it on slashdot will change their minds.
"When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April"
Forgot the part that proves the partisanship is truly bogus, meant to influence the chumps.
Read TFA
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
And what evidence do you have that the current Administration would have a problem with that?
Yeah! Of course, the previous administration didn't have any problem shutting down the economy without this in place...
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
I wish there was a way I could hide all the posts from people who haven't read the bill.
The ignorance being posted is mind boggling. It actually hurts my eyes to accidentally read what many of you are porting.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If you have a responsibility in place (i.e. shutting down users/companies/countries), you have to have a method to execute it. You need access to the networks you intend to shut down or access to the upstream infrastructure.
I find it hard to believe that the same Power who can manipulate the masses into believing that things like Roswell never happened and Area 51 doesn't exist is actually afraid of what a fucking blogger might report on a "non-sanctioned" channel like the Internet.
If you're worried about cyber-attacks on .gov networks and infrastructure, here's a little tip. Learn to secure your fucking networks, and disconnect shit that doesn't need a damn Internet connection. Sorry, but having your power grid stations on a web interface does not make you "hip" or "cool".
Oh, and anything wrong with using their own private NIPRnet and SIPRnet networks for "emergencies"? Last time I checked, having your own fucking satellite feeding your own global encrypted network for comms pretty much covers any "emergency", so get the fuck off my civilian e-lawn.
Another bullshit power ploy brought to you from the makers of New and Improved Government.
From the US point of view, your position makes sense. But for the rest of the world, US control of the root servers is a bit worrying if the USA reserve the right to switch them off (or do something similar).
So I hope other countries like Russia or the EU are smart enough to set up backup name servers and coordinate emergency switchover with at least their major ISPs. Including the traditionally US-maintained top level domains like .com.
A split of the DNS would be troublesome, but may be necessary if the US take too many liberties with the original.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The scariest part of this bill is the cybersecurity license requirement. How long before these assholes get the bright idea that we'll all need a license to operate a computer on the Internet?
When some news comes out about Obama's administration and some are condemning it but others are defending it...
It's only a matter of time before you get the posters saying:
"If GWB did this, the liberals would be screaming!"
etc..
Similar to the "In Soviet Russia" meme. :)
We had eight years of constant anti-republican rhetoric on the topic of YRO on this site. Now that YOUR party controls both congress and the white house, I fully expect you morons to become instant apologists for their actions, no matter how much more privacy or rights they erode.
Good luck sleeping at night you duplicitous bastards. Keep thinking the people with (D) at the end of their names are somehow different than the people with (R). Keep sucking their cocks and maybe, just maybe, you'll be spared the Gulag and the concentration camps.
until they relate this need with the superhackers working for the axis of evil and chinas plans to destroy our power grid.
Good people go to bed earlier.
ObamaNet
Banned from the Internet is easy to do. Come on let's do it. All of the cool kids are getting banned from the Internet.
I refused to forward a chain email letter so they banned me. :)
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
The U.S. government is very, very corrupt. Someone plans to use emergency powers to make money, probably.
then everything will become an emergency.
Your brain is not a computer.
The ROOT DNS servers would also be cut off.
After 2 days, tops, every country would have their own ROOT DNS servers and some would even disconnect themselves from the Internet (REad China, Iran, etc.)
Even if ROOT DNS servers would be spread about the world, Just the threat of possibly being cut off from those servers will fragment The internet.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
I can't wait till my state Texas succeeds from the union.
Nor can most of the rest of the population of the US.
The crappiest uncle EVER-EVER!
what, so tehy can bail it out ... again?
Every single subject is now Godwined.
Highway repairs: NAZIS!
Disconnecting power plants from the net in case of cyber shenanigans: THE FED IS COMING FOR THE WHITE WOMEN! HURRY DR PAUL, HURRY!!
Wartime powers are wartime powers, and since we are in Afghanistan forever at war, the executive can probably claim this sort of power in perpetuity, with or without a law.
I'm surprised they're even trying to legislate. It's the kind of thing that can be challenged in a court. It involves far too many branches of government for the sort of power they're granting. Is Congress jealous and unable to set policy about the truly pressing issues of our day?
This is just nonsense. If a company's assets become a clear and present national security threat, I think we can rest assured that various agencies and the company itself will be tripping over themselves to take it off-line. This power can only be abused.
If this is the alternative, I'll take the unitary executive philosophy in a heartbeat. For God's sake, don't prescribe crazy emergency powers by law, protect the private property in law. That protection is what our nation is founded upon.
--
Toro
Yeah. While the ship is going down, we can always count on Ron Paul to audit the ship's manifest. Someone might have stolen some cargo, after all.
How's that "Hope" and "Change" working for you? Not so fun huh? Well, get used to it. The fascists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H are in power now. Good job liberals, your dream came true. Unfortunatly, the rest of us also have to put up with your golden boy and the party of the communists
Criticism of Obama makes you a racist, didn't you know?
Also, you're a racist if calling you a racist advances a leftist agenda. And if you defend yourself, you're just like a Klan member.
Someone should tag the submission foxnews. The hysterical summary is just too much.
Once a person has made the DHS' No Blog/No Browse list, what recourse is available to expunge it?
No, it is just a reboot,
One has only to look at what occurred in Iran post-election to see what could happen here. If the general public started to protest en masse a stolen election (again?) then the powers-that-be would have the power to disconnect every private service available to quiet the dissent due to the "cyber-emergency". Scary.
So if we slashdotted the White House, could we cause them to declare an emergency and shutdown the Whitehouse? How long could we maintain such an emergency?
How long can we afford to pay our Internet bills?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I'd like to say hi to all those who priased the current administration as Internet firendly and "thank god its not those evil republicans"... Next time vote "none of the above".
was a bipartisan bill, as one of the co-sponsors, Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME], is a member of the GOP.
Olympia Snowe votes with Democrats more than Republicans. She was one of the only three Republicans in the Senate and House that voted on the $787 billion spending bill. One of those "Republicans," Arlen Specter, is now a Democrat.
Here is a visualization which performs an energy minimization mapping to group politicians by their voting record.
You can clearly see where Olympia Snowe votes in relation to the two parties. Saying this bill is bi-partisan is a more than a bit of a stretch.
A split of the DNS would be troublesome, but may be necessary if the US take too many liberties with the original.
So far we really haven't, nor are we ever likely to. Furthermore, do you think that Russia, or China, or the EU (or, God forbid, the UN) would do any better? Do you think they'd maintain our essentially hands-off approach? Or would they be irresistibly drawn towards fucking with it for their own benefit? You should understand that we trade with pretty much every country on the planet, the Internet is vital to that trade, and it really is not in our best interests to "take too many liberties."
And let me point out that you must not have much understanding of the distributed nature of the Domain Name System. There are (last I heard) thirteen root servers, not all of which are in the U.S. and millions of secondary name servers. The Internet isn't going to go offline suddenly no matter what we do. All we're talking about here is being able to have ISPs disconnect specific systems from the Internet in case they're under some from of remote attack, and DNS is not particularly crucial to that.
Now, that said, I think it's a spectacularly stupid idea for critical infrastructure to even be on the public Internet. I know it's convenient, but it's just fucking stupid, and in many cases there's absolutely no need for it. It's just easy to do, so people do it, and being people who are often not networking professionals, they screw it up from a security perspective. If we managed security for facilities such as power plants, water treatment centers and so forth correctly, there'd probably be no need for this law. What the government is essentially saying here is that it does not trust the private sector to properly manage these facilities. And in that, the Feds are absolutely correct. It's unlikely their proposed solution will make any difference in a worst-case scenario, but the issue is real.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
as more of a World War III, "All Hands To Battle Station!" type of plan. I doubt very seriously if it would ever be put into practice in any normal emergency (such as the always predominate "Terrorist" act)
ï
I mean, FEMA has the power (or at least it used too, I *assume* it kept it when it moved to Homeland Security) to virtually suspend constitutional government in the even of a catastrophic emergency (again, a *World War III* type of emergency, not merely a local inconvenience.)
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
I'm sick of the government shoving its nose in our business. The Second Amendment states "The right of the people to bear arms...shall not be infringed." I'm feeling pretty damned infringed. And now this? *sigh*
True, there isnt one big red button, but a few well placed calls/demands with backbone providers would serve the same purpose to most of us citizens.
Also, id argue that the president already had these powers, during a state of emergency.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The shortest route to an "Insightful" mod on any forum.
We have forced evacuations of the physical US. No-one complains that uncle sam is stealing trying to make them homeless. We have road closures all the time. No-one complains that the government is trying to cut us off from the world.
Why is it different with cyber-security? As someone who has to protect critical infrastructure, it's got to happen. Until there is some legal standing for offensive action in response to cyber attack, the US will just be sitting ducks. The government at least needs the ability to fight on the network as if it was any other battle field. We read all the time about china or north korea or russian crime attacking the US so the battle must be ongoing. The difference is that the US populace, (or at least the technical portion) complains if fighting back means doing so on US networks.
I do security
This isn't such a bad idea. Think about how much suffering and bloodshed could have been prevented in Iran if the hard line clerics had been able to use an emergency kill switch for the internet during their last election.
All this indignance acting like Obama is the big evil meanie trying to take away rights is hilarious, considering it comes from the same people who PRAISED Bush for idiotic policies like The Patriot Act.
Ever since the revelation of the "spying switchrooms" at AT&T facilities, I've been saying that the much more serious issue than spying (and I'm not belittling that issue at ALL) is that, if they can scan all traffic in that room, they can just as easily STOP all traffic in that room without any authorization or ongoing assistance from AT&T. The fact that the Obama adminstration has not seen fit to prosecute these (types of) crimes, as well as the numerous war crimes of the Bush administration just shows them to be MORE OF THE SAME. "Change we can believe in."? I don't think so.
Too funny, the whole idea behind the Internet was to create a distributed network so communication could continue IN THE EVENT of an emergency.
RETARDS
Hope is the currency of fools
As long as the US keep the essentially hands-off approach, it is fine. But as someone from the EU, I don't trust the USA to always play fair and would like to see the capacity to run a separate DNS if necessary. Because the internet is just as vital to our business.
Considering the existing root servers:
Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver there are three out of thirteen that are not under US control. I hope those would be sufficient to keep things going.
Finally, I agree about not relying on the internet for critical infrastructure. I also agree that the law might not help, because in case of something like a DDOS there is no single attacker to cut off from the net. You can only cut off the attacked facility. Which gets you exactly the problem you wanted to avoid, because the critical infrastructure now misses the connection it needs.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Why is it that Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean, and other tea-baggers and ditto-heads, and now (somewhat surprisingly) the EFF, have such a hard time grasping the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution? I mean, come on. Cutting of your Internet access does nothing to violate one's Constitutional guarantee to privacy. Never mind the fact that if you put it on the Internet, it is now de facto not private, pulling the plug on your connection, or on entire segments of the network, does nothing if not enhance your privacy by making your stuff harder to get to. And no, your First Amendment rights do not extend to the Internet. The First Amendment protects your right to say what you want. It is not, nor has it ever been, a guarantee of access to a specific platform to express one's views. For that you are on your own.
Yes, yes, it can be argued that the Internet has become an extension of "the commons"; a virtual town square, if you will, where one is indeed free to speak one's mind without fear of the government locking you up for it. For better or worse, however, it is also a medium for many other things, and many of those things are of critical importance for reasons of public safety, commerce, etc. Public safety trumps free speech most of the time (yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc), but in the case of the net, I'm going to want some very good reasons for clamping down on the public's right to share information. That means a lot more transparency when it comes to the government's reasons for taking such an action than we have seen for the last 8 years; a hell of a lot more. Just saying "national security" is not good enough, not by half. If you give me a good reason that you need to pull most of patch cables out of the switches at MAE-East, for example, fine, but don't expect me to sit still for it if you don't. At the risk of sounding like a run-of-the-mill right wing tool, this is not Iran. Shutting off simple dissent is not OK. If (and only if) there exist protections for abuses of that power, and I mean protection with big teeth that won't let a power-mad Administration piss on The Constitution, then fine. Protect my electrical service, emergency communications, whatever, from hackers..., I mean, "terrorists". Just do a better job of it than you have to date.
How about disconnecting bloggers that criticize his health care reform?
Please tell me the submitter isn't a rabid conspiracy theorist. While I have discomfort with this bill (and would be open to seeing it die a death in conference), jumping to conclusions like this smacks of fearmongering.
The President possesses broad powers now, and for the most part, doesn't roll out of bed in the morning and subsequently use them because he gets a hangnail.
When the guy with the big dick is holding both a carrot and a stick, it's easier to aim your kick.
Food plants have FDA officials on site to shut the entire plant down at a moments notice if they find tainted food put out to the public. This really is not any different. They could put government people at all these sites, but it would be far easier to just have them at the hub sites at AT&T and whatnot, which they do. This is something people should expect our government to handle, and it doesn't irk me a bit because they are supposed to look over and protect us.
Trying to disconnect me from the Internet is like trying to keep the Ocean from touching the shore.
Not gonna happen.
or else!
You know, this has got to be the most biased, mis-leading and inflammatory headline I have ever read on Slashdot. Fine, you are Libertarian, I get it. But things like this do *nothing* to help you, it just makes you look like conspiracy theory wackos. This is like saying: A) The government can deploy the National Guard in an emergency B) The army is going to rape your sister and kill your whole family!!!!!!!
You can cut access to a system by basically having a direct way of cutting given routers. You don't have to deal with shutting down the internet to stop an attack from a given city or country.
Yeah I can see the intent here but the execution may be a bit heavy handed. There are so many idiots connected to the internet that this was almost an inevitable result of any kind of cyberwarfare research done by the government. Of course it will be largely misinterpreted by all types of fringers/Obama Haters and of course they should be nullified as should any haters, but that doesn't mean that it's an entirely bad idea to protest this.
Why bother
Lemme prepare a wget script.....
From TFA: "The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection."
Then the only power the presidents needs is to able to order disconnecting the electrical turbine controllers from the Internet if the electric companies refuse to do it because they really want Chinese hackers to be able to make their turbines change speeds to play a huge version of Louie Louie.
#ping -f mainturbine.hooverdam.com
#telnet nuclear.powerplant.com
I wish elected people weren't so godawful stupid.
Recent bailouts have been strongly warned against, at least partially because of the severe inflation they cause.
Pay rate hasn't significantly increased to match the devaluing of our currency.
The government didn't care. It's a control measure, keeping the people disillusioned until the breaking point is reached, at which point, the Gov't hopes, it will be too late. The people will depend on the Federal Government for everything: health care, permission to own whichever vehicle, where to live, etc. with the slightest semblance of freedom.
Uncle Sam can't even secure his own data/servers/connection, how does he think he can go around telling others how to do it? This type of thing is the duty of system administrators, not the gubbmint. Not only that, disconnecting servers from the internet may have an unintended/unwanted effect on the operations those machines are trying to perform. It just makes no sense.
Twinstiq, game news
So when do I move to a Scandinavian country? Am I too late?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
From TFA -- The Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shut down or takeover of the internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false.
Why bother
> You make it sound like Bush created that debt by himself.
When Clinton walked-out the door there was already 3 trillion,
so let's spread the blame equally between the D's and R's.
You make it sound like there was no debt before Clinton (hint: Before Clinton, we had Bush 1 & Reagan).
And then W comes along and *doubled* it...
No, no one is innocent, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-09
There's enough checks and balances in the government to warrant something like this a legitimate countermeasure to a serious threat.
Start having a little faith in your government.
Like that would never happen.
According to FoxNews: "The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures."
What I want to know is how long is it until all IT workers fall under some type of government mandated license rubric. This seems to me a future government moneymaker where anyone in IT has to carry a license similar to a plumber or electrician. I can only imagine the cluster-f that would be. It seems all this government can do is create rules and regs that can't guarantee anything but change for the sake of change.
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on the Internet. Shutting down the Internet is the same as shutting down the economy.
Supermarkets?
Stupendous idea! I wonder how long it will take to be hacked?
Can anyone say Iran?
I'd be willing to bet that there isn't a single industry left that doesn't rely heavily on the Internet. Shutting down the Internet is the same as shutting down the economy.
Pimpin' ain't easy... or digital.
Is this the "Hope" and "Change" you voted for? No? Too bad liberals. You supported a person who was endorsed by the communist party of the United States You voted for it, and you got it. It just sucks that the rest of us independent thinking persons who value liberty got stuck with the communist also.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
That's a good point... what if the goal IS to shut down the economy? Seriously, I think it's worth investigating, given the unbelievable spending hikes we've seen in this administration's first few months.
The question to ask is, WHO *benefits* from the collapse of the U.S. economy? "FOLLOW THE MONEY" is *always* good practical politics.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
- Any computer, telephone, or communication system that attempts to discriminate between authorized users (paying customers) and unauthorized users (freeloaders).
- Any computer, telephone, or communication system that, in the opinion of the current administration, should so discriminate.
Critical, adj.: (in relation to cybersecurity, q.v.)The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
So, in an economic cyber emergency the president could, say, take offline the nation's private banks?
I don't think the president needs this power. Private institutions know better when to take themselves offline.
Cutting off communications from people and institutions should not be a presidential power as it relates to freedom of communication and speech.
whatta chump Obama's turning out to be
It's all about cyber, the word cyber everywhere.
I didn't know that online sexual encounters were such a threat!
Even though I don't do it, I don't want my right to do it in chat rooms taken away!
If there was ever a situation where emergency powers were introduced i'm guessing that having no internet would be the least of our worries.
Put away your pitchforks and tinfoil hats.
This is similar to regulations already in place which provide an option to shut down the private cellular network during national disasters.
There is nothing in the act to allow suppression of dissent, and if there were, it would be nullified by various existing bodies of law, including but not limited to the constitution.
If you're worried that they are going to simply ignore law like the previous administration, then debate over a law is moot.
Further, this is codifying behavior that you'd want to happen:
Hacker X develops a new malware variant an order of magnitude more virulent, by exploiting a vulnerability in Provider Y's infrastructure.
Only by shutting down that provider until the threat can be eradicated, can compromise of the rest of the commercial networks be avoided.
Provider Y delays, citing some nebulous concern, trying to couch their real fear of losing money.
Provider Y continues to delay, resulting in complete compromise of their network.
At some point, Authority Figure Z steps in, orders troops to take control of, and shut down provider.
After the crisis is over, Y bitches about Z overstepping it's authority, and pisses away a lot of money on legal motions that ultimately go nowhere, as no one is going to sanction the party that saved the day.
What the act does is codify the actions of Z as within Z's scope of authority, eliminating some of the delay, and post-crisis legal hi jinx.
It also assigns the responsibility for this decision to Z,
The act also mandates a number of things that should be happening anyway, and are due for being codifed.
Actually, where are all the people now, who voted for Obama, as the Redeemer of the Internet (and the world too)?
Be wary, even a dying elephant can kill you....
But as someone from the EU, I don't trust the USA to always play fair and would like to see the capacity to run a separate DNS if necessary.
Oh, I understand that. But if DNS is not global in nature, then cannot serve the purpose for which it was intended, and which it has performed so well since the Internet first went public. As soon as DNS becomes subject to the whims and politics of individual national governments, its utility will be drastically diminished.
... you have to look at the big picture. Who else would run it as well as we have to date, for everyone's benefit, even that of our enemies? The answer is: really, nobody at this point. No, the U.N. is not an option: too much influence from nations that would cheerfully abuse any access to the root servers they obtained, simply because they would lose nothing by doing so.
As I pointed out, there is no easy solution
Because the internet is just as vital to our business.
And that's largely why it's unlikely the U.S. Federal Government would do anything to adversely affect DNS operation. Besides, contrary to apparently popular belief, the Feds don't run the roots. A private entity called Verisign Corporation does and they, actually, are the bigger risk. Those guys are pricks, and frankly you'd be better off if the U.S. Federal Government was directly in charge of the roots.
Your business (read: economic interests) are closely intertwined with ours. No U.S. politician can ignore that reality. We could hardly do anything to severely damage other major economies without severely impacting our own. What percentage would there be in it for us to fuck up anyone else's Internet? I mean, really? Let alone the fact that the Internet itself could not care about the Domain Name System: packet routing is not dependent upon DNS at any level, and in fact DNS was a service developed to make accessing remote IPs more human-friendly. I mean, 74.125.12.100 is a lot harder to remember than google.com. Ideally, any mission-critical systems would use IP addresses to access each other, and not depend upon name resolution.
Furthermore, as more and more of U.S. manufacturing is either exported overseas, or directly involves foreign businesses, the odds of our ever being able to risk screwing with the DNS without damaging ourselves in the process is rapidly approaching zero. Well, okay, I suppose in wartime anything is possible, but odds are if that happens nations will be disconnecting themselves from the global network anyway, just to prevent possible attacks.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You are now "Back in the USS, Back in the USS, Back in the USSR..." John Lennon, Commie Socialist
It's not just data. Don't forget that telephone services rely on the Internet for message delivery. VOIP anyone. Cable TV companies. Phone cards etc. That's another way to stop discussion, criticism and dissent.
it is nice of you to prove OP's point.
The OP showed up on slashdot to complain about how people weren't screaming about Obama taking over the internet.
On an article screaming about Obama taking over the internet.
In the middle of several hundred posts screaming about Obama taking over the internet.
If the op had a point, it must have broken off somewhere else, because I'm not finding it here.
Every time a story like this comes out, people with the memory of a field mouse show up and complain "if so-and-so did this, you'd have screamed" (now) or "if so-and-so did this, you'd have looked the other way" (the Bush years). And yet under every administration since slashdot's inception, slashdot gets quite rowdy every single time anyone threatens to touch its internet.
Kill this bill! It is a bad bill and should not become law!
There is no business case for this bill!
There is no national security reason for this bill!
Its' sole purpose with its' ambiguous language is to add more government control over private business by declaring an 'emergency'!
Write your idiot.moron, marxists, congreesmen and congresswomen and make sure they vote NO!
Impeach all democrats - they are marxists!
Deport all illegal aliens - they are criminals as soon as they cross the border! No amnesty for criminals!
Remove the czars and presidential advisors - they are marxists!