Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Panel Approves Cybersecurity Bill

Posted by kdawson on from the wrong-meme dept.

GovTechGuy writes "A Senate Committee approved a bill that would give the president an emergency 'kill switch' over the Internet, but added some restrictions to the bill. The president may no longer simply assert that the threat remains indefinitely, he must now seek Congressional approval after 120 days. Still, privacy advocates are concerned about the government's ability to shut down private networks. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 'said she was disappointed to read reports that the bill gives the White House a "kill switch" for the Internet, an authority she says the president already has under a little-known clause in the Communications Act passed one month after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. ... Collins [argued] the new bill actually circumscribes the president's existing authority and puts controls on its use.'"

7 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Wait... by Agent+Z5q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a minute, is this the USA or North Korea I'm living in?

    1. Re:Wait... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suggest you actually read the law.
      The Communications act already give the president permission to do this. It was passed right after WWII started.
      Do you think you could send a telegram to Japan or Germany in 1943?
      Nope.
      The really rampant fear that people seem to have is just mind numbing at times. Yep go ahead and please debate this but do not use such silly chicken little fears in the debate!
      All that can do is make anyone questioning this bill to look like a nut job.
      Instead of this boarder line pathological fear let us all reason.
      Why should we pass this law?
      What benefits will it have.
      What risks are involved.
      How can we prevent abuses while keeping the benefits there are any?

      No president will use this law lightly because it would be stupid. This would be at the same level as declaring martial law.

      Besides if the government would never use this to silence opposition or debate.
      They would use bot nets to make classic DOS attacks on sites that couldn't be traced or some other tactic that would be more subtle and wouldn't disrupt commerce and the smooth running of the internet.
      To use the big red switch would be clumsy inefficient, and just stupid. Please if the government was going to be that evil don't you think they would be as smart and effective at being evil as some random poster on Slashdot?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Joe Lieberman by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.

    Remember, he is the guy who wants to spend about 187 million to upgrade the Secret Service systems/hardware (pork belly spending obviously), and now he is the guy who came up with this 'Cybersecurity Bill'.

    Obviously this has nothing to do with any cybersecurity, the politicians will approve it, whether republicans or democrats, so that they have a way to kill dissenting opinions and news that the Internet allows to spread around. One of the arguments Lieberman gave for this is that China can do it so USA should also be able to. Does USA want to follow China in terms of treating the dissent, the freedom of press, the freedom in general? I guess now, that everything else is made in China this is just the next logical step - import their governing principles as well (at this point it doesn't seem that much needs to be imported anyway).

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  3. Re:not likely to happen by medcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Say what? I think you are mistaken. Certainly, nothing in the Constitution seems to give the President that power.

    Although, of course, the government simply ignores the Constitution all the time.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  4. Re:Can someone explain? by ZDRuX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will be done at the ISP level. All ISPs in America will have to comply or face fines and other charger I'm guessing. Sort of like having your own remote-controlled kill-switch box at every ISP.

    I don't see how anybody in America will be able to use the internet to get news or communicate with other Americans in a time of emergency if this should ever go into effect.

    --
    The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Re:habeus corpus by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The power to suspend habeas corpus is stated in Article I of the Constitution, which mean that Congress, not the President, has that authority. Lincoln simply ignored the ruling.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Merryman

  6. Re:Good idea in theory... by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Much like the old guys at the Whitehouse I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. The destructive power of this kill switch is ironically the only thing dangerous enough to warrant even having a kill switch. Even if there was some kind of "super virus" that was taking out routing on the internet, shutting the internet seems about as effective as killing the patient to save their leg.

    I'm really yet to read any scenario that makes sense where having this would be useful. I can think of many cases where the government could happily abuse it for political reasons - particularly if they had the power to shutdown political opposition in order to "protect the public from terrorism."