U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

[GrinningManiac]

OT: Is this just for the US? Cus I'm questioning why they would have any right to turn off British internet, considering A) They HAVE no right and B) We technically invented it

Uhhh... Yes and no.

The British invented the first modern web server (Sir Tim Berners-Lee at CERN in 1989), but they did not develop all of technology that went into it. Research ARPANET, a DARPA funded network that went online in the US in 1969. However, I will concede that ARPANET used packet switching - a British invention.

If anything, the internet was a collaborative effort that took place over a 20-or-so year timeframe.

My argument, whilst the technicalities have altered, still stands

"America does not own the internet, and has no jurisdiction there"

Also, thanks for such a reasonable reply. Most of the responses that statement has garned have been "DARPA INVENTED TEH INTERNET" despite the fact that ARPNAET was simply the first ever concept of an 'interconnected network', and is completley different from the 'internet' of today, which is the subject matter at hand

 

[Wandrecanada]

I would argue that the internet is an idea, and whoever thought of making a network accessible by anyone at all is the inventor of it. From what i know, and seeing as he was marked out from a team of people who would have been working on HTML it sounds like it would have been his idea to make a globaly accesible network, or world wide web.

HTML has nothing to do with networking. It has to do with making text data accessible by splitting data and formatting. The Internet and HTML are entirely separate ideas. Once you can finally understand that you can start to understand the power of the Internet.

The Internet is about creating a pathway for data to flow from one processing unit to another regardless of what the information is. The pathway is created from a network of networks sometimes referred to as "The Cloud", because the route is unknown at the time of transmission. Your data will find it's way by using road signs provided by routers as they proceed to their destination. The Internet is passive this way. It's just a set of routes to travel and isn't interested in what is traveling on it.

TLDR: The Internet is not HTML. HTML does not need the Internet to exist. It just so happens that HTML was one of a few platform independent standards for text formatting and became a defacto standard across a platformless Internet.

 

[tsb247]

"America does not own the internet, and has no jurisdiction there"

You won't get any argument from me. I can't even imagine what an, "Internet killswitch," could do to businesses (foreign and domestic) as well as the banking industry and Wall Street.

"You were trading that stock? Sorry, you lost it because we turned off the internet."

"You were wiring money to your son on vacation in Amsterdam because he lost his traveller's checks, has no cash, and about $20 in the bank? Sorry, it never went through because we shut off the internet."

"Bill in Kentucky pays his electric bills online, but since the government shut off the internet, his payment was late, and he was hit with $40 in late fees."

There are just a few horrible situations I can think of, but I am sure there are infinitely more that could arise if such a thing were ever allowed.

 

[Zero-Vash]

Politicians need to stop watching Live Free or Die Hard.

I can't stand when people think that what happens in the US has no consequence else where in the world.

Makes me ashamed to be American sometimes

 

[Megawizard]

Of COURSE it's Lieberman. He was a PITA even when I was a kid.

"Lieberman's approval rating in a poll taken January 4?5, 2010, was 25% approve versus 67% who disapprove, making him one of the least popular Senators currently in office."

XD I can't possibly imagine how he manages to get ratings that low.

 

[AdamRBi]

President: "And this is the Oval Office where I work."

Tourist: "Hey, what's this button here?"

President: "Oh, haha that's the button to turn off the internet."

Tourist: "Did you have to make it so big, red, and pressable?"

President: "Go ahead! Press it, no biggie. We have hidden cameras set up in every office and rec room in the US. Haha, you should see the look on some people's faces when it goes out, hahaha. Come on, I show you a couple of my favorites."



Really though, If we ever go through an apocalypse ala Fall Out 3 or Left 4 Dead the only thing survivors would have to look forward too would be ruined buildings, monsters, contaminated water, and free internet. Guess they figured why not go whole hog and take away the one thing we look forward to.

Though it would encourage actual reproduction of the human race.

 

[DannibalG36]

"...our cyber resources." WHAT? What in hell makes the US government think that the internet can be controlled simply to protect their own assets? This is akin to saying that they can control food distribution so that the President's family doesn't get food poisoning.

 

[ShoopDaToaster]

I accidentally the internet.
Is this dangerous?

 

[Hussmann54]

well Joe, you just go back into your corner and play with your great "ideas", and let the grownups deal with stuff like cyber terrorism.

 

[benbenthegamerman]

U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"



"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins [http://collins.senate.gov/public/].

Cyber-Source: ZDNet [http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm]


Permalink

Susan Collins? Shouldn't you be writing the third book in the Hunger Games?

 

[darian Nenith]

Weird... This makes me remember Atlas Shrugged for some reason. I wonder if in the case of a shutdown, some people would still be allowed to use the internet if they were necessary to the countries welfare?

In any case, I don't like the sound of this.

 

[MortisLegio]

I get why they want this but its stupid

the government systems will be fine if anything happens and if there could be a problem just cut the lines to those systems

personally the only thing that the gov. should demand is an emergency broadcast "pop up" that tells people what the hell is going on in a time of crisis

 

[Deathfish15]

U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

A bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman would give the President a virtual "kill switch" that would allow him to effectively turn off the internet during times of crisis.

The proposed legislation [PDF format] [http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=4ee63497-ca5b-4a4b-9bba-04b7f4cb0123] would compel any internet providers, search engines or software companies, at the discretion of the U.S. government, to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Lieberman, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the measures would allow the government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people." Any company that failed to follow orders would face presumably stiff fines.

"For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," Lieberman [http://lieberman.senate.gov/] said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies - cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

To counter those potential cyber-shenanigans, 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.

"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins [http://collins.senate.gov/public/].

Lieberman is apparently attempting to make the bill more cyber-palatable by offering immunity from cyber-lawsuits resulting from anything "related to a cyber-vulnerability" after the President has declared a cyber-emergency. Nonetheless, the cyber-bill is expected to meet with stiff cyber-opposition; the Center for Democracy and Technology pointed out that it "includes authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems," while the lobby group TechAmerica worried that its relatively few cyber-limitations raised cyber-serious cyber-concerns about "the potential for absolute power."

Cyber-Source: ZDNet [http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm]


Permalink

This is totally bullcrap. What it is, is trying to completely and utterly control FREE SPEECH by the U.S. Government through an excuse of "protecting national cyber security". What a load of crap.

Just to be clear: THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAD A HAND IN THE 9/11 ATTACK AGAINST IT'S OWN COUNTRY TO PUSH THE AGENDA OF THE PATRIOT ACT. THE PATRIOT ACT ALLOWS ANY GOVERNMENT LAW OFFICIAL (BE IT FBI, CIA, POLICE, MILITARY, ETC.) TO BYPASS RIGHTS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND MIRANDA RIGHTS IN ORDER TO DETAIN ANY INDIVIDUAL JUST BY MENTIONING THE WORD "TERRORISM" IN THE ARREST.


Now, what this NEW bill that this so called "head of Homeland Security" wants to pass is basically a law that allows the federal government to spy legally on it's citizens over the internet and any website and traffic that they visit.


This isn't freedom.
This isn't Socialism.
This isn't Communism.
This IS DICTATORSHIP!~

 

[Mista Stevo]

oh no a crisis we must qucikly shut down dangerous sites like youtube, aargos and tesco direct. can't the americans stops complaing and chill out and stop thinking they're the unchallnaged dictators of the world

 

[mooncalf]

This is how important some people in the US think they are. If it ain't baldfaced arrogance, I don't know what you people would call it. No offense to the rational majority over there.

If someone is making it their business to fashion the biggest glowing red button in the internet's history, several thousand hyper-talented persons are going to make it their life's work to try and press it.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

You know, I can't help but thing that shutting down the internet in America would be a good way to cause mass panic. And, to put it bluntly, New York has shown what happens in America when there is mass panic...

 

[Lorginsms]

Damn...I might go a while without porn if that happened.

 

[Superfly CJ]

I can't believe how closed-minded the people in this thread are. Sure, it's easy to cry 'freedom of speech! lolol' and blast the decision, but if you were to stop and think about it's intended usage or *gasp* actually read the bill, you'd understand just how important it is.

For starters, it isn't a button-press scenario, it's not like the government could turn around next year, press a button and turn off the internet there and then. The process would involve relay between the US government and any relevant major telecommunications businesses. This would take time, and more importantly thought. Basically, the Government is only going to protect areas that need protecting.

Lets say, for example, that a terrorist group begins utilising multiple computers for a directed attack against, say, public health networks. The government would then tell those selected networks, or any relevant ISPs to immediately shut down services to prevent a breach on that particular sector. Damage control is in place, only what needs to be shut down will be shutdown.

Secondly, this is a serious last-resort scenario. The government is intelligent enough to realise that they wouldn't win any favour if they were to just 'pull the plug' every other year. In order for usage of the 'kill-switch' to be justified, there would have to be a serious threat posed to cyber-security- the 9/11 comparison isn't just scare mongering. If the shit hits the fan hard enough to warrant the usage of this procedure, we're going to be glad we had it.

It's a catch-22 situation, really- the Government have proposed this bill to cries of, 'You're breaching my rights! I hate you so much!'. However, if this doesn't go through, and an attack seriously breaches the higher-priority areas of the internet, they'll only suffer cries of, 'You didn't protect my rights! I hate you so much!'.

Also, shouldn't we consider the fact that the Government already has the power to use nuclear weapons? The power to sieze control of broadcasts? The power to disrupt travel patterns? This is hardly anything new- just look at the example set by the pre-existing measures: when was the last time the Government abused it's power to close down airlines? Never, if I recall correctly.

 

[rayen020]

Wow... You know i always thought lieberman being a crazy nutjob was just a joke becasue he's ugly old and weird about party platforms. but it turns out he's just a crazy nutjob. so i support not supporting this bill.

 

[cheeseraven]

Joe Lieberman, the newest edition to the cyber-trolls.