Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is an Internet Kill Switch Feasible In the US?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the we-need-an-nra-for-this dept.

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?"

43 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Just take credit. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  2. What is the internet verses a network? by Nukenbar · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by Ephemeriis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by Bucky24 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    4. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by commodore6502 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>>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.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    6. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by socsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by vlm · · Score: 2

      So which terrorist won?

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

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by sorak · · Score: 2

      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".

    12. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by DefenseEngineer · · Score: 2

      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

    14. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by corbettw · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    16. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by careysub · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    17. Re:What is the internet verses a network? by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  3. Can't say no definitively by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Can't say no definitively by ISoldat53 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would this take a Kill Bill?

  4. The kill switch would be the biggest threat by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    We are all God's parents.
    1. Re:The kill switch would be the biggest threat by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3

      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.

  5. after seeing what happened in Egypt by Dan667 · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:after seeing what happened in Egypt by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  6. My girlfriend accuses me of doing that once a day by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    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."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Inconceivable! by Eggplant62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Inconceivable! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      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

    2. Re:Inconceivable! by guruevi · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  8. Connection from afar by Rinisari · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
    1. Re:Connection from afar by wordsnyc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  9. Emergency Tests by Nailer235 · · Score: 2

    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.

  10. Would be a great way... by loony · · Score: 2

    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! :)

  11. Neutral Internet should be a right. by stcdm33 · · Score: 2

    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 :) )

  12. Re:I sure hope not by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    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?

  13. it's ok we have guns by Spy+Handler · · Score: 2

    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

    1. Re:it's ok we have guns by wordsnyc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  14. Look at the intentions by mr100percent · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Look at the intentions by cvnautilus · · Score: 2

      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?

    2. Re:Look at the intentions by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  15. Bill of Rights by woboyle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  16. The article confuses things. by anonieuweling · · Score: 2

    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.

  17. Can say YES definitively by thijsh · · Score: 2

    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...