Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Internet United States News Your Rights Online

Internet Kill Switch Back On the US Legislative Agenda 376

Posted by timothy
from the reasonable-measures dept.
suraj.sun points out a story at Wired that US lawmakers have revived the idea of a government-controlled "Internet Kill Switch," which reads, in part: "The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt's Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later. 'My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,' Collins said in an e-mail Friday. 'It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet Kill Switch Back On the US Legislative Agenda

Comments Filter:
  • It is just data! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mini me (132455) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @08:56PM (#35045682)

    You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Except that things that can hurt people are. For reasons I can't comprehend there's an awful lot of stuff that's connected to the internet which could result in casualties if it was attacked.
      • Name one thing you know firsthand is connected to the Internet and could result in casualties if attacked. Sure banks computers could crash, sure amazon could go down, but ICBMs are not going to launch and the power grid wont go down. If anything that could actually cause casualties is connected to the Internet then it shouldn't be.
        • Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Informative)

          by mlyle (148697) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @10:22PM (#35046240)

          Name one thing you know firsthand is connected to the Internet and could result in casualties if attacked. Sure banks computers could crash, sure amazon could go down, but ICBMs are not going to launch and the power grid wont go down. If anything that could actually cause casualties is connected to the Internet then it shouldn't be.

          http://www.devicesworld.net/ [devicesworld.net]

          SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) technology provides the means to monitor and control distributed systems from a central location. They are used widely in the telecommunications, power distribution, oil & gas and transportation industries. SCADA systems are typically deployed with dedicated communication infrastructure, proprietary software and hardware.

          iSCADA, on the other hand is an Internet-based SCADA solution that utilizes the public Internet infrastructure as the data communication medium. It uniquely combines traditional SCADA technology with the open data communication protocols, services and data formats of the public Internet to deliver cost-effective and easy-to-use SCADA solutions. With iSCADA, it is now feasible to monitor and control virtually anything from anywhere in the world.

          This kind of stuff is getting deployed more and more.

    • by phantomfive (622387) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:52PM (#35046036) Journal

      You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.

      Ya, nevermind that whole, 'pen is mightier than the sword' thing. It's exactly because data is so powerful that unsavory characters want to stop it. I don't know what is motivating these Homeland Security creatures, but it isn't a sane concern for their fellow men.

      • by dch24 (904899)
        Look at the bill. S. 3480 -- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 (also introduced to the house as H.R.5548). To view it, you have to go to thomas.loc.gov and search for it using the Advanced Search, 111th Congress.

        This is more than just "Kill Switch" legislation (don't believe the PR saying it is something else [wired.com]).

        The most interesting part is -- you can't actually read the part about the kill switch. It doesn't say redacted -- IT'S JUST MISSING.
        Ok, here's the basic outline:
        TITLE I--OF
    • Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @10:15PM (#35046188)

      No but we are at a disadvantage since we depend on private sector infrastructure which isn't coordinated enough to fend off a coordinated attack.

      A government agency working with the ISPs could however respond to a systematic attack on our infrastructure and kill routes which are origins of the attack.

      If a bank is receiving a denial of service attack to all of its servers it doesn't have the authority to order an ISP to start shutting down the source of the attacks. If however there is an attack under way they can notify a central agency whose job is to make an organized response to an organized attack.

      Yes individual organizations need good cyber security response plans--but as we realized during the last economic crisis, just because an organization is critical to society doesn't mean it is acting in such a manner. Nor should they necessarily have to bare the cost of behaving as such.

      • by rtb61 (674572)

        In that case it is all checks and balances, kill switch fine but if it was unwarranted then prison time for those that infringed the constitution and no national security 'we aren't telling you the truth bull crap'. Simple adhere to the law in all regards, with heavy penalties for illegal use of the 'kill switch' giving in the legislation, target not only at government but also at 'private interests'.

      • Re:It is just data! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @06:13AM (#35047850)

        Yes individual organizations need good cyber security response plans--but as we realized during the last economic crisis, just because an organization is critical to society doesn't mean it is acting in such a manner. Nor should they necessarily have to bare the cost of behaving as such.

        Then we should be taking the opposite approach. Instead of increasing centralisation because parts of the system are "too big to fail" we should be encouraging decentralisation - encouraging more players to get involved and build up redundancy so that if some are compromised we can still maintain functionality in the face of damage.

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        How is the worst possible DOS attack any worse than pulling the plug on the Internet?

        Answer: It isn't...

      • by JAlexoi (1085785)
        Yes... I see it now.
        Me - Calling the ISP support line, because all traffic stops at the nearest router
        Me: Hi. I can't get though to the internet for the last few days. The network is connected. Your router responds.
        Rep: Have you tried restarting you modem/router?
        Me: Yes, I said that I am getting through to your router.
        Rep: Please give me your client number:
        Me: It's 1234567
        Rep: Thank,you. ... Yes I see we have received your latest payment. I will log your complaint and call you ASAP.
        Rep(calls back):
    • by Jason Levine (196982) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:17PM (#35046492)

      Actually, you can hurt people with data. Mainly, people in power. And that's what they're afraid of.

  • So when China takes over our internet, they can't use our machines to gold farm in World of Warcraft! Sarcasm aside, what would the BENEFIT of such a thing be? All it seems to be good for is pretending we don't have a Bill of Rights, specifically the first amendment.
    • Sarcasm aside, what would the BENEFIT of such a thing be?

      a) Someone posts to Slashdot, pointing out that countries are being run for the benefit of the elite; global rioting results.

      b) Politician gets in trouble, corporate-owned media politely decline to cover it, but voters find out about it on the innertube.

      c) Terrists invent a code phrase that makes people's heads explode when they read it.

      d) Solar system passes through a cloud of interstellar gas that makes people lose interest in porn, threatening global economic collapse.

      e) Uhm, I'm really having trouble th

    • by smash (1351)
      you already don't [youtube.com] have a bill of rights any more.
  • And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Amorymeltzer (1213818)
      It doesn't stand a chance. All it needs is for one person to compare a sponsor of this bill to Mubarak and it should be dead in the water. You can't bring something like this up right after all this tumult.
      • by icebike (68054) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:17PM (#35045858)

        The timing is so dumb that one has to wonder.

        To bring that up now suggest the recent election turn around has scared Both Democrats and Republicans into believing Egypt could happen here, and rather fix the problem they react with police state measures.

        Or was this on track all along, with hopes of sneaking it through, and the mainstream press just finally took notice?
        In which case it may well be DOA already.

      • It doesn't stand a chance. All it needs is for one person to compare a sponsor of this bill to Mubarak and it should be dead in the water. You can't bring something like this up right after all this tumult.

        Maybe it's a cleverly timed proposal by someone who doesn't think we should have one.

        • by icebike (68054)

          Maybe it's a cleverly timed proposal by someone who doesn't think we should have one.

          Possibly, but the bill was introduced first back in December, when there was talk about Stuxnet and the supposed vulnerability of the US Power Grid, but well before the situation erupted in Egypt or Tunisia. I suspect it was sincere at the time, even if ill thought out.

          The present lesson would/should make any rational person think twice about introducing such legislation.

          It seems more likely that the only reason its here on Slash Dot or on Wired is because it suddenly dawned on people just how ripe for ab

          • by causality (777677) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:30PM (#35046570)

            Note: I have no doubt the Government ALREADY has the means to cause a similar shutdown at their disposal, its just that doing so would be illegal. It would only take a little bit of BGP route poisoning to accomplish the same thing.

            I suspect this is a lot like Bush's warrentless wiretapping: it has been there for a long time now -- the legislation in question is merely a formality attempting to legitimize it. Consider it "retroactive immunity" for the possession of an Internet kill-switch.

    • And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.

      You did? Why?

  • by webdog314 (960286) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @08:58PM (#35045704)

    Seems to me, the biggest threat would be doing EXACTLY what Mubarak is doing now in Egypt.

    • yes. because we do not have free speech in the united states, that is a valid concern.
      • Actually if the US were doing what Egypt would then the government likely wouldn't covered that as freedom of speech and claim it's the act of terrorists, it incites violence and basically use every rule for speech to ensure you don't have the freedom to express yourself.
  • by unity100 (970058) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:00PM (#35045724) Homepage Journal

    ... to work with the private sector in the event of ....

    they got used to roundspeak and bullshit because you let them for all these years.

    now all that passing an enemy-of-public bill requires is enough roundspeak, and sufficient number of catchphrases. (jobs, security, emergency, terrorism, nation, economy)

    our democracies are shams.

  • by SuperKendall (25149) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:03PM (#35045748)

    I can't see any reasonable purpose for a government being able to shut down internet access in broad swathes; any internet "emergency" could (and would) realistically be handled quite well by the array of network providers involved in standing up the internet. Otherwise botnets would have killed us all long ago.

    • by Black Parrot (19622) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:15PM (#35045832)

      I can't see any reasonable purpose for a government being able to shut down internet access in broad swathes; any internet "emergency" could (and would) realistically be handled quite well by the array of network providers involved in standing up the internet. Otherwise botnets would have killed us all long ago.

      The only substantial threat to the internet is censorship (whether by governments or corporations).

      Besides, we've already seen that our telecoms are all too eager to help the government with illegal spying upon the citizenry during an "emergency". What makes anyone think they would hesitate to pull the plug at that same government's behest?

      • by melikamp (631205)
        They would hate to pull the plug, since this is how they make money. In fact, pretty much every businesses out there would also hate them, as a lot of commerce is done over Internet, and turning it off would be extremely disruptive. This power is only useful to censors and dictators, and will be hated by everyone else. The bill they need to pass should read the opposite: Internet access should be an inalienable right, and the government must make sure that every human being on USA soil has free unrestricted
    • by Seumas (6865)

      Holy fuck, I have a paper cut on my finger -- CUT OFF MY HEAD, QUICK!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:03PM (#35045750)

    than used for the intended purpose IMHO.

  • by DCFusor (1763438) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:08PM (#35045778) Homepage
    Nearly all that actions taken lately "for our security" are identical to the ones a government takes when it's afraid its people will revolt because (via that old psych tenet called projection) that's what they'd be doing had they been treated the way they are treating us.

    After all, who knows better how they've screwed us than the ones doing it?

  • Sneaker Net (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We(tech types) have to think about how to have an marginally working internet without the cooperation of the telcos. Off the top of my head I could see an entire city's wireless routers all sort of passing things along. The traceroute would be from hell but data would keep moving.

    I suspect that this is being developed right now by civil minded Egyptian programmers and engineers.

    It could also be used in disasters and whatnot.

    As long as a node here and there could contact the rest of the internet then vario

    • by Culture20 (968837)
      How do you do that wireless stuff secretly? I'm sure that along with the cell/internet/(radio? tv?) blackout, there are restrictions on personal wireless broadcast devices. The police don't need to listen to the traffic, just detect your router. "Police! This is a raid! We've triangulated a wireless signal to this residence. Nobody move!"
      • by icebike (68054)

        Unlike some countries, the US does not have enough police and they don't have enough technicians to do that sort of thing.

    • by icebike (68054)

      Maybe this could be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_mesh_network [wikipedia.org]

      A wireless mesh network (WMN) is a communications network made up of radio nodes organized in a mesh topology.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:12PM (#35045808)

    Because we'll only use it for your own good.

    They're the bad guys. You can trust us.

    We're looking out for you.

    • by robot256 (1635039)

      Because we'll only use it for your own good.

      They're the bad guys. You can trust us.

      We're looking out for you.

      Now just hand over your freedom and nobody will get hurt. Yeah right.

    • Well, actually it does appear to be. 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. It is definitely good to be skeptical and to keep a close eye on government abuse, but this doesn't seem like what everyone is jumping to make it out to be.

  • SneakerNet 2 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:13PM (#35045816) Homepage
    We(tech types) have to think about how to have an marginally working internet without the cooperation of the telcos. Off the top of my head I could see an entire city's wireless routers all sort of passing things along. The traceroute would be from hell but data would keep moving.
    I suspect that this is being developed right now by civil minded Egyptian programmers and engineers.
    It could also be used in disasters and whatnot.
    As long as a node here and there could contact the rest of the internet then various governments would lose the power presently exercised to evil ends in Egypt.
    Message me if anyone is serious about this and maybe something could be brewed up.
    PS I finally remembered my password.
  • Famous last words (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:15PM (#35045836)

    "It's for your own good". Whenever a government uses those words you can assume with some confidence it's for their good and not yours.

  • by rs1n (1867908) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:16PM (#35045838)
    In light of the recent incident in Egypt, it seems that the real purpose of such a kill switch is more useful as a means of censorship (a la big scandals that could make the US look bad, like Wikileaks). On a local scale, if I know my network is about to be attacked, I would cut off the main entrance into my network, while leaving the inside up and running. If they insist on a kill switch, why not just implement a similar scheme for all the "gateways" into government networks? As for each citizen's own access, I don't need the government to unplug my computer for me -- I can do that by myself, and am capable of making the decision to do so myself.
  • If they were to pull the plug on the internet for whatever reason... I pity the government in charge.
    Could you imagine the millions of outraged facebook users looting any burning. Add that to the online gamers...
    Can you say governmental genocide?

    • by Velex (120469)

      Could you imagine the millions of outraged facebook users

      Yes, I can. "I hope the government stops them thar terrerists so I can has mah facebookwebs back! Those terrerists hates our facebook-freedoms!"

      No, don't pretend that anyone will blame the government for using this power. They'll blame the terrorists, or pedophiles, or homosexuals, or scientists, or whoever the government is blaming. They'll view themselves as patriots supporting their morally superior government by agreeing with the government's morally superior cause.

  • Napoleon labeled England as a "nation full of shopkeepers." The Brits were so ticked off at that comment, that they proceeded to shove a weed up his ass at Waterloo. Now, if something really bad was to happen to the US, they would need to get them young folks away from their internet porn activities, and onto the front lines. So, shutting down the internet with the kill switch seems to be the right thing to do.

    Semi-patriotic-kid: "Hey, someone cut off my Internet porn! I am now motivated to join the ar

  • by beanbrew (1924590) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @09:26PM (#35045914)

    "An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."

    Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place? Seems to me that if you want to protect infrastructure, the easiest and most sensible thing to do would be to unplug the ethernet cable.

    • "An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."

      Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place? Seems to me that if you want to protect infrastructure, the easiest and most sensible thing to do would be to unplug the ethernet cable.

      Also, how are they going to know that the attack is imminent? Like, before they hear the rushing water?

    • by Jenming (37265)

      Take all critical infrastructure offline. vs Create a mechanism by which all critical infrastructure can be taken offline when intelligence agencies think its in danger.

      Your plan is certainly safer, though probably a pain in the ass in the same way pretty much any computer not connected to the internet is a pain in the ass.

    • by SheeEttin (899897)

      Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place?

      No, someone asks the same thing on every story like this.

      One of the responses I remember was a pair of questions from some kind of consultant or something:

      Question 1: Is this critical system separated from the Internet?
      Answer 1: Yes.

      Question 2: If, in an emergency, an admin needed to get in remotely, how could they do that?
      Answer 2: Well, you could VNC to here, then ssh to there, and so on and

    • by smash (1351)
      Its probably NOT. But letting logic and reason come into the discussion won't really support the new government censorship button. That we'll only use to PROTECT YOU from the bad guys. RIght?
  • Our government is the best one to decide what is good for us, especially for technology issues, since they have done such a great job so far!

    Look at how safe we are now. Thinkof how safe we will be.

    Sen. Susan Collins is an expert in this area and knows what she is doing so we should support her. She is a Phi Beta Kappa, so she's smarter than us.

    O Magazine named Senator Collins one of six women who could run for President, so we should support her Internet plan.

    We can trust her.

    Honest!

    What could possibly go

  • Susan Collins is considered a "moderate", rather then wanting to expand government when her party is in power, she's always in favor of it.
  • I suspect the USA version of the internet kill switch would be more akin to turning on a nanny filter ... ISPs blocking sites / throttling traffic / packet filtering.

    Plus, many websites would limit functionality...

    Most likely, Google, Bing, and other major search engines would return highly censored results - they have the tools in place to do so, as well as the expertise, since already do heavy filtering in many countries.

    And Facebook and other social network sites would, likewise, also strictly filter (ag

  • Amazing how good they are at cooperating with each other when the subject at hand is a double-edged sword....one that can be used either in defense of the nation, or in the manipulation, isolation, or monitoring of the American people.

    So we won the Cold War, or...did the enemy just immigrate?
    • by DCFusor (1763438)
      Maybe some of the ridiculous people who currently fall for the vicious parti-scam baloney will now wake up and realize both parties want the same thing -- total domination by them in a completely centralized government. "We know what's best for you". Yeah, right -- I've been everything from a grunt child laborer, to a top rate engineer, rock and roll musician, auto racer, scientist, and stock trader -- passing through homeless bum a time or so along the way. Which "me" is it that they know what's best fo
  • by crhylove (205956)

    is why we need real time reconfiguring p2p mesh wifi networks NOW. We should nip this in the bud with technological prowess. Anybody with a cell phone, router, or laptop that has wifi should be able to carry internet service to and from any other two wifi points. Eliminate the ISPs. Eliminate the hardware infrastructure. Eliminate the possibility for government control.

    • by Reziac (43301) *

      So what happens when the kill switch is extended to the cellphone networks?? They still need THEIR infrastructure, ya know. Unless there's some new sort that run on magic?

      As to wifi alone, that's probably all right in a FidoNet sort of way, but not very practical for anything beyond email.

  • by Baseclass (785652) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @10:14PM (#35046178)
    We should start developing contingency plans to thwart a potential internet blackout.
    International dial-up, data feeds over the airways, carrier pigeon...whatever.
    Why are they asking for this if they don't have some kind of plan in store. Terrorism 2.0 perhaps, as the fear of conventional terrorism has faded quite a bit since 2001.
  • Why on earth would the government need a "kill switch" when the large corporations will bend over backwards to do what the government wants already. As shown by Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, Vodaphone, Google with respect to Wikileaks, Egypt, and China respectively.
  • by smash (1351) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:01PM (#35046398) Homepage Journal

    Its about keeping you safe from the evildoers. Honest. Would we lie to you? We are the land of the free. WE have nothing to hide.

    Yeah right. Cutting off people's internet would be far more inconvenient to the citizenry than isolated attacks on public infrastructure or government facilities.

    It will effectively make them deaf, dumb, blind and mute as far as their voice in the international community goes.

    Now, why would the want to do that? Maybe Assange has an idea.

  • Biparitsan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amiga3D (567632) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:01PM (#35046400)

    Amazing how the really bad shit always has bi-partisan support. More and more it becomes obvious that we really need a viable third party.

  • by lionchild (581331) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:02PM (#35046402) Journal

    Quick question: Just what -exactly- is a "true cyber emergency"?

    Is it to isolate our network(s) from the rest of the world?

    Is it to secure our important services?

    Is it to keep key infrastructure operational?

    What sort of 'true cyber emergency' would want to cut us off from the rest of the world? Help me out here.

    I can certainly understand wanting to keep key services from being threatened...but, shouldn't those simply be secure anway? Shouldn't they be on their own secure network anyway?

  • This is incredibly fucking retarded. Why would you need an "Internet Kill Switch"? What "Cyber Threat" could be so bad that it would be necessary? How did they sell this to what I'm hoping is a reasonably intelligent woman? Did they fill her head with images of a jihadist cracker loosing nuclear missiles on America? Or perhaps a disgruntled teen in a bedroom in Lille typing cryptic commands into a terminal and polluting the water supply with effluents, nuclear waste and barber-shop hair-sweepings?

    The onl
  • The real motivating factor behind doing this will be Wikileaks. After that episode, the US gov will want some sure fire way to prevent embarassing truths leaking out again.

    All the slimy rehtoric is just to convince the sheeple that they're not really trampling on the constitution and that the end of free speech is somehow a good thing.

  • by DanielRavenNest (107550) on Saturday January 29, 2011 @11:38PM (#35046612)

    In case of emergency, it would let us cut off all government computers and communication. Seems fair to me.

  • by firewrought (36952) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @01:54AM (#35047150)
    "The right of the people to receive and provide information services without tracking, interception, or interruption thereof shall not be violated by the Government or agent thereof except by judicial warrant naming persons, data, and services to affected."

    Amendment XXVIII of the U.S. Constitution, as I think it should be. We need to go on the offensive instead of watching Washington wonks progressively wank away our rights year after year... who wants to spearhead a campaign?
  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:12AM (#35047402)

    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.

  • by Kyusaku Natsume (1098) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @05:40AM (#35047766)

    If Stuxnet gets imitated by script kiddies or black hats, they could damage seriously infrastructure like the Hoover dam in the example in TFA. Another example, they could target the systems that control burners in power plants. Even if they cannot manage to produce enough damage to put the power plant off line, they could cause enough damage to produce a generalized decrement across all the power plants of a given operator or builder and hitting the consumers with higher energy prices and a sharp increase in pollution. The repairs in those burners take at least a pair of weeks to get fixed and need to take the units off-line. The cascade effect of this could in the end produce roving, prolonged blackouts with the economic damage that they entail. A smart terrorist wet dream. This is the kind of risk that they should be targeting even if they end helping a bit the iranians or north koreans when more and more control systems get migrated to unfit systems to the task running Windows.

  • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Sunday January 30, 2011 @03:30PM (#35050036)

    In a related note, I personally make sure to strap dynamite to each of my legs any time I go hiking.

    It's only sensible, if my foot ever gets caught while I am running away from a bear or a wolf I need a way to remove it quickly and reliably.

    I also strap bombs to my arms while swimming. You know, just in case.

The clearest way into the Universe is through a forest wilderness. -- John Muir

Working...