Internet Kill Switch Back On the US Legislative Agenda 376
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.'"
It is just data! (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot hurt anyone with data. There is no such thing as a threat via the internet.
A significant threat... Um, like the government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me, the biggest threat would be doing EXACTLY what Mubarak is doing now in Egypt.
This is more likely to be exploited by an attacker (Score:4, Insightful)
than used for the intended purpose IMHO.
Re:Oh noes! I can't reach porntube! (rolls eyes) (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S.
It's also unconstitutional. I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail or the newspapers (old-fashioned type or modern websites/email). That power is reserved to the Member States.
If they think Congress should have that power, let the states pass an amendment FIRST granting that power, rather than create an Egypt-type problem where some future Caesar/dictator can squash the people with a simple flip of the switch.
Good to know the government fears its people (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, who knows better how they've screwed us than the ones doing it?
Citizen this is completely different than Egypt (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
SneakerNet 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:From Net Neutrality to Net Fatality (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Famous last words (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
Another Egypt scenario? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Expectations were too high. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Why is "Critical Infrastructure" available online? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Before it's too late (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Biparitsan (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you can hurt people with data. Mainly, people in power. And that's what they're afraid of.
Re:Expectations were too high. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Citizen this is completely different than Egypt (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Insightful)
No offence, but I think that for the most part, you Americans have lost the freedoms that you all tout - you just aren't aware of it properly yet.
You get fondled to get onto a plane, you can't protest the President anywhere near where anyone can see it and so many other things. Sure, you might still have the right to carry guns for the most part, but you have lost the freedoms that really matter.
For the most part, actually, so has the rest of the world. Such are the times we live in heh.