• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Obama's Internet Kill Switch Approved

They're already "networked."

Since every name server has a list of valid root name servers, and it proceeds down that list for any name it doesn't have cached, you would have to take down all root name servers to effectively cripple DNS. Since those are located all over the world, this is a losing battle. By the time you got a few taken down, someone else would have new ones set up and get their IPs distributed to all remaining name servers.

Since DNS is a distributed hierarchy, you would have to nail a massive number of name servers at once, and even then the effects would be temporary.

I think this is less about shutting down DNS servers (which I'd think any hacker would be going by IP address anyway), and more about shutting down the internet backbone to isolate the US from an attack. I mean literally cutting the hardlines. That's far more feasible. While the US and Canada are pretty tightly integrated with fiber (a legacy of our shared telephone systems), there's only a few undersea cables connecting us to the rest of the world (and the rest of the world to itself, a massive amount of purely international traffic flows through the US) and a few through to Mexico and Latin America. All could be cut in short order.

While the control systems are distributed, the actual cabling of the internet is hierarchical, with the longer distance, higher capacity lines being exponentially less numerous than shorter distance connections. Even the Tier 1 operators each have roughly half dozen international cables going in/out of the continent.

Of course, as I said before, we're not the only one using the wires. Any president contemplating this would have to deal with the consequences of shutting down a large part of the world for some time. Yes, rewirings would be made, but you're still looking at widespread outages for days. Nobody wants to rob the world of $1 trillion of GDP without damn good cause.



2005 image of global data flows over the internet backbone.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, we absolutely could shut down the data flowing in and out of US territory. I don't dispute that. But this notion of totally shutting down the Internet in the US is all out of proportion and not feasible from a technical standpoint. People are worrying about something that is legally difficult, politically impossible, and technically questionable. The Internet drives a tremendous amount of commerce, and there's no way people would take a shutdown in stride.

As others have indicated, we'd have to be facing some kind of cataclysmic threat in order to even consider such a drastic move. By that point, no one's going to be caring about economics or politics, much less eBay and Facebook.
 
Yeah, we absolutely could shut down the data flowing in and out of US territory. I don't dispute that. But this notion of totally shutting down the Internet in the US is all out of proportion and not feasible from a technical standpoint. People are worrying about something that is legally difficult, politically impossible, and technically questionable. The Internet drives a tremendous amount of commerce, and there's no way people would take a shutdown in stride.

As others have indicated, we'd have to be facing some kind of cataclysmic threat in order to even consider such a drastic move. By that point, no one's going to be caring about economics or politics, much less eBay and Facebook.
In that point I'd say we're in agreement. I cannot imagine an attack large enough to require this. You're talking about needing every computer in a continent to create a DOS attack on a national scale. America's massive size and central location in the physical internet makes such an attack unfeasible, as at best it will amount to a marginal spike in traffic. I really can't imagine a scenario that would call for this, but it's never a bad idea to plan for Armageddon. Someone has to, why not the feds?
 
I'd like to take a poll here, if you agree just type agree, if you disagree, type in disagree, if you are neutral, type in neutral.

Do you believe this Kill Switch is basically an attempt by those in power to censor, or in one way or another control the flow of information?
 
I'd like to take a poll here, if you agree just type agree, if you disagree, type in disagree, if you are neutral, type in neutral.

Do you believe this Kill Switch is basically an attempt by those in power to censor, or in one way or another control the flow of information?

where's the poll option for the claims are being wildly exaggerated by people who have nfi about how computer networking and the internet works?

IOW your poll is meaningless and I believe a response because just about everyone has called bullshit on your basic premise.
 
I'd like to take a poll here, if you agree just type agree, if you disagree, type in disagree, if you are neutral, type in neutral.

Do you believe this Kill Switch is basically an attempt by those in power to censor, or in one way or another control the flow of information?

where's the poll option for the claims are being wildly exaggerated by people who have nfi about how computer networking and the internet works?

IOW your poll is meaningless and I believe a response because just about everyone has called bullshit on your basic premise.

Marc is not very diplomatic but he's right on the money here. :lol:
 
I'd like to take a poll here, if you agree just type agree, if you disagree, type in disagree, if you are neutral, type in neutral.

Do you believe this Kill Switch is basically an attempt by those in power to censor, or in one way or another control the flow of information?

where's the poll option for the claims are being wildly exaggerated by people who have nfi about how computer networking and the internet works?

IOW your poll is meaningless and I believe a response because just about everyone has called bullshit on your basic premise.

Marc is not very diplomatic but he's right on the money here. :lol:

Come on you should know by now I'm never diplomatic :)
 
It's been explained that what you stated is NOT what the bill stated, nor its purpose. Also explained how your idea doesn't really work, and may not even be technically possible, even if someone found a valid reason (and the political stones) to actually attempt it.

Also, it's completely pointless, as anything of value is NOT on the internet, but on isolated, self-contained networks...

if you'd like to summarize that as "disagree", be our guest, but guessing you won't find any "agree" votes.
 
CuttingEdge:

Here's the deal. I know technology run amok is your "pet issue," but you'd better start bringing some actual facts and research to these posts of yours, otherwise I'll have to conclude you're either trolling or spamming. Every time you bring these things up you get thoughtful, insightful posts pointing out why your conclusions are incorrect. Then you ignore them, restate your original premise, and we go through the whole thing again.

I have no problem with you posting in this forum, but I'd like to see you make more of an effort to back up what you're saying. I do my best to be technically accurate when I post here. SciTech isn't like the other forums--the focus is on things that are quite quantifiable and usually well-researched. There is no excuse for spouting a bunch of alarmism and political talking points here. I'm okay with discussing politics here, too, as long as it doesn't devolve into partisan bickering. (You can go to TNZ for that--it's fun.)

Consider this a "friendly" to improve your posting a bit. It does not go on any kind of permanent record, so don't worry about that. As long as you appear to be making an effort, I'll be happy. If you have compelling arguments to make regarding the implications of technology and its impact on privacy and government, I would love to hear them, but please, let's not retread the same ground over and over.
 
I could see the usefulness of a "kill switch" in some circumstances. Take, for example, the "flash crash" from some months back. What if regulators HADN'T been able to calm things down with more targeted methods? The ability to simply "shut the market off" until order had been restored could have been useful. Another possible use for the switch would have been the 9/18/08 electronic run on mutual funds.
 
But those would more properly require "precision strikes." A mass shutdown of the US Internet is simply overkill for all but the most apocalyptically dire situations.
 
Do you realize how much it would hurt the US (and global) economy to shut down the US Internet even for a few hours? In an effort to mitigate damage--such as massive numbers of robo-trades--you would cause even more damage.
 
Do you realize how much it would hurt the US (and global) economy to shut down the US Internet even for a few hours? In an effort to mitigate damage--such as massive numbers of robo-trades--you would cause even more damage.

Which in some cases might be more preferable than the alternative. Such as a complete global economic meltdown like the 9/18 event almost was.
 
Robert Maxwell,

CuttingEdge:

Here's the deal. I know technology run amok is your "pet issue," but you'd better start bringing some actual facts and research to these posts of yours, otherwise I'll have to conclude you're either trolling or spamming. Every time you bring these things up you get thoughtful, insightful posts pointing out why your conclusions are incorrect. Then you ignore them, restate your original premise, and we go through the whole thing again.

I have no problem with you posting in this forum, but I'd like to see you make more of an effort to back up what you're saying. I do my best to be technically accurate when I post here. SciTech isn't like the other forums--the focus is on things that are quite quantifiable and usually well-researched. There is no excuse for spouting a bunch of alarmism and political talking points here. I'm okay with discussing politics here, too, as long as it doesn't devolve into partisan bickering. (You can go to TNZ for that--it's fun.)

Consider this a "friendly" to improve your posting a bit. It does not go on any kind of permanent record, so don't worry about that. As long as you appear to be making an effort, I'll be happy. If you have compelling arguments to make regarding the implications of technology and its impact on privacy and government, I would love to hear them, but please, let's not retread the same ground over and over.

Understood. I have some questions though.

Say I post a message, and somebody posts a rebuttal. If I believe the rebuttal is incorrect, can I rebut what they said? If so, under what circumstances can I rebut what they said?

CuttingEdge100
 
Robert Maxwell,

CuttingEdge:

Here's the deal. I know technology run amok is your "pet issue," but you'd better start bringing some actual facts and research to these posts of yours, otherwise I'll have to conclude you're either trolling or spamming. Every time you bring these things up you get thoughtful, insightful posts pointing out why your conclusions are incorrect. Then you ignore them, restate your original premise, and we go through the whole thing again.

I have no problem with you posting in this forum, but I'd like to see you make more of an effort to back up what you're saying. I do my best to be technically accurate when I post here. SciTech isn't like the other forums--the focus is on things that are quite quantifiable and usually well-researched. There is no excuse for spouting a bunch of alarmism and political talking points here. I'm okay with discussing politics here, too, as long as it doesn't devolve into partisan bickering. (You can go to TNZ for that--it's fun.)

Consider this a "friendly" to improve your posting a bit. It does not go on any kind of permanent record, so don't worry about that. As long as you appear to be making an effort, I'll be happy. If you have compelling arguments to make regarding the implications of technology and its impact on privacy and government, I would love to hear them, but please, let's not retread the same ground over and over.

Understood. I have some questions though.

Say I post a message, and somebody posts a rebuttal. If I believe the rebuttal is incorrect, can I rebut what they said? If so, under what circumstances can I rebut what they said?

CuttingEdge100

If you rebut, I would like to see it consist of more than "you're wrong," and not just a restatement of what you originally said. It doesn't hurt to provide links to back up a point.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top