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