"isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located"
Mmm, yes, and since it all depends a fairly small number of backbone routes the collateral damage being everybody else is a mere bagatelle.
So your theory is that a president could claim they are just isolating critical infrastructure and then actually shut down backbone routes? And this would do what exactly? I mean it would drastically slow all communications without actually isolating the resources mentioned. And this benefits a president how?
If the president wants to shut down communications in the US, they can. It will get them kicked out of office pronto, but they can do it with or without this bill as it already falls under both war powers and the patriot act. If that's the conspiracy you're worried about, you're way too late.
Not to mention if the "high value infrastructure" IT people actually know thir ass from a router (and for the most part they actually do), then such action isn't necessary to begin with.
I've worked with "high value infrastructure" IT people. Some know their shit and some don't. So we're attacked by a Stuxnet variant trying to screw with power distribution network control systems. The worm is detected and being analyzed by experts (as Stuxnet was). You don't think it is a good idea to have a group that has a catalogue of vital resources looking at it and if they figure out the target, ordering power transmission companies to isolate their networks completely, stop plugging in even "clean" laptops and new gear, until such a time as the worm can be defanged and systems updated to be protected against it?
That's about the only use I see for this bill, even when I try to think of ways to abuse it. Maybe you've thought of some other scenario. Do tell, what can a president do with this bill to harm the people that they couldn't already do? How does this help them abuse power?
I think you misunderstand why they would even need to pass a bill to "kill the internet"... if the goal was to merely cut off.gov domains and hi-security networks during an internet attack
This isn't about government owned networks (for the umpteenth time). This is about critical infrastructure that is privately owned and run like power generation and distribution, airlines, trains, etc. And nothing in the bill talks about an internet kill switch. It's about the ability to order those private companies to isolate their networks FROM the internet or take other measures to protect the infrastructure in an emergency. The meat of the bill is setting up a permanent group to catalog those resources and evaluate what needs to be done given a specific type of threat.
...hence, the only purpose such a bill could possibly serve is to shut off the internet
They don't need a bill for that. It can already be done in an emergency under existing executive powers and would be idiotic anyway since it is political suicide. Not everything is a harebrained conspiracy theory.
Moreover, i can't imagine a case where such a switch would actually be of benefit;
What Fucking Switch! Where in the bill does it talk about a switch or cutting the US off from the rest of the internet? That's just sensationalist speculation from a rather idiotic and sensationalist interpretation designed to generate headlines. Why the hell would the president need a bill to cut all communications anyway since they are commander in chief and can do it already?
Then it follows, the way you've said it, that the President can do certain things only if he is also willing to declare martial law.
Nope. The president can declare martial law or he can do it under the patriot act without declaring martial law.
The public would probably react pretty strongly to the absurdity of declaring martial law nationwide for a natural disaster in one part of the nation, but might not react as strongly to a communications blackout, particularly an intermittent one or just using the threat of one to censor news coming out of the affected area.
Are you shitting me? Martial law is some legal thing. Half the country wouldn't even notice he declared martial law nationwide. Shutting down communications nationwide for a natural disaster in one place would cause a much, much stronger public reaction. Mind you, either would be political suicide which is why speculation about these sort of power grab scenarios fall flat.
...what happens when the government claims they have dealt effectively with the terrorist attack, but doesn't want to restore communications just yet?
How is that any different between martial law, patriot act, or this new bill? Now they can say they're keeping all communications shut off because it is all vital infrastructure they're protecting? How does that make things better for them?
It's funny how the same slashdotters who had a cow about W wanting to wiretap suspected terrorists without a warrant are OK with Obama shutting down communications without a warrant.
Not really. I'm not okay with obama wiretapping suspected terrorists without a warrant either. I'm not okay with any president shutting down the public communications networks either. I'm okay with a president from whatever party shutting off network and other access to nuclear power plant intranets if they detect a credible threat from malware. How is any of that "funny"?
You see, the bill explicitly excludes "judicial oversight".
And that is one of several problems with the bill, as I pointed out in other posts. That doesn't mean if has fuck all to do with stupid conspiracy theories about shutting down the internet with a "kill switch".
What is necessary now is an standard that provides the balance between convenience and safety in those systems from ISO or IEEE, not demagogic laws from any country's congress.
There are already mission critical control system standards from ISO. There is just no way to force companies to implement them. You still don't think it makes sense for the feds to have an official group to prepare for problems and be ready to step in when these companies fail or when their is a real security risk?
Emergency powers always sound reasonable, even prudent, when the laws enabling them are written prior to an actual emergency. What really matters is who's in power when the Reichstag goes up in flames.
So how can these powers be abused? The president already has emergency power to cut communications under the patriot act without declaring war, and has the power under a martial law declaration. I guess I just don't see where this adds any danger. Now they can declare all communications to be critical and then shut them down under the guise of protecting them? So now they're confusing people by making a claim that it is critical infrastructure and another claim that it is somehow protected now? And this is better for the executive in some way instead of just shutting down the communications and saying it is to stop terrorists? I seriously don't get it.
In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...
Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.
What you don't seem to get that is that "isolating the networks" is exactly how you shut down communications. How else would you do it, besides pulling the plug entirely?
Isolating the networks of critical infrastructure doesn't disrupt communications in general and the people working at nuclear plants on secure networks can go tot he public network or home or to a coffee shop or use their phone. It doesn't hinder communication significantly for the country. The idea that such a thing is a goal is simply unsupported and unsupportable.
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
I didn't see that in the bill either and how exactly does a law prohibit the courts from reviewing it? They're the courts, if a court refuses you appeal to a higher court and supreme court is not answerable to the legislature aside from a constitutional amendment.
So if anything can be declared "critical infrastructure" and isolated without benefit of the courts, any communication can be shut down.
In an emergency, yes, but the executive already has the power to do that two other ways. They aren't interested in this for shutting down communications because they don't need it, it would require them to make ludicrous claims about what is critical infrastructure, and shutting down communications would be political suicide. This is about creating a group to look at the problems and make a nice list of what needs to be protected and how and then let the executive have a less extreme option when they need to protect something specific.
It takes a pretty convoluted and unreasonable conspiracy theory or some inexplicable chain of events to see how this bill would be used for censorship.
In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...
Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.
Wikipedia does have a search engine (that indexes only wikipedia and wikimedia).
Slashdot has a search engine too (that searches only Slashdot), I bet it does pretty poorly on these tests too. Adobe.com has a search function that searches only Adobe, once again, I bet it does pretty poorly. Complaints about the quality of Wikipedia's search functionality is fine, but not really relevant to the topic here as it is not a general purpose search engine but just a search function for a particular set of pages.
We have to go to the POTUS for that? Wow. You would think the people discovering the problem would notify the manufacturers of the equipment involved, and the manufacturers would notify the end-user.
This is for emergencies. You know, like when an attack is detected underway and likely to succeed unless the executive intervenes. It's not just finding vulnerabilities in products, it's when you find an in the wild exploit that's going to do damage right away unless you quarantine the infrastructure about to be compromised.
That's how it's worked for years, and it works.
Yeah it worked great for the Iranians. You might as well argue we don't need cruise missiles in our arsenal because the police just arrest murderers.
Perhaps the channels of communication could use some streamlining, but I don't understand why the POTUS has to be made into a link in that chain.
Because he's commander in chief. It's the job of the executive office to provide for national defense. It's not like he's going to be intervening regularly, just having a group prepared for emergencies and ready to step in when there is an attack.
I think the scrutiny required of finding a virus before it blows its wad into major systems would be overwhelming.
Stuxnet was in the wild and being analyzed before it did damage.
No one would know what they were looking for until it was too late.
Yeah, hence the creation of a group to look. You prefer sitting on our hands and hoping no one ever attacks us?
I think the better way to prevent that scenario is to have a "clean room" approach - any computer that gets attached to critical infrastructure at any point in its lifetime cannot face any other network whatsoever.
You mean socializing all critical infrastructure and the government taking over from private industry and making decisions for them? And that still doesn't stop issues where trojans are inserted into hardware when it is manufactured either by agents that have infiltrated the software vendor or the hardware OEM. I mean we're all for better security on the part of private companies, but that's pretty well outside the control of the government and if those private companies don't step up, we need to be alert and ready to pick up the slack.
The comment about Wikipedia seems out of left field. Wikipedia is a site, not a search engine. Presumably, all the search engines regularly return results from Wikipedia as well as many other sources.
Why in the WORLD are such system controls available via the internet to begin with!?
Because much of our critical infrastructure is run by private companies instead of the state. Those companies have very little liability, make decisions based on profit, and hire all sorts of incompetent people for business reasons. But to be fair, most of it is not directly accessible. Much of it is on private networks, but those private networks often have laptops from the outside or new gear added and either can be a vector for infection. I doubt Iran's centrifuges were on the internet either.
In an emergency or while facing a specific threat it makes sense to further isolate these critical resources so they cannot have malware remotely activated or to prevent infection when malware has spread widely.
And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.
I almost expected this discussion site would be different and, you know read the bill and know what they hell they're writing about when it comes to technological topics. Oh wait, no I didn't.
The actual article gives as an example the removal of critical government systems from access, not limiting citizen access to the internet. Admittedly it is still a stupid sounding idea since you don't need a single kill switch, as the article also points out.
First, the president doesn't need a bill to cut off government systems. This is about ordering private companies to cut off those private networks that happen to host critical infrastructure that is privately owned, like power generation and distribution. Second, you're right that they don't need a single kill switch, but since the bill says absolutely nothing about a single kill switch, that sort of makes sense. The whole idea of a "kill switch" is just sensationalist journalism trying to get people to pay attention at the expense of accurate reporting.
Something they DESIGNED with the PURPOSE of being RESISTENT TO ATTACK they want to TURN OFF.
Not really. Something was designed with the purpose of being resistant to attack they want an executive option to remove or restrict access to it for certain private networks that run critical infrastructure, during an emergency. But don't actually read the bill you're ranting about or anything.
Why are any of these (or any other critical systems) connected to anything but the most private of networks?
Because they are run by numerous private companies, some of whom hire idiots to make decisions. Most critical infrastructure is not on the internet per se, but a lot of it is on private networks which in turn have laptops connected to them and all of which have new hardware added periodically and both can be infection vectors.
Whereas there may be some truth to what you say........ you don't need a piece of legislation to get pieces of critical gov't infrastructure off of the net NOW.
True. But maybe you missed the part where this bill addresses critical infrastructure run by private companies NOT the government.
This is a technical problem, not a legislative one.....a poorly worded Bill is otherwise known as a loophole that you (if you were corrupt like say most politicians) could later use to evil ends.
What loophole is there? Really what do you think this would be abused to do that would not already be done under other, existing legislation.
If the gov't is worried about Stuxnet or the like, get the key gov't services the fark off the public networks. Isolate them *physically* onto separate networks and if you want to have ISPs manage those with some sorts of kill switching then do so.
This is NOT about government services. This is about privately run services like cell phone networks, power generation and transmission, airlines, and basically anything that could be mismanaged via computer networks into causing a disaster. This is about securing these private but vital resources in an emergency so they cannot be disrupted and/or destroyed.
There is also NOTHING about a "kill switch" in the bill. This isn't about shutting down the internet as the sensationalist title would have you believe, as you'd know if you read my previous post or the bill itself. This is about ordering specific companies, like say a nuclear plant, to sever their network connections and halt their sneakernet such that a worm or trojan is prevented from getting into their control network. This is about the government finding a threat and telling certain private companies (and only companies running vital infrastructure) to take specified defensive measures.
That's not where the Net needs to be going, if Freedom is something anybody cares about.
Okay, here's an idea, go read the bill. Now tell me what in there scares you so much that you think it's going to lead to the government cutting off the internet and thereby committing political suicide. Now tell me why this particular bill would lead to that when the executive already has the power to declare an emergency and do just that. This isn't about communication. It's about setting up a group to evaluate and respond to network based threats to vital infrastructure in an emergency.
The problem with shutting down the gateways into the US is that by the time you realize you've got a problem and you shut it down, it's too late - your systems are infected. The only way to be sure is to shut down the gateways indefinitely, and that'll go over like a lead balloon.
The bill says nothing about shutting down gateways into the US. It talks strictly of ordering companies to take measures to defend certain infrastructure. If any gateway is being shut down it would be communication gateways into intranets on which critical infrastructure is operating.
Suppose security researchers detect stuxnet_two_the_revenge out there and it has infected numerous machines, but not yet hit it's intended target. This bill would specifically authorize the president to tell particular companies to take defensive measures, such as not moving any machines between the public and private networks until they analyze the worm, find the target, and institute appropriate defenses. Or, they could determine some trigger condition and simply order nuclear reactor operators to not make use of a particular controller software version until it is patched with a fix. There is certainly room to be effective with this. It won't necessarily help, but having a team working on the topic, looking at infrastructure, and ready to respond doesn't seem all that crazy from a security perspective.
The real motivating factor behind doing this will be Wikileaks.
Don't be naive. Wikileaks is controlled by the CIA, which reports to the US government which is thoroughly infiltrated by the fourth dimensional lizard people. They don't want to stop Wikileaks, just pretend like they want to stop Wikileaks so it gains credibility.
After that episode, the US gov will want some sure fire way to prevent embarassing truths leaking out again.
It was all staged for the benefit of the reverse vampires.
All the slimy rehtoric is just to convince the sheeple...
You know about the sheeple? What about the goatanity?
...they're not really trampling on the constitution and that the end of free speech is somehow a good thing.
I guess if you're a reactionary, loony conspiracy theorist, reading the bill in question doesn't make any sense huh? You mentioned slimy rhetoric, but while I certainly see a lot of empty rhetoric here, maybe you can explain one of your theories to me. How does a law that allows the president, in an emergency, to give orders to corporations controlling vital infrastructure on how they need to defend that infrastructure from network attacks allow the government to stop free speech? Oh, and feel free to add in something about how the numerology of the arrangement of pyramids at Gaza applies.
How did they sell this to what I'm hoping is a reasonably intelligent woman?
They didn't because the bill in question doesn't establish an internet kill switch in any way shape or form.
This IS incredibly retarded because no one bothered to read the bill and notice it says nothing about creating a kill switch or disabling the internet. How is it that 90% of Slashdot reader seem to think it does because they read an inflammatory headline and could not bother to investigate any further?
There's no valid reason to do this.
If by "this" you mean complain about a bill that doesn't do what you're complaining about, I agree. If by "this" you mean create and pass this bill, well don't you think you should read it first and maybe read the comments from the legislator who crafted it and the network security advisors that asked them to do it? This is about creating a group to catalog infrastructure that is vulnerable to attacks like stuxnet, make recommendations to the companies that run those resources, form a plan for if they come under attack or if we come under general attack, and give the president the power to tell just those companies to take defensive action proscribed by the administration in an emergency without exercising broader executive authority.
Well you can but you would (have already) loose[sic] all credibility in the process.
Like people who can't spell "lose"?
In other words since you already have the authority to do whatever the hell you want this whole exercise is redundant? If this is the case why bother with new legislation?
Because it establishes a group to catalog infrastructure attached to the network, look at the security, make recommendations, and make a plan as to who needs to be contacted with what instructions. Further, it makes sure this persists across presidential administrations.
I don't know of any operators who would not take reasonable steps to mitigate problems if the USG had specific information about a credible problem where public safety or life critical systems were involved. Do you? Is there any evidence whatsoever this is a problem?
There have been several large targets pointed out, where there was network access or laptops that moved from the network to the intranet for power plants and communications hubs, where a targeted trojan or network attack could cripple important resources. This bill is partly about establishing a group to look for more such problems before someone else does.
I would add it is quite foolish to think one can address a "cyber attack" as in "war" in linear time or on timescales in which humans have any chance of reacting. Chances are your advsaries have already compromised the system well in advance.
Isolated attacks are less of an issue compared to attacks that happen in conjunction with a physical attack. Moreover, systems compromised in advance at critical facilities are much more likely to be discovered as compromised before being triggered. You note the Stuxnet worm did not wait around after getting to the right location to deliver its payload.
But maybe this is all unneeded. Maybe we don't need the government preparing for this kind of attack with a formal group and the NSA will just do it quietly under presidents that care and not at all under other presidents. I guess what I'm not seeing is, aside from inflammatory and largely wrong depictions of this bill in the media, what are people on Slashdot so upset and worried about it? What makes people take time out of their day to post comments angrily attacking and complaining about this bill? What is it you fear, other than that the title and summary have something to do with the article and bill being discussed? And let's face it, this is Slashdot. That rarely happens.
So there are hundreds of comments already posted here, but none of them that have been modded up that I can see points out that this isn't actually an "Internet Kill Switch" in any way shape or form. That's just a sensationalist title used to get people riled up and interested. This is, in fact, a much less interesting and less threatening piece of legislation. It just says the president can order companies running critical infrastructure for the functioning of our society to take action to protect them from a network attack in an emergency. No where does it grant the authority to shut down the internet or large swaths of it or censor any content.
Now this legislation is not without problems and it certainly should more clearly define what is meant by critical infrastructure, but seriously, there is a reason this bill is supported from both sides of the aisle and it had fuck all to do with people's conspiracy theories about censorship and control of the media and communication. This is just an inadequately worded bill doing exactly what internet security experts have been asking for right along; precautions put in place to quickly isolate critical systems that likely shouldn't be accessible in the first place but often are in one way or another. This is about Stuxnet and the possibility of network based attacks on real hardware and resources from foreign powers. No politicians in the US have any interest in shutting down the internet because we still have robust means of communication otherwise and it would be political suicide.
You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own history and facts.
To quote from an article discussing a study of just this topic:
In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed.
In summary, 94% of economic historians disagree with you and 73% of economists disagree with you.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth.
Straw man. I never said all taxes are bad.
Actually, you're the one making a strawman. I never wrote anything about you saying something is "bad". You said wealth redistribution is socialism, which is an idiotic statement. All taxes redistribute wealth by definition.
The rest of your post is nothing but ad-hominem attacks which indicate you've run out of arguments.
I'm frustrated with your stupidity and blind refusal to think. All you can do is quote from your very poor understanding of political talking points. Assertions like that government programs can't stimulate job growth are complete idiocy. You really need to stop thinking Fox news is presenting credible economics. Every time you bring this crap up, I just provide another reference as to why you're completely wrong and you move on and make another absurd claim. It is pointless. Bye bye.
It's bad enough credit cards have RFID tags in them now. I don't need my phone doing it too.
I disagree, although I think we share some common ground. I just received my first credit card with an RFID embedded. I don't like it because in order to "turn it off" I have to wrap it in tinfoil. Thus, I do want NFP. With my phone, I can actually run an app and (assuming a reasonable interface) only turn on its ability to do payments when I want to use it. It removes a security risk (or at least changes it from a risk from anyone who is near me to a risk from anyone who can remotely hack into my device and extract and decrypt info.
Unfortunately, no. The New Deal was not an illusion, more like a nightmare. It prolonged the Great Depression for years, and may have continued if not for WW2. Progressives love to revise history around the New Deal (and the Great Society as well).
Yeah, the new deal as a failure sure is "revisionist history". It's certainly not how history was written originally.
No, that would be socialism.
In regards to basic economics, it's a distinction with little difference. They both advocate taking wealth by threat of force from one group and give it to another.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth. Are you really that dumb? If you can't even understand such a basic distinction, between progressive taxation and government control of all wealth, then I really don't see the point in continuing any sort of discussion. It's like you're just repeating stuff you heard and don't really understand, with absolutely no logic or numbers behind any of your opinions. You want it to be true that somehow democrats ruined the economy, so you'll repeat whatever you heard that says that in some way, even if it's a loony Glenn Beck rant. Good luck with that.
Slashdot Mirror
"isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located"
Mmm, yes, and since it all depends a fairly small number of backbone routes the collateral damage being everybody else is a mere bagatelle.
So your theory is that a president could claim they are just isolating critical infrastructure and then actually shut down backbone routes? And this would do what exactly? I mean it would drastically slow all communications without actually isolating the resources mentioned. And this benefits a president how?
If the president wants to shut down communications in the US, they can. It will get them kicked out of office pronto, but they can do it with or without this bill as it already falls under both war powers and the patriot act. If that's the conspiracy you're worried about, you're way too late.
Not to mention if the "high value infrastructure" IT people actually know thir ass from a router (and for the most part they actually do), then such action isn't necessary to begin with.
I've worked with "high value infrastructure" IT people. Some know their shit and some don't. So we're attacked by a Stuxnet variant trying to screw with power distribution network control systems. The worm is detected and being analyzed by experts (as Stuxnet was). You don't think it is a good idea to have a group that has a catalogue of vital resources looking at it and if they figure out the target, ordering power transmission companies to isolate their networks completely, stop plugging in even "clean" laptops and new gear, until such a time as the worm can be defanged and systems updated to be protected against it?
That's about the only use I see for this bill, even when I try to think of ways to abuse it. Maybe you've thought of some other scenario. Do tell, what can a president do with this bill to harm the people that they couldn't already do? How does this help them abuse power?
I think you misunderstand why they would even need to pass a bill to "kill the internet" ... if the goal was to merely cut off .gov domains and hi-security networks during an internet attack
This isn't about government owned networks (for the umpteenth time). This is about critical infrastructure that is privately owned and run like power generation and distribution, airlines, trains, etc. And nothing in the bill talks about an internet kill switch. It's about the ability to order those private companies to isolate their networks FROM the internet or take other measures to protect the infrastructure in an emergency. The meat of the bill is setting up a permanent group to catalog those resources and evaluate what needs to be done given a specific type of threat.
...hence, the only purpose such a bill could possibly serve is to shut off the internet
They don't need a bill for that. It can already be done in an emergency under existing executive powers and would be idiotic anyway since it is political suicide. Not everything is a harebrained conspiracy theory.
Moreover, i can't imagine a case where such a switch would actually be of benefit;
What Fucking Switch! Where in the bill does it talk about a switch or cutting the US off from the rest of the internet? That's just sensationalist speculation from a rather idiotic and sensationalist interpretation designed to generate headlines. Why the hell would the president need a bill to cut all communications anyway since they are commander in chief and can do it already?
Then it follows, the way you've said it, that the President can do certain things only if he is also willing to declare martial law.
Nope. The president can declare martial law or he can do it under the patriot act without declaring martial law.
The public would probably react pretty strongly to the absurdity of declaring martial law nationwide for a natural disaster in one part of the nation, but might not react as strongly to a communications blackout, particularly an intermittent one or just using the threat of one to censor news coming out of the affected area.
Are you shitting me? Martial law is some legal thing. Half the country wouldn't even notice he declared martial law nationwide. Shutting down communications nationwide for a natural disaster in one place would cause a much, much stronger public reaction. Mind you, either would be political suicide which is why speculation about these sort of power grab scenarios fall flat.
...what happens when the government claims they have dealt effectively with the terrorist attack, but doesn't want to restore communications just yet?
How is that any different between martial law, patriot act, or this new bill? Now they can say they're keeping all communications shut off because it is all vital infrastructure they're protecting? How does that make things better for them?
It's funny how the same slashdotters who had a cow about W wanting to wiretap suspected terrorists without a warrant are OK with Obama shutting down communications without a warrant.
Not really. I'm not okay with obama wiretapping suspected terrorists without a warrant either. I'm not okay with any president shutting down the public communications networks either. I'm okay with a president from whatever party shutting off network and other access to nuclear power plant intranets if they detect a credible threat from malware. How is any of that "funny"?
You see, the bill explicitly excludes "judicial oversight".
And that is one of several problems with the bill, as I pointed out in other posts. That doesn't mean if has fuck all to do with stupid conspiracy theories about shutting down the internet with a "kill switch".
What is necessary now is an standard that provides the balance between convenience and safety in those systems from ISO or IEEE, not demagogic laws from any country's congress.
There are already mission critical control system standards from ISO. There is just no way to force companies to implement them. You still don't think it makes sense for the feds to have an official group to prepare for problems and be ready to step in when these companies fail or when their is a real security risk?
Emergency powers always sound reasonable, even prudent, when the laws enabling them are written prior to an actual emergency. What really matters is who's in power when the Reichstag goes up in flames.
So how can these powers be abused? The president already has emergency power to cut communications under the patriot act without declaring war, and has the power under a martial law declaration. I guess I just don't see where this adds any danger. Now they can declare all communications to be critical and then shut them down under the guise of protecting them? So now they're confusing people by making a claim that it is critical infrastructure and another claim that it is somehow protected now? And this is better for the executive in some way instead of just shutting down the communications and saying it is to stop terrorists? I seriously don't get it.
In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...
Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.
What you don't seem to get that is that "isolating the networks" is exactly how you shut down communications. How else would you do it, besides pulling the plug entirely?
Isolating the networks of critical infrastructure doesn't disrupt communications in general and the people working at nuclear plants on secure networks can go tot he public network or home or to a coffee shop or use their phone. It doesn't hinder communication significantly for the country. The idea that such a thing is a goal is simply unsupported and unsupportable.
A company that objects to being subject to the emergency regulations is permitted to appeal to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. But her decision is final and courts are explicitly prohibited from reviewing it.
I didn't see that in the bill either and how exactly does a law prohibit the courts from reviewing it? They're the courts, if a court refuses you appeal to a higher court and supreme court is not answerable to the legislature aside from a constitutional amendment.
So if anything can be declared "critical infrastructure" and isolated without benefit of the courts, any communication can be shut down.
In an emergency, yes, but the executive already has the power to do that two other ways. They aren't interested in this for shutting down communications because they don't need it, it would require them to make ludicrous claims about what is critical infrastructure, and shutting down communications would be political suicide. This is about creating a group to look at the problems and make a nice list of what needs to be protected and how and then let the executive have a less extreme option when they need to protect something specific.
It takes a pretty convoluted and unreasonable conspiracy theory or some inexplicable chain of events to see how this bill would be used for censorship.
In that case, our government seems to be sending a mixed message by adding the internet kill-switch back into proposed legislation...
Sensationalist headlines aside, care to point out where the aforementioned bill says anything about shutting down communications? From my reading its about isolating the networks on which high value infrastructure is located, not shutting down anyone's communication. More reading, less rhetoric please.
Wikipedia does have a search engine (that indexes only wikipedia and wikimedia).
Slashdot has a search engine too (that searches only Slashdot), I bet it does pretty poorly on these tests too. Adobe.com has a search function that searches only Adobe, once again, I bet it does pretty poorly. Complaints about the quality of Wikipedia's search functionality is fine, but not really relevant to the topic here as it is not a general purpose search engine but just a search function for a particular set of pages.
We have to go to the POTUS for that? Wow. You would think the people discovering the problem would notify the manufacturers of the equipment involved, and the manufacturers would notify the end-user.
This is for emergencies. You know, like when an attack is detected underway and likely to succeed unless the executive intervenes. It's not just finding vulnerabilities in products, it's when you find an in the wild exploit that's going to do damage right away unless you quarantine the infrastructure about to be compromised.
That's how it's worked for years, and it works.
Yeah it worked great for the Iranians. You might as well argue we don't need cruise missiles in our arsenal because the police just arrest murderers.
Perhaps the channels of communication could use some streamlining, but I don't understand why the POTUS has to be made into a link in that chain.
Because he's commander in chief. It's the job of the executive office to provide for national defense. It's not like he's going to be intervening regularly, just having a group prepared for emergencies and ready to step in when there is an attack.
I think the scrutiny required of finding a virus before it blows its wad into major systems would be overwhelming.
Stuxnet was in the wild and being analyzed before it did damage.
No one would know what they were looking for until it was too late.
Yeah, hence the creation of a group to look. You prefer sitting on our hands and hoping no one ever attacks us?
I think the better way to prevent that scenario is to have a "clean room" approach - any computer that gets attached to critical infrastructure at any point in its lifetime cannot face any other network whatsoever.
You mean socializing all critical infrastructure and the government taking over from private industry and making decisions for them? And that still doesn't stop issues where trojans are inserted into hardware when it is manufactured either by agents that have infiltrated the software vendor or the hardware OEM. I mean we're all for better security on the part of private companies, but that's pretty well outside the control of the government and if those private companies don't step up, we need to be alert and ready to pick up the slack.
The comment about Wikipedia seems out of left field. Wikipedia is a site, not a search engine. Presumably, all the search engines regularly return results from Wikipedia as well as many other sources.
Why in the WORLD are such system controls available via the internet to begin with!?
Because much of our critical infrastructure is run by private companies instead of the state. Those companies have very little liability, make decisions based on profit, and hire all sorts of incompetent people for business reasons. But to be fair, most of it is not directly accessible. Much of it is on private networks, but those private networks often have laptops from the outside or new gear added and either can be a vector for infection. I doubt Iran's centrifuges were on the internet either.
In an emergency or while facing a specific threat it makes sense to further isolate these critical resources so they cannot have malware remotely activated or to prevent infection when malware has spread widely.
And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.
I almost expected this discussion site would be different and, you know read the bill and know what they hell they're writing about when it comes to technological topics. Oh wait, no I didn't.
The actual article gives as an example the removal of critical government systems from access, not limiting citizen access to the internet. Admittedly it is still a stupid sounding idea since you don't need a single kill switch, as the article also points out.
First, the president doesn't need a bill to cut off government systems. This is about ordering private companies to cut off those private networks that happen to host critical infrastructure that is privately owned, like power generation and distribution. Second, you're right that they don't need a single kill switch, but since the bill says absolutely nothing about a single kill switch, that sort of makes sense. The whole idea of a "kill switch" is just sensationalist journalism trying to get people to pay attention at the expense of accurate reporting.
Something they DESIGNED with the PURPOSE of being RESISTENT TO ATTACK they want to TURN OFF.
Not really. Something was designed with the purpose of being resistant to attack they want an executive option to remove or restrict access to it for certain private networks that run critical infrastructure, during an emergency. But don't actually read the bill you're ranting about or anything.
Why are any of these (or any other critical systems) connected to anything but the most private of networks?
Because they are run by numerous private companies, some of whom hire idiots to make decisions. Most critical infrastructure is not on the internet per se, but a lot of it is on private networks which in turn have laptops connected to them and all of which have new hardware added periodically and both can be infection vectors.
Whereas there may be some truth to what you say.... .... you don't need a piece of legislation to get pieces of critical gov't infrastructure off of the net NOW.
True. But maybe you missed the part where this bill addresses critical infrastructure run by private companies NOT the government.
This is a technical problem, not a legislative one. ....a poorly worded Bill is otherwise known as a loophole that you (if you were corrupt like say most politicians) could later use to evil ends.
What loophole is there? Really what do you think this would be abused to do that would not already be done under other, existing legislation.
If the gov't is worried about Stuxnet or the like, get the key gov't services the fark off the public networks. Isolate them *physically* onto separate networks and if you want to have ISPs manage those with some sorts of kill switching then do so.
This is NOT about government services. This is about privately run services like cell phone networks, power generation and transmission, airlines, and basically anything that could be mismanaged via computer networks into causing a disaster. This is about securing these private but vital resources in an emergency so they cannot be disrupted and/or destroyed.
There is also NOTHING about a "kill switch" in the bill. This isn't about shutting down the internet as the sensationalist title would have you believe, as you'd know if you read my previous post or the bill itself. This is about ordering specific companies, like say a nuclear plant, to sever their network connections and halt their sneakernet such that a worm or trojan is prevented from getting into their control network. This is about the government finding a threat and telling certain private companies (and only companies running vital infrastructure) to take specified defensive measures.
That's not where the Net needs to be going, if Freedom is something anybody cares about.
Okay, here's an idea, go read the bill. Now tell me what in there scares you so much that you think it's going to lead to the government cutting off the internet and thereby committing political suicide. Now tell me why this particular bill would lead to that when the executive already has the power to declare an emergency and do just that. This isn't about communication. It's about setting up a group to evaluate and respond to network based threats to vital infrastructure in an emergency.
The problem with shutting down the gateways into the US is that by the time you realize you've got a problem and you shut it down, it's too late - your systems are infected. The only way to be sure is to shut down the gateways indefinitely, and that'll go over like a lead balloon.
The bill says nothing about shutting down gateways into the US. It talks strictly of ordering companies to take measures to defend certain infrastructure. If any gateway is being shut down it would be communication gateways into intranets on which critical infrastructure is operating.
Suppose security researchers detect stuxnet_two_the_revenge out there and it has infected numerous machines, but not yet hit it's intended target. This bill would specifically authorize the president to tell particular companies to take defensive measures, such as not moving any machines between the public and private networks until they analyze the worm, find the target, and institute appropriate defenses. Or, they could determine some trigger condition and simply order nuclear reactor operators to not make use of a particular controller software version until it is patched with a fix. There is certainly room to be effective with this. It won't necessarily help, but having a team working on the topic, looking at infrastructure, and ready to respond doesn't seem all that crazy from a security perspective.
The real motivating factor behind doing this will be Wikileaks.
Don't be naive. Wikileaks is controlled by the CIA, which reports to the US government which is thoroughly infiltrated by the fourth dimensional lizard people. They don't want to stop Wikileaks, just pretend like they want to stop Wikileaks so it gains credibility.
After that episode, the US gov will want some sure fire way to prevent embarassing truths leaking out again.
It was all staged for the benefit of the reverse vampires.
All the slimy rehtoric is just to convince the sheeple...
You know about the sheeple? What about the goatanity?
...they're not really trampling on the constitution and that the end of free speech is somehow a good thing.
I guess if you're a reactionary, loony conspiracy theorist, reading the bill in question doesn't make any sense huh? You mentioned slimy rhetoric, but while I certainly see a lot of empty rhetoric here, maybe you can explain one of your theories to me. How does a law that allows the president, in an emergency, to give orders to corporations controlling vital infrastructure on how they need to defend that infrastructure from network attacks allow the government to stop free speech? Oh, and feel free to add in something about how the numerology of the arrangement of pyramids at Gaza applies.
This is incredibly fucking retarded.
Agreed.
Why would you need an "Internet Kill Switch"?
You don't.
How did they sell this to what I'm hoping is a reasonably intelligent woman?
They didn't because the bill in question doesn't establish an internet kill switch in any way shape or form.
This IS incredibly retarded because no one bothered to read the bill and notice it says nothing about creating a kill switch or disabling the internet. How is it that 90% of Slashdot reader seem to think it does because they read an inflammatory headline and could not bother to investigate any further?
There's no valid reason to do this.
If by "this" you mean complain about a bill that doesn't do what you're complaining about, I agree. If by "this" you mean create and pass this bill, well don't you think you should read it first and maybe read the comments from the legislator who crafted it and the network security advisors that asked them to do it? This is about creating a group to catalog infrastructure that is vulnerable to attacks like stuxnet, make recommendations to the companies that run those resources, form a plan for if they come under attack or if we come under general attack, and give the president the power to tell just those companies to take defensive action proscribed by the administration in an emergency without exercising broader executive authority.
Well you can but you would (have already) loose[sic] all credibility in the process.
Like people who can't spell "lose"?
In other words since you already have the authority to do whatever the hell you want this whole exercise is redundant? If this is the case why bother with new legislation?
Because it establishes a group to catalog infrastructure attached to the network, look at the security, make recommendations, and make a plan as to who needs to be contacted with what instructions. Further, it makes sure this persists across presidential administrations.
I don't know of any operators who would not take reasonable steps to mitigate problems if the USG had specific information about a credible problem where public safety or life critical systems were involved. Do you? Is there any evidence whatsoever this is a problem?
There have been several large targets pointed out, where there was network access or laptops that moved from the network to the intranet for power plants and communications hubs, where a targeted trojan or network attack could cripple important resources. This bill is partly about establishing a group to look for more such problems before someone else does.
I would add it is quite foolish to think one can address a "cyber attack" as in "war" in linear time or on timescales in which humans have any chance of reacting. Chances are your advsaries have already compromised the system well in advance.
Isolated attacks are less of an issue compared to attacks that happen in conjunction with a physical attack. Moreover, systems compromised in advance at critical facilities are much more likely to be discovered as compromised before being triggered. You note the Stuxnet worm did not wait around after getting to the right location to deliver its payload.
But maybe this is all unneeded. Maybe we don't need the government preparing for this kind of attack with a formal group and the NSA will just do it quietly under presidents that care and not at all under other presidents. I guess what I'm not seeing is, aside from inflammatory and largely wrong depictions of this bill in the media, what are people on Slashdot so upset and worried about it? What makes people take time out of their day to post comments angrily attacking and complaining about this bill? What is it you fear, other than that the title and summary have something to do with the article and bill being discussed? And let's face it, this is Slashdot. That rarely happens.
So there are hundreds of comments already posted here, but none of them that have been modded up that I can see points out that this isn't actually an "Internet Kill Switch" in any way shape or form. That's just a sensationalist title used to get people riled up and interested. This is, in fact, a much less interesting and less threatening piece of legislation. It just says the president can order companies running critical infrastructure for the functioning of our society to take action to protect them from a network attack in an emergency. No where does it grant the authority to shut down the internet or large swaths of it or censor any content.
Now this legislation is not without problems and it certainly should more clearly define what is meant by critical infrastructure, but seriously, there is a reason this bill is supported from both sides of the aisle and it had fuck all to do with people's conspiracy theories about censorship and control of the media and communication. This is just an inadequately worded bill doing exactly what internet security experts have been asking for right along; precautions put in place to quickly isolate critical systems that likely shouldn't be accessible in the first place but often are in one way or another. This is about Stuxnet and the possibility of network based attacks on real hardware and resources from foreign powers. No politicians in the US have any interest in shutting down the internet because we still have robust means of communication otherwise and it would be political suicide.
You are welcome to your own opinions, but not your own history and facts.
To quote from an article discussing a study of just this topic:
In a survey of economic historians conducted by Robert Whaples, Professor of Economics at Wake Forest University, Whaples sent out anonymous questionnaires to members of the Economic History Association. Members were asked to either disagree, agree, or agree with provisos with the statement that read: "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." While only 6% of economic historians who worked in the history department of their universities agreed with the statement, 27% of those that work in the economics department agreed.
In summary, 94% of economic historians disagree with you and 73% of economists disagree with you.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth.
Straw man. I never said all taxes are bad.
Actually, you're the one making a strawman. I never wrote anything about you saying something is "bad". You said wealth redistribution is socialism, which is an idiotic statement. All taxes redistribute wealth by definition.
The rest of your post is nothing but ad-hominem attacks which indicate you've run out of arguments.
I'm frustrated with your stupidity and blind refusal to think. All you can do is quote from your very poor understanding of political talking points. Assertions like that government programs can't stimulate job growth are complete idiocy. You really need to stop thinking Fox news is presenting credible economics. Every time you bring this crap up, I just provide another reference as to why you're completely wrong and you move on and make another absurd claim. It is pointless. Bye bye.
It's bad enough credit cards have RFID tags in them now. I don't need my phone doing it too.
I disagree, although I think we share some common ground. I just received my first credit card with an RFID embedded. I don't like it because in order to "turn it off" I have to wrap it in tinfoil. Thus, I do want NFP. With my phone, I can actually run an app and (assuming a reasonable interface) only turn on its ability to do payments when I want to use it. It removes a security risk (or at least changes it from a risk from anyone who is near me to a risk from anyone who can remotely hack into my device and extract and decrypt info.
The new deal was an illusion?
Unfortunately, no. The New Deal was not an illusion, more like a nightmare. It prolonged the Great Depression for years, and may have continued if not for WW2. Progressives love to revise history around the New Deal (and the Great Society as well).
Yeah, the new deal as a failure sure is "revisionist history". It's certainly not how history was written originally.
No, that would be socialism.
In regards to basic economics, it's a distinction with little difference. They both advocate taking wealth by threat of force from one group and give it to another.
What a pathetically sophomoric understanding. By that definition ALL modern economics is socialism since every viable economic system includes taxes that are collected and spent, thus redistributing wealth. Are you really that dumb? If you can't even understand such a basic distinction, between progressive taxation and government control of all wealth, then I really don't see the point in continuing any sort of discussion. It's like you're just repeating stuff you heard and don't really understand, with absolutely no logic or numbers behind any of your opinions. You want it to be true that somehow democrats ruined the economy, so you'll repeat whatever you heard that says that in some way, even if it's a loony Glenn Beck rant. Good luck with that.