Ramblings of an old Doc

 

In light of the recent events in Egypt where we saw an “Emergency Off Switch” used for the first time, my memory was jarred.

Last year, Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent, Connecticut) proposed just such a switch. He did so because of concerns regarding a cyberattack on the USA.

Just two hours ago, NYConvergence (a tech magazine for the NY, NJ and CT area) reported Sen. Lieberman wants to re-propose this legislation ( LINK ).

There are several ways to look at this: Security, freedom, abuse potential… and others.

I’d like to hear what you folks think: Do you favor an Internet “On-Off” switch? Under what conditions? Who should have that power and when? Who should be able to stop or review such a decision?


Comments (Page 1)
14 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Feb 01, 2011

No. I don't favor it. That is not what the Internet i about. It would be a perversion of it as Egypt just showed......

on Feb 01, 2011

First off, I doubt it would be possible for one country to actually "shut off" the entire internet. There's just too many servers in too many places. I don't think it would even be feasible for a country the size of the US to take itself off of the internet for any length of time. Egypt was sort of able to do it for a day or so... but I could not see anything bigger being quite so successful. And in the long term, people could very easily figure out ways around it, or ISPs could just refuse to cooperate. Plus, the government and especially the defense dept. aren't really that technologically capable.

Even if by some small miracle they were able to pull it off, cutting off everyone in the US from the internet seems a rather overzealous response to a "cyberattack". While it would make sense for critical industries and organizations like power companies and government agencies to have individual "lock-down" systems that isolate themselves from the internet if they are being hacked, the only real use for a system that would cut off the public from the internet would be to keep people from organizing protests/resistance or learning some piece of information that would turn them against the government. The fact that Joe Liebermann apparently thinks such information exists and/or that the US is going to be subjected to a civil war in the near future makes me question his ability to represent people in a legislative body.

on Feb 01, 2011

Scoutdog
First off, I doubt it would be possible for one country to actually "shut off" the entire internet. There's just too many servers in too many places. I don't think it would even be feasible for a country the size of the US to take itself off of the internet for any length of time. Egypt was sort of able to do it for a day or so... but I could not see anything bigger being quite so successful. And in the long term, people could very easily figure out ways around it, or ISPs could just refuse to cooperate. Plus, the government and especially the defense dept. aren't really that technologically capable.

Even if by some small miracle they were able to pull it off, cutting off everyone in the US from the internet seems a rather overzealous response to a "cyberattack". While it would make sense for critical industries and organizations like power companies and government agencies to have individual "lock-down" systems that isolate themselves from the internet if they are being hacked, the only real use for a system that would cut off the public from the internet would be to keep people from organizing protests/resistance or learning some piece of information that would turn them against the government. The fact that Joe Liebermann apparently thinks such information exists and/or that the US is going to be subjected to a civil war in the near future makes me question his ability to represent people in a legislative body.

I think you give too much credit to Liebermann, personally. That's one hell of a conspiracy theory. Not to say it couldn't be true, but as I said, you give Liebermann too much credit. I have lived in CT my whole life. He's an idiot. He barely even knows what the internet is. I think he actually does want it to prevent cyber crimes. But he's not doing because of some sinister plan, or paranoid reaction. It's because he doesn't know better.

 

on Feb 01, 2011

I think it should be left up to the individual and I already have one...it's the power switch on my router.

As for that draft dodging asswipe Lieberman, well you really don't need my opinion.

on Feb 01, 2011

It just reaffirms my belief that government needs to stay away from the internet.

on Feb 01, 2011

It's stuff like this that makes me angry. It seems like the government just wants to take more and more freedoms away from us. This is a trend that usually doesn't end well.....

People shouldn't be afraid of their government......The government should be afraid of the people.

on Feb 01, 2011

At some point in time those that are in 'Power' will always look for a way to stop the cross feed of information, news, whatever.  It's 1984 all over again.  George Orwell did send us a message, did you read it? 

on Feb 01, 2011

Island Dog
It just reaffirms my belief that government needs to stay away from the internet.

I agree that the Egyptian model was a power play/bunker type response. How about a cyber-attack on DoD/Military Communications/first reponders?

Who could/should throw in extraordinary protective systems until the attacker is located and dealt with?

Perhaps not the government...but if not, then who?

G3mpi3
It's stuff like this that makes me angry. It seems like the government just wants to take more and more freedoms away from us. This is a trend that usually doesn't end well.....

People shouldn't be afraid of their government......The government should be afraid of the people.

The idea wasn't to anger anyone, rather to encourage free discussion among intelligent people [or at least those who can type]....

The government is sworn "to protect against enemies domestic and foreign".... certainly not to take something away from you...

I don't think either the government or the people should be afraid of each other... there should be respect, and after all...the government should be the people. No?

Philly0381
At some point in time those that are in 'Power' will always look for a way to stop the cross feed of information, news, whatever.  It's 1984 all over again.  George Orwell did send us a message, did you read it? 

I did, Philly.

on Feb 01, 2011

With all the important things going on Senator Joe Lieberman has the time to think about something like this and doesn’t even know if it’s possible to do. With the tens or hundreds of thousands of cable companies available in the US I’m sure they are all already capable of shutting down their systems to home, business, and anywhere else they supply. So where does it stop? How about your television, Radio, etc. Maybe we just need bills to shut down the entire United States and go one more step and shut down the world. If there were to be this kind of attack do you think who ever does this would really care about you little computer? They would either try to shut everything down 100% or more likely try to go after Government agencies, financial institutions, and those types of systems. So if there was a cyber-attack maybe the normal user would be left alone and we may still be able to filter some information to use and find out what is going on. So am I in favor of it, No. Am I worried about it, No. So many other things that could wipe us all out totally and if a cyber-attack would happen we would still be here and the powers would figure things out, hopefully. So keep everything backed up and if it ever happened and things get back to normal just reformat and load your back up in. Ready to go again all fresh and new and get back on the WC.

on Feb 01, 2011

I heard on the news this morning. Legislation approved our MTS internet providers ability to charge by downloads consumed.

Right now it's a flat rate per month. What new form of Horror is this? Like they don't have enough of our information, now they're gonna make More money And have Control..... I believe this is a step down for technology. This affects so much more than just residential... 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

 

 

 

on Feb 01, 2011

But he's not doing because of some sinister plan, or paranoid reaction. It's because he doesn't know better.
That's kind of my point. He's scared of the free flow of information the internet represents for vague, worst-case-scenario reasons, and is thus trying to restore the era when secrets could be secret, even though there is probably nothing in particular that is being kept secret.

I agree that the Egyptian model was a power play/bunker type response. How about a cyber-attack on DoD/Military Communications/first reponders?
I've always been rather mean to DoD and the military, partly because nobody else seems willing to be that irreverent. But let's ignore the possibility that a cyberattack on the military might be a good thing for a moment, and focus entirely on the very real possibility that such an attack could result in a lot of innocent people getting hurt. In that case, it would be a lot easier (not to mention less 1984-ish) to install a system that simply isolates that organization from the internet, while keeping said internet available for use by the general public.

on Feb 01, 2011

Better idea that nuking ourselves to hell. But still a bad one. A very bad one no matter the "good" reasons that there may be.

on Feb 01, 2011

The idea wasn't to anger anyone, rather to encourage free discussion among intelligent people [or at least those who can type]....

The government is sworn "to protect against enemies domestic and foreign".... certainly not to take something away from you...

I don't think either the government or the people should be afraid of each other... there should be respect, and after all...the government should be the people. No?

Sorry doc, I guess I'm just being a drama queen today.

In all honesty though, I feel like I haven't seen a lot of progress in this country recently (compared to others). I just don't think the government has its priorities in the right order to support the needs of the country.

on Feb 01, 2011

IROKONESS
I heard on the news this morning. Legislation approved our MTS internet providers ability to charge by downloads consumed.

Right now it's a flat rate per month. What new form of Horror is this? Like they don't have enough of our information, now they're gonna make More money And have Control..... I believe this is a step down for technology. This affects so much more than just residential... 

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Well, that's the way cell phone plans are...  (I figure Netflix will declare war on Ottawa over this ).  (sorry, Hankers)

I do feel for you and also think your economy will be hurt as a result of this. I'd have to wonder how necessary this step is?

 

G3mpi3
In all honesty though, I feel like I haven't seen a lot of progress in this country recently (compared to others). I just don't think the government has its priorities in the right order to support the needs of the country.

Can't argue with you, old friend.... and no need to apologize. I just figured you had a burr under your saddle... no biggie.

on Feb 01, 2011

If you want a revolution on your hands, take away the porn.

It seems to me that any attack as part of cyber warfare that is sufficiently powerful to require a complete national internet shutdown, would be powerful enough to circumvent the shutdown.

It will probably be used like your terror alert daily shows. A means to scare people into thinking there's a threat. Don't get me wrong, you do face a threat. But the proportions would be grossly exaggerated, as they have been before.

14 Pages1 2 3  Last