U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

[LordWalter]

That's 16 "cybers" and GOD DAMN IT I hate the U.S. Government right now. Do you see this? *waves hand in direction of interet* NOT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. SOD OFF YOU AUTOCRATIC FOOLS.

"Can't stop the signal" indeed. I'm going to start burning things if I ever have my internet shut off. You want to see a national crisis? Make it impossible to play online video games AND THEN make it impossible to go to online forums.

You will literally have people breaking into government buildings and shooting people while yelling "LAWL! PRESS X NOT TO DIE!"

 

[Zeldadudes]

Imagine the mass Homicide.
All those WoW addicts... lol

 

[Lexodus]

Oh yeah?

Well the US government can suck my cock.

I'm with Wooders. Why the fuck do Americans think they're in charge of everything? It's the fucking internet. The WORLD WIDE WEB.
Also, wtf? Cyber 9/11? What the fuck are they going to do, bomb Wikipedia? Replace all the Disney songs on youtube with porn? OH WAIT.

 

[Yureina]

Grr.... this is obnoxious. I heard Lieberman was a decent fellow a few years ago too... what happened?

 

[Caligulove]

I'm pretty sure its impossible to just "turn off" the internet.
It would be harder to get to and use, sure, but I'm calling bs on this.

And BS on this bill EVER passing.

 

[Hurray Forums]

This doesn't even make any sense. Something bad is happening on the internet so you bring the whole thing(and by extension, pretty much the world, even if it is only stuff located in the US which the wording suggests it isn't) grinding to a halt? That's like nuking a robbery in progress and saying "Problem Solved!!!".

 

[Xyliss]

Wouldn't this stop a communication a lot of people and companies rely on all the time, thus losing millions in the worlds economy. All because they can't stop hackers getting into their files.

 

[MikailCaboose]

...The more I look at this, the more I feel that this wouldn't be for "emergency cases" as they want to claim it is for...

 

[2fish]

Wow, just had to restate how completely f'ng stupid you fucktards are. The article is complete nonsense and if any one of you imbeciles took the time to read the attached PDF you would know that. They are not proposing an internet "kill switch" but rather protocols for handling infrastructure related emergencies.

How you people actually survive is astounding.

I read about 20 pages of it and it sounded like a very long winded way to say they were installing Norton's Anti-Virus. It is just seems very vague and that is what scares me with bills like these.

 

[felixader]

I am more worried about this:

"...the bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the "security status" of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in "information sharing" with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that "relies on" the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would also be "subject to command" by the NCCC under the proposed new law."

Are you fucking kidding me?
This is not my country but what you are going at is Dictatorship trough an office of the government!
FUCK YOU!

 

[Walkchalk]

I feel like creating the kill switch could be more problematic than leaving it be. What happens if someone hacks it and activates our killswitch? That would leave millions of people in the dark. Tons of things need the internet in order to function, and if an outside source found a way to actuvate the killswitch we ourselves made then we would be completely fucked.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Well if its in times of crisis then it will be ok. People need to get closer to each other in those times rather then on facebook.

 

[LegendaryMan]

WHy dont they put a sticker on this saying "all your internetz are belong to us"

 

[RangerSERE]

Did anyone bother to read the PDF before over reacting like a 15 yr old girl? I doubt anyones escapist or other gamer site sessions will be interrupted by this. Its very doubtful it will pass, why does everyone always over react and sensationalize these types of stories...children. This place really needs to stop calling itself "NEWS".

 

[moose_man]

I believe that it would really just cut off the internet for the US, not the world. like a connection disruptor.

Don't scoff at the risk this could be Cyber 9/11 times 1000!

The trouble with the internet is it was designed to withstand Nuclear attacks. You can't stop the signal.

So cyber 9/11 would be over 9000?

 

[Iron Lightning]

In the U.S., the DARPAnet, which would lay the base for the internet, was invented. The DARPAnet was designed to move packets of information through any of all available pathways so that communication could take place during a nuclear war. In a time of true crisis, destroying the internet would be akin to destroying the ability of government agencies to communicate with each other. An internet kill switch would, if anything, make the U.S. more vulnerable to attack.

 

[Boba Frag]

Oh yeah?

Well the US government can suck my cock.

Damn right!

How amazingly self-centred of them... That would disrupt internet commerce the world over!

I'm all for increased levels of security online... but that's just going way too far.

Oh noes! the government can shut down the internet if a full-scale cyber-attack would have occur!

the horror...

But seriously, i think national security is more important that finishing a game of TF2.

Edit:

Surely turning off the internet during a time of crisis would worsen things? Most people rely on electronic news sources these days. I mean for example:

Crisis 1: Terrorists denote an explosive
Internet gets turned off: People assume the internet is broken because the Russopeans/Chapanese/Islamistanis have BLOWN UP THE DATA CENTRES! IT'S AN INVASION! GET YOUR GUN! SHOOT ANYONE IN A UNIFORM!

Crisis 2: A small earthquake
Internet gets turned off: IT'S A SUPERQUAKE! WASHINGTON HAS BEEN DESTROYED! GET YOUR GUN! SHOOT THE GROUND! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE SANDWORMS!

I could go on.

It doesn't help that "Lieberman" really sounds like the name you'd give a Bond villain.

THEY WOULD NOT TURN OF THE INTERNET IF SOME TERRORIST WOULD DETONATE A BOMB.

I get that people like to scream "1984!" every time the government does ANYTHING but this is just bordering on sheer stupidity.

Actually, that's called accountability.
They have that in democracies.

This proposed bill ostensibly gives the President powers to protect the United States against a massive cyber-attack.
This "internet kill switch" seems like a very poorly thought out response.

Why kill an entire nation's networks in response to the threat of a cyber-attack? Surely a more effective and prudent move would be to prevent such an attack through tighter security systems?

You mentioned national security. This implies protecting American interests, does it not? How are American interests served by crippling their own information economy? Would this not only severely impair an effective, and adequate response to this hypothetical "crisis"?

How exactly does such a move provide the federal authorities with the means to track the origins of the attack? I'm not American so I could argue that I have no stake in this whatsoever.
But that's not really true.

Most of the websites I use are American. A lot of them contain my personal information, such as my gmail account...
The point I'm making is that such a massive disruption in the US would cause a global, international problem.

The internet (ie the sharing of information), as has been pointed out by another poster, belongs to everyone and no-one.

However, the service provision belongs to those companies and government agencies that run them. That said, such is the extent of interdependence via the internet, it is very hard to differentiate between what would only negatively affect the US, and what would affect negatively affect the communication and economic activities of several other major countries?

I have every faith that more sane and savvy people than Liebermann will decide the fate of this shoddy bill.