Slashdot Mirror


Internet Probably Couldn't Handle a Flu Pandemic

Several readers including mikael and gclef noted a report from the General Accountability Office suggesting that it should be Homeland Security's job to make sure the nation's business can flow during a pandemic. In particular, if H1N1 sends workers and schoolchildren home in large numbers, GAO thinks it might be a good idea for ISPs to prioritize traffic (favoring commerce over games, say), to reduce network speeds, and possibly to shut down high-traffic Web sites. DHS retorts that not only isn't it their job to control the Internet in this way, but the GAO is naive to believe it's even possible: "An expectation of unlimited Internet access during a pandemic is not realistic." "[DHS] does not even have a plan to start work on the issue, the General Accountability Office said. But the Homeland Security Department accused the GAO of having unrealistic expectations of how the Internet could be managed if millions began to telework from home at the same time as bored or sick schoolchildren were playing online, sucking up valuable bandwidth. Experts have for years pointed to the potential problem of Internet access during a severe pandemic, which would be a unique kind of emergency. It would be global, affecting many areas at once, and would last for weeks or months... Many companies and government offices hope to keep operations going as much as possible with teleworking using the Internet. Among the many problems posed by this idea, however, is the issue of bandwidth..."

24 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Go to your room and no video games! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In event of contagious diseases, we will quarantine everyone to their houses. Then we will shut off all your ability to play online games.

    1. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by CorporateSuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually,

      If you are causing a domestic panic and threatening to not only revoke many of the liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights, but also threatening to shut down communication lines, funneling billions into lobbying interests, while using fear tactics surrounding an illness that I would best describe my first-hand experience as a "laughably mild cold, without the annoyance of a stuffy nose" you're not supporting terrorism, you are practicing the definition of it.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    2. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who is still recovering from H1N1, I think I can safely say that playing video games was not even on my list of things I had any desire to do.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    3. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you are causing a domestic panic and threatening to not only revoke many of the liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights, but also threatening to shut down communication lines, funneling billions into lobbying interests, while using fear tactics surrounding an illness that I would best describe my first-hand experience as a "laughably mild cold, without the annoyance of a stuffy nose" you're not supporting terrorism, you are practicing the definition of it.

      Somebody arrest this unpatriotic and overly-serious person!

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would best describe my first-hand experience as a "laughably mild cold, without the annoyance of a stuffy nose"

      You got lucky. I had it over the summer. Even having started Tamiflu within 24 hours of the first symptoms, it was a solid week of awfulness, followed by another week and a half of suckiness. I lost 8 pounds in the first four days. Extremely unpleasant. By far, the sickest I've been since scarlet fever.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    5. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please mod this troll down. The H1N1 (at least in the united states) has a mortality rate between 0.007% and 0.045%. This is a HUGE difference between this and 1 or 2% (a difference in the tens of thousands per million).

      Compare to 0.01% for seasonal flu.

      He is fear mongering.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58E6NZ20090916

    6. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by oatworm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the reason people were so concerned with H1N1 initially was because highly virulent strains of flu cause higher mortality rates among otherwise healthy people since their immune systems overreact to the virus (cytokine storms are fun!). That's what made the so-called "Spanish Influenza" epidemic in 1918 so deadly. If H1N1 triggered something similar, it would be extremely dangerous.

      Fortunately, it doesn't.

    7. Re:Go to your room and no video games! by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More children have died from it in the last 3 months then die all year from seasonal flu. That's 'off season'

      That's a very disingenuous statement.

      First, it is implying that the H1N1 virus is going to pick up during the flu season. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case. The flu season typically does follow certain seasonal trends, but that's not true for new strains.

      Second, the flu season normally lasts about five months, so if it dies out on schedule, it will have killed about half again more kids than the normal seasonal flu. And probably far fewer people over 30.

      WHen you consider 32 thousand die from seasonal flu in a vaccinated populaces, you begin to get the picture of how large the risk is.

      That's also disingenuous. The majority of those deaths are typically in the elderly, whereas in this strain, the elderly are showing significant immunity to H1N1. I'm not expecting a staggering death toll from this flu season. It may be elevated, but it certainly is not worthy of the amount of fear it is causing.

      The mortality rate, last I checks was 1% and rising. It's over 2% in India.

      I don't know where you're getting your numbers, and I'm not familiar with the medical situation in India, but in the U.S., the mortality rate is estimated at about 0.1%, not 1%. About one death per thousand cases. For those who aren't familiar, that's actually a little on the low side for seasonal flu. Now admittedly if we get a strong seasonal flu strain on top of that, it'll be a double dose, but for the moment, it's looking like it will probably be a relatively mild flu season, contrary to what you're saying.

      Call me when you see a flu strain with 10x the normal death rate or when it has lasted more than six months without the infection rate dropping. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, this is all just bullshit fear mongering.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. sigh by Dyinobal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can't we get rid of the DHS yet? I don't think there's one government organization I like less.

    1. Re:sigh by lwsimon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I see you've never dealt with BATFE.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:sigh by cabjf · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the GAO instigating. DHS slapped them down saying that not only is it not their job, it's probably not even possible.

    3. Re:sigh by Mr+44 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hello, did you RTFS? I'm no fan of DHS, but they ARE the ones saying that the GAO is on crack for even thinking about this idea, and that they aren't planning on doing anything.

    4. Re:sigh by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, in this case, they (DHS) are saying it's irrational to expect the government to be able to regulate the internet in the event of a public health emergency, which I happen to agree with.

      As to getting rid of DHS, that's would likely entail just breaking the DHS back into the separate agencies from which it was formed. There could be some benefit, but based on what I can discern, I'm not sure what would be gained in making that change. Any thoughts?

    5. Re:sigh by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consolidation of all those agencies seems logical to me. Might be the only good think Dubya did. However I hate that name "Homeland"..... sounds like something out of the Bundeswehr Handbook (copyright 1933). The War Department was renamed Defense Department. How about DHS became just the Department of Domestic Security, to echo the words of the constitution ("from enemies foreign and domestic").

      For that matter we should have some kind of Constitutional Council, to be made-up of the 50 state legislatures (and 2-3 delegates of their chusing), whose task is to nullify any Congressional acts they consider unconstitutional. The U.S. Court can have its opinion, but ultimately it was the 50 States that formed the original contract and they should have the right to ignore non-contractual grabs for power.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  3. Traffic is usually higher during business days by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't traffic usually higher during business days than during the weekends? If so, during a pandemic I'd expect lower traffic, not higher. Especially since people, you know, being sick don't really feel like browsing...

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  4. I use more bandwidth at work by bughunter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Really, I do. Between flash games, surfing blogs, spamming "random page" on Wikipedia, and actual honest-to-goodness work, I use far more bandwidth at work than I do at home, where I mostly just play WoW and read a few blogs.

    Unless the wife isn't home. Then I burn a hole in my wall downloading porn.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
    1. Re:I use more bandwidth at work by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      For shame.
      Neglecting your relationship like that.
      You should be downloading porn together!

  5. Lets vote by the_weasel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Raise your hand if this sounds like something you WANT the department of homeland security to be worrying about.

    [crickets]

    That's what I thought.

    --
    - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    1. Re:Lets vote by TarrVetus · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know you're becoming a control freak when Homeland Security tells you that you're going too far.

  6. Comcast by sunderland56 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In other news, Comcast has effectively convinced the GAO that traffic shaping is now a good thing.

  7. PDFs are delicious by Foobar_ · · Score: 4, Informative

    The actual report from the GAO is available here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d108.pdf

  8. Conspiracy against network neutrality by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

    So H1N1 is really a genetically-engineered virus made by Lucent Technologies at the behest of the big telecom/cable cabal to be not quite deadly, but bad enough to send everyone at home for a couple weeks. When everyone fires up their connections for torrents, MMOs, and "internet research" (porn), it gives the bought-and-paid-for congress the perfect excuse to shoot down FCC network neutrality rules and allow telcom/cable to throttle connections and shape traffic, thus ensuring people can order their fleshlights and Sex and the City box sets at the expense of WOW players and pirates looking for movies to watch while they're laying in bed for days at a time. It's so simple it's brilliant!

  9. They'll use whatever is the current hot topic.... by nilbog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The people trying to push anti-net-neutrality agendas will use whatever scare tactic is currently in the media. In 2001 it would have been "we need to prioritize traffic to aid rescue workers," during Katrina it would have been "We don't have bandwidth to reliably allow everyone free access while still being able to coordinate aid in Lousiana," now it's this, and tomorrow it will be "we can't reliably fight aliens/robot armies unless people are taxed for visiting sites that we don't approve of."

    --
    or else!
  10. Re:I will say it again by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is propaganda, disinfo, lies and bullshit.

    They will take the net down to prevent uncontrolled information sharing and disclosure. They are prepping this under the framework established in The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), last April. This gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.

    Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, dismissed the entire premise of the Cybersecurity Act when she pointed out the fact that granting centralized power to the government to control networks would in fact make the stability of the Internet less safe, because allowing one person to access all information on a network "makes it more vulnerable to intruders," she said. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."

    enator John Rockefeller betrayed the true intent behind the legislation when he stated, "Would it have been better if we'd have never invented the Internet," while fearmongering about cyber attacks on the U.S. government and how the country could be shut down.

    See him rave:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8PCmLPPVnA&feature=player_embedded

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."