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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It is just data! (Score:5, Informative)
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]
This kind of stuff is getting deployed more and more.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that if you cant get competent employees who can keep your IT infrastructure safe at a utility you are a moron.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Then take if OFF the internet. - Both the central Union government and the Member States have the power to regulate the monopolies we call utilities. Pass a rule forbidding them from connecting their power stations online. Ditto any other critical services, like water and sewer.
Quite a few utilities ARE the internet. Ever hear of Hurricane Electric? They're a substantial provider of discount bandwidth in data centers all over the country. They started by stringing up fiber on their own power poles. Power companies have branched out as end-user ISPs in several cities because, again, they already own the poles and easement rights. I've heard numerous proposals by gas and sewer utilities regarding running fiber thru their existing infrastructure. I wouldn't be surprised if that's alr
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd honestly rather risk 'dangerous' information being released than let the government have so much control. I trust them less than anyone else, as it should be.
Re: (Score:3)
Breathing machines, heart regulators and whatever else you have planned won't stop functioning if the internet was shut off.
Actually, they will, yes.
Think of spare parts. When was the last time you called / faxed / MAILED an order into Digikey / Mouser / Jameco etc? In "a couple weeks" they could set up a non-VOIP call center to slowly and inaccurately take voice orders over the phone, but for days, commerce will simply shut down. If by some miracle you got an order to Digikey, would they even have a manual process to airmail a contract to China and get a shipping crate back?
The purpose of JIT inventory control is to "save mo
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
How is the worst possible DOS attack any worse than pulling the plug on the Internet?
Answer: It isn't...
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Rep(calls back):
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: (Score:2)
If you can't hurt anyone with data, does that also mean that you can't hurt anyone by restricting data?
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much data can be filtered out by the end user, not enough data can not be re-created by the end user.
Re:It is just data! (Score:4)
Great idea! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Expectations were too high. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Dear Sen. Susan Collins:
Fuck You. No.
Respectfully,
Your constituent
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:2)
And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.
You did? Why?
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you read TFA you will see it was introduced last year, and sailed though its first committee.
See the bullshit round language ? (Score:3)
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.
THIS is the internet (Score:2)
From Net Neutrality to Net Fatality (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Holy fuck, I have a paper cut on my finger -- CUT OFF MY HEAD, QUICK!
This is more likely to be exploited by an attacker (Score:4, Insightful)
than used for the intended purpose IMHO.
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Internet enlivenment switch?
Sneaker Net (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike some countries, the US does not have enough police and they don't have enough technicians to do that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
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)
Egypt's Revolution is peaceful compared to (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
A Nation Full of Wankers (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:3)
"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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
What Could Possibly Go Wrong? (Score:2)
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
Not your average senator (Score:2)
USA Internet Kill Switch Turns on Nanny Filter (Score:2)
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
Ahhh....bipartisan cooperation, at last. (Score:2)
So we won the Cold War, or...did the enemy just immigrate?
Re: (Score:2)
THIS (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Redundancy (Score:2)
lies (Score:3)
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)
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.
Please Clairify.. (Score:3)
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?
Retarded (Score:2)
The onl
no more free speech (Score:2)
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.
Can we have a government kill switch? (Score:5, Interesting)
In case of emergency, it would let us cut off all government computers and communication. Seems fair to me.
BE IT RESOLVED... (Score:3)
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?
Triumph of Sensationalism (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Internet? SCADA systems are what matters (Score:3)
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.
Brilliant Reasoning (Score:3)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Yeah, but those are mostly owned by the same corporations that own Congress, so they're easy enough to keep on message. But the internet still lets those scary citizens have their voices heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh noes! I can't reach porntube! (rolls eyes) (Score:5, Interesting)
By far, the most common use of the internet is speech protected by the first amendment. The commerce clause does not override the first amendment.
...not that the first amendment will stop congress from passing the law, the President from invoking it, or the courts from arguing over the terms strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, content-specific, compelling state interest, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail
Article 1 - Section 8 - Clause 7
The congress has the power, not the obligation, to establish the post office. If it wants to it can shut down any or all parts of the system (so long as it isn't in violation of the Amendments).
Re: (Score:2)
Not to disagree with you - a kill switch is a stupid idea - but I can think of at least two scenarios where those little metal boxes can directly affect people:
Payroll for a company is handled by some contractor on one end of the country, but the company itself has to send its data to that payroll agency, and they're on the other end of the country, so they use the public Internet (and some really good security protocol, one would assume) to route that data. If the two computers at either side of the count
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points.
Re: (Score:3)
Every time I pay attention to American politics, I find myself thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald had the right idea.
You must be fucking joking. The Kennedy's were pretty big fans of ending our never-ending war in Vietnam, and boom Bobby and Johnny both get shot in the fucking head. Beside some of their shady backdoor dealings, they at least understood the threat of the military industrial complex. Once Kennedy started pushing for more transparency and oversight in the CIA, well, his days were numbered. I am not saying it was an inside job, but what I am saying is when a politician actually stands up for Doing the Right
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
nutters never assassinate the politicians who actually deserve a bullet in the fucking head
If your suggesting the only way to progress for the people is the ammo box, then by your count any conversation is a moot point. We saw that during November it is possible to energize a base to kick a bunch of the wankers out of office. Regardless of your stance on the new republican congress, November showed that it is possible to get grassroots movements to actually make a difference.
For serious change for the benefit of America, we need an intelligent 3rd party to form. A party of logic, reason, etiqu
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to work for the us government? Oh wai....
Re: (Score:2)