I've heard that, and a lot of other origin theories for the 'net, and I have no idea how much of each of them is real. My understanding works something like this- the technology behind the internet was developed by two British scientists specifically for the supercollider research facility at CERN. It was then adopted by a number of tech/geek groups and computer corporations which later joined together their local internets to make one big one. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency was one of these local adopters, using an internet called the ARPANET that either got subsumed into the larger internet or abandoned and replaced by it. Of course, a lot of this is conjecture and is probably wrong. But I think only the military itself says it "created" the internet.

Simply pulling out wires would take a looong time and probably require SpecOps-type "visits" to a large number of telecom companies. A logistical nightmare.

They do have security measures... they're just not particularly effective. The secrets are out, and we do know it. Just google "WikiLeaks".

Back to the original question 'What Do You Think About An “Emergency Off Switch” For The Internet?'.  I'm over sixty, didn't find my way on to the internet untill late in life.  I'm retired, I wouldn't miss it.  Sorry.     

Yeah that would be nuts to try and pull all the wires. I was suggesting that the "kill switch" already exists. If I were them I would definitely have something like that in place...just in case...and if they don't they're idiots.

It's about as unlikely...and as dangerous as an off-switch for the entire world's electricity supply.

 

Off-switches handled LOCALLY are a different matter and clearly exist.

 

This forum had an 'off switch' at one time..... and I fortunately found it one day when it was needed [and my arms weren't long enough to reach over to Michigan to pull a plug].  It came in handy, too.

 

These days [here]  'off switches' are applied to individuals, not networks....

 

 

ROFL -

I don't believe the U.S. has an "off" switch for the entire Internet. I believe there's probably one for the USA and one in most countries for local nets.

I know Jafo has an 'off' switch of his own. He makes us Mods clean and oil it everyday. And make him coffee.

Well, as was stated, they indeed can shut down DNS servers located in US. However, this will be VERY temporary and non-global solution, as DNS caches will keep working for 1-4 days, and hooking up own DNS root and propagating it through ISPs will take only several hours once officials decide to do it.

And thats why such bills are very good thing - the more publicity and abuse on US side the more chances that EU and other country authorities will take preemptive counter-measures to the issue and just finally force their ISPs to use only local DNS roots or implement some other fall-back strategy.

Just want to mention that this is both a very interesting thread to a weirdo like me and a solid example of how there's no clean way to ban "politics" from non-joeuser sites in Stardockia.

Re the OP title question, I tend to agree with the general Lieberman-tech-idiot take while having a solid sympathy for folks who might feel obliged to try to protect our net.vulnerable infrastructure from things like what happened to Iran's nuke fuel refineries. There's no excuse for a 'kill switch' that might stop us from carrying on amongst ourselves, but some serious software/teams ready to deal with infrastructure problems is another thing entirely.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when a snake-oil salesman is giving directions and handing out free kool-aid.

Not really a political thread per se.

There is however, a good reason in the case of foreign cyberattack  to be able to isolate us from it.

 

Obama has said something about it:  He lambasted Mubarak for hitting the Egyptian kill switch.

The problem with any such kill switch is who/what has authority over it.  If it were ever to be implemented here (a really bad idea IYAM), we should never, never give sole authority over it to any individual office-holder, President or otherwise.  That would make a really bad idea a completely insane idea.

I'm OK with methods to protect our internet infrastructure from cyber attack, that 'isolate' us from foreign connections in an emergency (assuming that is technically feasible) but I'm not OK with an internal kill switch.

I think its a waste of time.

A) Government Systems like the DoD are already isolated in many, many cases.

Sole power of the internet kill switch in the hands of the President does not bother me terribly... as he has the power of a much bigger kill switch... I think it rhymes with smuclear whistles.

C) Technology produced by third parties and opponent governments would develop a counter before such a system was fully deployed by our vapidly slow legislature and bureaucrats, and the people here would be also try to purposely circumvent it.

D) It would be politically costly for any administration, though hardly insurmountable.

 

-US taxpayer money is better spent in any one of 3 ways in no particular order.

1. The revitalization of infrastructure to create jobs (as opposed to backing banks in a manner that the World Bank and IMF explicitly suggested against in similar cases worldwide but are mysteriously silent on for the US). Roads, Pipes, Underground Electric Systems, new Infrastructure for electric cars, cost effective use of airships.

2. Practical military hardware improvements, many of which to be found in your local Raytheon despite industry standard overspending.

3. Space exploration... because why not.

Or hell... a free puppy and handgun for every citizen... really anything is better than financing a internet kill switch in my opinion.

 

NOTE: I am not responsible for how one decides to use their free puppy and handgun. Handgun may be loaded upon shipment of package in loose box with puppy, handle with care.

While there may be tens of thousands of ISP's, the number of actual cables in and out of the USA is far fewer - roughly 44; less than one per state. As such, if you wanted to isolate the USA from the global internet, it is doable.

Similarily, here in Norway there is just ONE hub connecting north and south.

The internet is not very vulnerable to random attacks. However, to targeted attacks it is quite vulnerable.

I am not so scared of Lieberman's 'off-switch' - suggestion. I am not convinced it would do any good, but in certain worst - case scenarios, it would be a good option to have. Ultimately, by the time you realize you need to throw the switch, it is most likely too late, though.

Implementation would mostly be by laying the legal and technical framework down - tell the line owners that in case we call, you need to have a plan / way to turn off your hubs and backbone lines. There would not be an actual switch in an office somewhere.

 

Am I a bad person if I admit this would make it worthwhile for me?

You can see the results of a CNET poll on this subject HERE

It referred (essentially) to an expansion on the wartime powers of a President, and did not probe conditions where some the majority might agree.