What Do You Think About An “Emergency Off Switch” For The Internet?

Published on February 1, 2011 By DrJBHL In Personal Computing

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 13)

181

AlLanMandragoran

on Feb 22, 2011

GW Swicord

reply 180

If a situation gets bad enough for executive fiat to shut down large sections of the net, it's already a failure?

Exactly. The expected government response could be exactly what an "eTerrorist" desires; shutdown of the Internet and associated fallout.

182

RogueCaptain

on Feb 22, 2011

I think economically we are in really deep *bleep* if the gov't has to pass a bill THIS EXTREME. That's the kind of legislation that gets used in oppressive nations. They must really be scared about the coming years.

You can always tell how badthings really are by the laws that get passed. Just like how in the military you can tell how valued you are by how much money they spend on you.

-Words of Wisdom

183

DrJBHL

on Feb 22, 2011

GW Swicord

reply 180

I can certainly agree with that, especially if we had another Cheney around. However, the need for defense of the net (hard structures and software) is clearly needed.

What would you propose?

Well, from my comfy spot in the peanut gallery, I'd say that a gram of prevention is worth a kilo of cure.

Invest in hardening defenses and putting more qualified cops on the net beat. Choose a federal department to lead coordination efforts within the executive branch, among the states, with primary infrastructure orgs like utilities and hospitals, and with crucial private sector entities like the backbone providers.

I'm not handy with sports metaphors, but it seems almost like an analog to a 'best defense is a strong offense' situation. Or maybe I'm just struggling to avoid an over-used buzzword and what I'm really thinking of is a 'proactive defense' strategy. If a situation gets bad enough for executive fiat to shut down large sections of the net, it's already a failure?

I can agree with all that as well. Now, what do you propose should be done should these defenses be circumvented or broken?

184

Philocthetes

on Feb 22, 2011

DrJBHL

reply 183

... I can agree with all that as well. Now, what do you propose should be done should these defenses be circumvented or broken?

Clean up after the mess and do our best to learn from the mistakes.

In the end, the kill/off switch parts of this bill are about that old Franklin line, "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

185

Scoutdog

on Feb 22, 2011

I for one actually support an "off switch", but one that is designed to isolate specific government agencies and critical industries from the internet in the event of an attack on those entities. Actually cutting off regular people in the event of a cyberattack on the government will just sew panic and blind the entire infrastructure.

186

RavenX

on Feb 22, 2011

Scoutdog

reply 185

I for one actually support an "off switch", but one that is designed to isolate specific government agencies and critical industries from the internet in the event of an attack on those entities. Actually cutting off regular people in the event of a cyberattack on the government will just sew panic and blind the entire infrastructure.

See, that's what I said too . I'm still not sure where Doc is getting this conspiracy stuff from...heh.

Seriously though I agree that's what should be done. I don't really see why a cyber terrorist would attack average desktop PC's unless they felt like spreading a virus to the entire country, but I don't see how that would help them if the government systems are offline and safe.

There's no excuse to have to take our internet in any kind of an emergency. That's just how I feel though.

187

DrJBHL

on Feb 22, 2011

Clean up after the mess and do our best to learn from the mistakes.

Another old Franklin line goes, "Fences make good neighbors." and another goes, "A penny of protection is worth a pound of cure.

I'm still not sure where Doc is getting this conspiracy stuff from...heh.

Seriously though I agree that's what should be done. I don't really see why a cyber terrorist would attack average desktop PC's unless they felt like spreading a virus to the entire country, but I don't see how that would help them if the government systems are offline and safe.

There's no excuse to have to take our internet in any kind of an emergency. That's just how I feel though.

Doc isn't going anywhere with it since he can't get folks to read what he does say...

http://drjbhl.joeuser.com/article/405247/Thats_Impossible

Actually, can't blame anyone... my stuff is boring.

188

RavenX

on Feb 23, 2011

DrJBHL

reply 187

Clean up after the mess and do our best to learn from the mistakes.

Another old Franklin line goes, "Fences make good neighbors." and another goes, "A penny of protection is worth a pound of cure.

I'm still not sure where Doc is getting this conspiracy stuff from...heh.

Seriously though I agree that's what should be done. I don't really see why a cyber terrorist would attack average desktop PC's unless they felt like spreading a virus to the entire country, but I don't see how that would help them if the government systems are offline and safe.

There's no excuse to have to take our internet in any kind of an emergency. That's just how I feel though.

Doc isn't going anywhere with it since he can't get folks to read what he does say...

http://drjbhl.joeuser.com/article/405247/Thats_Impossible

Actually, can't blame anyone... my stuff is boring.

Ahh, I see what you did there..heh. You know though Doc, I don't normally read the Joeuser forums.

189

DrJBHL

on Feb 23, 2011

They cross post to WC Forums, RavenX. No problemo... you could have missed it and still live.

190

BootsWilliams

on Feb 23, 2011

DrJBHL

reply 179

I can certainly agree with that, especially if we had another Cheney around. However, the need for defense of the net (hard structures and software) is clearly needed.

What would you propose?

Another Cheney? Seems we have worse. A president that does not obey the laws, nor enforce them. He is no Cheney, he is an Obama. When did Cheney refuse to enforce or obey the laws openly?

191

DrJBHL

on Feb 26, 2011

RavenX

reply 186

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 185I for one actually support an "off switch", but one that is designed to isolate specific government agencies and critical industries from the internet in the event of an attack on those entities. Actually cutting off regular people in the event of a cyberattack on the government will just sew panic and blind the entire infrastructure.

See, that's what I said too . I'm still not sure where Doc is getting this conspiracy stuff from...heh.

Seriously though I agree that's what should be done. I don't really see why a cyber terrorist would attack average desktop PC's unless they felt like spreading a virus to the entire country, but I don't see how that would help them if the government systems are offline and safe.

There's no excuse to have to take our internet in any kind of an emergency. That's just how I feel though.

Ok...what doc warns about has come to pass. "The Onion" has reported the following. *I knew it would happen. I just knew it but was helpless to save us...[caution-there is a 'pixelated' part of the vid for adults]:

Al Qaeda Attacks Internet With Photo Of Adorable Piglet

192

Stant123

on Feb 26, 2011

Hahaha. The Pentagon's picture was spreading seven times faster. Too funny.

193

Scoutdog

on Feb 26, 2011

Hahaha. The Pentagon's picture was spreading seven times faster. Too funny.

Sounds like the usual Pentagon response to me....

I can't wait for the followup, in which the airforce bombs the camp with the aim of "neutralizing cute furry things".

194

DrJBHL

on Feb 26, 2011

BootsWilliams

reply 190

Quoting DrJBHL, reply 179
I can certainly agree with that, especially if we had another Cheney around. However, the need for defense of the net (hard structures and software) is clearly needed.

What would you propose?

Another Cheney? Seems we have worse. A president that does not obey the laws, nor enforce them. He is no Cheney, he is an Obama. When did Cheney refuse to enforce or obey the laws openly?

Admitted. OK... was it as he said, "A justified means to an end. (The security of the USA)" ?

How about the FBI? What do they say?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/13/politics/main5011381.shtml

195

Scoutdog

on Feb 26, 2011

I would just ignore the birther.

But I agree that putting this kind of power in the hands of the President (any President) while the American political system continues to elect the people it does would be a bad idea. The only thing worse would be ceding the off switch directly to the Pentagon.

That's another reason I support individual agency isolation switches- to really "shut down" the internet, a LOT of people have to collude, but in the event of an attack on just one agency or corporation, they can protect themselves without waiting for some distant authority to push the button.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!