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.
So when China takes over our internet, they can't use our machines to gold farm in World of Warcraft! Sarcasm aside, what would the BENEFIT of such a thing be? All it seems to be good for is pretending we don't have a Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment.
There is no -1 Disagree.
Seems to me, the biggest threat would be doing EXACTLY what Mubarak is doing now in Egypt.
they got used to roundspeak and bullshit because you let them for all these years.
now all that passing an enemy-of-public bill requires is enough roundspeak, and sufficient number of catchphrases. (jobs, security, emergency, terrorism, nation, economy)
our democracies are shams.
Read radical news here
It doesn't stand a chance. All it needs is for one person to compare a sponsor of this bill to Mubarak and it should be dead in the water. You can't bring something like this up right after all this tumult.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRmxXp62O8g&feature=fvst
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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!
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.
Normally I am logged in as EmperorOfCanada but not at my computer right now.
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.
"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.
Every time I pay attention to American politics, I find myself thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald had the right idea.
You must be fucking joking. The Kennedy's were pretty big fans of ending our never-ending war in Vietnam, and boom Bobby and Johnny both get shot in the fucking head. Beside some of their shady backdoor dealings, they at least understood the threat of the military industrial complex. Once Kennedy started pushing for more transparency and oversight in the CIA, well, his days were numbered. I am not saying it was an inside job, but what I am saying is when a politician actually stands up for Doing the Right Thing (TM), they usually don't last very long politically, and sometimes biologically as well. Asking to incite violence like you are insinuating is not the answer, and is only going to lead us down the road to stricter control and more loss of privacy and rights.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
"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.
Also, how are they going to know that the attack is imminent? Like, before they hear the rushing water?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
nutters never assassinate the politicians who actually deserve a bullet in the fucking head
If your suggesting the only way to progress for the people is the ammo box, then by your count any conversation is a moot point. We saw that during November it is possible to energize a base to kick a bunch of the wankers out of office. Regardless of your stance on the new republican congress, November showed that it is possible to get grassroots movements to actually make a difference.
For serious change for the benefit of America, we need an intelligent 3rd party to form. A party of logic, reason, etiquette, balance, science, and honesty. Platform on it. Be forthcoming with all your flaws upfront so the other side has nothing to use, then just use pure logic, reason, and statistics to move forward. If we had a party of pure logical thinking, take away all political correctness, all blatant chest-pumping nationalism, all the empty rhetoric, and just stated reasonable goals, never waiving from them unless its logical, perhaps America might take the step in the correct direction.
No politicians deserves what you say. They are all just pawns in the game that us, and the media have created. They are the best politicians we have. Because we created them. Now its time to make new, and better ones. Imagine an America were the world 'politician' was considered a bygone, and all future people involved in national decisions had degrees in science, technology, medicine, etc. Perhaps we should make a PhD (in anything but business) a requirement for future presidential applicants.
I challenge you to go out tomorrow and start the discussion. With people IRL and not OL. I do. I try everyday. If it makes no difference, in my heart I know I at least tried to start a rational discussion, instead of giving up. Americans are capable of a lot of things, and if we lose complete faith in the country then the republic will be lost due to our own apathy. And it won't be due to the ignorant, but instead due to those too lazy or apathetic to enlighten the ignorant.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
No, someone asks the same thing on every story like this.
One of the responses I remember was a pair of questions from some kind of consultant or something:
So, the system isn't actually air-gapped. And not really that secure, then, either.
Its about keeping you safe from the evildoers. Honest. Would we lie to you? We are the land of the free. WE have nothing to hide.
Yeah right. Cutting off people's internet would be far more inconvenient to the citizenry than isolated attacks on public infrastructure or government facilities.
It will effectively make them deaf, dumb, blind and mute as far as their voice in the international community goes.
Now, why would the want to do that? Maybe Assange has an idea.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
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.
Quick question: Just what -exactly- is a "true cyber emergency"?
Is it to isolate our network(s) from the rest of the world?
Is it to secure our important services?
Is it to keep key infrastructure operational?
What sort of 'true cyber emergency' would want to cut us off from the rest of the world? Help me out here.
I can certainly understand wanting to keep key services from being threatened...but, shouldn't those simply be secure anway? Shouldn't they be on their own secure network anyway?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
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
yes. because we do not have free speech in the united states, that is a valid concern.
Here's to finally giving Bush his exit strategy in November
In case of emergency, it would let us cut off all government computers and communication. Seems fair to me.
By far, the most common use of the internet is speech protected by the first amendment. The commerce clause does not override the first amendment.
...not that the first amendment will stop congress from passing the law, the President from invoking it, or the courts from arguing over the terms strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, content-specific, compelling state interest, etc.
I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail
Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 7
The congress has the power, not the obligation, to establish the post office. If it wants to it can shut down any or all parts of the system (so long as it isn't in violation of the Amendments).
"The right of the people to receive and provide information services without tracking, interception, or interruption thereof shall not be violated by the Government or agent thereof except by judicial warrant naming persons, data, and services to affected."
Amendment XXVIII of the U.S. Constitution, as I think it should be. We need to go on the offensive instead of watching Washington wonks progressively wank away our rights year after year... who wants to spearhead a campaign?
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
So there are hundreds of comments already posted here, but none of them that have been modded up that I can see points out that this isn't actually an "Internet Kill Switch" in any way shape or form. That's just a sensationalist title used to get people riled up and interested. This is, in fact, a much less interesting and less threatening piece of legislation. It just says the president can order companies running critical infrastructure for the functioning of our society to take action to protect them from a network attack in an emergency. No where does it grant the authority to shut down the internet or large swaths of it or censor any content.
Now this legislation is not without problems and it certainly should more clearly define what is meant by critical infrastructure, but seriously, there is a reason this bill is supported from both sides of the aisle and it had fuck all to do with people's conspiracy theories about censorship and control of the media and communication. This is just an inadequately worded bill doing exactly what internet security experts have been asking for right along; precautions put in place to quickly isolate critical systems that likely shouldn't be accessible in the first place but often are in one way or another. This is about Stuxnet and the possibility of network based attacks on real hardware and resources from foreign powers. No politicians in the US have any interest in shutting down the internet because we still have robust means of communication otherwise and it would be political suicide.
"This past March, the Senateâ(TM)s Sergeant at Arms reported that the computer systems of the Executive Branch agencies and the Congress are now under cyber attack an average of 1.8 BILLION times per month."
The fuck you are. DoD reports on the order of tens of thousands of "attacks" against them YEARLY.
You don't get to count every ping, spam, packet, scan and automated garbage as a "cyber attack". Well you can but you would (have already) loose all credibility in the process.
"Rather than granting a âoekill switch,â S. 3480 would make it far less likely for a President to use the broad authority he already has in current law to take over communications networks."
In other words since you already have the authority to do whatever the hell you want this whole exercise is redundant? If this is the case why bother with new legislation?
I don't know of any operators who would not take reasonable steps to mitigate problems if the USG had specific information about a credible problem where public safety or life critical systems were involved. Do you? Is there any evidence whatsoever this is a problem?
I would add it is quite foolish to think one can address a "cyber attack" as in "war" in linear time or on timescales in which humans have any chance of reacting. Chances are your advsaries have already compromised the system well in advance. For all you know failure to check in due to service disruption could well result in pre-programmed failsafe action.
Suggested Form Letter:
Dear Sen. Susan Collins:
Fuck You. No.
Respectfully,
Your constituent
If Stuxnet gets imitated by script kiddies or black hats, they could damage seriously infrastructure like the Hoover dam in the example in TFA. Another example, they could target the systems that control burners in power plants. Even if they cannot manage to produce enough damage to put the power plant off line, they could cause enough damage to produce a generalized decrement across all the power plants of a given operator or builder and hitting the consumers with higher energy prices and a sharp increase in pollution. The repairs in those burners take at least a pair of weeks to get fixed and need to take the units off-line. The cascade effect of this could in the end produce roving, prolonged blackouts with the economic damage that they entail. A smart terrorist wet dream. This is the kind of risk that they should be targeting even if they end helping a bit the iranians or north koreans when more and more control systems get migrated to unfit systems to the task running Windows.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Actually if the US were doing what Egypt would then the government likely wouldn't covered that as freedom of speech and claim it's the act of terrorists, it incites violence and basically use every rule for speech to ensure you don't have the freedom to express yourself.
The Union congress does indeed have the power to close the post office, but they do NOT have the power to forbid a Member State (example: Virginia) from setting-up its own post office for its own citizens.
Nor do they have the power to prevent private entrepreneurs like FedEx or UPS to fill the gap left behind by the USPS's extinction. The Congressional power does not extend to abolition.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
In a related note, I personally make sure to strap dynamite to each of my legs any time I go hiking.
It's only sensible, if my foot ever gets caught while I am running away from a bear or a wolf I need a way to remove it quickly and reliably.
I also strap bombs to my arms while swimming. You know, just in case.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller