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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
Yeah, great idea, have a big fat kill switch on the internet attached to the government. Then when some hacker hacks into the government and finds it (or reverse engineers the kill switch), boom goes the internet!
There are actual REASONS for closing roads/airports and other physical entities. In an emergency they become unusable if people freak out and all try to flee like little lemmings.
There's no good reason to shut off the internet unless someone finds a way to instantly pwn every machine without warning. And does anyone expect that to ever happen?
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.
Feeding the troll, I know, but, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
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.
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
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!!!)
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
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.
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
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
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.
How would you feel if this bill stated that they could shut down the TV or radio networks? How about if it stated they could shut down the newspapers or other forms of "press"? Would it be so OK then? Remember, the Internet is about information. That is what the Freedom of the Press means.
Still, in an emergency, I see no reason why the government could NOT shut down the Internet. I don't know why they need a bill for this. That's the part that makes me nervous. Especially when you consider that if an emergency so severe that it requires the entire Internet to be shut down, would probably have already taken the Internet down anyway.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
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
"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
What do you mean? This is an anti-Government article, not an anti-Democrat article, or an anti-Obama article.
I seem to recall a large number of anti-Government articles on /. over the past decade. Lots and lots of very justified criticism of Bush and the Neocons. Where were we? We were right here, moaning about Bush.
People who are anti-Government continue to be anti-Government regardless of who the Government is.
I also don't see how it is racist to criticise Barack Obama, unless of course you are criticising him for being black.
The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
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. :)
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.
amen
Are you asking God to mod that comment up?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
But what I do want to know right now is where were you the past 8 years?
What the FUCK are you talking about? I would think you're a troll but your persistence makes that a little bit less likely.
Enlighten me on what sort of criticism free ride bush had during his 8 years? Excluding the few months after 9/11. And it's especially weird posting that on slashdot.
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.
You're trying to clean up the mess by giving the government more control or something? Because so far all I see is pretty much Bush 2.0, only Obama is better looking and charming and gives better speeches, which are pretty superficial reasons to like a guy, especially as our president. Let's go down a few points shall well?
- Iraq war policy? the same as Bush's
- Afghanistan? pretty identical to me. Wait, now we need more troops?
- Enemy combatants, can still be held indefinitely, but hey, we're closing down Gitmo!!! which changes nothing and is just a political maneuver.
- Money to big corporations? Well, I don't think this is hard to follow.
- Civil Liberties? The writing was on the wall before Obama was in office, he voted for that FISA bill or whatever the hell it was.
- Torture? Obama has left enough loop holes for plenty of this.
My question is, why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did? But, to be fair, I think he's starting to get it.
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.
This post hereby claimed as evidence of the new "If GWB did this" meme
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
The crappiest uncle EVER-EVER!
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
As long as they aren't disconnecting me from the internet then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't smoke, then fine.
... they're one and the same, and if we don't take care of each other in this regard, we all suffer.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't drink, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me I can't vote, then fine.
As long as they aren't telling me anything, then fine.
Problem is, with that attitude it's guaranteed that sooner or later they're going to tell you can't do something that isn't fine with you. That's the nature of government, and the "fuck you, Jack, I"m all right" approach just doesn't work in the long run. You see, your rights don't end where mine begin
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
Exactly. Ignorance, particularly with regard to governmental policies, has done more to enslave the population than to free it.
First the smokers, then the drinkers, then the fatties, and now the Internet. At this rate, what little bit of the First Amendment we have left will be gone in a couple of years. All in the name of security^Wemergency.
He who has no
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.
No, it is just a reboot,
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.
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 can't wait till my state Texas succeeds from the union.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_state_succeed_from_the_union_in_2009
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
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 ----
Sad thing is the tinfoilers are actually starting to make sense thee days and it scares the crap out of me.
Or you'll soon find yourself wearing one...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
I think he's not talking so much to Slashdot itself as the assholes that are coming out the woodwork to protest this stuff and didn't give a shit when Bush did all the illegal things he did. I am fully confident that people on Slashdot will always be screaming their heads off about something...and most likely they'll be pretty justified. But I get what he's saying because I'm tired of seeing Fox News and all the "conservatives" around the country come out to protest after sitting around doing jack shit while Bush was raping the country the last 8 years. It's also quite easy to get confused about who is doing that or who has been screaming all along. You don't really know but I know when I see a lot of the people I see protesting now, most of them didn't give a flying fuck about what Bush was doing and only care now because Fox News is having a hissy fit all over the air about it.
In other words, all of you people that just now decided to join the party can go to hell. We've been trying to get things done much longer than you and frankly your sudden interest in things when the black guy/non-republican comes into office makes us really fucking angry.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
Q: Can the the province of Gaul secede from the Roman Empire?
A: No the Roman Senate and Emperor determined they cannot, but they did it anyway circa 460 A.D.
Q: Can the American colonies secede from the British Empire?
A: No the British Parliament determined they cannot, but they did it anyway.
Q: Can members states like the UK secede from the European Union?
A: The EU probably would say no, but the outcome depends if the UK has a bigger army or not.
POINT:
Secession is not a matter of law, but a matter of force. He who has the most force determines the outcome. If the Southern states had been better organized and won, the U.S. Supreme Court could have issued all the verdicts they wanted, but it would not have changed anything. I recall at one point the U.S. Supremes said it was illegal to deport the Indians living in Alabama to Oklahoma, due to existing U.S. treaties, but the sitting president said, "They made their ruling; now let's see them enforce it," and he did it anyway. In cases like this force rules, not men in robes.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
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.....
You only need a pretty big botnet genius!
Why bother
I once said to a group of friends that a certain person that we all really didn't like much was a waste of oxygen, he died two days later. I felt really bad for a while.
Why bother
I hear lithium helps.
Why bother
I (staunchly conservative) told my mom (staunchly Republican) that this was the third term of the Bush presidency. She looked horrified until I asked her to list some ways how Obama differed from Bush, and gave her almost exactly your reasons as evidence that they were alike.
She sat quietly for a few long seconds.
"Well, I guess Bush was pro-life. I can't think of anything else."
Change? The name on the office door, but not a whole lot else as far as I can tell.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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
why hasn't Obama received the kind of criticism Bush did?
I assume this was mostly rhetorical
Because Obama hasn't actually done the same things that Bush did, and has tried to reverse most of the damage. Getting out of Iraq was really started before he took office and he saw no real reason to accelerate it more than was safe. Yeah you may be right about Afghanistan but time will tell. and you are actually right he is receiving criticism at an accelerating pace.
Why bother
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
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 ...
Why do you believe that everyone who was criticizing Republicans in general and especially GWB in particular consider the party that now controls both Congress and White House "theirs"?
I mean, I've seen plenty of Bush bashing from libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, and paleoconservative Republicans - in fact, on /. especially, they may well have been more prominent than liberals.
lithium encrusted tin foil is the best solution.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
Well, I can see you're paying really close attention.
He isn't -- he's getting much more. Republicans continually whip up Tea-Birther crap about birth certificates and seekrit mooslim and socialist and ad nauseam; they oppose every single thing he does purely because he's doing them; they create a de facto requirement for bills to pass by supermajority every time, by unfailingly attempting filibusters; and his own progressive base (of which I'm a member) is constantly on his ass to straighten up and fly right too. And this is only seven months in. Now you tell me how Bush had any of that. Go on, tell me.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
You can leave the EU freely.
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?
And who came up with this great idea of connecting the electrical grid to the internet??
- 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.
whatta chump Obama's turning out to be
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.
I would say it is not even a matter of force, but of heart. In those examples the ones who seceded were not necessarily the more powerful but believed in what they were doing the most.
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.
No you can't. The European Union treaties, just like the United States Constitution, according to wikipedia allows "no provision outlining the ability of a state to voluntarily withdraw from EU."
Not legally anyway - it would require force - just the same as Virginia was split by force when the western part seceded. Strangely, the Supreme Court said that WV's secession from VA was legal, even though no such provision exists in Virginia's constitution. (The Supreme Court contradicts itself a lot.)
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Actually, where are all the people now, who voted for Obama, as the Redeemer of the Internet (and the world too)?
Lincoln's cabinet members told him, as he was signing the creation of WV, that what he was doing was illegal. He responded "I know it is, but for the sake of the Union, I must do it".
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.