Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans Support an Internet Kill Switch
Orome1 writes "Sixty-one percent of Americans said the President should have the ability to shut down portions of the Internet in the event of a coordinated malicious cyber attack, according to research by Unisys. The survey found that while Americans are taking proactive steps to protect themselves against cybercrime and identity theft, only slightly more than a third of Internet users in the US regularly use and update passwords on their mobile devices – creating a potentially huge security hole for organizations as more consumer devices invade the workplace. The findings illustrate that recent events such as the Stuxnet computer worm attack and the attempted Times Square car bombing may have heightened the American public's awareness of and concern over global and domestic cybersecurity threats."
. . . are idiots.
Hey, I was only kidding. You don't have to MOD me "Troll" . . . again . . . .
61% of Americans need to be cockpunched. Thoroughly.
and where do I go to kick them in the balls? 61% my ass.
RTS
should be more careful what they wish for
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
It's no coincidence that it also happens to be true that 61% of Americans are complete idiots.
I'm glad that the US isn't a direct democracy.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Most Americans [citation needed]
Really? Hunh. They never even asked me.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
A killswitch means we no longer get instantaneous information, either, should we have to use it. Cell phones don't necessarily reach all parts of the world. I'm not so sure I'm willing to give up being able to get news right as it happens just because of threat of cyberwar. People can unhook their own machines from the net -- that's fine. That's the last line of defense that anyone can implement for themselves. Just don't cut me off because you feel it protects you better.
The consent manufacture is started. expect to ear more about this in the next few months.....
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
If you're so lazy/stupid that you can't follow simple security guidelines, you deserve to be taken advantage of.
Rest of the world>U.S.A.
No, you do not deserve a kill switch.
...to protect us from democracy.
As Internet becomes more liberated and experimental, seems like users using it are becoming more conservative. I find that very interesting.
"A majority of the American population is willing to grant the President the authority to cut short their Internet access to protect both U.S. assets and citizens, suggesting that the public is taking cyber warfare very seriously," said Patricia Titus, VP and CISO, Unisys. "Our survey shows that the American public recognizes the danger of a cyber attack and wants the federal government to take an active role in extending the nation's cyber defense. It will be up to officials in all branches of the federal government to respond to this call to action in a way that is measured and well planned."
I suspect selective polling, ambiguous questions, and/or selective interpretation of the results. I really wish they'd post the surveys' actual results, scope of participants, etc. for these kinds of things.
If someone is wrong, don't insult; Educate.
the proof is here.
Cheers to Lou Dobbs.
Yours In Humboldt,
K. Trout
After all, when they get shut down then they'd be able to sue and get zillions. It's the American way dude!
Sure...give the government an internet kill switch. What could possibly go wrong?
What's really sad is that the survey is probably at least close to accurate. There are so many people out there today who think they can get some "real justice" if they give up their rights to "fight terrorism" that I am having a hard time tearing apart the article.
from the please-take-my-freedoms-I-don't-deserve-them dept.
Not much more to say.
I suppose a lot of this comes from the fact that not EVERYONE is aware of what a killswitch would even mean. If you think about how much people overall understand the internet, the majority of people out there probably just assumed it would be nice to have. It is very unfortunate that we live in such an age where ignorance is more dangerous than anything else.
This would never be abused, would it?
Most people have no idea of what it is, nor have the vast majority of the American public even heard about it let alone taken the time to become educated about it.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"A killswitch means we no longer get instantaneous information, either, should we have to use it."
Amateur Radio, the original geek hobby, still exists. Packet radio for teh (slow baud rate) win!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And 39% think that during an "attack" the President should NOT be able to shut down the route used by the attackers.
I'm thinking that that 39% include the people who understand that "cyber attack" is a meaningless term and that no authority should be granted on the basis of a meaningless term.
Here, try this instead:
If it makes as much sense as the original then there is a problem.
I think the key here is that it says "portions of the internet." That even makes me want to say yes. Had they of asked if they thought "should the president be allowed to shut off americas ability to communicate with each other over the internet" which is what would actually pass, I'm sure the results of the poll would have dramatically changed.
...most americans are ignorant of the details of important topics, and can't be bothered to educate themselves before spouting off a dangerous opinion.
What is that? No more facebook? No more twitter? No more porn? How would that affect you? Would that be like not heaving Internet due to the fact that the president killed the Internet?
Arguably, we should have some emergency controls for the Internet. I'd suggest that the following emergency systems be implemented:
This would be enough to deal with serious overloads, outages, or viruses, but doesn't have censorship implications.
I am all for it as long as they do not touch my Facebook.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
... that the design principle at the foundation of the Internet should be re-engineered. The Internet was meant to be a means of communication that couldn't be severed easily.
IMHO,
61% << "Most"...
61% ~= "Not quite two-thirds"
When are reporters going to learn that they need to include the actual wording of the question posed in the poll for people to actually understand what was asked? From what little information is in the article, there is a wide gamut of ways the question might have been posed that would affect the outcome. Why, oh why, can't they learn to include the actual question in addition to their canned analysis of the results? 100% of Americans think that the linked article is useless (plus or minus 99.99997%).
Should I be surprised that Unisys, a corporation which describes itself as selling IT solutions to "governments around the world", comes up with a survey result that shows a "majority" of Americans support a possible government program that would likely see the government purchasing a large amount of product from Unisys?
USA don't own internet. Is a global thing.
If USA want to disable free information disemination in a disaster, can plug the cable on his "house", but sould not touch other countries free roam of information. Is not USA what have to decide that.
-Woof woof woof!
Touché
Yes, but how many of those people actually understood the question?
Seriously, why does the US even need a kill switch? In fact, why are those machines accessible from outside in the first place? Even more so, why aren't the actual control devices airgapped from the rest of the network? What happened to security in the architecture?
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
should not go up for a vote by "most americans." I've worked helpdesk and computer systems engineering my entire career, and can assure you the very same person who uses his cdrom as a cupholder and assumes clickjacking to be some sort of fetish, cant possibly imagine what a cyber attack is outside of what the last die hard movie and 4 iterations of the terminator movie franchise have taught him. In addition, many americans dont understand the internet was designed during the cold war...by its very definition and design, killing it with a single point of activation should not be possible. Lastly, America has been handling cyber-attacks the same way it has since the inception of the internet, with skilled engineers and administrators operating re actively and proactively to situations as they arise and can be anticipated.
I cant in good conscience subscribe to the hullabaloo that is the "cyber attack" and i dont encourage slashdotters to either. Its present definition is as laughable as the options for defense and solution to its ire. I may be speaking controversially, however i also feel this is just one more scientific field in which americans are poorly equipped to think critically of and seem to be told to just appreciate that fact. In relation, if a majority of americans refute or deny such scientific concepts such as climate change and evolution, what makes them the least bit qualified to comment on more modern technology?
Good people go to bed earlier.
Sooo.... We want to stop a malicious DOS attack on the Internet by... DOSing the Internet?
Brilliant!
I don't think I like this idea. What am I going to do if I'm in the middle of posting a comment on /. when all of a sudden my Inter
Let's put aside the ramifications of giving the President this power and just consider the hypothetical situation. A server is being bombarded by requests, or there's a malicious attack, or whatever. Wouldn't the administrators be smart enough to just pull the server off the network for a while until they get the system under control? You know, remove connections to the outside Internet, physical or otherwise. It's just a cable or configuration setting away.
It seems to me something you'd notice and get done before the bureaucracy even got their foot out the door.
Amateur radio doesn't count since only 0.000000018% of the population has access to the hardware, has a license and know how to use it.
This means that if there is a killswitch, the government gets back control of the information (Fox News, etc).
Since the internet, by design, is built to route around damage (and taking "portions" offline would count), wouldn't the only real way to prevent an attack be to remove either the source or destination computers from the network?
And removing the destination system would by far be the simplest and least disruptive way to do it. (At least until you track down the source computer).
61% of American's can't locate Iraq on a map. (Actually its probably higher, but I had to make something up ;)
In the event of an emergency, the internet would have the power to temporarily shut down the president.
That might make more sense.
TINC.
What?
39% of Americans say they regularly get news from a cable channel.
Only 40% of Republicans regularly watch Fox News.
I'm sure you were just trying to make a point... but when your point hinges on more than 50% of Americans getting their news from FN and thus are stupid, and it's not even close to 50% ... the point seems to kinda fall apart? :)
Most Americans voted in W. Twice.
... without mentioning the possible benefit of stopping Skynet when it attempts to take over?
Let's see, they had a sample size of 1000+ out of 300,000,000+ people in the US - and 10,575 people worldwide out of ~ 7 billion. Wow, I'd say that was conclusive, wouldn't you? And how does the sample size break down in terms of economic, geographical, technological, political (et al.) divisions?
IOW, this is rubbish. I did my own survey and it says that 100% of people disagree with the kill switch (sample size: 1).
to control the flow of information to keep himself in power. Presidents have certainly used crises to their benefit before, what's to keep them from doing it again? Next thing you know, they'll be looking for yet more ways to limit the first amendment, (which, to those who don't know, preserves the right to free speech -- notice that I said *preserves*, not *grants*).
Your instantaneous information requirements are unimportant. What is important are the huge businesses that depend on the internet like banks, ISPs, data carriers, ecommerce stores, and even local, state, and federal government agencies.
Turning off "the internet" would not be a light thing that the President would do on a whim (unlike changing the national threat level). I guess the President has the right to do such a thing, but I think WWIII would happen first.
In other news: "most Americans remain blissfully aware that certain US agencies already have an Internet Kill Switch ability"
US is well prepared for cyber war and this is constantly improving its arsenal. This is not up for debate. It's not something we can sit around and decide whether it is a good idea or not. It is not something we can decide whether the gov should do or not. It is already in place. The decision to use it or not will have nothing to do with common opinion and these decisions will come from only a few americans who will not need to account for actions based on their tough choices.
The ability to shut down portions of the Internet when required is yesterdays technology/news. Using commercial software to turn your home PC, laptop, cell/smart phone into an eavesdropping device is where it is at now.
If you feel this is invading your privacy, your best defense is to use non-US based software. Preferably use software where the source is open to be inspected for such back-doors by other professionals around the world.
If you run closed source software (mostly windows/mac and related purchased/pirated software)... then your PC is already setup for Kill Switch operation. And you are (at least in the eyes of the US gov)... a fine and loyal patriot.
BTW: This is the funniest thing that almost everyone says to me when I ask why they chose to run windows: "because it came for free with my PC/laptop/etc". ah... what the public don't know.
Heck of a lot closer to 0.5%, but the real answer is what percentage of the population has a friend / relative / coworker / neighbor ham radio guy... Probably 10%?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
strategically placed internet refugee camps.
If the nukes the "terrists" have planted on U.S. soil can't ping one another through the net... they go off.
Who was the fucktard who came up with this piece of brilliance?
In Liberty, Rene
But it is easy to kill now. Once the core routers and DNS servers are down. Game over for most users. The critical infrastruct on how computers "know" which IP address to get and how to get there has been gradually centralised over the last couple of decades in the name of efficiency and easy of management. Yeah! sure there will be cached infromation and backup servers, but the Internet has long ago morphed from being a Web to a Tree like structure. Killing the root, kills the tree.
Sixty percent of the Internet supports an American Kill Switch.
There, fixed it for ya.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
I don't have a theoretical objection to a "kill switch" that'd take the nation offline (to the extent that that's even feasable), but I'm not sure such a thing would be useful - the harm in taking our networks down would probably outweigh almost anything but complete loss of network functionality - the internet is almost as fundamental as roads for our society and economy.
I'm curious how community peer networking would change were the internet down for awhile.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
Obama can already kill anyone he wants. And that will be valid for the next presidents whoever they are.
I'm referring to that case in September when he ordered an American citizen to be assassinated, and when the target's father tried going to court to have the order canceled, Obama just blocked the case. I don't understand why there was no more follow-up on this from the press, nor why did people just let it slide. My guess is, most people trust the government too much. They probably think any of the following:
- Obama is too much of a nice guy to kill an innocent person, he will only go after terrorists.
- The target is a terrorist and people don't care who could be next, they'll care when a non-terrorist is targeted.
- People did not realize if Obama can stop a court from judging assassination orders, then we'll never know if targets are really guilty of what they are accused.
An Internet kill-switch is a joke compared to the power to kill anyone for any reason, without requiring proof of guilt nor giving options to the target to appeal.
Lots of companies ( including banks) have you account data god knows where. Are we moving the call centers back to the USA?? Whoopee yes lets have a kill switch.
the only reason a person would be 'for' something like that is complete lack of understanding. Unless they support a fascist state of course.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If you google 'Unisys', the first result is an article saying that Profit Tanks at Unisys Corporation
Apparently their year-over-year profits are down 54%, to $21 million from over $50 million a year ago, and their Technology sector revenue declined 31%. Apparently this is driven by a lack of demand for their ClearPath server line.
So by pumping this 'intenet kill switch' idea, it may be that they expect to be first in line to implement it, and get some handsome profits from the taxpayer pie in the bargain.
This is about as believable as Bill Gates and other tech leaders trumpeting that there were not enough skilled US IT workers a few years back. Sure there were, just not at the immigrant prices that Gates and others wanted to pay. Here's a video from a recruiter seminar instructing recruiters on how not to find qualified American applicants for jobs while putting in the legally required advertisements. Look for the speaker stating at about 1:44 into the video that "our goal here is clearly not to find a qualified and interested US worker".
Of course corporations are going to release self-serving announcements like this -- it's just fulfilling their legal mandate to act in the best interests of their shareholders. In other news, the sky is blue.
As always when they mention this kind of statistics....
Yes Minister: Surveys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gMcZic1d4U
If you don't like my sig then don't read it.
...does theTimes Square car bombing have to do with cybersecurity?
More tales of stupid Americans. The news were at 11.
perhaps, this is what the terrorists want.
Scene 1 : Execute a scenario which forces the president to kill the internet. ... a whole bunch i don't know.
Scene 2: Senate is gloating, we killed the internet, long live America.
Scene 3: Little do they know, this was part of the plan.
Scene 4: Alot of services which depend on internet are no longer available. Communications, Applications, Health
By creating a vaccum of information, rumours fly around, people panic, and we have the case of nervous people who don't know what to do (cause internet always worked - they have never imagined internet did not work).
Chaos .. perhaps ensues.
maybe i am just bieng paranoid.
Jack Bauer should be able to handle things and 24 hours later, it will be a distant nightmare.
"More than 1,000 people" isn't enough people to be able to extrapolate this kind of issue out. Of course, people in Washington are gonna push this article to try and get the stupid thing made, because if you don't read the article it seems to back them up. No one should have the power to shut the internet off, because we all know that there'd be a high level of invasiveness for the government to do this. However, the most likely option Washington would take if this unpossibility happened would probably be they went to ISPs and had killswitches installed there. Regardless, I'm not so paranoid or short sighted to be afraid of the Chinese taking over my home PC to launch a missile, because that's an idiotic line of thinking. Why on earth do we need this thing, anyways? Say the worst case scenario happens and the Chinese decide to launch a cyber attack on us, and everyone's computers go down. Then what? Seriously, besides a day of no productivity (like Christmas! yay!) what's the issue once we get everything running again? Are we worried that the Chinese will find out the specific website of browser porn that some average guy looks at? The kill switch is another distractionary measure, because it's idiotic. We don't need it, as it does nothing. We don't need to talk about making one, because people aren't actually always that stupid. This again, comes down to people educating themselves on the issue.
There is no -1 Disagree.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. --H. L. Mencken
Ok, So now it gets confusing.
How long before the Pres. presses the wrong button?
Most americans are fucking stupid.
Because, unlike the WTC, if al Qaida hits your system, mine is still just fine.
Worse yet, hitting the 'kill switch' could be as damaging to our infrastructure as whatever 'they' could do to us. There will always be some putz with an unpatched system that will be taken down. And they will cry, "Why didn't my country save me?" Tough shit. If you are stupid enough to run unsecure SCADA systems for your electrical utility, how is that worse than not trimming trees around your transmission lines? If the gov't can identify critical infrastructure that warrants increased security, they should impose minimum standards on those operators. Let all the gaming sites go down.
This isn't to say there might not be a place where critical system operators can subscribe that will broadcast warnings in the event a cyber attack is detected. So they can pull up their draw bridges, so to speak. These undoubtedly already exist. But we don't need to know about them (we'd be better off not knowing, along with our enemies). So just do it and shut the hell up.
Have gnu, will travel.
Didn't they just do this with Limewire?
Please add your thoughts to killswitch.info and help us avoid the switch!
I agree and to add to this, I think that those polled don't really know what they're asking for. How much of our communications infrastructure is now tied to the Internet? A lot of major companies and even government agencies are now using Voice Over IP, for instance, for telephone access. Wireless phone companies are increasingly routing cell phone calls over the Internet to save costs (Doubt this? Think about it: when you make a phone call, you're connecting to a tower. How do you _know_ where your call goes from there? Hint: You don't.)
Retailers use VPNs to connect stores to the home office. Some ATM machines use a VPN connection to conduct their transactions rather than a modem. Corporate WANs are frequently using VPNs to connect campuses in an effort to lower costs. Banking transactions are being conducted over VPNs and SSL Internet connections. Hell, even some traffic lights are now programmed over the Internet.
Forget about it. You couldn't shut down the whole Net. It would bring our entire country grinding to a halt.
My blog
>>>Amateur Radio, the original geek hobby, still exists.
The FCC's Broadband Plan will reassign that chunk of the EM Spectrum to cellular phones (or internet). So no, it wouldn't still exist.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
Until you stop doing this stupid shit!
Isn't unisys also the place that says windows is the best server operating system? ....
I don't ever, EVER want anyone or any group to have this power, because it WILL be abused.
Our government will do anything for a buck, you better believe they would start selling out this power next.
>>>you're connecting to a cell tower. How do you _know_ where your call goes from there?
I always figured it goes through the existing POTS lines. Although internet would provide a greater bandwidth per tower.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Frequently updating your password is more a security hazard than just using a single secure one.
If only 61% of Americans were knowledgeable enough to weight in on that issue. It's like asking common folk to weight in on high level math theorems...doesn't mean much.
This is clearly biased or 61% of Americans really are pathetically stupid
You think your numbers are closer to reality because you're into amateur radio. Seriously, it's extremely rare, nowhere near half a percent. And certainly not one in ten people know someone into amateur radio.
It's *what* you're killing that troubles me. Can the President shut down all the IRS routers or can he shut down my network because there's "reasonable belief" that turrists are routing Google queries through my anoymous search proxy?
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
>>>Amateur Radio, the original geek hobby, still exists.
The FCC's Broadband Plan will reassign that chunk of the EM Spectrum to cellular phones (or internet). So no, it wouldn't still exist.
Citation please? Are you seriously trying to suggest that all amateur radio bands will be reassigned to cellular phones & internet? Are you high? As far as I can tell, cellular phones & internet work best on UHF.. I want to see the 20m broadband plan. :D
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
I'm sure that all Presidents would use such provisions wisely.
Most interneters support an American kill switch
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
...are stupid...
Can we try an Internet Spank Switch for a while, first?
Packet radio for teh (slow baud rate) win!
The FCC allows up to 9600 baud on the 70cm band, you insensitive clod! That's plenty fast. Range isn't too great, though.. I'm not sure about getting world news via UHF, lol. I think that after the apocalypse, I'll get my news via CW on 20m.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
That stuff is pointless and useless. By the time "serious virus trouble" happens it is TOO LATE to cut it off with these half-assed measure.
None of what you are talking about will prevent infected machines from communicating with each other.
No, you forget a lot of people do not vote, either due to apathy or age. Most Americans that vote, voted in W, only the second time. The first time he was appointed when the SCOTUS used an election kill switch to end the election.
In other news, 61% of Americans have no idea how the internet works.
Well sorry, that's also not technically true. More people voted for Gore in the 2000 election. Let me repeat that: Al "Inventor of the Internet" Gore won the popular vote. More people voted for him then Bush. Too bad that it doesn't mean jack shit because Bush won the electoral collage. Wheee, politics...
Even winning the popular vote, Gore only got 48.5% of those who voted, and the turnout wasn't anywhere near 100%. So no matter how you count, you can't say that most of America voted for Gore or Bush.
What do you expect from a company that bought Convergent Technologies?
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Although... many American are idiots.
Supporting material: Popularity of Fox News, Glenn Beck, The Jonas Brothers, Rick Sanchez, etc...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
And most Americans voted in Obama. We could play this game all day...
You'd be surprised how many people are "closet hams"--I just got my license this summer and when I mention it in conversation I am frequently surprised when my acquaintance fires back with their own call sign. You probably know a few people who have licenses or were licensed in the past, even if they never talk about it. Granted, only a fraction of licensees maintain functional HF stations, but they all know the technology exists and where to find it.
There are 694,429 licensed hams in the U.S., 2.26% of the population of 307 million, and that percentage has been steady over the last decade of population growth. Worldwide, there are 2.77 million licensees, or 0.04% of the world population of 6.7 billion, but ham radio is getting very popular in developing nations like China and Indonesia and not every operator has a license.
shows that we're are also too lazy to shut down our computesr in the event of a botnet attack.
I have nothing clever to put here...
If the question asked were "Should the President have an 'Internet Kill Switch' available to stop the spread of information?" I am guessing people would have answered differently.
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Addendum: It looks like the broadband plan calls for 500mhz of spectrum to be allocated between 225mhz & 3.7ghz. This _might_ impact amateur radio frequencies, but those frequencies would all be UHF or higher that are impacted.. Big whoop. As far as I can tell, hams are delighted by the fact that this plan will not be using BPL, which causes QRM to HF bands. http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-releases-em-national-broadband-plan-em
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
Of course, many people may have thought that the "kill switch" would take down the internet in specific evil places outside the US,
We already have several of these. They are called 'MIRVing ICBMs', but they functionally do the same thing.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The Amateur Radio Relay League has a legal team whose sole purpose is to represent amateur radio operators in policy and legal issues. Their newsletter details a few of the ongoing regulatory situations, including recently suggested encroachments on the 2.3Ghz and 430Mhz amateur frequencies, which can be used for both short- and long-distance communication. The traditional HF frequencies (160m through 10m) are generally left untouched by the FCC, and sometimes expanded. http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Spectrum%20Defense%20Matters%20Newsletter/Spectrum%20Defense%20Newsletter%20Number%20TWO%20for%20the%20WEB_indd.pdf
If 2.26% of the population is licensed, and those people are randomly distributed across the US population, and you know 200 people, then the probability that you know a licensed ham is 1 - (1 - 0.0226)^200 = 99%.
assign traffic from evildomain.net to a dead port. if you have fast enough routers, you can even do it based on the target addresses, not the source.
FUD factor RED, fold your aluminum caps now.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
And that ladies and gentlemen is why guns and SUV's are so popular in the US.
Most Americans - or to generalize, most people - are stupid, and have no idea what the Internet actually is, how it works, or what a malicious cyber attack is.
When I first heard of this Internet Kill Switch idea, I remembered Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Past Tense" (3.11 and 3.12). Mostly set in San Francisco 2024, one of the methods the government used to suppress dissidents from airing their grievances was cutting off their access to the net. And that aired in 1995.
[last lines]
Doctor Bashir: You know, Commander... having seen a little of the 21st century, there is one thing I don't understand: how could they have let things get so bad?
Commander Sisko: That's a good question. I wish I had an answer.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That is, a website people can use to vote whether the current administration should be ousted.
Prevent news of atrocities committed against civilian populations from being reported!
I bet the Iranian government wished they'd had that capability.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
74.2% of Americans don't even know that their government has 3 branches(and of them, only 72.6% can name the branches).
This is total nonsense written on some corporate blog I've never heard of before.
I remember a survey which said that only around 30% of Americans even trusted the sitting president, so how does this nonsense survey stack up against that?
It's all garbage.
They're going to kill the web when it matters, and this is just sales spin to stop Americans from doing what the French are currently doing; forcing their government to do what the hell they tell it to rather than whatever evil, selfish shit it wants to do.
What a concept! A government held accountable by the people! Horrors!
No wonder Bush hated the French. They're not brain-dazed lightweights who let their government rob them blind without lifting a finger.
-FL
310,570,000 - US population - Wikipedia
As of June 30, 2010, there are 694,346 licensed Amateur Radio operators in the US - http://www.arrl.org/news/first-half-of-2010-sees-upswing-in-new-amateur-radio-licenses
That is 0.2%, much closer to the original REALLY small number. To reach the 10% number, each person must be in range of at least 500 people which isn't that difficult.
Ok, first off any percentage given is inherently wrong by process. Only a minuscule cross section of citizens are asked anything about any given subject and the numbers are then inflated to compensate for those not asked. Secondly, about 70% of adults on this planet struggle with basic computer care more or less have the ability to decide the future of the internet. And lastly, the "president" is just a human as well, he screws up as do we all. So to trust any human with that form of control is ludicrous and you should be ashamed for being such a coward.
You'll be glad there's a kill switch when someone (who probably works in math-based security) unleashes a mutating encryption algorithm, which could easily result in a firesale.
Think about it..
He just wanted to get a pop off at a regulatory body, as the rich and powerful have taught him.
Hmm, interesting. I am from Switzerland and live now in the USA, my country of choice. I don't like Switzerland much, for many reasons (of on them is that the people are very cold and not humane), BUT you have to hand it to them: the country works like no other. People are rich, taxes are incredibly low, crime is low, fatalities are low (lower then the US by far) and it is a direct democracy. No problem with people having all this power, they are properly educated. The swiss state puts tons and tons of money into the education system and private schools are a curiousity: only parents that feel their children need special treatment (because they are slow ?) use them or people that don't know what to do with their money. All swiss state schools are extremely good and produce highly educated people (they are far from easy though). Swiss teachers have a very high salary (a swiss teacher earns more then 110 k per year at full seniority level)
Paying your teachers is very very important, since they teach the children, which in term become citizens, which in term become politicians or votes, which both can sign in clever laws or dumb ones, squander money or invest it prudently.
So people that think that the direct democracy does not work should visit Switzerland and be astonished, how well things work there, how new everything is, how problems get fixed and how smart an average individual there is.
And they got universal health care which works. You pay it yourself (obligatory) and for around 200 bucks per month you get excellent coverage which never fails (there are no such things are preexisting conditions). The health insurance is defined and enforced by the state (the minimum that each company has to provide), but individual companies offer it, which provides best of both worlds: no abuse (because the state keeps an eye on fairness), and efficient working (since they are companies and compete with eachother for customers)
Very interesting. I fail to understand why the US did not examine the countries where universal health care works and has worked for the last 30 years. These guys do have experience, they know everything about it, the good and the bad. The US could have learned free and invaluable lessons, instead of cooking up something half baked of something they don't know much about yet.
California doesn't need more direct democracy, it needs a king
The beauty of Monarchy is that if you don't like it, at least you know who to try and assassinate.
Yes, but how many hams can do math?
694429/307e6 = 0.00226, or 0.226%.
"How would you react if the President of the United States ordered that you cannot communicate using an electrical device, or purchase goods, or allow your children to learn?"
America != Internet
voted for the Bush Presidency twice in a row.
Say no more about the collective intelligence of "most Americans."
can't add 2 x 2 digit numbers in a reasonable amount of time - really!!
Whenever you see what "most Americans" want, be scared, be VERY scared..
~Sorry guys, it's just the far-right wing failbots again, looking at ways to bankrupt the global economy,
and ceasing total power over the private sector, essentially holding the private sector and thus the
world to ransom.
But hey, I'm just a conspiracy theorist. "Most Americans" are considerably more intelligent than I.
An internet kill switch..is THE exact opposite of a highly decentralized internet in the hands of the people
... how would you ever get the darn thing turned back on again?
Email...immediately down
Web...down
VPN access...down
Phone systems...most are highly disrupted, if not completely down
Remote access to critical infrastructure servers...down
Remote access to critical embedded systems...partly
Electric power...highly disrupted (grid monitoring systems rumored to use commodity data transport)
Emergency services...minimal
Water and sewer...no better than power
Hospitals and medical services...minimal (no access to patient records, no resupply)
E-commerce...down
Financial trading...down
Online banking...down
Cable TV...down
Broadcast TV...possibly available for those who have power and an HDTV
ATMs and CC payment terminals...down
Airlines...down
Non-farm industries...down
80-90% of the US economy...down
Data transit for non-US customers...mostly down, many will never exchange packets through the US again
Security updates to computer systems...down
Food distribution...highly disrupted
Gas pumps...highly disrupted
On the first day of the outage, everyone leaves work early. It's the commute from hell as traffic lights, when they work, are not well synchronized. Even minor power flickers cause stores to sell out of candles, flashlight batteries, and water.
On the second day of the outage, most people visit their bank in person and demand cash. Long lines form at the gas pumps. Stores sell out of most non-perishable food.
After three days, all large US cities are simultaneously on the brink of post-Katrina anarchy (except those parts of DC and state capitals which are partially supplied by FEMA and the military). As fuel supplies dwindle, the sheer number of stalled-out vehicles in dense urban areas make roads largely impassable. Helpful locals push some cars out of the way to create narrow one-lane passages (at the end of which entrepreneurs will roll aside the final car for a high fee).
Unfortunately, it seems that the key personnel needed to reestablish the US backbones and reconnect to the global internet are at home boarding up windows. Even when they can be contacted, personnel would have to travel to the datacenters physically (obviously they can't remote access in). Few are willing to travel that far from home on their last half-tank of gas, which is now infinitely more valuable than theoretical employment in an economy that that no longer exists.
After 10 days, large population migrations begin on foot (carrying their possessions in makeshift wagons) to rural areas in search of food. Obviously they didn't make hotel reservations in advance.
So what problem was this supposed to solve again?
...there'll be nothing left but cockroaches and porn.
I think 100% of the survey non IT people. Also that anyone of that 61% needs to have a bowling ball shoved up where the sun don't shine. Sure this news feed isn't just troll bait? Everyday I am just astounded how stupid people are...
That will be the first site to be blocked due to 'security concerns'
So... Around half of all Americans are of below average intelligence?
*holds up a marshmallow on a stick*
Supplemental question: If there were clear evidence of a malicious cyber-security attack by a foreign government against our military, civilian government, electrical grid, financial systems, or other critical infrastructure, should the President have the authority to take control of or effectively shut down portions of the Internet to mitigate a crisis?
The results:
A clear majority of Americans (61%) say that the President should have the authority to take control of the Internet in the event of a malicious cyber-security attack.
Presidential authority to take control of Internet in a crisis:
Household income: Affluent consumers ($75K+) LEAST supportive of Presidential Internet takeover in event of crisis (56%)
Race: Blacks are much MORE supportive of Presidential Internet takeover (86%) than Whites (59%)
Gender: Women are more likely (67%) to support a Presidential Internet takeover than are men (55%).
Aloha Oe,
Aloha Oe,
E ke onaona noho ika lipo
A fond embrace,
a hoi ae au,
Until we meet again.
Just let the warm beaches and waves wash over your body as your freedoms slowly drift out to sea...
Will we ever be able to get past the bullsh*t and take back our freedoms? Writ of Habeas Corpus ring any bells? No? It's been missing since the Bush Jr. occupancy...
I draw your attention to the old science-fiction film, "The Day the Earth Stood Still".
There, a representative of an alien civilization caused all nonessential services on Earth to stop, as a demonstration of their political will to bring an end to the nuclear arms race. This was Step One. If we didn't agree to comply within a certain time limit, the aliens would proceed to the more pyrotechnic and messier Step Two.
An "internet kill switch" is not as final as Step Two. It's more like Step One with the bit about "nonessential" removed.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
I don't think anyone surveyed that said yes understood what they were talking about.
That means you'd also be turning off phone and TV service to many people.
For instance, I couldn't get cell service where I live, but VoIP works just fine as does my mini cell-site, which both require the internet to work.
95% of my bills are paid online (only one local bill is left, and I'm actually part of the project rolling out e-billing by the end of this year), and soon to be 100%. Once that last one goes online, I'll be 100% paperless. All I get in the mail now, except that one bill, is junk mail. I literally check my mail once a month.
The majority of the power companies buy and sell power online and have co-located services with companies to broker this. None of that will work without the Internet.
A large portion of the power companies use the internet to read meters (via different cell technologies connected to specialized APs).
Not to mention this isn't China. There is no "kill switch" and I think private businesses would fight tooth and nail against such a thing being installed. Short of declaring Martial Law, I'd think this would be way out of line.
The best way to deal with any sort of problem is the way it is always done: let the Internet Engineers do their thing and solve it.
The only thing the government can do is help make ICANN enforce the requirement that legitimate contact info be listed, and take away domains where they don't do this. If ICANN won't do this, take away their authority and give it to someone else who will.
Make it so we can track down the legal entity who is in charge of trouble, even if the ISP/Registrar doesn't want to reveal it.
Always unplug their LAN when suspicious activity occurs.
Internet Kill-switch: Computer security experts against, politicians in favor.
Percentage of americans in favor: 61% (Yesterday, Unisys)
Percentage of americans who don't believe in evolution or have no opinion: 61% (Gallup, Feb. 2009)
Coincidence?
Hell, we can't even get 61% to vote for president. Extrapolated polls FTL.
So would the Government control the DNS servers, or the ISP's?
Thanks to people like Hillary Clinton, I'm convinced that there are at least several percent of the women in the U.S. with cocks to punch.
(btw... I actually like her)
I don't believe that most Americans truly understand the technology and even less about what it would mean to hand the President that power. Personally, I don't believe it is a good idea to have a "kill switch". There's no reason to have a "kill switch" that takes down the internet. If the government and military wants to have a way to immediately disconnect from the internet, then by all means, go for it. But to disconnect everyone is asnine. Each critical business and organization should have compenetent enough IT staff along with sufficient defenses to take care of themselves. That includes the main communications companies. If a massive attack is detected, they certainly should take steps to block or disconnect traffic from the source. I just can't see how bringing down the entire internet would ever be a good idea, especially since it's become so vital to every day life.
Yeah, more meant, more Americans watch Fox news than any other news station. Doesn't Fox outrate CNN and MSNBC?
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
How many would support a Chinese kill switch for the internet?
Or a UK one?
Most Americans are fucking idiots too.
...is my TV or radio. If something major happened i would look to it for information on any emergency situation. I would need it for a large number of things in any situation. If there was a kill switch during an emergency situation i would be lost. Also there is the possibility of access getting into the wrong hands, thus ruining daily operation of millions of businesses and citizens that require the internet. On a side note. If there truly was a kill switch, what would keep techs from developing a network outside of the loop. I bet that if something like this came to pass, someone would be working on a new outside of the loop solution.
Its a slippery slope they travel down. First a kill switch for the internetz, then a kill switch for citizens, you know, just in case we turn into a terrorist...
All Hail Baron Vladimir Harkonnen!
Now that I think about it... Climate change may produce more deserts... The Spice Must Flow!
I just have one question, can we validate who did the polls, and how much of this is propaganda to help the US make their people feel comfortable with this kill switch ( of which would only affect the US within north america, as all other servers on the web elsewhere will still be operational.....if they follow international laws and guidelines)
So... they want to make it possible to DOS attack the entire internet very easily?
Wouldn't this require some sort of surveillance on the government's part to even know if a "cyber attack" is occurring? I've seen nothing so far about how they would accomplish that, and that ability is equally scary to the idea of a kill switch.
I'm guessing the whoever is controlling the systems under attack would be more likely to know that it is happening than someone outside who doesn't know their system, and if they are in control they can unplug themselves.
[T]he attempted Times Square car bombing may have heightened the American public's awareness of and concern over global and domestic cybersecurity threats.
Sooo... without the Internet it isn't possible to stick a bomb in a car and drive it through Times Square?
This is giving Obama and his world-government minded handlers all they need to take over. Kill the internet and banking comes to a standstill, business creeps to a halt, supply-chains break down, etc. Its giving them the ability to create a pretense for martial law and the ability to reign in a new age of world government. This is just a bad idea, plain and simple. All patriots need to fight this madness.
Um... just what did the attempted Times Square bombing have to do with cybersecurity? Was he parked outside an ISP?
Is the American public at-large really that clueless? Or was that just a badly structured sentence?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Perhaps a better metric, though, would be ... how many right-biased news channels are there, how many left, and how many center (if any!). Add up the left, add up the right, and then you'll get a better picture. Simply comparing Fox vs. CNN isn't an accurate picture of the cable news landscape if there are multiple left-leaning (or, say, Democrat-leaning) channels and only one right-leaning/Republican-leaning.
Yeah but those same people will be outraged when they can't harvest their crops in Farmville while checking their AOL and yahoo mail.
> Sixty-one % of Americans don't know what an integral is. > Sixty-one % of Americans don't know the difference between a router and a switch. > Sixty-one % of Americans think "Internet Explorer" is the internet. Average Americans are too stupid to decide whether or not the "President" should have the right to have such a "kill switch"
Most people are totally clueless and technologically illiterate.
And this is one more reason why you certainly don't want to hand politicians any more power over regulating the internet.
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
- kill the internet of anyone who thinks the President should be able to kill the internet.
But only those people. :)