Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Internet “kill Switch” For Australia

Posted by samzenpus on from the always-open dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Well, it looks as though at least some Governments have a backbone. Egypt switched off its internet to stop protests over the past few days, and the US Government is considering legislation that will give the President 'kill switch' powers over the internet as well. But in Australia, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy — best known for his attempt to filter the country's internet for child pornography and the country's flagship national fibre broadband rollout, says such a scenario couldn't occur."

26 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Weather by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    With the weather they have I don't think they need one.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Weather by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Funnily enough a lot of people on the coast where the cyclone hit are reporting fair 3G coverage and usable internet access. Its probably less vulnerable than power because it is either buried cables or wireless. Queensland is tropical and the weather there is often quite wild. The teletext service used to (maybe still does) operate out of channel 7 in Brisbane and it was always going down due to massive electrical storms.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Weather by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      The towers are built to "cyclone proof" standards, and many of the towers are on backup generators. Coverage is expected to get worse before it gets better because the backups only last 8-12 hrs. But I think those backup generators will be pretty high up on the emergency service todo list.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  2. Short on popularity by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The current Government barely made it back in to office at the last election. They need every cheap shot they can think of to boost their popularity ratings. I assume the algorithm in use here is that Conroy scans the Daily(tm) on his iPad(tm) at the start of the week, picks a bit of news relevant to his constituency which looks bad, and composes a speech saying he won't do that. Repeat next week and so on.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Short on popularity by bug1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conroy was asked the question by a journalist, it wasnt a press release or something.

      Judge for yourself here is the clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-Gn4SjNY3U

      If you wish to be fair, how about a critical response to the oppositions approach to the Internet.

  3. Re:When can we get rid of this guy? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Honestly? The only way to get rid of unelected officials is constitutional reform. I really thought this was going to be the generation to do it, but it seems there's too many of us around who have fond memories of standing on the assembly ground to God Save The Queen.. and we can't talk about changing the constitution without talking about finally pulling our finger out and cutting the safety line to mother England. Or, ya know, we could petition the US to become their 52nd state - right after Israel.. I keed, I keed!

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. KIll switch alternatives by Angostura · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, I'll stick my head above the parapet, because I'm interested in getting opinions.

    Let's assume for a second that the kill-switch proponents are acting from the best of motives. They are worried about the potential for a huge, effective, external Internet attack on critical infrastructure, that could do the worst things - cut power, stop water , turn all the traffic lights red - you've seen the movies.

    They are concerned that it such an attack occurs the population will be screaming "Why didn't you plan, why don't you stop it, how come you can't turn external connections off, you bozos?".

    So they are planning and worrying - as they should.

    What is wrong, in principle with a killswitch, if the correct checks and balances are in place? What is a better solution?

    1. Re:KIll switch alternatives by Spad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take responsibility for the security of the services you host on the internet?

    2. Re:KIll switch alternatives by JustOK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because they are setting up an attack vector, where none existed, that could be used to bring down the internet.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:KIll switch alternatives by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Egypt shows that the killswitch can't be used for more than a week or so because business and Government both complain that they need it to do their work and keep things running. If it lasted a week in Egypt I reckon it would last a day in the US. At the same time people are good networkers and they know how to get the word out. An intranet can be a wifi card and a copy of mediawiki, though I am sure the solutions used in Egypt were pretty low tech. In short the kill switch does more damage than good. It can't be used for any length of time and it is pretty easy to work around. You may as well switch off the water and see how far you get.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    4. Re:KIll switch alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just how critical is your "critical infrastructure" if you can render it unusable (i.e. take it offline), at a moments notice, and would prefer to do so as an alternative to it being destroyed?

      The only difference between taking it offline and destroying it, is that it (might) take longer to bring back online afterwards, if it's destroyed.

      It's like saying "enemy bombers are about to bomb our city" and responding: "to prevent this, we'll burn the city down!".

      What you should have, as your counter-strategy, is to shoot down the bombers. Invest in anti-aircraft guns, if it's such a likely possibility. Don't think that you're solving the problem by passing a law that says you get to burn everything. Law or no law, you'll be fighting tooth-and-nail against your own populace if it comes down to civil servants with torches trying to burn things down, because, hey: people like their stuff (and their internet) more than they like you.

      The fact that perhaps it's easier to rebuild burn ruins than bombed ruins isn't much of a benefit, even if it is faster; this is especially true for anyone who happened to need for their to be a city that they could use during that time. How have you helped them, exactly?

    5. Re:KIll switch alternatives by dutchd00d · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Secure the infrastructure that you expose to the internet. Make sure that no evil-doers can get in. If there *is* an attack and it all goes horribly wrong disconnect the infrastructure. No need to pull down the entire network.

      If you want to stop burglars you put a lock on your door, you don't dig up the street that they use to get to your door.

    6. Re:KIll switch alternatives by jamesh · · Score: 2

      What is wrong, in principle with a killswitch, if the correct checks and balances are in place?

      Because the guy with his finger on the button is judge, jury, and executioner. Checks and balances are fine until the government grants themselves "special powers" and does whatever the hell it was going to do anyway.

      But apart from that, no, nothing is wrong with it.

    7. Re:KIll switch alternatives by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      What is wrong, in principle with a killswitch, if the correct checks and balances are in place? What is a better solution?

      The correct checks and balances do not exist. The "kill switch" is to contact the ISP and ask them to stop routing traffic. If the ISP is not a common carrier and fails to do this immediately, hold them accountable for the traffic. If they are a common carrier then give them some time to get it dealt with. The legal system exists to handle this already.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:KIll switch alternatives by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would that include a kill switch, or not?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    9. Re:KIll switch alternatives by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      First of all, forget everything you've seen in the movies. EVERY SINGLE THING.

      NO single piece of critical infrastructure is accessible through the internet. Not a single one. If it is, unhook it. NOW! Not when the big DDoS strikes, do it now and find a solution around it. The internet is in its current state NOT a reliable, tamper and fail proof means of communication. Funny, that's what it was designed to be. Unfortunately, it evolved past this, has become commercial and it is by no means as resilient anymore as it was when ARPA was still in charge. But I digress.

      Every single organization and infrastructure that needs a means of communication has one outside the internet. Of course, they use the internet for communication, too, but only for non critical things that are not directly connected to the core operation of the facility, like administration and other non operation critical communication.

      How should such an "attack" be executed? Overloading the network, aka DDoS? Pointless. You would cripple internet communication, which does not affect any other form of communication. It may be a bit inconvenient to return to phones, but they work and should be sufficient until internet communication can be restored. Not to mention that the kill switch would cause the same effect: End of internet communication.

      Control of the facility or infrastructure? Hardly possible.

      Power/water/gas/whatever plants: No power plant can be remote controlled. At least in no country (that I know the safety requirements for power plants of) it is permissible to control anything remotely that could possibly lead to a damage to the facility or anyone inside or around it.
      Traffic lights: Are not controlled via internet but have their own network, where they are networked. Most are standalone and locally controlled or under the control of a local facility, using dedicated means of connection, not connected to the internet.

      Destruction of infrastructure? Not possible. As mentioned above, power plants may not be remote controlled. Pipes/valves could be controlled, but have to have technical safety features that would avoid destruction.

      So please give me a scenario where an internet attack could actually do some damage to any kind of infrastructure. As far as I can see, all you could accomplish is that accounting gets cut off and the bills get sent out late. And, be honest, would you mind getting your power bill late?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:KIll switch alternatives by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      The correct checks and balances do not exist. The "kill switch" is to contact the ISP and ask them to stop routing traffic. If the ISP is not a common carrier and fails to do this immediately, hold them accountable for the traffic. If they are a common carrier then give them some time to get it dealt with. The legal system exists to handle this already.

      The carriers in the US have already demonstrated the willingness to cooperate with even illegal government requests - and then showed that they have the lobbying muscle to get Congress to pass retro-active immunity and get the President to sign it.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  5. That's nice. by enter+to+exit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If any government is facing a threat it will do anything it needs to protect itself, regardless of laws. Having or not having a law will not make the slightest difference in the face of a real emergency.

  6. Re:Internet kill workaround by PatPending · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, RFC 1149 worked for Egypt

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  7. Re:Internet kill workaround by enter+to+exit · · Score: 2

    Egypt got around the internet blackout with dial-up BBS's and the likes of UUCP

  8. Re:When can we get rid of this guy? by QuantumG · · Score: 2

    a senator of a major political party, yes.. two words: proportional representation.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. Re:When can we get rid of this guy? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

    As long as Conroy gets his face in the media he is pretty much guaranteed a seat in the senate.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. Re:Internet kill workaround by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · · Score: 2

    Yes. Try RFC 1149, otherwise known as IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC). You might need to substitute a more common discrete winged media though, say, bat or bumblebees. Just make sure you train them well (or use some strong pheromones), or you'll be getting massive packet loss.

    (The RFC actually describes the sending of datagrams written on slips of paper strapped to the leg of the carrier pigeon. A more practical method would be to load the carrier with a flash drive containing gigabytes rather than bits of data.)

  11. Re:Internet kill workaround by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are people letting the US govt away with this? An internet kill switch sounds an awful lot like a violation of free speech, especially if they're thinking of using it in the same way the Egyptian govt did. The constitution is starting to look like a bad joke.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  12. FFS - NBN is a kill switch by tqft · · Score: 2

    NBN rolled out with almost all traffic traveling over a backbone controlled by ine entity is a kill switch.

    A single point of failure with one control system and a major control interface?

    Who needs legislation when you control the router tables?

    All the other isps will interconnect. That just leaves the very few submarine cables and satellites to manage.

    A big Hi to the people at DSD.

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  13. No kill switch? Ha. by Wizarth · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the same government that wants to be able to blacklist any URL secretly.

    The EFA AU said it best: http://www.efa.org.au/2011/02/03/conroy-not-fooling-anyone/