Obama's Internet Kill Switch Approved

[CuttingEdge100]

How many of you believe this will be used not for protecting us from some kind of cyber-attack, but instead for censorship, and controlling the flow of information?

Is there any legal way around this? Will root-servers work?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There's really no technological way to shut down the entire (US) Internet. What's been passed gives the President vast emergency powers, including the ability to order ISPs to shut down their systems on national security grounds.

The whole thing is a joke. Lieberman is a joke. The people who supported this are idiots. There is this absurd notion that someone could wage "cyberwarfare" against us, and therefore the government needs to be able to control it as though it were like any other battleground. It's completely absurd.

What I hope happens--and what I suspect would happen--is that some ISPs would refuse to comply, and many private citizens would set up their own large networks. And while ISPs are indemnified against civil damages incurred by being offline, what of all the companies that depend entirely on having an online presence? They wouldn't take this lying down. They'd sue in a heartbeat.

This strikes me as one of those "rainy day" laws that will never be used to its potential extremes, because it would be so obviously destructive no one would stand for it.

I'd be more concerned about it being used to take down Web sites that are critical of the government, or are doing investigative journalism into areas the government doesn't like. Shutting down the whole Internet is a non-starter, but it's very conceivable that this law would be used to stifle speech on national security grounds.

I don't know which way things would go if this made it up to the Supreme Court, either. They haven't been coming down on the side of free speech lately.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

How many of you believe this will be used not for protecting us from some kind of cyber-attack, but instead for censorship, and controlling the flow of information?

Is there any legal way around this? Will root-servers work?

You do not have all the information. The president already has the power to shut down basically anything related to telecommunications based on the 1934 telecommunication act which was amended in 1996. The power granted by this is very broad and the bill Lieberman introduced (the one you are talking about) is a bill to put a limit on that power.

Edit: Regardless it is all crap to me. But if you go digging it is amazing the powers you will find vested in the president in the case of National emergency. He/she can because an absolute dictator.

 

[Shatinator]

There's really no technological way to shut down the entire (US) Internet. What's been passed gives the President vast emergency powers, including the ability to order ISPs to shut down their systems on national security grounds.

The whole thing is a joke. Lieberman is a joke. The people who supported this are idiots. There is this absurd notion that someone could wage "cyberwarfare" against us, and therefore the government needs to be able to control it as though it were like any other battleground. It's completely absurd.

What I hope happens--and what I suspect would happen--is that some ISPs would refuse to comply, and many private citizens would set up their own large networks. And while ISPs are indemnified against civil damages incurred by being offline, what of all the companies that depend entirely on having an online presence? They wouldn't take this lying down. They'd sue in a heartbeat.

This strikes me as one of those "rainy day" laws that will never be used to its potential extremes, because it would be so obviously destructive no one would stand for it.

I'd be more concerned about it being used to take down Web sites that are critical of the government, or are doing investigative journalism into areas the government doesn't like. Shutting down the whole Internet is a non-starter, but it's very conceivable that this law would be used to stifle speech on national security grounds.

I don't know which way things would go if this made it up to the Supreme Court, either. They haven't been coming down on the side of free speech lately.

How many of you believe this will be used not for protecting us from some kind of cyber-attack, but instead for censorship, and controlling the flow of information?

Is there any legal way around this? Will root-servers work?

You do not have all the information. The president already has the power to shut down basically anything related to telecommunications based on the 1934 telecommunication act which was amended in 1996. The power granted by this is very broad and the bill Lieberman introduced (the one you are talking about) is a bill to put a limit on that power.

Edit: Regardless it is all crap to me. But if you go digging it is amazing the powers you will find vested in the president in the case of National emergency. He/she can because an absolute dictator.

RobertMaxwell & PurpleBudda without going into the realm of conspiracy could you eleberate more on your comments and views. I find this issue intreaging and someone worrysome.

 

[Squiggy]

How many of you believe this will be used not for protecting us from some kind of cyber-attack, but instead for censorship, and controlling the flow of information?

Because censorship happens all the time now? Whaa?

 

[PurpleBuddha]

RobertMaxwell & PurpleBudda without going into the realm of conspiracy could you eleberate more on your comments and views. I find this issue intreaging and someone worrysome.

I am not sure there is a lot to say about my position. Obama already has the power to do this it was granted a long time ago, and the new bill is defining limits on that power, not granting him more.


For more on this go to:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Communications+Act+of+1934+internet+kill+switch

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Robert Maxwell,

I'd be more concerned about it being used to take down Web sites that are critical of the government, or are doing investigative journalism into areas the government doesn't like. Shutting down the whole Internet is a non-starter, but it's very conceivable that this law would be used to stifle speech on national security grounds.

Well, regardless of how it is done, my primary worry is that this will be used for censorship, and to control the flow of information. Disabling websites that are critical of the government, or are involved in investigation is censorship and is controlling the flow of information.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Sounds like a big load of bullshit to me. Shutting down the internet for any amount of time would be catastrophic, anyway. It would be like The Day the Earth Stood Still. We'd essentially be paralyzed. Like someone else said, though, they'd likely use this bill for censorship. I'm actually getting pretty tired of the government treating us like we work for them. It's supposed to be the exact opposite of that. They're like this big, menacing shadow hanging over us keeping us scared and obedient.

 

[Squiggy]

True. It would have to be an absolute last resort of some unimaginably bad attack on something. If anyone were to shut it down because some troll on Redstate.com is ranting about a birth certificate it would be seen as "a bit rash" since the country would grind to a halt.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Sounds like a big load of bullshit to me. Shutting down the internet for any amount of time would be catastrophic, anyway. It would be like The Day the Earth Stood Still. We'd essentially be paralyzed.

No doubt. Think about it like this. A cyber attack on the U.S. could never dream to be so successful as to shut down the web for the entire nation or even large segments of it. Such an accomplishment would make any other cyber attack seem like child's play....yet here is this power we have to do it to ourselves for what purpose exactly?

I am really curious is someone can think of a hypothetical of something this is even remotely possible that would justify 'shutting down the web' even temporarily, and assuming that the means to shut it down were devised.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Defending the internet from attack by shutting the whole thing down sounds like protecting the US from foreign invasion by blowing it up. I can't even imagine how messed up that would be, there are a lot of things that are very dependent on the presence of the internet.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is this absurd notion that someone could wage "cyberwarfare" against us

Absurd? It sounds like a very real threat, IMHO.

The killswitch idea might not be the best way to go about combating that threat, but that doesn't mean there IS no threat.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Mr. Adventure,

Defending the internet from attack by shutting the whole thing down sounds like protecting the US from foreign invasion by blowing it up.

Your description of how overkill this is really hits the nail on the head

I can't even imagine how messed up that would be, there are a lot of things that are very dependent on the presence of the internet.

It would be disastrous

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is this absurd notion that someone could wage "cyberwarfare" against us

Why is that absurd?

I'll give you a few reasons, as I understand most people don't know a lot about how the Internet works:

1. There is no critical government infrastructure on the Internet. It would make no sense for there to be, either--it would be a massively stupid thing to do. Government data is kept on private networks.

2. The Internet is too vast and decentralized for even a determined enemy to cripple it through technological means. The only effective way to attack our network infrastructure is to physically disable it. That is not cyberwarfare, obviously.

All this "cyberwarfare" nonsense is propagated by old guys who don't understand the Internet and how it works. They are convinced it's a form of territory that must be defended from enemies. The single most important form of security is physical security. Worrying about attacks coming from cyberspace is simply asinine and a massive waste of government resources.

If it's true that this law is meant to curtail some of the executive's broad telecom powers then I am all for it. I just wish people would stop talking about "cyberwarfare" at all, because it just doesn't exist.

 

[David cgc]

I am really curious is someone can think of a hypothetical of something this is even remotely possible that would justify 'shutting down the web' even temporarily, and assuming that the means to shut it down were devised.

Maybe some kind of massive DoS attack against government or financial computers using Confiker bots.

 

[JarodRussell]

You could try to nuke the 13 root name servers, but that's my knowledge from stuff I read 4 years ago.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Taking out the root servers wouldn't work for very long. As soon as someone had new ones set up and got the word out about their addresses, everyone would fail over.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I just wish people would stop talking about "cyberwarfare" at all, because it just doesn't exist.

You don't believe viruses are a threat? Botnets? DDOS attacks? Hacking into systems that control transportation, finance, etc.? Ever seen Live Free or Die Hard?

 

[Marc]

I just wish people would stop talking about "cyberwarfare" at all, because it just doesn't exist.

You don't believe viruses are a threat? Botnets? DDOS attacks? Hacking into systems that control transportation, finance, etc.? Ever seen Live Free or Die Hard?

Ever seen a a tv or movie where they actually have a basic understanding of computers, networking and the internet.

In otherwords don't believe everything you see on tv.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I just wish people would stop talking about "cyberwarfare" at all, because it just doesn't exist.

You don't believe viruses are a threat? Botnets? DDOS attacks? Hacking into systems that control transportation, finance, etc.? Ever seen Live Free or Die Hard?

The things you mention are all blown absurdly out of proportion by sensationalist media. Even the dollar amounts thrown around to represent the damages caused by viruses and worms are grossly exaggerated by computer security companies.

Yes, those things are threats. No, none of them pose an actual menace to national security. They primarily cause damage to home computers and corporate intranets, and on a fairly limited scale.