Slashdot Mirror
Senate Panel Approves Cybersecurity Bill
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.'"
Wait a minute, is this the USA or North Korea I'm living in?
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.
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
For most people, it's the possibility part that bothers them.
Removing knee-jerk reactions and looking at this objectively, I can understand why the government would need the power to do this...but with all the public attention they've been giving to "cybersecurity" lately, I can completely understand why this makes people very nervous.
Of course, the most common argument (one which I agree with) is why are mission critical systems accessable from the "normal" Internet in the first place? Why aren't they built on an entirely seperate network that sees zero interaction with the "public" Internet, like something akin to a CCTV system?
Living With a Nerd
From what I understand, they would shut things down at the ISP level.
"What's the point of a modem noise, if you are unable to connect, Mr. Anderson?" sort of thing.
Living With a Nerd
...as if the U.S. Government actually follows the Constitution anyway. (I'm lookin' at you, 10th Amendment) I have little faith that anything can really hold the U.S. federal government back from doing whatever the heck it wants to do.
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
The president does not have the power to suspend the constitution , the president does have the power to suspend habeus corpus during rebellion or invasion where public safety may require it. In ex parte milligan supreme court said
that civilians could not be tried by military courts when civilian courts were functioning
The President also has the power to suspend the Constitution, something that has never happened though several wars. Things would have to get very dire before either of these events would be triggered.
So it's OK then?
I'm probably crusin' for a brusin' by saying this, but there probably should be some form of last defense for computer systems throughout the nation. In the event of a highly-destructive fast-spreading virus, being able to shut off all connection at the ISP level would buy enough time for security researchers to find a way to negate the threat.
That said, I have qualms about the implementation. Some proposals:
1) The killswitch needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Either all ISPs are mandated to shut down or none. The economic magnitude of such a decision would force any internet shutdown to be only used in the face of an even worse threat.
2) The requirements for activating the shutdown need to be more specific than "an emergency." Japan was able to spend itself into debt by repeated use of "emergency" spending. The requirements for a shutdown of the internet should be a clear and widespread danger to computer systems.
3) 120 days is far too long of a time to have before the decision should come up for review. Four months without computer-to-computer communication that has become integral to the economy is far to long to be granted without oversight.
I have not yet had a chance to read the PROPOSED bill. Note that this story is about the bill making it out of committee, not becoming law. Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposed bill?
Yeap, this means it's time to get a hard copy of the entire internet so we can just keep surfing in offline mode.
-=JML=-
Obviously the simplest way to implement such a 'feature' is to go after the ISPs, set some sort of a coordination framework among the ISPs, mandate that those ISPs set up a bunch of new hardware/software/whatever it takes to cut out subnets/IP addresses/entire cables from the rest of the Internet. This is not going to improve the democracy of the country of-course, but that's the point, remove the dissenting voices, and of-course the motives are as always 'pure' - there is a cyberwar going, didn't you know? USA was always in this cyberwar. Just like it was always in the drug war and what seems like a never ending war in Afghanistan.
As always a bunch of people stand to make a bunch of money from such endeavors, and in this case there is also the nice side-effect of making it easier for politicians to lie and to get away with the lies, why with all the power over the networks it would be very easy to declare a state of emergency.
And so what that the bill will limit the amount of time that the President would be able to shut portions of the Internet down? Once this bill passes, it would be easy to amend it or simply to use Presidential order/signature/whatever it takes to continue the portions of the Internet from ever being activated back again.
The cyberwar is like the war on drugs, like the war with terrorism, war on obesity, whatever never-ending war that the government likes to be in. It will never end and you cannot see it and cannot even prove that there is or there isn't a war and if you say anything otherwise you are a terrorist.
Just you wait until they combine the cybersecurity bill with some patriot act/anti-terrorism bill. Ever wondered how do politicians tolerate all of those dissenting opinions, all of those facts to come out through the Internet? Well, they've been thinking and it's a multi-step approach and it's being implemented right now. Soon enough anybody could go to Gitmo on some terrorism charge related to the cybersecurity charge and multiply that by the patriot act and add rendition to it and soon enough you'll be wondering, where is that guy, named Cenk Uygur, where did Rachel Maddow go and what the heck happened to that dude from comedy central, what was his name, Jon Stewart was it?
Maybe it's still a bit far-fetched, but they are moving in this direction.
I guess the actual way to fight it could be learned from those Russian operated bot-nets, once the information is outlawed, only the outlaws will have the information? That's what it's coming to and at the hands of people like Joe Lieberman, don't forget it, but just wait and see who ends up voting for it and how the White House stands on the issue.
You can't handle the truth.
When I hear people spout claptrap like this, I weep for our public education system. Did you go to public school? Your civics teacher let you down very badly.
I encourage you to read the Constitution. It's not a complete picture of American jurisprudence, but it's a great start. It's also not terribly long, or terribly difficult, and you can easily find read-along guides that will tell you a little bit about what it means.
Good luck.
Removing knee-jerk reactions and looking at it objectively when it comes to pulling the plug would be nice, but someone will without thought.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
It seems to me that 120 days before needing approval from Congress is about 113 days too long. Maybe 118 days too long. Assuming the President had a valid reason to use this power, it's reasonable to think that Congress would approve similarly. The internet is pretty fricking important, and it's hard to imagine it going away for four months.
Also, of course, shutting down the major pipes won't make the internet disappear, it will just send it back to the Dark Ages of the early 1990s, when people manually connected their computers together and the routing software took care of the rest. Maybe IRC would see a comeback.
A new Disney flick leaked - if not stopped immediately that could cause irreparable hard to the entertainment economy.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
[...(] no, you can't use the internet to send the message that the internet needs to be shut down).
Generations of script kiddies prove you wrong. Getting it working again that way may proof a little more, ah, challenging though.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
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.
Maybe we need an RFC for "IP over Ham Radio?"
Or can the government jam Ham Radio bands if they feel like it as well?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
Maybe we need an RFC for "IP over Ham Radio?"
Or can the government jam Ham Radio bands if they feel like it as well?
There is one, called Packet Radio. Although as far as I know it's really slow.
Michelle: Are you coming to bed?
Barrak: I can't. This is important.
Michelle: What?
Barrak: Someone is wrong on the Internet.
Michelle: Oh, for the love of-- {pushes button}
UTF-8: There and Back Again
They do, for the most part, and for most of the agencies (DOD, FBI, CIA, DHS, etc...). They have redundant network capabilities served both by wired and wireless means (micro-wave and satellite transmission capabilities). The "business" apps at those agencies do not necessarily have a private network. The terminals that serve you the internet at a great many of these agencies also have access to these other applications that interact with the "shadow" networks. Also, the same network providers that provide you and me with our "pipe" (AT&T, Verizon, Quest, etc...) also provide the "pipes" to the other, "shadow" networks. Should the systems at those installations become targets for malicious assault, then it could shut down entire sectors of the economy. The NASDAQ is one such "highly available" system that could be harmed, even though they have their own network. The financial networks that carry SWIFT, Cirrus, Visa, and ATM transactions would be susceptible even though they are on private networks. I'm not sure how turning "off" the internet will help. Wouldn't removing access to the internet have the same effect as a DDOS attack? The outcomes are the same aren't they (i.e. loss of connectivity)? The real goal of cyber attack is either one or both of the following:
Gain Access
Deny Access
If I were a cyber-assassin bent on disabling large networks for the purpose of disrupting an economy, I now would have two tactics available to me. I could launch my DDOS against a financial network or sufficiently large commercial target and hope to disrupt their capabilities. The other tactic would be to launch the assault and wait for the "kill" switch to be engaged. The outcome in both of those scenarios is favorable to the attacker.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
Who decides how dire is dire enough?
Mark Knopfler, obviously.
But that doesn't give you americans the right to behave as if the Internet was yours.
Yes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET , yes it does.
The passing of this bill will be the end of the internet and the end of all free speech on the internet. The US government will be able to determine what is or isn't dangerous enough to shut off the internet. In my honest opinion it's just ridiculous to give something as important as the internet BACK to the government. They had the internet and gave it to corporations and this is what lead to the internet as we know it, and now they want to go back to how it was?
No virus, no worm, is so much of a threat that we'd have to shut off the internet. And to shut off the internet is probably even worse than any of the danger any worm could cause. I suppose they want to rush this bill through because of the wikileaks situation because I don't understand why it's being rushed without any debate or obvious need for it. What is the reason for this?
Since you understand why the government would need the power to do this can you explain it to me? If a company is compromised, either the company or the the upstream provider could yank it offline. In most cases the upstream also has an upstream, all the way to the backbone connections.
Wouldn't it be better for the administration to simply communicate with the backbone providers? If the backbone is compromised, they should have their own kill switches - or else the governmnet can't order them to do anything anyway. I don't see what this adds, the ability is already in here.
If the administration calls up a backbone and says there is a cyberattack going on and you need to shut things down, let's think about what this means. The administrative arm of the governmnet knows something is happening and the backbone has NO IDEA? That's not possible. The backbone would learn via SANS or CERT or whatever else just like the backbone would, and if the gov knows before the backbone there is serious mismanagement going on.
Shutting it down would become a goal for the terrorists. Let's MAKE THEM TURN OFF THEIR OWN INTERNET. It worked with the WTC attacks, they hate our freedoms so we took them away ourselves. This will be no different. To turn it up to 11, anyone who is for this law is helping terrorists and qualifies for treason.
Why would they only shut down the internet? They aren't talking about shutting off radio, telephone, or TV. It's only the internet because the internet is the last free speech zone left in this world. To shut down the internet for any reason is to kill free speech, I cannot think of any logical reason where shutting down the internet makes sense.
A civil war situation? even if there were a civil war we'd need open communication just to know whats going on and whos winning. Who exactly benefits if theres no communication? The citizens certainly wont. And I'm talking the ordinary citizens here not the slashdot types who are sophisticated enough to figure out how to communicate by radio or other devices. Shutting down the internet hurts individuals who get all their news, all their information and do all their communications on the internet.
Honestly most of us would rather take a virus than shut down our computer.
This is like the talk of martial law and plans to build camps. Shutting down the internet will trigger so much chaos that there would be riots in the streets. To shut off the internet for MONTHS would create more chaos than 911, more chaos than Katrina, it would be like a blackout that lasts for a month where the majority of young people wont know how to communicate with their friends and family. They wont know how to get their news. They'll be confused and will accept news from random sources.
Also theres no talk about shutting off the TV, or the phone or government censored access points for information. This idea seems political and I doubt Google, Microsoft or any internet company thinks this is a good idea. This is going to lead to something bad.
Internet only became what it is today because of WWW, which was invented at CERN. But enough of that because it doesn't matter. Internet is global and no one has any special right in terms of control.
If you know how to use the internet properly you learn how to filter the BS out. By now most people have a list of sites they go to (like slashdot) discuss complicated issues with other intellectuals and reach a decision. If you have no forum, no place to debate, no websites at all, it's much more difficult to make wise decisions.
Yes there will always be websites and individuals who promote ignorance. But we cannot counter the ignorance without an open forum on the internet to compare the dumb ideas to the smart ideas.
What I would like to know (and what most articles seem to gloss over) is: what form is this kill-switch meant to take?
Is it pulling the plug on the root DNSs? Or a simple requirement that local ISPs cease operations?
I can see a lot of ramifications here, not least the fact that the rest of the entire world will see the former as an act of war, and respond accordingly. Much of the pre-eminence of the US in world trade is based on the assumption that the US is (in most cases) a "friendly" partner. If the US behaves nastily to its partners, it can expect a frosty reception.
Given that the US is currently in deficit in terms of world trade, it really can't afford to be isolated in this way.
He only has the power if We, The People allow it.
The only way the power of the Presidency is abused is if we tell ourselves "Well this President wont abuse it.", and "Well, its just for a little while.", and "It's for their own good.". As soon as we recognize it's never OK for any President, or any Congress to overstep its authority for any reason, then we retain the power the Founders intended us to have.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi