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.'"
Seems to me, the biggest threat would be doing EXACTLY what Mubarak is doing now in Egypt.
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.
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.
"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.
Name one thing you know firsthand is connected to the Internet and could result in casualties if attacked. Sure banks computers could crash, sure amazon could go down, but ICBMs are not going to launch and the power grid wont go down. If anything that could actually cause casualties is connected to the Internet then it shouldn't be.
http://www.devicesworld.net/
This kind of stuff is getting deployed more and more.
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.
Actually, you can hurt people with data. Mainly, people in power. And that's what they're afraid of.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No offence, but I think that for the most part, you Americans have lost the freedoms that you all tout - you just aren't aware of it properly yet.
You get fondled to get onto a plane, you can't protest the President anywhere near where anyone can see it and so many other things. Sure, you might still have the right to carry guns for the most part, but you have lost the freedoms that really matter.
For the most part, actually, so has the rest of the world. Such are the times we live in heh.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
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.