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 3)
14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Feb 01, 2011

What really needs to be done is ask Al Gore what he thinks of a kill switch, after all, he invented the internet.

on Feb 01, 2011

There is that.

on Feb 01, 2011

CarGuy1
What really needs to be done is ask Al Gore what he thinks of a kill switch, after all, he invented the internet.

Only...ONLY because it was you that asked, Mike:

 

on Feb 01, 2011

Scoutdog

Liebermann. Not Obama. This bill is being pushed by Senator Joe Liebermann, independent of Connecticut. I don't actually know if Obama has made any statements on this issue whatsoever.

Understood.  However, the switch would be in the hands of the president, so it would be his switch (Lieberman's bill).

on Feb 01, 2011

Controlling mass communications is a typical war strategy.  Somebody's going to do it.  I suppose the question isn't so much "Do you want somebody to do it?" as it is "Who do you want to do it?"  Answer becomes "My side", whichever side "My side" happens to be.

on Feb 01, 2011

Dr Guy

Quoting Scoutdog, reply 27
Liebermann. Not Obama. This bill is being pushed by Senator Joe Liebermann, independent of Connecticut. I don't actually know if Obama has made any statements on this issue whatsoever.

Understood.  However, the switch would be in the hands of the president, so it would be his switch (Lieberman's bill).

That's an assumption. Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be his, but Operations probably in the NSA would have actual "immediate" control.

 

on Feb 01, 2011

Understood. However, the switch would be in the hands of the president, so it would be his switch (Lieberman's bill).
Not necessarily. It may be given to the pres. in the text of the bill, but the linked article merely states that it would be in the hands of "the U.S. Government". That could mean anybody, including the Pentagon or (heaven forbid!) the Department of Agriculture.

Controlling mass communications is a typical war strategy. Somebody's going to do it. I suppose the question isn't so much "Do you want somebody to do it?" as it is "Who do you want to do it?" Answer becomes "My side", whichever side "My side" happens to be.
The problem is that this would not simply "control" mass communications as destroy them. It worries me a great deal to see the phrase "civilian access" to the internet in the article as well- it seems to me (as I've said before) that from a tactical perspective, you would want to cut off the areas most vulnerable to, and likely to be the target of, a cyberattack- utility companies, first responders, and the military. Not civilians. If the United States is doing such a shoddy job of serving its citizens that they think propaganda blitzes by China would have a reasonable chance of working, then they have bigger problems than the internet. (Not saying that they are... remember, I'm still trying to look at this from inside Liebermann-land).

on Feb 01, 2011

If you do your research it was obvious that the government simply pressured the service providers via phone calls until each had shutdown their portion. It didn't all go down at once, but had a few minutes delay between each one. In other words, SkyNet will still win, you are all doomed, make your time ha ha ha, ha ha ha.

on Feb 01, 2011

The problem is that this would not simply "control" mass communications as destroy them.

Yep, just like bombing television and radio stations.

on Feb 01, 2011

Dr Guy

Understood.  However, the switch would be in the hands of the president, so it would be his switch (Lieberman's bill).

 

Or anyone that you elect to office as well.

on Feb 01, 2011

DrJBHL

Quoting Dr Guy, reply 34
Quoting Scoutdog, reply 27
Liebermann. Not Obama. This bill is being pushed by Senator Joe Liebermann, independent of Connecticut. I don't actually know if Obama has made any statements on this issue whatsoever.

Understood.  However, the switch would be in the hands of the president, so it would be his switch (Lieberman's bill).

That's an assumption. Perhaps the ultimate responsibility would be his, but Operations probably in the NSA would have actual "immediate" control.

 

on Feb 01, 2011

It would seem to me that such a "kill switch" would already exist somewhere since we're talking wiring and connecting....two things that can be un-wired or disconnected...they just don't want us to know about it. As far as our military...if these idiots don't already have something in place to protect our secrets then it's probably already game over...and they just don't want us to know about it.

And I could be wrong...but didn't our current internet belong to the military at one time...and they just passed it on to us for a better model? I remember reading that somewhere some time ago.

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.

...

FutileEmotion
- Could the US shut down the entire net for everyone everywhere?  No, not without resorting to DDOS attacks and other nefarious schemes.  They could make it difficult by taking themselves offline, but thats about the end of it.

In fact, in the case of the US, it will be very easy... DNS server are located in US... shutdown the DNS server and browser will not be able to translate a URL address in a IP address...

US gov is already working on a similar tool for stop piracy :

http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/09/28/worldwide_authority_for_american_copyright_cops

The main mechanism of the bill is to interfere with the Internet's domain name system (DNS), which translates names like "www.eff.org" or "www.nytimes.com" into the IP addresses that computers use to communicate.

A other article : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/29/engineers-slam-internet-censorship-ahead-key-vote/

If something like this is created, it will not be very difficult to shutdown any site in the US... in fact, it can work world wide since US DNS server are the master server... unless that you begin to memorize IP... by example, addresses 192.0.32.10 IPV4 or 2620:0:2d0:200::10 IPV6 in place of www.example.com !!!

Seem that large scale internet censorship is something who can be made easily in US...

So Obama's "Kill switch" would be to pull the plug on the DNS servers. That would shut down the internet for not only the USA, but the world (with the exception of their country codes root domains).

Should the government have such authority? No. Government abuses everything it is allowed to do. If you cede that power to them, you have just lost another part of your rights, freedoms and liberties.

Soon of later, they will have the authority... at the time being, there is some scary bills proposed by political that almost nobody know about...

 

 

on Feb 01, 2011

Only...ONLY because it was you that asked, Mike:

That's it, the thread is complete. 

on Feb 01, 2011

14 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last