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."
should be more careful what they wish for
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
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
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.
...to protect us from democracy.
"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.
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.
Just to clarify, is that to hit someone with your cock? or is that to hit someone in the cock? If it's the latter, then your solution may be flawed since 61% may include both male and female. You may need to throw in a vaginachop to cover all your bases.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
This would never be abused, would it?
61% of Americans need to be cockpunched
50.9% of Americans do not have a cock to punch. (2000 census)
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.
Ever tried explaining a buffer overflow stack-smashing attack to someone?
Only "for fun and profit."
61% of Americans need to be cockpunched. Thoroughly.
I believe you are referring to hitting someone with a rooster, otherwise half of the population would not be covered by your opinion.
Nay, but most Americans have no idea about computers, let alone computer security.
This is not a question of computers or security so much as it is a question of the freedom of information, communication, expression and speech. Perhaps the propaganda machine has convinced the American public otherwise.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
the Internet was liberated and experimental from scratch, you must not be on the same Internet as I am because as time goes I only see more restriction and more commercialization ...
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
More liberated and experimental? Friend, that's what it was. The internet is becoming more staid, regulated, etc. It's becoming more conservative as it becomes more mainstream. People who wouldn't have touched it a decade ago now use it every day, and that's changing the culture of the internet and the way all of society perceives it. However to boomers and older it's something that "we" can obviously do without, because they didn't need it when they were growing up, so who cares? It's just a toy to them. They may casually participate in it, but they cannot (broadly and generally) understand its real importance to contemporary and future society.
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
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.
... 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?
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!
may have heightened American's awareness and concern.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but hightened concern in the US doesn't normally equate to hightened awareness. We are still that country that bans matches on board of aircraft because of security "concerns," but allows on butane lighters because of a lack of awareness.
If American's security concerns about the internet were heightened, I wouldn't keep coming across people surfing with expired copies of Norton Antivirus on XP SP1 machines that spew more worthless zombie crap than George Romero.
"Hey, let's build in a big red button into the internet. That way, when the president needs to stop all communication, crashing lots of security systems and generally leading to anarchy and billions of dollars of lost productivity, he will be able to flip a Lexan shield and push the button. Don't worry, though, those crafty hackers will never be able to break through Lexan." You might as well mount a gun pointed at our country's head and put a big sticker on it in Chinese saying "please don't pull this trigger."
The ______ Agenda
61% may need to use their brain more. That doesn't mean they have said device with which to satisfy that need.
The ______ Agenda
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).
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? :)
The results are a reflection of how the question was asked. If they ahd asked:
"Do you support the president having a kill switch to remove Websites that post articles criticizing the president or the government?" The result would probably be just 10-20% in favor.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Only the problem is that people are led to believe that this would somehow protect the internet or the assets connected to it. I can only hope that "internet kill switch" is a code word for more granular segregation mechanisms, or that the U.S. media is just spinning a yarn and Unisys is fishing for contracts.
Emotions! In your brain!
And English, or French, or Asians somehow have special knowledge the excludes them from this group? Really?
They are not addicted to the viewpoint "if its not in The Bible, I don't need to know it".
Not so much a gain of "special knowledge" as a lack of "special knowledge"
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
most probably had no fucking clue what was being asked
I suspect you got that right. They would not realize that the "kill switch" probably (i) would cut the US from the internet, but leave the rest of the world largely connected, (ii) would have to disconnect US segments from one another, because a cyberattack would be hosted as much inside the US as outside, (iii) would severely hamper communication inside the US and between the US and the rest of the world, leaving official propaganda supreme in the US, (iv) would cripple commerce and logistics inside the US, but not so much in the rest of the world. And so forth.
Of course, many people may have thought that the "kill switch" would take down the internet in specific evil places outside the US, while leaving it intact in the US and nice friendly countries. If such a thing were possible, you can be sure that the nasty places will also have the same capability, which would render it useless to a US president, since the US is probably more vulnerable to economic, social, and political disruption by loss of internet communication than most other countries.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
actually 61% of all biased studies on internet kill switches support internet kill switches. /what a load of crap.
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.
The people saying the government should be able to knock out sections of the net are the probably some of the same people who own zombie systems because they can't be bothered to install patches or like to click on every file sent to them.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"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."
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.
Y'know, I don't really think I can take that statement at face value.
Emotions! In your brain!
(and that's not picking on Republicans; the numbers would be the same the other way around, I'm sure.)
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Isn't it conceivable that the neutral internet is somewhat equivalent to the right of assembly as well as freedom to publish opinion in contemporary usage? What protection will we have if an ideologue or worse gets into that office. It's happened before...
Now, do we really believe that most people have checked their security settings on Facebook and Myspace and regularly purchased updates for their virus scanner?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Most interneters support an American kill switch
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
It's the publishers' fault. Did you know that the word "gullible" has been removed from the Oxford English Dictionary?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Where's the idiocracy tag when you need it?
About nine keystrokes away.
You may need to throw in a vaginachop to cover all your bases.
I don't know, I usually don't get past 2nd base when I do that.
In other news, 61% of Americans have no idea how the internet works.
I'm imagining that the 61% that answered yes envisioned a "cyber attack" as their computer screens blowing up in their faces like on Star Trek. They probably don't realize that a cyber attack would probably take the form of shutting down potions of internet, so a presidential switch to shut down portions of the internet would essentially achieve the thing it's trying to prevent.
That kind of logic reminds me of the "Nike Hercules" program which attempted to thwart incoming Soviet nukes by detonating American nukes above American cities as a shield.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
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!
Oh, dear. You're not from here, are you? Let me explain America to you so you'll understand what you're up against.
America is divided into a number of broad regions, each of which has a VERY different culture. You can generally consider these regions to be: The Northeast, The West Coast, The Southwest, The Plains States, The Midwest, and the Deep South. With me so far?
Europeans would be quite comfortable on the West Coast, in the Northeast, and in parts of Arizona (which is in the Southwest but has quite a different flavor from most of it). People in these areas would generally despise a "kill switch" because they're generally against the government acting like jackbooted thugs. We do cherish our freedom, in these areas. We also tend to be fairly technically sophisticated.
Most people think of the West Coast as California and Seattle, Washington; however I hear there are other parts in the forest for those who wish to look (beware of bears, serial killers, and survivalists).
The Northeast starts at the Western border of the "Tri State Area" (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) and extends all the way Northeast through Maine. Sometimes people include Pennsylvania in this because of the number of people from Manhattan who spend their weekends in the Poconos. I myself do not. However I hear nice things about Philadelphia.
Within Arizona, Flagstaff stands as the sole remaining nature preserve for what remains of our hippy population, carefully preserved by the Department of the Interior. Rather nice people, hippies; they are just as allergic to jackbooted thuggishness as the rest of us. There are also some very well educated, fine folks in Phoenix and Prescott. I can't report on Tuscon, as I have never ventured there.
This leaves us with the remaining areas of the country, which contain at least 61 percent of Americans.
Perhaps you see where I'm going with this? Put it this way: They were the knuckleheads who got Bush elected, not once but TWICE.
Now, as to your action plan to deal with this 61 percent who are causing all these problems: I heartily applaud your can-do attitude! While setting out on your quest to "forcefully indicate your opinion" please keep the following in mind:
1) Traveling into the "interior" is not particularly safe. The locals are VERY well armed and sometimes well organized. Attempts at forcefully expressing an opinion may be countered with such rhetorical mechanisms as "the hail of gunfire" and "the pick-axe handle to the head".
2) While most locals are very well behaved, some are not. There are three very well made documentaries about what one can expect from poorly behaved locals, with surprisingly good production values: for travel in the Deep South, I recommend "Deliverance" and "Southern Comfort", both of which were made by the tourism bureaus of their respective states. For information about poorly behaved locals in the Midwest, see "Fargo", a documentary made for University of Wisconsin Criminal Justice students about investigatory techniques.
Ah, well! Good luck with your "Forceful opinion delivery" mission! If you make it back alive, we'll buy you a beer!
Thus spake the master programmer:
"When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
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.
I think c64_love was just pointing out that the way a question is asked skews the results. A survey taker can make subtle changes in wording and have a huge effect -- the example given being not-so-subtle could be expected to skew effects substantially.
Easy fix, Have a fourth big red button that confirms one of the other three big red button push.
With this safety mechanism, they wouldnt have to worry about accidentally pushing a big red button, they could press them all the time for drills, playing pranks on foreign visitors etc.
Of course they don't understand. They probably thought, "At least Facebook isn't part of the internet, so go ahead."
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
You, sir, are an enemy of the people.
Please don't speak on this subject again.
#SickNotWeak
Taking it one step further...
A mechanism to shut down (ie. disconnect from the rest of the world) part of the (American portion of the) internet (since, for the most part at least, there are too many possible routes in and out of most countries for any one country to be able to totally disconnect a country other than itself) is a potential weak point and a target for an attack.
Such a system would increase any security risks defeating the whole purpose... no sane country would mandate such a thing.
[The Universe] has gone offline.
So, the Psyop Worked.
Propaganda 101.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Taking it one step further...
A mechanism to shut down (ie. disconnect from the rest of the world) part of the (American portion of the) internet (since, for the most part at least, there are too many possible routes in and out of most countries for any one country to be able to totally disconnect a country other than itself) is a potential weak point and a target for an attack.
Such a system would increase any security risks defeating the whole purpose... no sane country would mandate such a thing.
I think some countries like China and Iran have the right idea. The free flow of internet in and out of the country is a risk. Consolidating and putting protections on those links addresses that risk. A good example is the Stuxnet virus, which was effectively stopped by filtering the command-control IP at the edge of the country.
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)
>>>Oh, but both my question and yours are loaded with misleading and biasing rationales for granting the president authority, aren't they?
No shit Sherlock. That was my point. The original question was worded to predispose uninformed citizens to say "yes the president should be able to stop cyberattacks". The question is biased/misleading, and the results meaningless but they give those who desire to control the internet the data they need to justify it. "The majority americans say the net should have a killswitch." Like Noam Chomsy said, they are manufacturing consent via slanted questions that give them the answer they desire.
An ideal poll would simply ask, "Should the president have power to turn off the internet?" without biasing the question to give the answer desired.
.
>>>just like the president can abuse many of the powers he has.
Yeah well, it's not the current president I fear. It's the future president that resembles somebody like Julius Caesar, or Nero, or Napoleon, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Mussolini, or Pol Pot. We've handed him exactly the tool he needs to silence dissent and strengthen his grip. We should not be giving so much power to just one man, or even one group of men. Such powers should be divided across multiple departments, and multiple levels of government, in order to dilute the damage any one person/group can cause.
.
>>>plausible deniability
A leader doesn'tt need that when he (or his parliament) has been given near-absolute power. You can do your oppression out in the open, and nobody will be able to object (again see my list of former democracies that fell to dictators). To mangle a quote from a German Christian pastor: "First they came for our guns, but we did not object because we did not need guns. Then they came for our free speech, but we did not object because free speech is not absolute. Then they came for the protesters & reporters, but we did not object because we were not protesters or reporters. Then they came for me, and no one was left to object. Or allowed to speak-out for fear of being jailed like me."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall