Is an Internet Kill Switch Feasible In the US?

wiredmikey writes "The 'Kill Switch' bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency. To recap recent events in Egypt, public political protests reached critical mass on January 25th and on January 27th, Internet connectivity and access across the region began plummeting ultimately leading to a five-day blackout. The question remains: could the same approach be taken in the US?"

Comments

Just take credit.

[Kenja]

Wait for the next Comcast outage and then shout "we did that on purpose!".

What is the internet verses a network?

[Nukenbar]

Where do you draw the line between the a large network and the Internet as a whole?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ScentCone]

Where do you draw the line between the a large network and the Internet as a whole?

You draw the line exactly where it actually exists: where the people running that large network make peering arrangements to allow traffic to come and go through other networks and carriers. There is no internet. There are a bunch of networks that have very complex agreements allowing traffic to pass between and through them.

And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency. Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country. The "kill switch" mechanism doesn't shut down the internet. It allows the counter terror people to ask the administration to use that legal power to get on the phone with Twitter and tell them what needs to happen to prevent such use.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Ephemeriis]

And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency.

So... Exactly like what was done in Egypt then?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Bucky24]

Pretty much... Except in the case of the US it will be only be used in a real emergency, right? Right?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Dunbal]

Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country.

Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too. Or they might do it by short wave radio, so lock that up. Or they might do it by mail, so get rid of the mail. Or they might even do it by voice, so let's get rid of all that sound-carrying air. Where, exactly, do you plan to stop? You can strip a nation of every single right it has, in the name of terrorism, and you still won't prevent it. However at some point YOU start being the bad guy. It's a big bad world out there. Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[commodore6502]

>>>someone will be using Twitter or Gmail

To protest against President Agent Smith in the year 2018, and president smith doesn't want that, so he turns them off.

Or to switch-off foxnews.com and msnbc.com (per the stated goals of a certain congressman). You made a noble attempt to make the "kill switch" sound good, but it really isn't. It's too much power in the hands of too few.

While congress may have a legit argument to censor the public airwaves (i.e. block nudity reaching children), they have zero legitimacy to censor private websites, fed by private cables, into private homes. It's a private matter that should be handled at the level of the customer Not the hands of a few oligarchs.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[socsoc]

We've already ruined air travel. Might as well ruin our communication methods too. Face it, the terrorists have won, it's just that they are the gov instead of crazy bombers.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Dunbal]

I know. And of course this is a completely useless political idea, like all other useless ideas that come from government. As if revolutions never happened in the pre internet or even pre-telephone era. Can't seem to remember Lenin twittering his followers, or Robespierre approving guillotinings by email, or Cromwell governing by Blackberry...

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Ephemeriis]

Pretty much... Except in the case of the US it will be only be used in a real emergency, right? Right?

Of course.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MozeeToby]

If it came to the situation that is going on in Egypt do you really think the government would require legal authority to make it happen? The law would be passed the instant the people in Washington believed it was needed to maintain order. The government almost certainly has equipment at every major ISP already for FBI, NSA, and CIA investigations, the only question is whether or not that equipment has the capability to block traffic or simply monitor. But then again, even if all they can do is monitor, it would be pretty hard to defend against an attack that comes from machines that are already on your network and that have backdoor access to a depressing number of your systems so I doubt it would matter anyway.

So I'd argue that if the US government wanted to shut down the internet they already have all the equipment in all the right places that they would need to do so. And from a legal standpoint it wouldn't matter because either the law would be passed by congress within hours of significant unrest or it would be done through some kind of executive order that no one in a position of authority would have the cajones to argue against until much later.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ColdWetDog]

Inability to cower the population on your part does not constitute and emergency on ours.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.

You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?

Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?

I'm not really sure that a "kill switch" is a good idea - I mean, if Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug for the day, they probably would. Hell, if he asked the military to pull the plug, they probably would. So what additional authority is even needed?

But anyway, preaching against security in the face of terrorism isn't going to win the day.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

the terrorists have won

Which terrorist?

McVeigh? He didn't win - he thought he could spark a revolt.

Bin Laden? He hasn't won - he wanted us out of the Middle East, only to INCREASE our involvement.

So which terrorist won?

(Sorry for the combative tone... It's just that I see this phrase a lot on here and for some reason it set me off...)

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[calmofthestorm]

Of course. Such as if a member of the Wrong [take your pick] party is elected to public office.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[bluefoxlucid]

You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?

Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?

So you are saying that a democracy is a fancy cloak-and-dagger form of a totalitarian regime where we slowly strip your rights away and build up a police state?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[vlm]

So which terrorist won?

The one that said "they hate us for our freedoms"

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency. Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country. The "kill switch" mechanism doesn't shut down the internet. It allows the counter terror people to ask the administration to use that legal power to get on the phone with Twitter and tell them what needs to happen to prevent such use.

The Federal government is expressly forbidden from having that authority by a logical expansion of the first amendment to include the new technologies. They already have the power to _Ask_ Twitter to take whatever steps the executive branch deems necessary to stop those attacks, but to provide the federal government with the authority to require compliance would be IMO a clear violation of freedom of the press.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ScentCone]

Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too.

You mean, like during the Mumbai attacks, when the guys killing civilians were using cell phones to coordinate what they were doing? Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?

The government already has, and has long had the power to sieze vehicles in an emergency. To compell HAM operators to work with them or to shut down. To take over food supplies/transport. To stockpile and control the flow of things like bauxite or fuel. In an emergency, they've got juice. This (internetworking stuff) is an area in which those powers are not codified. Wouldn't you rather it was clearly spelled out, and there were rules that an executive had to follow, including chain of events, documentation, etc? Those things are already true about other emergency powers.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones you pay your taxes to.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Bengie]

I'm going to remember that quote

So which terrorist won?

The one that said "they hate us for our freedoms"

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Dunbal]

You realize that, in a democracy, a politician with your opinion could not be elected?

Of course not, because I am an honest man. So called democracies only elect crooks.

Since your position is untenable in a democracy, why stick to it?

Non sequitur. What does my opinion have to do with the form of government? Does government dictate opinions now? I am not allowed to think the way I do? No, I will stick to my position because it's my position. We don't have to agree. I don't even have to be right. But government be damned, and the bovine group-think be damned too.

preaching against security in the face of terrorism isn't going to win the day.

Terrorism is nothing new. Lock the damned cockpit doors of your planes with a serious lock, and you will never get 9/11 again. But no, the terrorism excuse can be used to fish around in your bank account, eavesdrop on your phone/internet sessions, seize or freeze your assets even when you have done nothing wrong. Because just the "suspicion" is enough. Why on earth would a government want to give up these powers? They are more addicting than crack. But tell me something, is the "war on terror" being lost, that these measures have to be considered? What happened to the "taking the fight to the enemy" excuse for invading Afghanistan (and later Iraq and now Pakistan)? After 10 years (almost twice as long as the second world war) you would think that some progress has been made and the "threat" of terrorism has decreased. Why do you feel you need more "security"? Or is it all just a bloody sham?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[morgauxo]

I'm not sure exactly what this bill would allow the government to do for good or bad but how is the GP's example anything like what happened in Egypt? Telling Twitter to block an account which is going to be used to synchronize a terrorist attack or even shutting down Twitter altogether isn't exactly the same as completely removing all internet access (or trying to anyway) for the whole country.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[sorak]

Not to mention that presidents have blatantly disregarded the law before. I'm not going to name names, because my memory is more selective than it should be, but when a high level official tells his underlings "do this" the typical response is several months of compliance, followed by something that may stop it, such as bad PR or lawsuits. The justice system is slow, and the media's attitude is "pictures or it didn't happen".

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Dunbal]

Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?

By the time you figure that out, they've already done what they set out to do. The attacks only lasted about an hour before they barricaded themselves. I don't see how not having cell phones would have saved lives and frustrated this carefully planned assault. Their plan was to kill as many people as they could, not hold a teleconference.

See the thing is the bad guy always, always has the advantage. The only time you can really prevent something is through careful surveillance BEFORE it happens. When the ball start rolling, there's not much you can do. Sure, cut off the phones. Paramedics and other first responders also use the phone system. Victims also use the phone system. So are you actually helping or making things worse?

And as for the surveillance issue - perhaps soon it will be possible to eavesdrop and keep records and mine every single data source. Now how do you stop someone from saying "hey, since we have all this data anyway, let's go after other people too"? None of us are perfect. All of us have broken some law or other. We cannot live in a world that never forgives or forgets. And it becomes even worse when some elites have the ability to modify their records and the common man doesn't. And they will - after all that's what power IS.

As for the internet - they killed the internet in Egypt. Did the problem go away? I am against nonsensical laws, and a kill switch makes no sense and it's proven NOT to work.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly what sort of Internet "terror" or "emergency" would require this power to be given to the government? I thought the Internet was developed in part so that scientists could communicate regardless of the governments involved? Why should the government need to shut down our communication?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[DefenseEngineer]

I am a Ham operator. The government may not force me to transmit on their behalf or shut me down if I don't comply. The only rule I can find regarding this is that I may not cause harmful interference. But this is for all forms of Ham radio communication and not just in emergencies. However, many Hams do participate in emergency communications through two organizations, ARES and RACES. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=amateur

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ScentCone]

We've already ruined air travel

And by "we," you mean you and the other people who continue to try to blow up airplanes full of people? Yes, that has definitely ruined the earlier, classical experience of havig a hijacker just take you to Cuba for the day.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[misexistentialist]

Shutting down the Mumbai terrorists' cellphones wouldn't have done much to lessen the attack. Witnesses reporting the shooters' locations to police certainly could have (if the police were coordinated). The government will use its "emergency powers" like its regular ones--incompetently and abusively, only more so.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[0123456]

Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?

So, uh, call the phone company and say 'please can you shut down the tower they're using'.

Only a retard would shut down the entire country's telephone system and even if you're not that stupid you still have to live with the unintended consequences of shutting down phones in that area; imagine, for example, that someone has managed to hide out and is passing information the police about what the bad guys are doing... well, tough luck now you've cut off their cell phone.

As for shutting down the Internet in America, the entire economy is so heavily reliant on it now that the consequences would be far more devastating than any likely terrorist attack. In fact, if such a 'switch' existed then bin Laden and friends would be working on ways to get the US government to use it for that very reason.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[hedwards]

Do you have any actual relevant information? even in the days after 9/11 there was no talk of killing the internet being useful. It's just now a decade later that politicians are considering doing it. I tend to think that if it was that inevitable that the talk would have turned to that a lot more quickly.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[klui]

The government has shown that it has a history of being highly irresponsible with such authority. So I would like to see their power in communications spelled out: hey could ask, but not demand.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[maxume]

So the terrorists are sophisticated enough to setup a massive attack plan, but they forget to check to see if the government has emergency powers that would completely foil the attack?

When it comes to people with that much malevolent intent, it seems smarter to focus on enumerating the people, not enumerating the ways that they might attack.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[corbettw]

Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?

No, because once you do that you've alerted the bad guys to the fact that you know who and where they are. Better to let them keep talking, but monitor it and use triangulation to pick them out for targeted strikes. That would result in dead terrorists much, much more quickly than impeding their ability to communicate, which would just result in them scattering and disappearing into the woodwork. Exactly what happened in Mumbai (one of the attackers was arrested, nine were killed, and an unknown number, at least 10, disappeared).

This is the problem with approaching any kind of battle from the perspective of the police: police seek to control a situation, warriors seek to turn it to their advantage. Who cares if the enemy is talking if you can listen in to the conversation? Make use of it, then kill them with their own weapons.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[superdave80]

It's a big bad world out there. Take your lumps, get used to it, and get the hell out of my face.

I think Denis Leary phrased it best:

"Life sucks, get a fucking helmet!"

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess my problem with that is thinking of a protective scenario where they need this and couldn't already deal with the problem. As the article mentions, in the rare event our government actually did recognize a sufficiently valid threat in advance, they could already get those folks who control infrastructure connected to the Hoover dam to disconnect. Let's remember that these national security folks often get their best 'intel' from CNN.

There's another thing that bugs me. Translate this to mobile phones. I can think of some very real, very scary scenarios where shutting down communications infrastructure can endanger lives as well. Is this not the case for internet communications? I mean, I know surgeons aren't getting their pages via Twitter, but there must be quite a few important notification and control services that rely on internet communications, right? Let's say that instead of shuttering Twitter they shut down upstream providers around the country. What else are you going to hit in the meantime? Will they even know?

And if someone does get hurt because of this, or they do serious damage to the stock market, is that just one more, "look what the terrorists did, we need more authority!" The whole thing creeps me out a little.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty same; only granularity differs. There is no big red button in Egypt either; authorities there just commanded network providers to drop support for significant portions of their customer base (as far as I read, some govt organizations still had their access). It's just that there are fewer network providers over there; and probably somewhat less pushback due to martial law (and few checks or balances, or need for real court orders). But the basic idea is still the same -- government orders provider to block access to some set of users.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ScentCone]

There are all sorts of squirrely rules along these lines. In my state, if you want your callsign on your vehicle tags, you are also signing up for specific obligations to allow your vehicle to be commandeered during emergencies. Some of those rules are getting seriously outdated, needless to say - most of them pre-dated many other types of commodity communication gear.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Egypt's network is anything like Tunisia's, all the ISPs WAN links have to go through the routers of the government. This is not possible in the US and Europe because the throughput is so huge it would just cost too much (even carriers have problem keeping up with the growing bandwidth consumption).

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

"someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains"

They might have to make an old fashioned phone call with some kind of code phrase, you know like the french did in WW2!

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

So you are saying that a democracy is a fancy cloak-and-dagger form of a totalitarian regime where we slowly strip your rights away and build up a police state?

Yeah, democracy doesn't hold up well to hostile forces. People crave security, and they will vote for it.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[JWW]

If Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it. If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.

Just because he is the President doesn't mean he has absolute power. I'm not being partisan here either, Bush tried to abuse his power that way too.

They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power. If not for the pesky two term limit, electing Bush or Obama or Clinton, or Regan continually to office would eventually have lead us to full dictatorship.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

SUCCESSFUL TROLLOLOLOLOLOL!

The key difference is the USA's "killswitch" won't shut down the entire internet service for the nation like in Egypt where they had complete blackouts. What does happen is the specific services are able to cooperate with law enforcement and willing to temporarily suspend communications for "Hijacker #1-#20". Think of a surgical strike versus "LOL, let's shut everything down guyz!"

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens to most of the root dns servers when Obama pulls the plug ?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

I am not allowed to think the way I do?

I never said that :) I'm just wondering why you are fighting a battle that is lost. I'm not sure what form of government you have in mind, but I'd love to know how it will be better for us overall and how you will prevent the urge people have to seek security.

But tell me something, is the "war on terror" being lost, that these measures have to be considered?

I do not think it is being lost. Perversely, I think this is because we "took the battle to them", which will probably hurt us long-term. But in the short-run, if you can kill Americans at home, why get on a plane?

Why on earth would a government want to give up these powers?

Ask congress, who is apparently letting the sun set on the Patriot Act.

Why do you feel you need more "security"? Or is it all just a bloody sham?

Of course it is a sham. But a pragmatic person either has to play the game or be left out of the loop completely. It hurts to give up on an ideal, and it makes one less of a person, but hell - it can get things done. I don't understand the whole Don Quixote thing.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[mikael]

The equipment would have to be T-junctioned off a main link with no possibility of loopback, so there is no way of telling it is there. So I'd guess it doesn't have any blocking capability.

Getting an ISP to block traffic, would simply be a case of adding IP address entries to a block list and deleting DNS lists. There are some websites that provide IP block lists for home linux systems. Just append the list to the /etc/hosts file.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[mdmkolbe]

The government already has, and has long had the power to sieze vehicles in an emergency. To compell HAM operators to work with them or to shut down. To take over food supplies/transport.

I'm calling bullsh ... er ... "citation needed" on that.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[careysub]

... Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country. The "kill switch" mechanism doesn't shut down the internet. It allows the counter terror people to ask the administration to use that legal power to get on the phone with Twitter and tell them what needs to happen to prevent such use.

And I am sure a scenario very like this is being offered to justify it by its proponents (only in the scenario it will be a nuke, not some measly London-subway TATP devices).

The "ticking bomb" scenario is an old warhorse of an argument used to justify all manner of extra-legal activities and authoritarian measures. Problem is - these scenarios seem to only exist in hypothetical arguments and techno-thriller plots. But the extension of legal powers made under their cover quickly become standard "tools" that are used routinely, and furthermore serve as precedents the next time new coercive measures are considered. That mythical ticking bomb keeps stealing liberties without ever actually existing.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[biek]

Bin Laden? He hasn't won - he wanted us out of the Middle East, only to INCREASE our involvement.

We're afraid of Halal food. We protest the construction of new mosques anywhere they're built. Public figures have openly discussed "freedom of religion -- except for THEM". Americans are absolutely terrified of Islam and to say that OBL didn't win because we're still in the Middle East is just silly, he achieved all these results with just ONE successful coordinated attack. 19 hijackers with boxcutters have had more direct influence over Congress than hundreds of thousands of protesters right in D.C.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[careysub]

Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country.

Or they might do it via cell phone, so you should shut down all cell phones too...

Give the man a cigar! You have nailed this scenario right to the ground with a pile driver. Disposable cell phones are how bombings are coordinated and triggered right now. Not "twitters" via the Internet.

If this is really the problem they want to solve then blanking out all cell phone access is where they should be starting. Since it isn't, one can reasonably suspect that they really don't care about this scenario at all, it is simply a stalking horse, and want the powers for other reasons.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[cayenne8]

Don't leave off:

Manson - Thought he could Helter Skelter...

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[lgw]

Well, the government certainly has equipment that can shut down any ISP (equipment that would connect with the ISP's hardware ... at terminal velocity). The question is, can they do it subtly? Most radio and TV stations can be hijacked by in-place emergency broadcast equipment, but I share your skepticism that the same is true for the major internet carriers.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[mrsmiggs]

Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country. The "kill switch" mechanism doesn't shut down the internet. It allows the counter terror people to ask the administration to use that legal power to get on the phone with Twitter and tell them what needs to happen to prevent such use.

What exactly do you need to legislate for? If there was genuine intel that terrorists were going to use Twitter to arm a device or orchestrate an attack, do you really think that when presented with this information and a request to make changes if order to avert an national catastrophe that Twitter would turn around to the government and tell them to get lost? Even if the data was being transmitted on services outside the US and it required changes at a network infrastructure level to disrupt peering of data from those services, do you really think that a company would turn down a request to make such a change?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[rlglende]

Bin Laden wanted us out of the Middle East only to increase our involvement?

Can you support that?

I thought he said he was going to bankrupt the US via our stupid responses to his minor terrorist acts. Given our $1.5T deficit for the indefinite future, how long do you think we have to wait for our gov to either hyperinflate the currency or default on the national debt?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it.

I think you would be disappointed - Twitter is a corporation, and a US corporation at that.

If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.

He's the commander-in-chief. While I'd hope that the generals would ask the right questions, I have every expectation that they would follow his order if there were - to abuse a phrase - "clear and present danger".

They are trying to make the position of President an Imperial office with no limits on its power.

It is that already - he has control over the military and the ability to issue executive orders. It's a minor miracle that no president has ever defied the rulings of the Supreme Court in any significant way. After all, the Supreme Court has no army and no ability to enact legislation. FDR has openly said that he would have defied them on the bond-gold issue in the 30s, but they ruled in his favor so who knows what would have happened.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

he achieved all these results

But those weren't his objectives. Yes, he caused fear and over-reaction. But his cause is even further from victory than when he started.

There is a cliche here somewhere about everyone losing, I think.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm against that... sounds like prior restraint for a "possible" crime which hasn't actually happened yet.

Where you getting this "hard intel" from, President Mubarak?...

From Wikipedia:
In U.S. law, prior restraint is a form of censorship in which one is prevented, in advance, from communicating certain material, rather than made answerable afterwards. Prior restraint is particularly restrictive because it prevents the forbidden material from being heard or distributed at all. Other restrictions on expression provide sanctions only after the offending material has been communicated, such as suits for slander or libel.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[PiMuNu]

Nb: In UK we've been in a state of emergency for the last 10 years, which has allowed the government to suspend habeas corpus, i.e. permit detention without trial. Formally this was illegal due to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) except in state of emergency. The ECHR, though it has the word European in, was actually invented by the Brits in post WWII era.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened in Egypt goes beyond the power of the bill. That is not to say that government will not twist the facts to make the situation fit the bill or have an extension of the "Patriot Act" that allows the government to use this procedure and call it an act of terrorism.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know. And of course this is a completely useless political idea, like all other useless ideas that come from government. As if revolutions never happened in the pre internet or even pre-telephone era. Can't seem to remember Lenin twittering his followers, or Robespierre approving guillotinings by email, or Cromwell governing by Blackberry...

Careful, thats terrorist speak there, they're gonna shut you down

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[biek]

It doesn't matter that those weren't his objectives. My point was that through a single event he managed to drastically alter America and to say that he "lost" because we're still in the Middle East is just pedantic.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

Can you support that?

First of all, before you make me Google all of this crap that he's said over the years, just think about it: what makes Bin Laden so mad at us? Does he hate us for our freedoms? Doesn't that sound absurd to you? Does he hate us for simply existing?

How about our success? Does he hate that and resent us because we are a big pile of heathens? Why not go after China or India, then - closer to home and not even the same God!

Honestly, these things are absurd without doing any kind of research at all, and when people who are educated enough to know better say these things I question their motives.

Anyway, here is what you asked for:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

        * "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders" (23 February 1998)

We say our terror against America is blessed terror in order to put an end to suppression, in order for the United States to stop its support to Israel.

        * Video statement broadcast on the Arabic-language Al-Jazeera TV station. (26 December 2001)

Just like you kill us, we will kill you.

        * Audiotape aired on Al-Jazeera (12 November 2002)

And to directly contradict your assertion:

Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example.

        * Videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV as reported by BBC (29 October 2004)

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

to say that he "lost" because we're still in the Middle East is just pedantic.

I'd say it is pretty much central to the statement "Face it, the terrorists have won", which is what I was replying to. They certainly have not.

Have we won? I'd argue that we have not.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Thud457]

Nah, the MBAs did a pretty thorough job of ruining air travel before teh terrerorsts even got in the game.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[budgenator]

Our network at work kept going down at irregular intervals and with no readily apparent reason. Finally it went down and stayed down, so I had to figure it out. I was auditing all of the connections to the network switch and patchblock to insure every every device that we thought was where it was really was there. Then I stumbled across the problem the cable from the router to the internet to the network switch had a loose cable and the router could transmit to the network but not recieve so it went along and DOSed the network every time the cable jiggled wrong. Now consider if a home-grade router/NAT box can bring a 100BaseTX to it's knees what could a government-grade router do to the internet backbone?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[flyneye]

That is , of course ,the scenario you describe as the one being sold to us by slimeball politicians, like a used car. I think the article is asking for a comparative inspection of the possibility of an Egyptian style blackout. Yes, I believe in the end our two sided one party politicians will do whatever they want to in order to keep ANY government disapproved of (especially Assange transparency style) communications quiet.
          I quote "access across the region began plummeting ultimately leading to a five-day blackout. The question remains.. could the same approach be taken in the US? ?
          In which case I suppose the answer to the question " what is the internet vs. a network ?" in this case is " your private networks will be cut off from each other and everything that would allow you to tweet about it save for enabling a dialup or wifi connection to your buddys net and then you won't be tweeting about it anyway.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so what about those providers who have multiple sites around the world?

If Twitter has a site outside of the US, and the US compels them to shut down in the US, and they said 'ok, cool', and bring up the secondary site outside of US legal jurisdiction, what's the US going to do about that? If this bill passes, I certainly wouldn't stupid enough to maintain a presence only in the US.

Of course, if they just send the MIB's and explain to the network engy's and the sysadmins that there's going to be an unscheduled emergency maintenance....

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

LET ME HELP YOU WITH THAT... HAM radio is licensed. It is not a right.
See also: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars
By the way... if you happen to be driving by a wildfire a federal offical can order you to work a fireline, without pay, indefinitely, and without legal recourse.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[ScentCone]

do you really think that a company would turn down a request to make such a change?

Well, this web site features a non-stop parade of people complaining that companies have shown a willingness to help out with CT matters. If they are legally compelled to, it straightens that issue out. Doesn't mean the people with that power will always make the right call, or be working with what turns out to be good intel, or be people that voters shouldn't replace at their first opportunity.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do we do if they get issued calendars and watches, with a preplanned date and time?

Maybe we ought to include a "kill switch" provision on those too...

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yessssss.... Word.

Very well put. That is the trick our goverment has learned to use going back at least to the enactment of the statute created by RICO. Originally, RICO was drafted by Congress to go after the mafia, and to that end, RICO allows the government to sidestep certain personal liberties (related to criminal procedure), all in the name of stopping La Cosa Nostra.

But although the public policy behind RICO was to target organized crime, because of its success, other law enforcement agencies started to create RICO cases against criminal targets that had nothing to do with the actual intent of the statute. This was essentially allowed because the definition of organized crime was overtly broad, and further the courts chose to allow this interpretation because it did in fact bring down some real bad guys (like the inside traders of the the 1980s for example). But unfortunately, this had lead to our government using RICO in too many situations, situations where the Constitution provides certain rights, yet RICO could get around these rights. If this sounds familiar to you, you may be thinking of the famously mis-named Patriot Act, which was enacted with even more urgency than RICO was, and because RICO paved the way in defining "organized crime", our leaders (many or most anyway of those involved in drafting the Patriot Act) knew they was power to be had by deliberately defining "terrorism" or a "terrorist", the same broad manner.

I think you can draw your own conclusions from this point when evaluating the merits of an "internet kill switch".

Don't open the door, as it will only get bigger.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

The legacy of these powers do not make them all necessarily right.

This quote of Ben Franklin has been over-used and some people almost view it as a platitude -- but this is because the quote assumes the reader understands how fragile liberty is... But these days no one even notices when a right if taken away from us.

"Those willing to sacrifice a little bit of liberty for increased security deserve neither" (this may be somewhat paraphrased because its from memory, but this if the essence of it.)

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bin Laden? He hasn't won - he wanted us out of the Middle East,
> only to INCREASE our involvement.

Err, no. He wanted garrisoned US forces to leave Saudi Arabia, which they did five years ago. He won his victory.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[metacell]

Both parties are "Wrong". Haven't you heard of "voting for the lesser of two evils"? :)

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day, someone will be using Twitter or Gmail to issue timing commands to a bunch of people ready to drop off backpack bombs on metro trains in half a dozen large cities around the country.

Surely once you have hard intelligence about definite imminent threats, the security services should be in a position to arrest the would-be terrorists?

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

Bin Laden originally wanted US troops out of Saudi Arabia (following the first Gulf War) as he found it an affront for non-Miuslim troops to be stationed in the same country as Mecca. There are now no US troops in Saudi Arabia, so I suppose Bin Laden could say he had won that argument..

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

So called democracies only elect crooks.

Yeah, fuck it, let's abandon elected government and just give all the power to giant corporations instead, they're much more accountable and honest.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

If Obama called Twitter and asked them to pull the plug I would hope with every fiber of my being that they would tell him to stuff it. If he told the military to do it I would also hope to God that they would refuse the order.

You have an odd view of the world if you think the military are defenders of freedom. Their job is to provide security and support the decisions/orders of the Executive branch - it would have to be an extremely odd order for them to refuse to follow it (e.g. being asked to nuke an obvious ally).

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

You mean, like during the Mumbai attacks, when the guys killing civilians were using cell phones to coordinate what they were doing? Once you find out that's what's in play, do you not see value in being able to direct the carrier to shut down the tower they're using?

I don't think that shutting off their mobile phone access would have caused them to drop their weapons and give up, somehow, even if you'd done it the second they started firing.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

This is the problem with approaching any kind of battle from the perspective of the police: police seek to control a situation, warriors seek to turn it to their advantage. Who cares if the enemy is talking if you can listen in to the conversation? Make use of it, then kill them with their own weapons.

Oddly enough, in civilised societies the police are separate from the military, and are not primarily "warriors".

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[tehcyder]

In most places in the world, if a government declares a state of emergency they can do pretty much what they please, including sending in the military to shoot looters, so they're hardly going to balk at requisitioning food/transport/radios if necessary.

But no doubt the US is different, as you are a federal republic rather than an effete/fascist democracy..

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[JWW]

I don't think it is odd to have the opinion that if the US military were asked to take over a private company within the US that they would refuse the order.

The military is supposed to provide for the common defence, not be an enforcement arm for the executive branches wishes within the country.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[MightyYar]

He won that battle, but will he win the war? :)

Sounds like a movie trailer.

Re:What is the internet verses a network?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government already has, and has long had the power to [do a bunch of things] in an emergency. [....] Wouldn't you rather it was clearly spelled out, and there were rules that an executive had to follow, including chain of events, documentation, etc?

I think I have to answer no, that it's impossible to clearly spell out the rules for an "emergency", because by definition the kind of "emergency" we're talking about is one where the predefined rules have, for some reason, failed.

Can't say no definitively

[DoofusOfDeath]

With the NSA (and others?) having the power to issue National Security Letters, we really don't know what the truth is regarding anything in this matter.

Re:Can't say no definitively

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true, who knows how much control they already have over the US version of our "internet"

Re:Can't say no definitively

[ISoldat53]

Would this take a Kill Bill?

Re:Can't say no definitively

[TheCarp]

Sure we do.... we know how networks connect. Sure, they can try it... but I suspect that for every hour that the internet is down, hundreds of new connections come online. The damage will be healed, and connectivity will slowly be restored.... it may not be fast, it may not be great, and it make take time, but it will be enough to let the world know what they are doing to us.

Re:Can't say no definitively

[Anonymous Coward]

For reference (though as I'm posting anon for this, it's not going to get read anyway):

National Security Letters can be issued by the Department of Justice (FBI), various DoD investigative agencies (DIS), CIA (SIS), Secret Service, and DHS (ICE), as well as a smattering of smaller agencies which have never actually used the ability.

The NSA, while constantly condemned as the bogeyman of government secrecy, specifically doesn't have this ability. If they want something taken down, they'll have to call buddies at DIS or SIS to do it.

Re:Can't say no definitively

[Anonymous Coward]

If the companies who have the peering arrangements comply and decide not to peer with you... Not really, in fact not at all. You'd need to run your own fibre to make that work, and good luck with that. A company like L3's more inclined to listen to the government, no matter how retarded they're being, than risk serious criminal charges for disobeying and opening new peering routes.

Re:Can't say no definitively

[TheCarp]

Define "make that work".

I am not talking about restoring full access to every home. Look at egypt... the few people who were able to setup links became information hubs. Able to get information out on twitter or facebook, or get it to someone outside who can.

Sure, restoration of full, high bandwidth service... probably not happening. However, as long as some service remains, it is something to use, and build on...and the more they use the kill switch, the better those ad hoc systems will get.

Re:Can't say no definitively

[colinrichardday]

Only if our legislators are as cute as Uma Thurman!

cyber-security needs to be defined

[Anonymous Coward]

If they do it cyber security must mean from an outside or foreign source. It cannot mean social unrest and it cannot be used because the ones in power are afraid of losing said power. Selling it to us under the guise of "national security" but using it for "paycheck security" are two completely different things.

The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.

Free flow of information is a requirement for having a democracy.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[MickyTheIdiot]

Exactly. I don't know how these congresscritters can talk about this with a straight face after what happened in Egypt.

Anyway, to answer the original question, isn't a "kill switch" only feasible in a country that requires all traffic to go through some government-sponsored filtering system? We certainly don't want THAT in this country. There too much traffic for that, anyway.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[pilgrim23]

but... We are the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave... The song says so every sporting event. And the "Kill Switch" Idea came to the front because a Tyrant was doing his best to limit his people's calls for liberty and freedom. Is it just me or do Congresscritters think all Americans are extra special stupid? or. maybe they are right...and they are?

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Anonymous Coward]

You suggest that our corporate overlords want something as inefficient as a functioning democracy in the U.S., perhaps? You, sir, must be an optimist!

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[LWATCDR]

Excuse me? But who? What? I have heard prosecution but no official call for the death penalty. But then I have heard people say that Bush should have been shot but they where not serious so it was okay correct?

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[TubeSteak]

Anyway, to answer the original question, isn't a "kill switch" only feasible in a country that requires all traffic to go through some government-sponsored filtering system?

No.
What we think happened is that Egypt called up the 5 or 6 ISPs in the country and said "SHUT. EVERYTHING. DOWN"
All this talk of a Kill Switch is just legalese for giving the government lawful authority to order shut downs.

President Obama could do the same thing tomorrow, he just wouldn't have any legal cover for it.
I personally find it troubling that so many powers we once gave the government only in a state of war/emergency are becoming part and parcel of normal government operations.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[MightyMartian]

There are choke points, nonetheless. The government might not be capable of an absolute shutdown like we saw in Burma or Egypt, but they might be able to cripple the Internet to the point where, for the large bulk of people, it simply won't work.

That being said, there are ways around it, older technologies like HAM radio, satellite, PPP, UUCP and the like, not to mention newer technologies like mesh networking, that could, while not restoring the Internet as we know it, be good enough to get data in and out. I'd love to see someone develop a mesh network or better ad hoc standards on top of the new WiFi standards, that you could link up to any available backbone. Yes, you might kill getting large amounts of data outside the United States, but the government couldn't simply shut down the whole show. Remember, the underlying protocols were designed to route around closed doors. You might kill THE INTERNET, but you couldn't kill Internets.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Anonymous Coward]

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and ex-Pentagon official KT McFarland were among those claiming the guilty party should face execution for putting national security at risk by leaking the inflammatory information.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8172916/WikiLeaks-guilty-parties-should-face-death-penalty.html
  maybe learning to use a search engine would help.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[TheCarp]

I disagree.... I think it will be the biggest threat for authoritarianism.

There are enough people in the US that know how to setup networks. If they turn on the kill switch, how many people in this country are going to be.... within hours (it not minutes) be working on ways to get new links up and to circumvent it in any way possible? The more they use it, the longer it stays on, the more resistance we build to it.

Let them use their antibiotic, they will merely pave the way for resistance. Also, how many jobs require networks and the internet to be functioning? Many! The longer it is on, the more people in the streets!

So I say.... bring it on! Lets see how quickly they can go the way of Tunisia! Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[denissmith]

Technically the US Government would adopt rules that require switch manufacturers to include features that would allow the government to assume control in an 'emergency'. Phone companies are required to keep call logs and allow wiretaps, it would extend the same model. In normal day to day operation there would be no filtering. Or maybe only the filtering that the MPAA requested. If the authorities ever felt threatened in a way that was construed as 'national security' they would kick in their control. They would not do a complete shutdown like Egypt, in all likelihood. They might route all DNS requests to servers they controlled and you would get 404 messages to sites you visit that are being taken off-line. Stuff like that. Right now, no - they don't have that control, but if they require it in the infrastructure it will go in without a whiff of protest from the manufacturers. They would see increased sales and price rises. And the Iranians would be happy because they could upgrade, too, and take advantage of easier friendlier control of information. The real point for me is something I heard Steven Breyer say once on a roundtable discussion. "The first thing I ask when someone wants to hide information is 'Why?'" Basically, if the government - ours or Egypt's or any other - feels it needs to take control of information to keep control of its citizenry it is almost by definition admitting its own illegitimacy.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more curious to know if anyone is actually doing research on these supposed 'cyber-security' scenarios they keep muttering on about.

Is the NSA, DIA, CIA, LANL... Is anyone doing simulations or modeling on massive DDOS attacks, poisoned BGP broadcasts, wide-scale DNS hi-jacking, wide-scale fiber-hub disruptions (see colo. sabotage), or any of these in conjunction? If anyone is, I sure as hell would like to see the report, and promptly shove it into our elected officials face when they bring this crap to podium. It's almost as if they're suggesting a 'kill-switch' for the sake of suggestion, rather than having it as a useful tool to prevent widescale communications disruption. Which, given the present fluctuations in the solar cycle, 1 C.M.E. could do far worse damage to our entire electronics infrastructure, rather than just the net. Where is the 'infrastructure kill-switch' for that, seeing as THAT kind of event could very well put us back a 100 years!

Our elected officials truly have their cerebrums firmly planted up their excrement cavities!!

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[LWATCDR]

So two people that are not in congress, not elected officials, and currently not in government employ stated an opinion?
Shocking! I tell you what will be next it is the end of all freedom when two people with no official standing can publicly say such an opinion!

So as I said, I have heard not official call for the death penalty have you?

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Hatta]

Giving the same people who would put a man to death for letting someone speak out about what the US is actually up to, the power to shut down communications, is only good for those people, not the rest of the population.

There's no "giving" here. The Obama administration claims that they already have that authority under section 706 of the Communications Act. Here is the relevant part, with emphasis added:

(d) Upon proclamation by the President that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States, the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of the national security and defense, may, during a period ending not later than six months after the termination of such state or threat of war and not later than such earlier date as the Congress by concurrent resolution may designate,

            (1) suspend or amend the rules and regulations applicable to any or all facilities or stations for wire communication within the jurisdiction of the United States as prescribed by the Commission,

            (2) cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication and the removal therefrom of its apparatus and equipment, or

            (3) authorize the use or control of any such facility or station and its apparatus and equipment by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe, upon just compensation to the owners.

Considering that we are in an endless state of war, the president could exercise this authority at any time.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[sorak]

Could I recomend one*?

* Warning NSFW

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Dale512]

"Egypt called up the 5 or 6 ISPs in the country and said "SHUT. EVERYTHING. DOWN"" So, Egypt is Madagascar now?

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[corbettw]

I don't always agree with you, but this time I'm 100% with you.

Oh, and you need to update your sig. Slashdot 3.0 sucks even worse.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[metrometro]

> government-sponsored filtering system. We certainly don't want THAT in this country. There too much traffic for that, anyway.

We're already there. Exactly how many options do you have to buy broadband service? I have two, and both are companies that will gladly toss any single user under the bus to avoid tangling with a bunch of (usually corporate, sometimes government) lawyers.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[KZigurs]

Exactly. Shut down a couple of backbone links (5 mins*) and the rest of the network will be immediately (2-3s) saturated enough to become unusable (from TCP perspective). While the wider internet tries to react (drop youtube traffic, expand peer arrangements, manually reroute stuff - 2-3h once it's clear core is down**) - plenty of time to go after core peering points in major cities.

Lather, rinse and repeat.

* Assumes that LE knows that they will need to action this at least 30 mins beforehand.
** Actually assumes that DR plans exist, which is ... optimistic.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[mikael]

My college campus once tried "privatizing" their campus network to the student dorms. Students were expected to pay rental to a startup company in order to get telephone and internet service. Rather not surprisingly, the students took to setting up their own networks using wi-fi routers and cheapernet cables hung from window to window, along with mobile phones for communication. The campus managers had to restore free service.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[NetSettler]

Perhaps they should just slow the net down in that case, since it's really speed that's the problem. Things happen too fast in an attack so if you can just make things run in slow-motion, you have time to act. Oh, wait, we already have a way to slow things down: We can just give up on net neutrality. Then we'll have slowness built into at least part of the system from the get-go--no need for a switch. At first it will be a bummer being on the slow net and envying the guys on the fast net getting data back and forth at lightning speed, but when viruses get released, they'll go first to the people on the fast net and the "little people" on the slow net can just sit and watch and take notes, so that eventually when the virus traffic "trickles down," they'll be ready, not to mention thankful to have the premium people out there on the front lines as the First Adopters for the virusware. (Yeah, I'm just kidding, but...)

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[MightyMartian]

We have to consider two different aspects of the Internet. One is the global aspect. The US government could most certainly render outside connections unstable and largely unusable by going after the major chokepoints. Beyond that, killing the root DNSs would render the whole thing dead for John Q. User. But for those with the technical ability, and in a population of over 300 million there are going to be a fairly large number of those people in large cities, and bound to be a few in smaller centers, who will still be able to overcome those problems, either to use existing infrastructure or to create ad hoc networks via WiFi, HAM radio or whatever. That kind of network the government couldn't shut down unless it got so medieval that it ceased to be even a fake democracy like Egypt (I'm thinking along the lines of truly authoritarian dictatorships here). And even getting news across the border would still be possible via HAM radio and custom radio gear (krikes, we could have friggin' Dorito's antennas out there). The level of technical prowess in a modern Western nation makes the kind of control found even in Egypt impossible. Hell, I've know a four or five guys myself over the years who radio and HAM expertise who would look on such a thing as a goddamned challenge. You have an entire generation of tech-savvy network admins and radio enthusiasts with the skills and equipment to set up their own damned network based on all those nice open protocols that Uncle Sam so nicely started developing and paying for forty-odd years ago.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[zemkai]

You have a LOT more faith in people than I do. Most talk the talk, but when the time comes are afraid to actually resist, it's "Yeah, I could do it, but I don't want to get in trouble."

The truth is that most people just want to get through their day without being harassed. If it isn't their own door getting kicked down, very few people will do anything at all to rock the boat.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Dan541]

This is also where the right to bear arms comes in handy.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[Anonymous Coward]

He's referencing Manning, not Assange.

Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat

[LWATCDR]

I have not seen any official call for Manning to face the death penalty. But if Manning did leak those documents and he says he didn't so let us not declare him guilty then he is guilty of violating his oath and disobeying legal orders. No one seriously thinks he will get the death penalty.

I sure hope not

[chargersfan420]

Speaking as a non-American, I'd be pretty choked if my access to sites hosted in America were cut off. How would I get to read /.?

In all seriousness, could anyone give me an example of why a kill switch might need to be used in America for practical purposes? The only scenario that comes to my mind is one which involves a corrupt government attempting to cling to what little power they have left in the midst of a revolution, not unlike how things are going in Egypt.

Re:I sure hope not

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess there's the scenario (plausible or not) that the US claims that a foreign nation or terrorist group is "Cyber-attacking" the US.

Re:I sure hope not

[Wyatt Earp]

I could see it happening if there was an all out attack on military, financial and government networks from overseas addresses.

The government(s) here in the US are too large and distributed in my opinion to ever have to cling to power.

Look at recent history, G.W. Bush the most reviled president since Nixon, who had the cabinet of arch villains in the eyes of many people, he stepped aside when his term was over, as did Cheney. Hell Nixon gave it up without a shot fired.

If individuals like LBJ, Nixon and both the Bushes go without a struggle, what corrupt administration would ever stay on through chaos so bad they need the internet turned off?

Re:I sure hope not

[metalmaster]

Elmer Fudd might become president(he meets all the criteria + we already had Bush v2.0) and Bugs Bunny uses social media to convince everyone that its rabbit season. Daffy Duck, his VP of course, might call a foul and shut down twitter and xanga games for all US citizens.

Re:I sure hope not

[metalmaster]

err....duck season!

Re:I sure hope not

[RazzleFrog]

That is the big difference between "US" and "THEM". We stage mini-revolutions every couple of years and have term limits that limit the top guy to 8 years. And since at any given moment half the population hates the current president it is pretty safe to say that one declaring himself supreme leader for the rest of his life is pretty slim.

Re:I sure hope not

[MightyMartian]

I tend to agree. In reality, however, it's never those kinds of leaders you have to worry about. The reason Brutus and Co. were freaked out about Julius Caesar wasn't because he was such a shitty, evil autocratic leader, but because he was an incredibly competent, popular autocratic leader.

I'd be more worried about some future FDR than I would about a GWB or a Nixon. The latter type of leader always self-destruct one way or the other. The popular, charismatic leaders, those are the dangerous ones.

Still, despite the bumps and exceptions, by and large the United States is a nation based on the rule of law. It truly is inconceivable to imagine a president trying to hang on or give himself the kind of powers that Mubarak has (or had, he seems to be pretty impotent now). In large part that's because the Founding Fathers, being almost peerless political scientists, created a competitive system. Sure, Congress will kiss Presidential ass (and visa versa sometimes) during national crises real and imagined, but do you actually think Congress would just hand anyone, even a man who wears the same sweater as the majority of them, unlimited power? No way, and not because they would want to preserve democracy blah blah blah, but simply because many of them in their own way are as power hungry as any given president.

Re:I sure hope not

[Wyatt Earp]

Even if we had a three party system, it'd still be 30-30-30 with 10% swinging around deciding the election.

Difference between the US system and a parliamentary system is - when we have a Republican Revolution, Democrats taking back Congress in '2006 or the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, it doesn't throw everything up into the air for three or four or six months. For example, does Belgium even have a government formed yet?

Re:I sure hope not

[RazzleFrog]

Adding to my own post...

The very fact that we even CAN discuss this and protest against it before it has even become more than a glimmer in some nutty congressman's eye is another reason why we are different. These things are openly discussed in other countries.

The other thing that distinguishes is our diversity. Even with the crazy tea party religious fanatics taking some seats there is only so far they can go before the sane people start pushing back. In some countries - the religious fanatics are the only party available.

**By "we" I mean not just the US but all "free" nations. Some are even better that this than we are and I admit that openly.

Re:I sure hope not

[RazzleFrog]

I don't think you'll ever even see an FDR again. Even as popular as someone like Reagan had enough people who hated him to keep him from changing the term limits. People have too much information about people nowadays to be so easily bamboozled by charismatic leaders.

Re:I sure hope not

[Wyatt Earp]

RE the Roman Nobles and Caesar, reading Syme's the Roman Revolution really was eye opening in regards to the divisions in Roman society and the post Sulla Roman Governments and who was the "good" guy and the "bad" guy (Octavian).

Someone with LBJ's megalomania or Nixon's diplomacy and scheming coupled with FDR or Clinton's everyman charisma would be very dangerous. Mix Clinton and Nixon in a lab and you'd create a monster.

Re:I sure hope not

[countertrolling]

...he stepped aside when his term was over, as did Cheney. Hell Nixon gave it up without a shot fired...

But the old guard bureaucrats of over 40 years still have their jobs with all the perks and power. Old money still pulls the strings. Politicians come and go, and government just keeps on doing what it has always been doing.

Re:I sure hope not

[MightyMartian]

The problem in the late Republic was that the Senate did not represent a meaningful check on the authority of the Triumvirates or any of the other dictatorial formulation. Certainly during transitions in power the Senate could have a huge influence (and continued to even into the Empire), but all in all the underlying structure of the Republic lent itself to being overwhelmed. They tried to stop the trend towards out-and-out monarchy by killing Julius Caesar, but all that did was spark civil war and instability that lead to the collapse of the Second Triumvirate and to monarchy.

The Founding Fathers were very aware of the example of the Roman Republic and knew that however they formulated the Executive (and there were different ideas, even to the point of creating a new monarchy) that the Continental Congress would have to have some substantial powers to assure that an errant or even megalomaniac Executive couldn't simply pull an Octavian and seize power.

Re:I sure hope not

[Wyatt Earp]

We let the old guard bureaucrats keep their jobs between administrations to keep the government from becoming totally inefficient and to keep the incoming administration from loading it up with cronies, like Grant did.

While there should be more firing of incompetent bureaucrats, throwing out everyone and replacing them every 4 to 8 years would be too much of a pain in the ass. Half the term would be filled with interviews and background checks.

Re:I sure hope not

[MightyMartian]

The creation of Presidential term limits effectively closed the door, I think, on any kind of American Octavian or Hitler rising (and note, I'm not saying FDR was like those guys, and I don't think those who formulated the 22nd Amendment were saying that either. But everyone had just fought a damned bloody war against absolutist dictators who had used or abused their constitutions to gain perpetual office.

For a President to pull off throwing out the 22nd Amendment is really quite inconceivable. I don't know how a President would do it, how the states or Congress would ever let it happen. The Founding Fathers made sure that there had to be pretty widespread support for amendments, and I can't really think of any time in US history (not even during WWII) that any President commanded that kind of support, or that the opposition wasn't just biding its time, perhaps holding its tongue out of fear of pissing off voters, but certainly not willing to pass some American version of the Enabling Act.

Re:I sure hope not

[Wyatt Earp]

And the Judicial branch acting as a check on the Executive and Legislative has been a great boon to the stability of the United States.

A powerful Judiciary in the late Roman Republic (or a constitution that was written down), would have greatly helped with stability and the power struggles.

Re:I sure hope not

[mikael]

The claim was that they would have to shut down video streaming traffic in order to make space for public sector/private-sector E-mail correspondence. This was compared to clearing the freeways of private traffic when a national disaster had occurred like an earthquake.

Re:I sure hope not

[careysub]

I tend to agree. In reality, however, it's never those kinds of leaders you have to worry about. The reason Brutus and Co. were freaked out about Julius Caesar wasn't because he was such a shitty, evil autocratic leader, but because he was an incredibly competent, popular autocratic leader.

I'd be more worried about some future FDR than I would about a GWB or a Nixon. The latter type of leader always self-destruct one way or the other. The popular, charismatic leaders, those are the dangerous ones.

MOD UP AS INSIGHTFUL!

Re:I sure hope not

[lee1026]

Abe Lincoln's actions to shut down rebel organizing in Maryland was quite dubious legally. If the internet kill switch existed in his day, he would certainly have used it.

after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Dan667]

and seeing that this keeps being brought up this is a very bad sign for Democracy. It must not be allowed in the US.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[loony]

I can't remember anyone recently claiming that the US was a democracy... House members voting against what their constituents want, presidents signing clearly unconstitutional bills into law and the supreme court refusing to hear important cases? Just cause the president belongs to the democratic party, doesn't mean our formerly great country is still a democracy...

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[cforciea]

House members voting against what their constituents want

You do know what a representative democracy is, right? Hint: it isn't the same thing as a direct democracy.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Tr3vin]

Unfortunately, you just need a good portion of people in a democracy to think it is a good idea. I see it as very easy for politicians to gain support from their constituents. Even Mubarak has his supporters, and I guarantee that many of them saw the internet being shut down as necessary to keep stability and peace.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Bucky24]

You are correct. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Dan667]

I think you mean control.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[TheCarp]

Well.... do we really need to review the differences between democracy and republic again? I thought everyone knew that this was a republic, which tends to be a form of aristocracy. It has its pros and cons over a direct democracy, and tends to be a bit better at some areas of protecting fundamental rights... at least the ones explicitly stated in the constitution end up having SOME protection (if not as much as we would like).

In a simple democracy, you could expect radical changes in policy after every news story. Most people really don't pay enough attention to have a really useful opinion. However, this obscures the fact that many issues are so complicated that nobody actually has a really useful opinion. I think this is a larger problem, since... well... thats the situation where the bureaucrats really flourish.

My thoughts tend to run like this.... the US has a good.... lets say.... first draft. There are some rights that have been well protected. I regularly spout off about overthrow of the government, and nobody has come knocking on my door yet (well this one democrat did, but she was just stumping for the governor... and boy did she leave unsatisfied)

Direct democracy could probably be implemented and work in very small scales. A community level, or a commune level, or household, or whatever you want to call it. However, its only democracy if its actually voluntary. If I can't effectively leave (lets face it "leave the country" is of big enough scope and has enough issues to be a ridiculous remedy to suggest, but, "move to another town or city", is way more reasonable). A captive democracy just degenerates into the tyranny of the 51%.

Democracy really works best when all of its participants are interested and involved. That ONLY works at a level that has a relatively small scope.

Republics work at a much larger scale and, with proper limits on their power, can do much better at protecting the minority rights. As someone said "the liberty to do what everyone approves of is not liberty". The problem that I see is that they were never limited enough, and have way overstepped their intended role to the point that they have become a sort of limited tyranny.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Tr3vin]

Don't get me wrong, I call it control. Supporters for a controlling party never really think of it as control. Things are just going their way. From their perspective, they are protecting whatever lifestyle they are used to.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know what a representative democracy is, right?

Yes. It's a catchphrase that Republic governments use to sell the idea that they haven't become outdated.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[MightyMartian]

It's a representative democracy, and intentionally so. The Founding Fathers were learned men who knew that direct democracies could all too easily fall into mobocracy. As much as they wanted to assure the majority will, they were also interested in preventing a tyranny of the majority (which is why, for instance, they created the Electoral College to select Presidents rather than a simple popular vote, to make sure that even in the process of choosing the Executive the will of the majority was tempered).

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

You are incorrect. The US is a Federal Republic. Big difference.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[amxcoder]

Important correction: Our country is NOT, and was NEVER a "Democracy" in the first place. It is a REPUBLIC, big difference. If your read the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, both refer to the United States specifically as a Republic. Venezuela (ran by Hugo Chavez) is considered a "Democracy". Usually when a country or a leader calls their country a "Democracy" it us usually code word for "Communist/Fascist" governments like the example given as well as Korea and East Germany (at one time). However, either way, the slum in Washington are supposed to represent our wishes and NOT force their desires on us... I think they prefer we think of it as a "Democracy" so they can assume it means the "Communist" kind which is what they are trying for right now.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Bucky24]

Actually we are both right :) "The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" [Wikipedia]

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Anonymous Coward]

> Democracy really works best when all of its participants are interested and involved.
> That ONLY works at a level that has a relatively small scope.

Such as, for example, ALL OF SWITZERLAND.

Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt

[Hognoxious]

Important correction: Our country is NOT, and was NEVER a "Democracy" in the first place. It is a REPUBLIC, big difference.

The two concepts are completely independent.

Here's your homework: draw a Venn diagram and put Sweden, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Cuba in the appropriate areas.

My girlfriend accuses me of doing that once a day

[PolygamousRanchKid]

She: "Did you do something to the Internet? It's not working."

Me: "Yes, that's one of my superpowers from the radioactive spider bite and gamma ray treatment. I can turn off the Internet at will."

Now I can say:

"Oh, that's just the Obama daughters, playing with the Internet Kill Switch in the White House."

No, this will not happen in the Land of the Free!

[Anonymous Coward]

...oh, never mind.

Egypt would only be a taste

[SethThresher]

I think that if the US government shut down the American internet, then what happened in Egypt may be rapidly eclipsed by the way things would break down across the country. So many critical systems rely at least somewhat on the internet, I can hardly imagine the sheer outrage of the people most affected by the loss of critical systems, to say the least of the mob rage of all the people who can't surf tv tropes et all.

Re:Egypt would only be a taste

[Wyatt Earp]

States would see that as a failure of the Federal Government and there would be another succession movement.

The mobs wouldn't be about the TV, it would be the mobs who expect and need Federal services.

Up here in Alaska, we'd be easy to cut off, cut the undersea cable connections on the Oregon and Washington coast and kill the satellite data links. GCI and ACS probably would be able to jump on Pacific and Asian satellite links though.

Re:Egypt would only be a taste

[zero0ne]

Businesses would come to a halt.

Internet goes down... you would have mullions that first call their ISPs 1-800 number, but because the ISP outsourced their customer service, the 1-800 number isn't working because that company has no internet for VoIP, looking up case numbers, access to e-mail, access to critical customer databases, etc.

It would be a endless spiral downwards as more and more people realize it was shutdown by the government.

Re:Egypt would only be a taste

[Hognoxious]

Sarah Palin would be OK, she can connect to Russian WiFi hotspots from her house.

Inconceivable!

[Eggplant62]

I thought the First Amendment to the Constitution prevented the government from limiting speech in any way, shape or form. I guess not.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Wyatt Earp]

The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech does not apply to sedition or revolution against the United States or "Imminent lawless action".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_v._United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Re:Inconceivable!

[Dunbal]

"Nowhere is liberty spoken of more than in the place where it has ceased to exist. " -- the French Revolution.

Re:Inconceivable!

[LWATCDR]

Why would you think that? Every discusion of the First Amendment starts off with the limits of protected speech starting with the classic shouting fire in a crowded theater.
You can not threaten people. For example someone can not send you threatening email or call you constantly. That is called harassment.
There are limits to how close Right to Life groups can protest to Abortion Provider location.
Someone can not say that they know for a fact that you rape little children unless they actually do know that for a fact.
And you can not broadcast music or commercials over an Amateur radio.

Exactly which of these limitations do you have a problem with?
Usually this is covered at around the 5th grade level civics class but at least by high school.
I really do wonder about the people that post on Slashdot.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can march on Washington DC which is a form of free speech. The government still holds the right to close all the roads, stop all the flights, and stop all the trains to Washington DC without impeding your free speech.

Re:Inconceivable!

[gewalker]

Well, you were certainly deluded or disingenuous. This country does not allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater for jollies, engage in libel or slander, publish child pornography, fraudulent financial statements, or classified information. etc -- You will find no evidence that these things were intended for protection in anything written by the founders.

The primary original intent of the free speech clause was to protect freedom political speech. Religious, Economic, Literature, etc. were also intended based on other writings by the founders. It was not intended as carte blanche for all conceivable forms of expression. Recents courts have historically taken an encompassing view of the free speech clause, but clearly not all-encompassing (i.e., the exceptions I stated above)

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a problem with all of them.

Re:Inconceivable!

[guruevi]

That's very funny because I believe the constitution was written up to allow for sedition and revolution against the established governments.

Re:Inconceivable!

[BitZtream]

You are most certainly wrong, there are many 100% legitimate ways that speech is 'limited' in the world.

A simple example would be that you have no right to free speech in my home. You certainly have the right to not be in my home, but while there I get to control the speech, like it or not.

You can't run your mouth in a courtroom unless the judge recognizes you.

The right to free speech doesn't mean you get carte blanche to say whatever you want, sorry.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which BTW, has no legal standing.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Wyatt Earp]

Really? Where in the United States Constitution does it allow for sedition and revolt?

The US Government passed it's first anti-sedition and anti-free speech laws in 1798 with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which wasn't reviewed or overturned by the Supreme Court.

The United States government decided in 1861 that revolution against the government was illegal and the Supreme Court upheld that a state can't legally leave the Union.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Rude Turnip]

"Really? Where in the United States Constitution does it allow for sedition and revolt?"

Everyone, please, get this in your head: The Constitution DOES NOT ALLOW ANYTHING. It puts limits on the powers of the government to make restrictions.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Hatta]

The Supreme Court is wrong.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Hatta]

Moral standing is better than legal standing.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Hatta]

So? The legitimacy of any government depends on the consent of the people. For consent to be valid, it must be given freely, which also means that it can be withdrawn. Any laws that prohibit a group of people from withdrawing their consent to be governed are therefore illegitimate.

It's not that the Constitution prohibits laws against sedition. It's that valid laws against sedition are a logical impossibility.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly which of these limitations do you have a problem with?

non-sequitur. The topic is government writing its own rules to get around the ones that protect its citizens from tyranny. That is VERY different than shouting fire in a theater. Yes, I realize the comment you're replying to thought it was unlimited, but the overall issue about a 'kill switch' has to do with limits on government power.

Usually this is covered at around the 5th grade level civics class but at least by high school.
I really do wonder about the people that post on Slashdot.

who cares when/if it was covered. It's not relevant. Just because you learn something in school doesn't mean its true, ESPECIALLY in civics classes. I wonder about the people who keep conflating what is with what possibly should be whenever it's necessary to ignore what was said so they can feel better about their weakened position/ideology. My favorite version of this is the 'well, it's the law' retort to a discussion concerning what-if legal changes.

Re:Inconceivable!

[dkleinsc]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why would you think that? Every discusion of the First Amendment starts off with the limits of protected speech starting with the classic shouting fire in a crowded theater."

That is, and always has been, a flawed argument. First, drop the "every" from "every discussion". You reveal your ignorance. Also, why mention, "5th grade level civics". We didn't have a "civics" class, per se, and grade standards vary by time and location. You reveal your lack of sophistication with that argument.

Now to the meat of that matter. The analogy is flawed and the decision in which it was used was not upheld. It used as an example by ignorant types. Like those who say "irregardless"...

Re:Inconceivable!

[LWATCDR]

Yes the person seemed to think that the law was unlimited and that is what I was replying too. As to being non-sequitur not really. Once the concept that limits to free speech are allowable when those limits protect members of the population from harm you can take the next step in the discussion.
What "controls" are the internet are they talking about? What conditions will trigger those controls?
For instance if an ISP was the source of attacks at vital infrastructure would it be allowable for the government to isolate that ISP from the rest of the internet?
If an attack was coming from outside the US would it be allowable to isolate the US from internet traffic from outside the US?
While nobody should think that it is correct to shut off the internet because someone says that Bush or Obama shouldn't be president there are situations where limiting access to parts of it would be prudent. Just as in time of war means of travel and other means of communications can be limited.
And the argument that it can be abused is not valid since any law can be abused. The valid discussion at that point is what safe guards need to be in place.

Re:Inconceivable!

[guruevi]

I was talking about the spirit and circumstances in which the constitution was written up. The right for free speech, assembly, making a private army ( and carrying weapons should be a deterrent to massive governments and intrusions into the private life of it's citizenry.

I'm not a native English speaker and have never thoroughly studied the constitution and it's amendments but that's always one of the strong points when it comes to freedoms in America - you have constitutionally established rights to allow you to revolt against the established government and overthrow it. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So the People (the US citizenry) should be able to establish a regulated militia (privately) to secure (or fight for) a free state (free from oppression by federal and foreign (such as companies) governments) and to do so they have the right to keep and bear (any and all) arms (necessary).

Re:Inconceivable!

[ShakaUVM]

Err, sorta.

The constitution is a combination of positive rights and negative rights for the government and people.

For example, it mandates the creation of the US Post Office, and calls upon the government to ensure domestic tranquility and promote the useful sciences.

That said, an internet kill switch would be anathema to everything the United States stands for. However, the government does have the right to isolate .gov and .mil if they feel they're under attack. But they can't/shouldn't be able to do more than that.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

The patriots of the War of Independence rebelled against the British gov't, and if the British gov't caught them, it punished them.

If you rebel against the American gov't, and it catches you - shouldn't you expect to be punished in the same way?

No contradiction there.

Re:Inconceivable!

[lee1026]

Well, that ship's sailed a very long time ago. The first president to ram a bill though congress that banned sedition and revolution was John Adams.

Re:Inconceivable!

[Speare]

I thought the First Amendment to the Constitution prevented the government from limiting speech in any way, shape or form. I guess not.

No, it says Congress shall pass no law that limits it. It doesn't say that Congress shall not abdicate all authority to the Executive, so that the Executive can do all manner of odious things to us. At least, that's the strained crap rationalization that passes for thinking in our Congress these days.

Re:Inconceivable!

[chrismcb]

Did the supreme court forget about the Declaration of Independence?

Re:Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

With the context of Egypt, one could also consider this an infringement of the Second Amendment; the right to bear arms has to be seen in the context of people taking up arms against their oppressor. In Egypt, these arms did not consist of firearms, but of access to the Internet allowing them to organise themselves.

The "Kill Switch" bill

[olsmeister]

Also known as the Kill Bill switch...

Re:The "Kill Switch" bill

[socsoc]

Care to explain?

Re:The "Kill Switch" bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to explain?

It's a stupid joke referencing a satirical movie.

Connection from afar

[Rinisari]

I would love to have a trial run of this scenario.

The goal would be to get an Internet connection from outside the US to a city well inside the US using nothing over which the US government has control. E.g., from Clifton Hill, ON (Niagara Falls) to Pittsburgh, PA. Or somewhere in Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR.

This would likely necessitate the use of strategically positioned WiFi access points and lots of cantennas or similar directional devices. Exceeding the wattage cap could be considered in-bounds if its detection is difficult or detection of the detection is easy. Multiple routes would be nice, but even a single connection is better than nothing at all.

This could help the public (eh, mostly geeks) develop a plan to Internet the US if the gov't gets ISPs by the balls or cuts cables. Plausible deniability would be built in later somehow.

Re:Connection from afar

[wordsnyc]

This would likely necessitate the use of strategically positioned WiFi access points and lots of cantennas or similar directional devices. Exceeding the wattage cap could be considered in-bounds if its detection is difficult or detection of the detection is easy. Multiple routes would be nice, but even a single connection is better than nothing at all.

This could help the public (eh, mostly geeks) develop a plan to Internet the US if the gov't gets ISPs by the balls or cuts cables. Plausible deniability would be built in later somehow.

This just in: "Red Dawn" was a movie. In real life, the Dittohead next door notices the funny thing on your roof and calls Homeland Security. Game Over.

Re:Connection from afar

[ElectricTurtle]

This just in: some people are smart enough not to put weird looking things on their roofs. The fact is you don't even need LOS from origin if you have a repeating station close enough that can get LOS without looking weird. Just let the smart people figure it out and go back to playing with yourself.

(As a complete coincidence, I watched 'Pirate Radio' last night. Those people put a whole transmitter into a suitcase, rigged an antenna into an umbrella, and were microcasting coverage of the WTO protests live from that set up. I had no idea, and for that matter, neither did the authorities.)

Re:Connection from afar

[Jerry]

... strategically positioned WiFi access points and lots of cantennas or similar directional devices....

Won't work. We've cultivated such a collection of thieves in the US that someone in that chain will use it to hack into other computers on that network and steal their personal info. Or, one of the links will be a snitch, selling out their neighbor for a "reward". By the time the East German government fell, the Stazi had over 1/3rd of the population spying on the other 2/3rds, and that was without an internet.

Re:Connection from afar

[mdarksbane]

A little harder when it's a mobile antenna on the back of a pickup truck in the mountains.

Also, unless they also make antennas illegal as part of this legislation, your neighbor just thinks it's another satellite dish.

Re:Connection from afar

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just use packet radio over HAM bands? The protocols and software to do this already exist, no need to re-invent the wheel.

Re:Connection from afar

[laddiebuck]

Emergency services be damned, ham radio would be the first spectrum they'd jam.

Emergency Tests

[Nailer235]

I wonder if they'll have to do those emergency tests like they do on television networks. "This is a test of the emergency broadcast system... [10 seconds of beeping sounds]... This has concluded the test of the emergency broadcast system... [20 seconds of beeping sounds]" I can't wait for the internet version.

Would be a great way...

[loony]

To bring jobs back to the US... put in the internet kill switch, use it once, and all those call center jobs will come right back! :)

Neutral Internet should be a right.

[stcdm33]

Back in the day it was necessary to give the right to bear arms in order to allow us the needed tools should we ever need to protect ourselves from government?? That's what was needed (a militia) to be able to take back our stuff in the event our gov't no longer served its people. In today's world simply having some guns isn't enough. There is no way we as a people could out-do a coordinated military effort from said gov't without a secure means of communication. We should be adding an amendment guaranteeing us just that. The right to a secure means of communication so that at such a time we as a people need to refresh our government we could feasibly do so. An internet kill switch does the opposite, we lose the one way we really have to coordinate things at a national level. This should be a right, kill switch puts the power in favor of gov't (lets hope they are never corrupt people or anything :) )

pointless

[Nihn]

If America is having violent protest like those in Egypt the internet is the last thing politicians should worry about.

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

umm the protesters aren't all that violent, it is the Mubarak supporters.

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

If America is having violent protest like those in Egypt the internet is the last thing politicians should worry about.

The US military under the orders of the corporate government will fucking kill you and the rest of the protesters.

Re:pointless

[HiMorons]

Lol

no

[Gripp]

no. I just don't think we should give any entity the chance of having that level of control over us. while it may be unlikely that any official would ever use it for population control/censorship, the mere fact that they could is a bad thing IMO.

The root of the problem

[randomErr]

If you could physically block the DNS root servers most home system would stop working in a matter of hours. From there you could work your way to main ISP switches and lock out entire sections of the country. One fiber cut in Columbus knocked out almost every school in Ohio. A few key places could make the internet practically useless.

Re:The root of the problem

[Cimexus]

This is very true.

On a related note though, I suspect an internet kill-switch would be much more difficult to implement in America (from a technical viewpoint) than almost any other country. Because:

- The US still has more internet hosts than other countries, including most of the 'important' ones (from an 'average Joe's communication needs' POV) like Google, Twitter, Facebook etc. Most internet content consumed in the US would be domestically hosted;

- Related to the above, the US has many diverse routes (domestically) to get to all this content. You would need to shut all (or at least the majority) of these down.

Compare the situation in a smaller country however. Most hosts accessed would be not be located within that country, and there would only be a few links in/out of the country. Cut these few links and you have rendered most sites unusable. Those few that were still working (i.e. domestic hosts) may still be useful for communication internally, but these would be invisible to the outside world.

I live in Australia and the same would apply here: the vast, vast majority of hosts on the Internet that Australians connect to would be located outside Australia. As an isolated island continent with a small population, that means most of our traffic flows through just a few undersea cables to the outside world. In fact, all you'd need to do is turn off PPC1, Southern Cross Cable, and SeaMeWe. There are a few other cables but they have far less capacity and would be almost immediately overwhelmed by traffic (making them close to unusable).

Actually I'd be curious to see what happened if you completely cut off a country from the outside world like that. What would happen to sites like Google, which have local mirrors? Would they keep working flawlessly, or do they rely on regular 'phoning home' to some master servers in the US, or what? Hmm...

it's ok we have guns

[Spy Handler]

unlike the Egyptian mob, an American mob will be much more powerful cos we got guns... we can just storm the Comcast offices and turn it back on if they shut down teh interwebs

Re:it's ok we have guns

[NoSig]

The Egypt situation hasn't turned into a bloodbath because the military has refused to fire on protesters leaving Mubarak few options. Put yourself in a a soldier's place. Would you fire on a relatively peaceful and unarmed mob of your own countrymen, even if you didn't agree with what they were yelling? On the other hand, would you fire on a unit of heavily armed gunmen looking to take any opposition in their path down with gunfire including you? A US revolution would turn out much worse than Egypt has so far. Your gun-toting crazy-brigade wouldn't last 5 seconds against a real military and unlike in Egypt their behavior would provoke the US military into action against you.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[jackbird]

All they'd have to do in response is turn off the elevators.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuz the gun totin good ol' boys are gonna know which wire is the public connection, and which IOS rules need to be removed.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[wordsnyc]

unlike the Egyptian mob, an American mob will be much more powerful cos we got guns... we can just storm the Comcast offices and turn it back on if they shut down teh interwebs

Bad news, buckaroo: most of the people with guns in this country would be all in favor of taking the govt's word on the necessity of shutting down the internet. All it would take are a few scare stories on the local news about swarthy terrorists planning to bomb the local Target.

True story: I live in rural Ohio. When we moved here, there was a tiny food store in the nearby small town. It changed owners every few years because nobody could compete with the big stores ~15 miles away. So a few years ago a Pakistani immigrant bought it (his cousin in Columbus had "found" it for him). He was a nice guy and gave it a good shot. (I'm from NYC and was glad to see a bit of variety in the good ole boy mix.)

Within a few weeks, word had spread in the township (I heard it from at least three people) that this guy (and his wife and tiny daughter) were terrorist sleeper agents sent by al qaeda to blow up the school, the churches and god knows what else. These were pillars of the community saying this, and they weren't joking. And just to be safe, people stopped shopping at the store. End of story.

Now the store is a Pentecostal church. The pastor was arrested last year for molesting a minor female parishioner. The community has, of course, "forgiven" him in the pages of the local paper. Hell, at least he's not a terrorist, right?

Censorship is a popular idea in the US because the Land of the Free is actually full of nervous ninnies who will believe anything and risk nothing. This country is fucked.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[Anonymous Coward]

lets not wait. accept the threat & respond eh?

Re:it's ok we have guns

[mdarksbane]

It all depends on who is president when this is passed. If it's Obama those same people will happily march against the socialist and totalitarian invasion of our freedoms. It's only if the next republican president does it that it's necessary.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[DCFusor]

You might be real surprised on what the bulk of people who have guns think about all this. In fact, should you ever actually check, I know you would, and not all of us are tech-unaware. Lots of us belong to an organization that constantly exhorts us to "vote freedom first", for just one example. Most of the members of that tiny organization (NRA) are very strong supporters of ALL personal rights, and this is a threat to them. Virtually all of us have strong feelings about the bill of rights -- all of them, we like them a lot. Most of us would like to add "right to privacy" to them, actually. I know almost none who think the Patriot act is anything but a bad oxymoron.
.

But, if you only know gun owners from the lying gun control fanatics, hoplophopic idiots, then you might think as you said. Get out to a local gun club and see for yourself. It's polite, no one wears camo or is a knuckle dragger -- it's a country club without the bar. Tends to be full of reasonably wealthy and influential folks. Who else can afford to play with some very expensive toys on a tuesday afternoon but successful business owners? Not many, in my experience. And we are not "haters". Just try talking trash, say white supremacy or antisemitism at most gun clubs. It's a way to get thrown out very quickly. Maybe it's a little different in rural Ohio than in Virginia, but as a traveling competitor in various shooting sports, it's sure not what I see around the country.

The truth is, gun ownership has a darwinian effect. If you're stupid, you're in jail or dead pretty quick. If you hate, and act on it, same, and/or, you lose the ability to be an owner (legally). You no longer have anything to prove -- "nobody bothers me".

Re:it's ok we have guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah. Like your guns for "personal" or "home defense" are going to stand up against the resources of the federal government. That worked out so well for David Koresh.

Seriously, get over your 2nd Amendment fantasy already. The last time anyone pitted against the federal gov't had a real fighting chance was circa 1877.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[L0rdJedi]

By your own anecdotal evidence, the People of that town would likely take up arms against any would be terrorist invader if the govt announced some "need" to shut down the Internet for some pending attack. They most certainly would not let some govt thugs (dressed in nice suits of course) block their access to putting themselves up on YouTube.

Take a look at where Ohio sits on an electoral map sometime. It may have gone for Obama in 08, but it's pretty firmly in red state territory. That means get the govt out of my face and off my land.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[winwar]

"The truth is, gun ownership has a darwinian effect. If you're stupid, you're in jail or dead pretty quick. If you hate, and act on it, same, and/or, you lose the ability to be an owner (legally). You no longer have anything to prove -- "nobody bothers me"."

I think I'm going to need a citation on that.

It's pretty clear based on voting patterns and poll numbers where a large percentage of gun owners stand politically. It's not pretty.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[wordsnyc]

Take a look at where Ohio sits on an electoral map sometime. It may have gone for Obama in 08, but it's pretty firmly in red state territory. That means get the govt out of my face and off my land.

Out of my face and off my land, for sure. But every govt is expert at painting people they don't like as "the other," and many, many folks take their word for that.

BTW, this area has 95%+ gun ownership, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I'm glad my neighbors have guns, and I depend on them for my safety (since the cops can take 1/2 hour or more to even get in the neighborhood in an emergency). You'd have to be nuts to try a home-invasion out here. (I personally have ms and am half-blind, so I don't mess with guns. I did use to be a good shot....)

Re:it's ok we have guns

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it. We have become a nation of sheep. We have allowed the established class in our government to bankrupt or country and pass un-constitutional legislation.

My one hope in the last two years has been the rise of social media--which, in part allows us to have the types of discussions we are having right here, right now. Social media has the potential to eclipse our governments control over us because it allows communication at this level, giving us the ability to form hubs and networks from which to take action if necessary (see Iran, summer, 2009). If we give ANY part of this to the federal government for control in the name of security, we have set up the demise of this great experiment far earlier than it had to be.

Don't forget....they are our servants... They are supposed to be working for us.

Re:it's ok we have guns

[DCFusor]

To heck with a citation, go meet some yourself -- my anecdote IS a citation from my own rather extensive experience. You shouldn't have much trouble finding more. The problem is, any setup to "take a poll" has backers with a preconceived desired outcome in mind, and it's all too easy to phrase any set of questions to get the answers you want to get. So, for once, -- go find out for yourself, that's the only way to get to truth in things like this. Lift a finger, it's worth the effort.
.

Your issue on voting patterns is a symptom of the so-called choice we get at the polls, and a sad commentary all its own. Because the same people who tend to make the NRA happy, also pander to some pretty ignorant things/groups to get their votes too. So if you've got a hard on about gun owners, it's easy to paint them with the brush of who else gets a free ride on our desire for freedom. In our case, we just want our freedom, and the responsibility that comes with it. Most of the others just want freedom to force others into their world-view (think anything having to do with religion, abortion, socialism). In my experience, gun owners come from all flavors of that debate, but tend to focus more on keeping their own rights than taking away those of others.

Please

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop calling them "critters". We are not talking about harmless stuffed animals. We are talking about the people holding the special right to employ ***physical force*** (or threat thereof), against you and me, as a business model. These are the people who expand the business of government, year after year, both in revenue and power over the people, never willingly or permanently reducing the scope of their powers.

Governments are the most dangerous organizations in the world, not only in theory but in practice -- and thousands of years of war, death, destruction, and injustice have proved it. The last thing we need is a cutesy feel-good term to describe the people that run this business.

Re:Please

[MickyTheIdiot]

Is "congressAssholes" okay, because I am comfortable with that term, too...

Look at the intentions

[mr100percent]

As much as I'm opposed to the idea, I think we need to put the thing into context. This is being pushed by politicians not in an attempt to block Free Speech (like Egypt did) but because they fear some massive hacking attack.

Given that politicians are openly saying Hackers might try to hack into Hoover Dam and open the floodgates, killing thousands, that's WHY they are claiming they want a kill-switch. Of course, the idea of cutting the internet is actually an unfeasible remedy; we have ISPs already cooperating to help stop DDoS attacks etc.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

One wonders if it wouldn't be easier to just have a light switch that shuts off power to the room which allows the Dam to be foolishly connected to the internet...

Re:Look at the intentions

[olsmeister]

It may not be pushed as an attempt to block Free Speech, but it certainly could be (ab)used that way once in place. As far as prevention of hostile attacks, once it is realized the system has been compromised the damage has probably already been done. Cutting off a major communications infrastructure probably will do more harm than good, causing panicking, lines at gas stations, etc.

Re:Look at the intentions

[cvnautilus]

That article points out that the Hoover Dam is not in fact connected to the internet. I'm actually surprised by that. Why don't we fix this problem by making sure that all critical systems are not connected?

Re:Look at the intentions

[Nidi62]

In Egypt, martial law was declared in 1967 after the assassination of the President. Now, most people would agree that this is an accepted use of martial law, and a purpose for which it was designed. However, Mubarak essentially extended it indefinitely, using it to silence dissent of his regime and arresting, exiling, or killing political opponents or people he didn't like. Now, this is certainly NOT something that martial law was intended to allow, and it certainly isn't a legitimate use.

Now, what does this have to do with it? It shows that laws can and eventually will be used for something outside its initial scope or mandate. Giving the government the power to do something like this is opening Pandora's box: once it is given, it will not be taken away. It might not be used, but the possibility of it being used would still exist. Martial law is a viable and legitimate government tool when used properly, a tool for oppression when it is used wrongly. This falls into the same category.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

If hackers try to hack into the Hoover Dam, the kill switch should be in the dams network, not the whole country. Makes no sense.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is not seeking an actual switch but the legal authority to insist on shutdowns. In your hypothetical scenario, they only need the power to force a shutdown if the hoover dam operators refuse to shut down their own connection. Can you think of any reason, however far-fetched, that this would happen? And if not, why does the government need the power?

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what intention was if and when the capability becomes available, I just know for a fact that it WILL be misappropriated by politicians for purpose unintended. Plus, this fear of "some massive hacking attack" itself is unfounded, and probably propegated for the sole purpose of obtaining the kill switch in the first place. Hacking can only be directed at individual machines on the network, not the network itself. The proper way to deal with hacking attack is to develop better software, establish backup plans, be more vigilant in plugging up security holes. If the government truly wants to hide part of the infrastructure from all potential threats, don't connect them to the public network in the first place.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not cut off the the infrastructure from the internet?! Hospital respirators aren't hooked up to the internet, switches at power plants aren't hooked up to the internet, the F16 fighter jets aren't hooked up to the internet, the nuclear weapons aren't hooked up to the internet.. and do you know? Because we have very smart I.T. people who realized this was a bad idea a long time ago.

And if someone at the air force is getting hacked, why on earth do they need to shut down the entire country!?!

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

You somehow misread the title of the Wired article, which says the opposite of what "politicians" are saying:

    "No, Hackers Can’t Open Hoover Dam Floodgates"

and

    "I’d like to point out that this is not a factual example, because Hoover Dam and important facilities like it are not connected to the internet,” Peter Soeth, a spokesman for the bureau, said in an e-mail. “These types of facilities are protected by multiple layers of security, including physical separation from the internet, that are in place because of multiple security mandates and good business practices.”

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just have the Hoover Dam floodgates on a network that is not connected to the Internet, after all the bets way to stay protected is to unplug your network cable.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

I think unplugging the Hoover Dam from the Internet might be a more reasonable approach than passing legislation that has considerable potential for abuse.

Re:Look at the intentions

[dkleinsc]

You don't even need to go to Egypt for evidence of your second point. The "USA Patriot Act" has already been widely abused, according to reports from the GAO among other places.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and they want wiretapping abilities because there are terrorists that use phones.

I don't think the original intent matters when they want to put in a new system of power without checks and balances.

Re:Look at the intentions

[mdarksbane]

The most important thing to remember about every government power is that once it exists, it *will* eventually be given to people with whom you think are wrong, stupid, and/or evil.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

So shut down the internet in case of a big hacking attempt?
Isn't that like blow up a plane using a self-destruct mechanism in case of a hijacking?

Re:Look at the intentions

[L0rdJedi]

As much as I'm opposed to the idea, I think we need to put the thing into context. This is being pushed by politicians not in an attempt to block Free Speech (like Egypt did) but because they fear some massive hacking attack.

LOL! Yeah, sure it is. And I have a nice bridge to sell you.

Your statement would've been better if you had just ended it at "This is being pushed by politicians". That's all you need to know to know that this is a bad idea.

Re:Look at the intentions

[Anonymous Coward]

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Bill of Rights

[woboyle]

I think it is about time we added a new item to the Bill of Rights - the right to unfettered access to any communication medium (covers phone, mail, any electronic medium including Internet). The ability to communicate electronically is a necessity in this day and age. Any attempt to add a "kill switch" to the Internet should be considered no less that the attempt to stifle free speech via newspapers, posters, fliers, or simple personal contact.

Re:Bill of Rights

[BitZtream]

Why should that be a right exactly?

Rights are not things that cost money.

You have a right to speak your mind, you aren't entitled to have someone else pay for it for you.

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, here's the point of the Bill of Rights, most of it is restrictions on what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do, so this would be more a prohibition on such activities.

Yes, it's called the Bill of Rights, but a more accurate description would be "List of No-Gos for the Gov't" and in this case, I believe it might be valid to update it for modern times to cover all the bases.

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets start by getting a new government that respects that we have rights. The one we have now does not recognize that humans have rights. Adding more to a list does nothing to change the government.

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with that is that the Bill of Rights isn't a law, but the concept of freedom that the founding fathers sent to the king of england. There is no law that states you have the right to Pursuit of happiness, but the way our laws were written it allows for it. The kill switch idea is never going to work because once E-business understand what it give the gov the power to do they will write to their politician and/or elect people in office that have run E-businesses before. Due to the fact that more and more of business is done through the internet or at least an internet connection, this would completely cripple the finical systems and no one would have access to money at all.

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

That right is already there: read the 9th again.

Re:Bill of Rights

[anethema]

You want the US Govt to expend energy GIVING rights?

Not sure if you read the news but they don't do that sort of thing these days.

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability to communicate electronically is a necessity in this day and age.

Not really. I can think of many things I would rather have enshrined in the Constitution than a commerce and entertainment convenience.

Re:Bill of Rights

[delineal]

Why should that be a right exactly?

Rights are not things that cost money.

You have a right to speak your mind, you aren't entitled to have someone else pay for it for you.

So why not reword the idea so that it doesn't cost money: the right to..."be unencumbered by the government when accessing local or world-wide communication services funded by the individual or private enterprise"

Re:Bill of Rights

[L0rdJedi]

Why not add in the right to a car and the right to drive (driving is a privilege, remember?). How about the right to own a home? How about the right to a job? Where do you draw the line?

The ability to communicate electronically is not a necessity. Plenty of people still communicate just fine using pen and paper (ever heard of a postcard?) and even speech (oh the horror of having to actually talk to someone). The ability to communicate is a necessity. The medium you choose to use doesn't matter. You have no right to anything other than the ability to speak and write words.

Besides, as has been mentioned here plenty of times, cutting off the Internet in Egypt didn't really stop anything, did it?

Re:Bill of Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it would be far more efficient to simply overturn any and all law or caselaw which had taken away from the concept of free speech through, over, and upon any medium used in the past or created in the future.

Another interesting thing many people do not know is that some prominent founding fathers believed by enacting a bill of rights, any other natural/inalienable/divine/individual rights (see Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, et.al.) might be at risk. So strongly however did the majority of them believe in the potential for corruption by those in power that it better to have a list than not. We are so removed today from this concept of inalienable rights it is hard to fully understand an argument against the bill of rights. And although the logic for that argument made 220 years ago was there, the fear of corruption and abuse of power by those who have it (they of course were thinking of how nasty kings could be) compelled them to create a tangible list of rights.
Essentially, or government was formed granting us more rights than what are contained in the bill of rights.

There concern then has become prophetical today, as or current rights have been severely eroded away over the years.

good idea

[homes32]

I'm sure all the business (banks, insurance agencys, stock brokers, hospitals/clinics, law enforcement, etc) and government agencys (fed reserve, irs, BSA, etc) that use vpn tunnels and web based applications won't mind being cut off from business critical services for an unspecified period of time. remember people; the internet isn't just webpages like facebook and youtube, its all traffic!

but you know, we did it for your own good ...

[Anonymous Coward]

but you know, we did it for your own good ...

Question is two: practical and technical

[mapkinase]

1. Technically - yes (Egypt does not differ much communication-wise from US)
2. Practically - no (too much economic negative side effects)

Re:Question is two: practical and technical

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. While the percentage of people who have various other types of Internet connectivity is a tiny part of the populous, it is not numerically insignificant. Whether it be satellite based (BGAN, Thuraya, etc.) or low bandwidth radio modem, completely cutting it off would require a massive signal jamming effort. There's no way they could blanket the entire CONUS in this fashion. They could get 98%, but that last 2% would be next to impossible. I also believe that you would see mesh networks popping up faster than you could knock them down.

The article confuses things.

[anonieuweling]

Egypt is not a cyber security issue.
The article confuses things.
Egypt has a US-sponsored dictator for reasons of 'stability'.
People don't count.
This new 'cyber' 'security' issue is a new fake reason to limit peoples' freedoms.
Now also in the USA and worldwide.

Re:The article confuses things.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the truth. I find their example of the dam pretty funny, its all going to end up as censorship, if they were worried about points of interest, kill switches could be implemented there. I'm sure Wikileaks would have been inaccessible.

Target the backbones

[JimDarkmagic]

Doesn't all the traffic in the US go through a relatively small number of backbone providers at some point? Set up a deal with all of them so you can pull the plug with a phone call. Chances are all the major consumer ISPs use the major backbone providers, so you can quell disruptive thoughts there. Protecting your local power stations depends on if their ISPs use those backbones, too.

Political suicide.

[Toasterboy]

It's a stupid idea.

Besides, the economic impact alone from breaking the internet in the US for any period of time makes "pushing the kill switch" political suicide anyway.

Also, it's exactly the same power as "we want to shut down the phone system so you can't communicate or call 911 during a revolt, or whenever, you know, some politician feels like it".

Re:Political suicide.

[ChasmCoder]

I agree, the thought of the Government having the power to kill the internet for the masses is unacceptable. The government needs to be knocked down a few pegs and reminded that "We The People" are Government and those we have running it are OUR employees. We are their masters, NOT the other way around. This continuos unhindered growth of government control and power will only lead to negative outcomes.

Re:Political suicide.

[HiMorons]

You presume that you'll have a democratic remedy available to you after the switch is used...

Just hit DNS

[petes_PoV]

I'm sure a strategically placed dot in the right DNS entry would have exactly the required effect. Plus the plausible deniability of a "computer error". After all if China can route a large portion of the internet through it's servers accidentally, just think what could be achieved with a little thought - and the right password.

If it had the side effect of turning off the rest of the world, too - well ....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Can say YES definitively

[thijsh]

The 'internet kill switch' used in Egypt was very low tech and consisted of phoning ISPs and sending some guys to others... The ISPs all participated because it was legal by Egypt law so no company dared go against the governments law just because of ethics.

In the US it is no different *today*, when shit hits the fan the government will claim it's a matter of national security and companies will be required to participate in shutting down the infrastructure. If they refuse key equipment will probably just be confiscated under anti-terrorism laws instead of letting the case appear before a judge (the terrorism card always trumps justice). An internet kill switch will only allow them to respond in seconds instead of hours... Make no mistake, the laws for the 'Egypt-style slow kill switch' without the need for a judge are already there...

Re:Can say YES definitively

[corbettw]

Hell, using existing laws the government could say that ISP X is engaged in money laundering for drug lords, then seize their equipment under civil asset forfeiture. Now the company has to sue and prove in court that they had nothing to do with any money laundering, which could take months. In the meantime, all of their equipment and money are tied up in court.

With the laws allowing this kind of thing on the books, it's only a matter of time before they're used this way.

Easy to weasel out of

[petes_PoV]

With most of the backbones being optical, your amendment would have no practical use. You'd have to remove the "electronic" qualifier. Even that would be easy to get around - just slow the whole mess down to FIDONET speeds. the functionality is still intact, but the utility has gone. Although quite why anyone would bother arguing semantics if the place ever got into such a mess that universal censorship was seriously considered, I don't know.

Nevermind feasable, do we even need one?

[HalAtWork]

Seems like if there's a "Cyber emergency", then they should just disconnect and/or turn off the affected systems. Why do they need to shut down the infrastructure itself, or disconnect everything altogether? Why is it an all-or-nothing situation? Clearly the systems that are most important or most at risk should be isolated and managed separately from non-critical systems. Also, why waste time worrying about the non-critical systems when you could isolate, organize, and manage the critical systems by themselves much more easily?

I say "thank god for it"!

[digitalPhant0m]

We definitely need a kill switch.

We need to be able to kill it, before it kills us.

WE HAVE NO TIME!

[Onuma]

I tend to think of it as a legislative version of Jack Bauer.

Uh, this guy doesn't know what he is talking about

[divisionbyzero]

His arguments just don't hold water unless you assume that all networks are connected to every other network. There are choke points and all the government needs to do is control them. I certainly don't think it's beyond the government to be able to do so. It always surprises me that people either dramatically over-estimate or under-estimate the Internet's resilience. It's tough but not indestructible and it does have some serious weak spots.

'Cyber-Security' My Ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutting down the internet has absolutely nothing to do with security and everything to do with controlling the flow of information. The feds simply can't stand that there is a mass communications medium free of their gatekeepers. How exactly does shutting down the internet do a damned thing to enhance security?

not super effective

[fred fleenblat]

Pretty sure the protests continued even after Egypt hit their internet kill switch.

The main message that use of an internet kill switch sends is that the government is in a state of utter panic and is resorting to desperate measures. That kind of message is very informative, but not in the way they might have wished. If anything, it probably emboldened the protesters in Egypt.

Ok Now something more on-point

[FlyingGuy]

So the tinfoil hat / "information wants to be free" crowd aside, Could it really be done?

Are there few enough peering points to actually shut it down from say the rest of the world? Could you effectively isolate the entire US Internet?

The old story about the pissed off guy at MAE-WEST pulling the plug on Northern Europe for bad behavior aside, could it be done in a manner that would be instant without literally going down to the beach, finding the shore end of a cable and taking an Axe to it?

I have never been inside on of those places but I can imagine a fiber patch panel where one could simply pull the plug.

Changing routing takes a while to take effect since it has to propagate.

And what about satellite links, would one simply send a signal to the bird that blocks all traffic from origin outside the US by disabling the link to certain receivers?

I think you would have to do a lot more. For example back in the dial-up BBS days we extended our coverage by paying people to have a second phone line in their home which had call forwarding that called another phone in the next closest local zone to hop its way to us so that it was a local phone call for anyone to dial in and connect.

If someone was determined, to connect to Europe or Asia could they not simply dust off a modem and dial up to a node ( expensive to and slow be sure )since that would circumvent a "Internet Kill Switch" unless of course they killed the phone service as well.

Much ado about nothing?

[amRadioHed]

Why do people keep ignoring the fact that the President has had the ability to shut off the Internet for almost 75 years now due to the Communications Act of 1934. This bill is to regulate an existing power, not to create a new one.

This is kind of a relevant detail, but no one seems to care.

More thoughtful analysis here

[Anonymous Coward]

http://connectionmanagement.org/2011/02/04/could-we-ever-see-an-internet-kill-switch/

Questionable...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

At least when it comes to such minor matters as subsidies, occupational health and safety, and environmental regulations, the American government has been pretty consistently beholden to the business interests without whose support buying enough TV spots to get elected or re-elected becomes extremely difficult. Democrats are incrementally less overt; but typically spineless and happy to bring home the bacon for their districts. Republicans, for their part, can barely get a sentence out without describing some government activity as "job killing" or invoking the interests of the "wealth creators".

Given the utility of the internet for such minor niceties as a major slice of American consumer spending, financial trading, corporate communication, and so forth, it'd have to be a really convincing "emergency" to see support for a crude, Egypt-style shutdown. Even in Egypt's comparatively less-wired economy, such a shutdown is not at all cheap and stateside internet-using corporations would be screaming bloody murder every inch of the way.

That said, such dramatic "kill switch" scenarios are something of a red herring. The Egyptian case was a crude, blunt, action by a strongly authoritarian government facing a direct threat to its existence. In the US, and in future cases generally, I strongly suspect that more nuanced tactics would be used. The internet at large wouldn't be shut down; but certain websites deemed to be trafficking in 'communications contrary to public order' would likely find themselves heavily surveilled and/or offline. One might also discover that encrypted connections not made between a user and a corporate entity large enough to be considered tractable might simply get dropped...

Such (comparatively) limited disruption would be much better tolerated by the entities whose approval the state would still be interested in securing(obviously, the protesters trying to organize are a lost cause. Apathetic users who just want their damn lolporn and twitbook will only get angry if antagonized. Corporations will only object if their bottom line is threatened. Why make enemies?)

Thus, while I find a "big red button/knife switch labelled 'Internet On/Off'" sitting on the White House, or NSA cube, desk extraordinarily unlikely, that doesn't cheer me much. It seems only reasonable to assume, in light of what is already public record, that surveillance and infiltration aimed at neutralizing the truly disruptive potential of the internet, cellular networks, and similar, will be an ongoing project for basically all nation-states that aren't at the subsistence mud-farming level.

yea

[Charliemopps]

It's called "NetFlix"

Say we get hard intel that sometime later that day

[a2wflc]

a news report will be released with substantial evidence that President X did Y (something bad), and the election is tomorrow. The administration has already has "agreement" (support, blackmail, threat of lawsuits/audits unless they get everything exactly right in their report, etc) from the major news outlets to delay the story 24 hours. But news is going to get out.

"Reliable" intel may be "found" that an organization will use the internet to arrange to drop of backpack bombs at polling locations around the country. It's an immediate emergency since these terrorists are trying to disrupt our elections and kill lots of citizens and we can't let it happen. So we better shut down the internet NOW - it's risky and there will be consequences, but may save the election so worry about those later.

Order of Decisions

[eepok]

--Conversation--
TOPIC
(1) Should we? (within ethics, morals, etc.)
(2) Could we? (within policy, law, etc.)
(3) How would we? (within constraints of time, money, and complexity)

--Thought Exercise--
We did. Now predict:
(1) Reaction to existence of tool.
(2) Reaction to use of tool.
(3) Potential effect of tool.
(4) Balance of gains and losses for existence and use of tool.

And the moment someone says something hyperbolic like "immeasurable" or "must", that person is thrown out of the discussion. Most people who say "immeasurable" actually mean "it's too hard for me to actually run scenarios in my head and thus it must be impossible."

If you skip the "should" and "could" and just go straight to "how would", you're effectively giving the green light for something. Someone will work up a prototype and the situation will magically arise when the tool would be arguably useful. It would then be used and everyone involved will be damned by public opinion for not thinking it through.

big red buttonz

[Device666]

Obama: "Oh what a nice big red button, drool. They have gave my desk a nice upgrade. It's next to the other big red button, but that one i need some freakin ket for... wel. " "Hmm what would happen if I push it.... Uhoh too late. "

James: "Good day Sir President. Good you are in office.. Some very excited gentleman, with the name something like Brian Moynihan or so, of the Bank of America says... he wants one too??? He was overly exciting I couldn't make up what he was talking about... And then there was also some gentleman claiming he is doing the work of God and he wants the same one but in yellow... Must be something very very important... "

President: "Oh no not Brain again.. Brain Moynihan sucks.. And he knows it, and in a childish eruption he bought even all the domainname brainmoynihansucks.com and the like. And still people are wondering why our big banks are in trouble..Morons.. Ok give that phone I will give him audience."

Brain: "Hi Obama.. I want I want I want one."
President:"You want what?"
Brain: "A kill switch"
President:"huh?"
Brain: "for likiweaks"
President:"for what"?
Brain: "uh i mean wikileaks.."
President:"You know we have a taskforce for something like that. Why calling me for something arbitrary"
Brain:"no we already have a taskforce. It's called WTF"
President: "Hmm. Why am I not surprised?! And you were saying?"
Brain: "national security, an internet kill switch please"
President: "oh no, the previous time you bought all the last ipv4 ipadresses to host your funny domainnames"
Brain: "pleeeease?"
Obama:"You can't have one. National security. Bye"
Tringtring.

An interent kill switch would cripple business

[Anonymous Coward]

We simply could not function without internet access. Our remote locations require VPN to access our Job Costing, Inventory, Point of Sale, Labour systems etc.

Without internet access our head office computer systems would still function, but since the phone lines use PRI (over ISDN) it's quite probable that our phones wouldn't ring.

Cheap and effective

[mob)barley]

Kill switch is just a trigger for a nationwide DDOS.

Oh, we need it.

[seebs]

I think the need for an Internet kill switch is now clear.

Re:Say we get hard intel that sometime later that

[ScentCone]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible for someone with government power to use any sort of judgement? You do realize that government officials make decisions every day that include things like closing down highways, buildings, power supplies, etc., right? Neve mind, I know you're trolling.

Kill Switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original design intent when DARPA first started the "internet" was to develop a network that could not be "killed" during a war. I won't say it would be impossible but it would be pretty difficult to shut off the internet in the US. I think this is being blown way out of proportion as I don't think it is actually doable.

Re:Kill Switch?

[artao]

Thank you. I was going to post this myself, but decided to look thru here and see if anyone else brought this up. sure, the internet as it is now is quite complex. However, the lines over which it runs still exist, so there's nothing to stop (and nothing CAN stop) people from booting up new DNS servers, etc ... if some sort of 'kill switch' attempt was made. Just. Not. Possible. Period. Geeks and hackers BUILT and DESIGNED the internet .... and they will keep it alive. period. exclamation point. It's worth stating again (and again) that THE INTERNET WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED SO IT COULD NOT BE SHUT DOWN. ... besides which, there's always the darknet ....

Re:Kill switch?

[tehcyder]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the ARPANet/Internet create on purpose so that it could not be switched off?

No, ARPANET was originally designed so that an external enemy attack could not knock it out simply by attacking a node or two: there is no logical reason why the military shouldn't have the ability to disable it themselves.

And what would this accomplish?

[TiggertheMad]

"And of course, it's worth repeating for the thousandth time on this "kill switch" topic: what the administration wants isn't some button to push, but the legal authority to tell various players (service providers, carriers, software/service operators, etc) that they must immediately honor requests to change what they're doing in an emergency."

Give me a realistic scenario where killing the US portion internet is a justified and/or useful action. Yeah, I don't think so. Has the government asked for a way to kill all phone service? How about a way to kill all television service? This is about small minded idiots who want power. There is no reason for such an act other than to try to keep a angry population from rising up and lynching every politician in sight.

The day that the government gets the power to kill the Internet is the day we should start the great revolt.

Re:And what would this accomplish?

[Tenebrousedge]

You could call the 'kill switch' the final revocation of the first amendment. What form would the revolt take? We generally lack arms to march on Washington and overthrow the Senate, so probably we should heed Lessig's call and start participating in the Constitutional Convention. I favor many of the ideas in metagovernment, and I think with concerted effort they could be spread to the greater polity.

We have noted many flaws in our societal structure. Some of these stem from our tax code, some from our expansion of corporate rights, and others from our basic system of voting and representation. Additionally, the rise of the internet is changing every part of society and how we interact with each other. Now is the time to design the next government, and above all make sure it is designed as best we know how to promote equality and sound decision-making.

Re:And what would this accomplish?

[MikeBabcock]

How many peering links are there between Canada and the United States? How hard would it be to set up a few more with high route cost in case of such a thing happening?

The Internet is designed to route around blackholes. Purposely breaking the Internet is pretty hard.

Re:And what would this accomplish?

[tehcyder]

The day that the government gets the power to kill the Internet is the day we should start the great revolt.

I'd have thought the day the government could lead your country open-eyed into an illegal war was the day you should have started your great revolution.

The power to kill tens of thousands of people overseas purely out of a misdirected sense of revenge is a far more dangerous thing than cutting off your online shopping services.

Re:And what would this accomplish?

[tehcyder]

Now is the time to design the next government, and above all make sure it is designed as best we know how to promote

equality

and sound decision-making.

I don't think equality is very high on most Americans' agendas, judging from the rightwing slant of most US slashdotters, as you can't really have equality without some form of socialism.

Re:And what would this accomplish?

[clydemaxwell]

Purposely breaking the Internet is pretty hard.

no, it's not. the government can tell every ISP to shut down. or to stop routing. hell, even to stop providing DNS service would kill the internet for most.

the internet can only route around black holes that aren't widespread, and only when it can still route. routing is an action that can be stopped, as proved in egypt.

Protect it by hurting it... typical.

[Anonymous Coward]

Protect it by hurting it... typical.

Is it just me, or does the government always try and "protect" people and things by hurting or destroying them? I mean, wasn't the whole drug war supposed to protect our children? Protect them by throwing them in prison like institutions where they learn (by necessity) to behave and live like raw animals, and are at an expanded risk of sexual assault and disease? Good job, assholes. Well done, as usual.

No, Mr. President, assaulting and kidnapping (read arrest in legalese) people does not protect them. And no, Mr. President, killing the Internet does not keep the Internet running. Yes, you may say your only killing parts of the Internet, or slowing it down, or whatever. But does only assaulting parts of a person or only kidnapping some of their family make an arrest any less damaging?

No, you fucking idiot. Let go my Internets.

it looks like the sky was painted on

[Anonymous Coward]

i remember reading that line in a novel as a kid. now.....?

Depends on what the goal is

[davidwr]

If the **AA takes over and the goal is to reduce movie torrents to a trickle, yeah, you can "kill swtich" 95% of the Internet. With the remaining bandwidth tied up by people protesting, there won't be much room for movie torrents.

If the goal is to squelch dissent, it's likely to backfire.

Between satellites run by non-US providers that would "open up" to anyone, wifi in border areas, amateur-radio, license-radio repurposed for cross-border internet, and pirate-radio hookups, you won't be able to completely shut down the Internet.

Besides, why would you want to? As we found out in Egypt, if you aren't sitting in front of your computer because the intertube is broken, you might decide to use your newfound free time to protesting in person!

Kill Switch or Censorship?

[Huckabees]

I thought this issue had to do with the ability of the federal government to either stop or limit the amount of internet traffic flowing into and out of the nation but the article goes on to mention an article that "prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship."

When did this become about censoring specific websites? If that's the actual intent of the bill then why isn't it more commonly referred to as the Internet Censorship bill rather than a "Kill Switch"? I couldn't see being able to access WikiLeaks from within the US anymore if this is the actual purpose of the legislation...

cyber-security emergency?

[Anonymous Coward]

`"The 'Kill Switch' bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency. To recap recent events in Egypt, public political protests reached critical mass on January 25th and on January 27th, Internet connectivity and access across the region began plummeting ultimately leading to a five-day blackout'

What kind of cyber-security emergency would require the gov to disconnect us from the Internet. Unless it's to hide a violent clamp down on political protests, as in that well known haven of democracy and good friend of the US, Egypt. Like, if we're going to be attacked by terrorists, we are going to know about it.

Yet Another Euphemism

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the U.S. government seeks to expand its ability to act with less accountability and more secretive totalitarian power in nearly all aspects of life, both @home and @broad.

From its inception, the [ARPANET] was designed to be a decentralized, self-maintaining series of redundant links between computers and computer networks, capable of rapidly transmitting communications without direct human involvement or control, and with the automatic ability to re-route communications if one or more individual links were damaged or otherwise unavailable. Among other goals, this redundant, self- healing system of linked computers was designed to allow vital research and communications to continue even if portions of the network were damaged.

As they facilitate public and private communications, various protocols, applications and networks have become increasingly more important to the world at large. I fail to see, nor would I be inclined to accept any argument for such power without, compelling examples of the scenarios which might lead its valid use as well as reasonable safeguards against its illegitimate use.

We have already allowed a marked degradations of the safeguards against the military and governmental abuses of power which were acknowledged after WWII in the form of Geneva Conventions. We have allowed the Whitehouse and CIA to follow the Israeli government and its Moussad down the rat-hole of torture in the name of 'freedom' and 'national security.' And we tolerate the regurgitation of such euphemisms as 'collateral damage,' 'extra-judicial killing,' and 'extraordinary rendition' by our 4th estate when it reports the behavior of our government, our military and our spooky brethren. These tactics are at best immoral and at worst antithetical to the rule of law as well as the spirit of the Constitution which evolved of the need to address governmental abuse of power.

Government suks most of the time.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another excuse for government control under the guise of national security.
I think the service providers already have too much control over equipment, and I think server equipment should be more evenly distributed, that way it is more fairly distributed among the members (us citizens) than companies.

Kill switch is bad for even USG

[WaffleMonster]

If USG just turned off Internet in the US it would fuck over the rest of the worlds connectivity. The rest of the world will all be all pissed about what happened to their infustructure and start stringing routes and peers which no longer transit the US.

This means those AT&T fibre taps which supposedly monitor only "foreign" communication (as if that is acceptable) become paper weights.

Even the threat of legally codified availability of such a power could have the same effect as more governments see the dependancy on the US as a liability.

Selective availability (See GPS) as a way to locally deny Internet capability is in practical terms a useless capability. If you want to protect a power station from sabatoge via Internet..unplug the damned Internet cable! There is no reason to get an ISP involved.

It is no different than the terrorist "smoking gun" scenario... It sounds good but there is no evidence that it has ever occured or that threats are not best positioned for mitigation at the edge rather than higher up in the network.

My fear is the real intention here is stepping stone to codify remote capabilities for USG to control private networks on demand.

If USG really cared about safety and security of private networks they would provide more resources along the lines of US-Cert..no private company wants to be hacked...so there is no reason for parties not to have common interests and cooperate. It is hard to not see this as just a power grab.. As far as I have been able to see and I have tried... there are zero practical examples of real life scenarios where it is worth a hill of beans.

Ask your member of congress for one concrete example of what good it will do.. Don't accept generalities.

Forget Feasability...

[umask077]

OK, I honestly believe in the next 20 years riots will happen asking to throw out the government. Weather or not I agree with said riot I will likely stay home and ignore it. But you shut off my Internet and Ill join in whole heartedly. I'm not a MMO player but could you imagine the effect of calling off all the WOW players from their servers. We've seen freak outs on youtube when one person cant get on. The riots would swell incredibly when they people realized why they cant play the game. So feasible or not. Its not a sound idea to shut off the access.

Is a nigger president feasible in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

?

Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment

Is an Internet censorship switch desirable

[doperative]

Egypt is not a cyber security issue.

The article confuses things.

Egypt has a US-sponsored dictator for reasons of 'stability'.

People don't count.

This new 'cyber' 'security' issue is a new fake reason to limit peoples' freedoms.

Now also in the USA and worldwide. link

I'm going to be laughing if it happens.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

When you think Texas, guns is one of the first things that probably comes to mind. I'm probably the only one in this state that doesn't own any, but I can imagine many of my redneck neighbors getting theirs out when the government gets in the way of their porn :P

Re:I'm going to be laughing if it happens.

[Sentrion]

Someone mod this post +5 Hell Ya!

Re:I'm going to be laughing if it happens.

[tehcyder]

When you think Texas, guns is one of the first things that probably comes to mind. I'm probably the only one in this state that doesn't own any, but I can imagine many of my redneck neighbors getting theirs out when the government gets in the way of their porn :P

Yup, a bunch of retards with their pants round heir ankles and armed with revolvers and hunting rifles are going to be able to combat the jets and artillery that the government can throw at them.

Re:I'm going to be laughing if it happens.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Hey, whichever side loses, I'll still get a laugh :)

Re:Say we get hard intel that sometime later that

[a2wflc]

We have lots of people in government using good judgement all the time. But people in power often use bad judgment and do things for selfish reasons, not for our good. We have lots of checks between the branches of government to keep individuals from abusing power. "emergency" powers scare me because they bypass the checks to some degree or another and allow abuse of power.

And I expect every law to be used as a precedent for another law. This lets them shutdown the "internet" in "emergencies". If they can do that, they should be able to do it to other forms of communication (don't shut down the internet but make twitter censor language that some say may lead to a congresswomen being shot. or disallow anonymous usage. or who know). And why not in other situations or a more liberal definition of "emergency" (stock market is falling, "lies" may be spread about candidates so no internet 30 days before elections or it may corrupt our voting process, etc)

I have no doubt that elected officials in the past have had news stories buried or delayed. And I'd bet all I own that they have "enhanced" terrorism claims made to the FISA court and that they can come up with real evidence (e.g. actual phone call, email, etc) that someone related to the tea party (or new black panthers, or whatever) has threatened to disrupt the election.

I'd rather risk the small chance that they cannot stop a terrorism threat without shutting down the internet than give them the power to shut it down. What if the progressives and tea party came together and agreed that the current government isn't working. Then worked together to convince a majority of the population. That would be a huge threat to the current government and it's also where the internet would be most useful for the citizens. But if someone in leadership mentioned today's situation in Egypt I'd have to agree that under these powers it would be appropriate to shut down the internet. I don't expect this situation soon or in my lifetime, but I'd like to leave my grandkids or their kids the right to communicate with fellow-citizens and the world when our government feels that's a threat.

It it can go wrong, it will

[Anonymous Coward]

As Murphy has taught us, If something in a system can go wrong, it will and it will in the worst moment.

We'll be the same as them

[|TheMAN]

The day this happens is the day every American has to stop saying we're better than China, North Korea, Egypt, and all the other oppressive countries, because having a kill switch makes us no different/better than them!

Not much of a risk

[SoftwareArtist]

The lesson I take from Egypt is that shutting down the internet doesn't work. Look what happened there. They tried to use an extreme measure to stop the protests. It completely failed - the protests just went right on. And they gave up the attempt after just a few days, because if they hadn't, it would have destroyed their economy. In the US, the harm caused by shutting down the internet would probably be even greater, and it would be even harder for them to resist the pressure to turn it back on again.

I'm not very worried about the government shutting down the internet as a way to suppress free speech. I'm much more worried about the more subtle methods they already have the power to use: monitoring or filtering traffic, shutting down particular websites, etc.

Big Money will stop it

[Gonoff]

Western governments, from the USA to Poland and Spain to Finland are all very heavily controlled by big business. They would not tolerate the internet being "turned off".

They would be more than happy with increased censorship - where else do you thing that idea comes from? They might even allow some people to be kept off it. There is too much money/profit in all their customers being connected.

Leaders may talk about it, but they will not be allowed to use a Kill switch.

Just to clear a few things up

[Anonymous Coward]

The "US Internet kill Switch"(tm) is something that would apply to the US only. Other countries have routers, switches, etc. There is no 'magic button' that would disrupt internet communications worldwide. My computer would still talk to my router, and my router would still talk to my DSL modem, which would still talk to my ISP. I would be able to connect to most of the world, except for the US. The internet would be slower for the rest of the world. It would not stop for the rest of the world. If it looked like the US was planning on using this sort of thing a lot, then Google would move more of its datacenters out of the US. Oh, and the US would lose somewhere between a billion and a trillion dollars a day in commerce. Egypt does not have as strong an economy as the US, and it was losing 90 million US dollars per day in commerce every day the internet was down.

Just in case we forgot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case people forgot, the first amendment for you all:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Just in case the first amendment doesn't do much for this argument, lets take a look at the fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The ability to ad-hock turn off (seize if you'd like the 4th to be applicable) a persons capability to communicate their ideas (1st here) on the internet, is taking away from your ability to freely express yourself. If you are conducting criminal operations then the government has the right to use evidence gathered from your internet usage to prosecute you to the fullest extent. This legislation is being touted as "it will prevent terrorists from being able to effectively communicate or time their attacks over the internet." The reality is that if a terrorist is using the internet to plan such an attack, then they are already guilty of a crime known as conspiracy to commit and the information can be taken from their internet already. As such, this bill would give the government the ability to say "We think you might be a terrorist so were going to pull the plug on your twitter/facebook/gmail/myspace/msn/linkedin/etc. account just in case."

Im sorry but that is wrong to assume that someone is going to commit a crime. In fact, making that assumption is criminal in itself according to the first amendment and acting upon that assumption is criminal according to the 4th.

CALEA equipment can probably break links

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked on CALEA equipment. The boxes I worked on sat between 2 pieces of equipment, Ethernet or Fiber connection. It was capable of checking every packet going between, for example, a peer's router and the ISP's router.

The links had a fail-over, so if the power went down, relays (or equivalent for fiber) would reconnect the 2 other items.

In normal operation, that equipment is invisible, doesn't need to be on a T.

As the relays were controlled by by the box's processor, they could be used to break the link.

Makes me think of

[lolololol]

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Limit exposure, not traffic

[Anonymous Coward]

The 'Kill Switch' bill will introduce legislation that would give the US government power to limit Internet traffic in the event of cyber-security emergency.

Would it not make infinitely more sense to simply limit exposure of affected devices to the infrastructure? Instead, they want to cut off all devices and shut down the entire infrastructure? Unnecessary, overkill, and waste are words that come to mind...

Two easy ways to do this

[Jason Levine]

First, they could type "Google" into Google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQUWUfmR_I

If that didn't work, they could just get The Internet out of Big Ben and smash it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDbyYGrswtg

death to freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

the US is making a really big prison for itself.

One reason it may fail

[jc42]

One reason this may not be politically possible (even if technically possible, which is questionable), is that the Internet has already reached the state of being an integral part of the American (and European) infrastructure. Disabling large parts of it would be as serious to the economy as the (legally allowed) shutdown of the Interstate Highway System.

There's an interesting parallel with the GPS system. When built, it had a "kill switch" of sorts: The US military could order the system to add a systematic error to the data in its packets. US military GPS equipment has software that can know what the error is, and subtract it out. The idea was that during military actions, the GPS system could be made useless to anyone not in posession of US military-grade GPS equipment.

Several things happened that persuaded them to give up on this. One was that in the first Gulf War, the US military couldn't get delivery of needed GPS equipment, and had to start buying them on the open market. But the bigger development was that during the 1990s, the airline industry (and much international shipping) shifted to GPS as their primary navigation system. It was an "open secret" that airlines and shipping companies were quickly losing the ability to use older navigational techniques. This was mostly for financial reasons. GPS was so much cheaper than earlier methods that companies everywhere cut funding for support of other navigation systems.

So the US DoD was faced with the fact that if they disabled GPS, the result could well be airplanes and large ships crashing into things. They had to face the fact that they would be blamed if this happened, and announced that the GPS error-induction scheme was to be abandoned.

(Whether they've actually done this is a good question. But it's clear what the political repercussions would be if they were to suddenly disable the GPS system intentionally. And it was made moot when the airlines showed how easy it was to defeat the GPS error, by installing GPS "satellite" hardware at fixed positions on the ground. Look that one up; it's a pretty funny story. ;-)

Getting back to the Interstate Highways, they are now occasionally closed during local emergencies, such as major storms. And there's no question that military vehicles have precedence over other traffic, but this is also true on local roads. The idea of officially excluding all civilian traffic has been abandoned, simply because those highways are too important to the economic system, and shutting them down would be a economic and political disaster.

It's easy to argue that we are rapidly reaching the same situation with the Internet. Disabling it nationwide would effectively disable all the large corporations that are the major political campaign contributors. It would be a major economic and political disaster, which the corporate world wouldn't tolerate. So it ain't gonna happen.

Also, the "emergency" argument doesn't work for the Internet. It has become clear that, during any major emergency, what's needed is a rapid influx of portable Internet (and other comms) capacity. During disasters, communication is extremely important for disaster workers. So again, it isn't going to be shut down during any "national disaster". The disaster-relief folks are working on exactly the opposite, rapid deployment of mobile comm equipment, mostly providing wireless Internet capability, to disaster areas.

Of course, those of us working in Internet-related occupations should be encouraging this, by making our favorite music and porn distribution system even more indispensable to the economy as a whole. ;-)

Re:One reason it may fail

[$pace6host]

Also, the "emergency" argument doesn't work for the Internet. It has become clear that, during any major emergency, what's needed is a rapid influx of portable Internet (and other comms) capacity. During disasters, communication is extremely important for disaster workers. So again, it isn't going to be shut down during any "national disaster". The disaster-relief folks are working on exactly the opposite, rapid deployment of mobile comm equipment, mostly providing wireless Internet capability, to disaster areas.

"The ability to access emergency services by dialing 911 is a vital component of public safety and emergency preparedness." Because of this, the FCC already requires VOIP providers to meet Enhanced 911 (E911) obligations. Interrupting the routes between people's ISPs and the ISPs of their VOIP providers (how I understand a so called "kill switch" might work) would potentially disconnect people from access to E911 services. It does indeed sound like a conflict. Do we have a "kill switch" for the PSTN?

Re:My girlfriend accuses me of doing that once a d

[antdude]

When I was in college, my friends said President Bill Clinton shut down the Internet. I fell for it. :/

Wait for the outage - then just reconnect everyone

[h00manist]

Better yet, wait for the next Comcast outage, then reconnect everyone. Just reconnect everyone to your neighborhood wifi mesh with something like open mesh or LocustWorld.

Dial up?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I have plenty of dial up modems laying around. Now if only I had a home phone line...

Land of the free, home of the brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you Americans resigned to discuss the feasibility of the idea instead of the implications on freedom?

Or is everything different in a post-911 USA?

Of course it could...

[Snaller]

... if you let them pass the laws required.

Steps to void the bill of rights....

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1: Make real world rights go through electronic systems (no more newspapers, internet only news)
Step 2: Cut off those systems, effectively cutting off all rights since no one has a *right* to use computers. (no more non state sponsored news)
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit!

This proposal is based on tech-challenged idiocy

[grandpa-geek]

This bill was notivated by a CNN program where some technology-challenged lawyers tried to play techies on TV. The program was based on a preposterous scenario in which a viral, malicious cell phone app took down the Internet and went on to take down the power grid. It would require a huge level of stupidity, incompetence, and neglect among both techies and management in multiple industries for anything like that scenario to happen. In addition, the cell phone app itself would need to make Stuxnet look like child's play.

The organizer of the CNN program was a former Homeland Security secretary who ordered a phoney attack on a piece of equipment to be able to put a video on CNN showing the equipment physically destroying itself. The attack did not involve actual cyber penetration, only taking some actions well-known to destroy equipment. It was a publicity stunt to get attention and funding from Congress.

Cybersecurity laws need to be based on more than tech-challenged lawyers' solutions to science fiction scenarios from the minds of other tech-challenged lawyers.

Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

What this comes down to is a stop all the presses kill switch.
Anyone who would fight for this is no American!

Acts of War

[rwyoder]

1. Destroy communications.
2. Destroy power distribution.
3. Destroy economy.

These are what you do to your *enemy* in time of war, not to *yourself*!
Any politician supporting a kill switch is too incompetent to hold office.
Would they support shutting down the phone system in time of emergency?

Re:Acts of War

[marcosdumay]

Let me see...

"3. Destroy economy." Done.

"1. Destroy communications." Ongoing.

"2. Destroy power distribution." Todo.

Can nobody set their priorities right anymore?!? I should be 1, 2, 3, ????, Profit. 3, 1, 2 just isn't right.

Pointless

[lelitsch]

If push comes to shove, all it takes is one executive order and a few dozen US Marshalls at the overseas cable connection points and satellite uplinks and 99% of the international traffic in the US is down for at least a few days until it gets sorted out between the companies, Congress and the White House.

The Net, by design, CAN NOT be 'shut down'

[artao]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the internet was originally a military endeavor ( ARPAnet, then DARPAnet, the the Internet, now the Internet 2 and the darknet ), with specific design goals of NOT being able to be crippled or shut down. They hired geeks and hackers to make it so .... and the geeks and hackers HAVE made it so. Sure, government could limit and hurt standard access. They could attempt to shut down DNS servers, etc .... but geeks and hackers would have it back up in no time. Your general tech-ignorant user may not be able to ... i don't know ... use Netflix or watch porn (oh, wait ... that would pop right back up too ;^p ) ........ but the 'net cannot be 'shut down', as it were. What a silly idea. Especially for the reasons given for the need. Them's what they claim they want to stop could EASILY find ways around any so-called kill-switch. people people people ... know yer history, know the tech ..... trust in the geeks and hackers that made this thing real in the first place .... :D :D :D

Re:Uh, this guy doesn't know what he is talking ab

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the article? Did you read the proposed bill? Well, the context of the bill is to be able to take specific critical infrastructure providers and companies offline - not to 'kill the Internet' as a whole. That task is actually pretty easy compared to the 'surgical' take downs they are talking about in the bill. That tells me that the government has to have specific knowledge and insight within the ISP networks and the ability to order the ISP to take them down or to do it themselves (seems to be where they are leaning).

Revolution!

[chrismcb]

So in other words, if the American people decide to do their duty and revolt against the government, the government will have the power to shut off the means of communication via the internet?

destruct the indestructable

[chrismcb]

"Hey I know, lets build a communication device that can't be shut off by a nuclear bomb. If part of it goes down, it will route the traffic around, so it will still work. There'll be no way to shut it down." "Great, let's do it. Now how do we turn it off?"

Kill switch?

[lguilherme]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the ARPANet/Internet create on purpose so that it could not be switched off?