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."
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.
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%).
Sooo.... We want to stop a malicious DOS attack on the Internet by... DOSing the Internet?
Brilliant!
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? :)
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.
(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
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.
>>>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