Slashdot Mirror
Internet Kill Switch Back On the US Legislative Agenda
suraj.sun points out a story at Wired that US lawmakers have revived the idea of a government-controlled "Internet Kill Switch," which reads, in part: "The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later. 'My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,' Collins said in an e-mail Friday. 'It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.'"
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
Seems to me, the biggest threat would be doing EXACTLY what Mubarak is doing now in Egypt.
than used for the intended purpose IMHO.
P.S.
It's also unconstitutional. I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail or the newspapers (old-fashioned type or modern websites/email). That power is reserved to the Member States.
If they think Congress should have that power, let the states pass an amendment FIRST granting that power, rather than create an Egypt-type problem where some future Caesar/dictator can squash the people with a simple flip of the switch.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
After all, who knows better how they've screwed us than the ones doing it?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Because we'll only use it for your own good.
They're the bad guys. You can trust us.
We're looking out for you.
We(tech types) have to think about how to have an marginally working internet without the cooperation of the telcos. Off the top of my head I could see an entire city's wireless routers all sort of passing things along. The traceroute would be from hell but data would keep moving.
I suspect that this is being developed right now by civil minded Egyptian programmers and engineers.
It could also be used in disasters and whatnot.
As long as a node here and there could contact the rest of the internet then various governments would lose the power presently exercised to evil ends in Egypt.
Message me if anyone is serious about this and maybe something could be brewed up.
PS I finally remembered my password.
I can't see any reasonable purpose for a government being able to shut down internet access in broad swathes; any internet "emergency" could (and would) realistically be handled quite well by the array of network providers involved in standing up the internet. Otherwise botnets would have killed us all long ago.
The only substantial threat to the internet is censorship (whether by governments or corporations).
Besides, we've already seen that our telecoms are all too eager to help the government with illegal spying upon the citizenry during an "emergency". What makes anyone think they would hesitate to pull the plug at that same government's behest?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"It's for your own good". Whenever a government uses those words you can assume with some confidence it's for their good and not yours.
In light of the recent incident in Egypt, it seems that the real purpose of such a kill switch is more useful as a means of censorship (a la big scandals that could make the US look bad, like Wikileaks). On a local scale, if I know my network is about to be attacked, I would cut off the main entrance into my network, while leaving the inside up and running. If they insist on a kill switch, why not just implement a similar scheme for all the "gateways" into government networks? As for each citizen's own access, I don't need the government to unplug my computer for me -- I can do that by myself, and am capable of making the decision to do so myself.
The timing is so dumb that one has to wonder.
To bring that up now suggest the recent election turn around has scared Both Democrats and Republicans into believing Egypt could happen here, and rather fix the problem they react with police state measures.
Or was this on track all along, with hopes of sneaking it through, and the mainstream press just finally took notice?
In which case it may well be DOA already.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
"An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."
Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place? Seems to me that if you want to protect infrastructure, the easiest and most sensible thing to do would be to unplug the ethernet cable.
We should start developing contingency plans to thwart a potential internet blackout.
International dial-up, data feeds over the airways, carrier pigeon...whatever.
Why are they asking for this if they don't have some kind of plan in store. Terrorism 2.0 perhaps, as the fear of conventional terrorism has faded quite a bit since 2001.
^^vv<><>BA
Amazing how the really bad shit always has bi-partisan support. More and more it becomes obvious that we really need a viable third party.
I suspect this is a lot like Bush's warrentless wiretapping: it has been there for a long time now -- the legislation in question is merely a formality attempting to legitimize it. Consider it "retroactive immunity" for the possession of an Internet kill-switch.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein