5 ms·

I read this, and become more concerned about bills to give the US President an Internet kill-switch. They say it's to protect against cyber-warfare, but somethi

by Zak 16y ago

I read this, and become more concerned about bills to give the US President an Internet kill-switch. They say it's to protect against cyber-warfare, but something makes me think it's just as likely to be applied to civil unrest, and civil unrest doesn't usually happen unless there's something pretty wrong with the government.

jasongullickson 16y ago
Right, what attack causes more of an outage than pulling the plug?
pyre 16y ago
Well, then it will obviously never be used because nothing is wrong with the government. </sarcasm>
jerf 16y ago
Well, good news, it doesn't matter. If the situation has deteriorated to that point, the government will just do it anyhow. I don't support the bill anyhow, because I'm not really a "let's just give one central authority all the power because why not?" kind of guy, but honestly, there's not much point worrying about that particular kind of misuse of that particular power. Standard martial law concepts would probably be enough to take the necessary actions to shut down whatever networks you like; pointing guns at network admins can be pretty effective. You're actually not being cynical enough.
- Zak 16y ago
  Passing a law like that means they'll put in the infrastructure to actually do it. If things deteriorate significantly in the US, it is likely that attempting to gain the ability to shut down the internet would directly trigger some sort of civil unrest while now it only triggers angry blog posts.
  - zoomzoom 16y ago
    Don't trust me - but I would wager a bet that the US government already has such infrastructure. We trust them with the power to detonate 1,000's of thermonuclear warheads or study Ebola virus for weapnization at USAMRID - the internet kill switch is horrible, but it is nowhere near the top of my list.
    - btilly 16y ago
      One nuclear bomb, set off at the right location and altitude, could wipe out the Internet and most consumer electronics for most of the continental USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse. And this is with no direct physical injury.
      - tomhenderson 16y ago
        When all you have is a hammer...
      - metageek 16y ago
        Shutting down all the cars, planes, and pacemakers in the US would mean lots of physical injury.
      - mindcrime 16y ago
        Interestingly enough, F. Paul Wilson used something along those lines as a big part of the plot of his latest novel Fatal Error. The "bad guys" need to take down the Internet as part of the story, and he lays out a pretty elaborate scheme that they use to do it. http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Error-Repairman-Jack-Wilson/dp/076532282X http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Error-Repairman-Jack-Wilson/dp/0... Unfortunately this is the most recent of a pretty long series, so it probably would't be much fun to read unless you had read the series up to this point. But if anyone wants an interesting fictional scenario where the 'Net is knocked entirely (or almost entirely) offline, there ya go...
  - jerf 16y ago
    I am at a loss as to what this additional infrastructure really permits that having lots of armored men with guns does not. Armored men with guns are a flexible bunch, they can do lots of things. The marginal distinction to the person in power between pressing a button and ordering other people to go shut the net down is pretty minimal; it's not like without this switch, the President is going to actually have go out and point guns at the network admins himself, Independence Day-style. My real worry, and the real reason this shouldn't be done, is that it shouldn't be made so easy that some clever hackers can do it, or gets accidentally triggered for some reason. But ye olde "shoot the place up" can take down the internet pretty effectively. "Stray backhoes" have done a decent job a couple of times within my experience as it is; the hard part is keeping the net running, not shutting it down.
    - sunir 16y ago
      The question is how many armed men with guns will it take. Armed men with guns are not an infinite supply, and during a massive unrest, presumably in high demand. Why make it easy?
    - awakeasleep 16y ago
      I see this argument get a lot of play. These sorts of things are important because ease dictates more of what happens in life than posibility. Make it easier to turn off the net, there is more chance of it happening, and it'll take less resources from the controlling party to do it. Like you said, 'they' could already turn off the internet. So why bother with the effort to make a killswitch? Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter. ~~~~~~~ An similar argument might be, "If someone can always find a flaw in crypto implementations, why bother with cryptography?" or "You can walk anywhere a car can go, what's the point of having a car?"
      - navyrain 16y ago
        This point cannot be emphasized enough. Furthermore, it is certainly possible to imagine a scenario where ordering armored men to shut off the internet would be politically unfeasible, but spinning a story which necessitates of shutting off from the greater world internet might be within grasp.
- LiveTheDream 16y ago
  It absolutely does matter! The government "just doing it" as described is an extreme, reactionary measure comparable to all those authoritarian governments we criticize daily. Contrast this to a federal kill-switch policy, approved by elected officials who ostensibly represent their constituents. Though the end result is the same, the context is drastically different (which in turn will affect how many people interpret the action -- crazy civil liberty violation, or prudent and justified response).
  - dlokshin 16y ago
    So totalitarian is not totalitarian if willingly imposed? I respectfully disagree.
- redthrowaway 16y ago
  It does matter, because the government can kill dissent without declaring martial law and giving legitimacy to protests. It's a far more preferable option for them.
- Natsu 16y ago
  > Well, good news, it doesn't matter. If the situation has deteriorated to that point, the government will just do it anyhow. I'm more worried about them using it selectively and routinely, rather than as an emergency measure.
marshray 16y ago
Obama already claims to have the power to commandeer networks in the form of an obscure provision in a pre-WWII law relating to communications base stations. People in the US government are becoming painfully aware though just how dependent every bit of our infrastructure is becoming on continued internet function. Nobody is really sure, for example, just how much of the phone and power networks would stay up if all IP routing is shut down. So more than likely, any new laws passed are going to have the effect of giving the president the fine-tuned ability to tamper with specific websites, addresses, protocols, etc. even if that's not the how the bill is sold to the public.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  I'm sorry to be picky, but The President of the United States of America has the power. That office currently resides with one Mr. B. Obama, but if it's an obscure provision in a pre-WWII law it's hardly a power he's introduced against the grain of history and so can be personally tied to and held against him.
GHFigs 16y ago
They say it's to protect against cyber-warfare And if it is?
nika 16y ago
The situation in america will not change until people stop supporting those who enact and propose legislation like this. Who wants to give the president the kill switch? It would be good to know a full list of all sponsors of such a bill and whether Obama has endorsed it or not. Regardless of party, these people who have not even read the US constitution (or comprehended it if they have) should not be re-elected.
jrwoodruff 16y ago
What is this bill? Could you please link to the proposed legislation as I have not heard of this bill. I would like to know if my senator/representative is introducing or endorsing this bill.

by Zak 16y ago

jasongullickson 16y ago

Right, what attack causes more of an outage than pulling the plug?

pyre 16y ago

Well, then it will obviously never be used because nothing is wrong with the government. </sarcasm>

jerf 16y ago

Well, good news, it doesn't matter. If the situation has deteriorated to that point, the government will just do it anyhow. I don't support the bill anyhow, because I'm not really a "let's just give one central authority all the power because why not?" kind of guy, but honestly, there's not much point worrying about that particular kind of misuse of that particular power. Standard martial law concepts would probably be enough to take the necessary actions to shut down whatever networks you like; pointing guns at network admins can be pretty effective. You're actually not being cynical enough.

Zak 16y ago
Passing a law like that means they'll put in the infrastructure to actually do it. If things deteriorate significantly in the US, it is likely that attempting to gain the ability to shut down the internet would directly trigger some sort of civil unrest while now it only triggers angry blog posts.
- zoomzoom 16y ago
  Don't trust me - but I would wager a bet that the US government already has such infrastructure. We trust them with the power to detonate 1,000's of thermonuclear warheads or study Ebola virus for weapnization at USAMRID - the internet kill switch is horrible, but it is nowhere near the top of my list.
  - btilly 16y ago
    One nuclear bomb, set off at the right location and altitude, could wipe out the Internet and most consumer electronics for most of the continental USA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse. And this is with no direct physical injury.
    - tomhenderson 16y ago
      When all you have is a hammer...
    - metageek 16y ago
      Shutting down all the cars, planes, and pacemakers in the US would mean lots of physical injury.
    - mindcrime 16y ago
      Interestingly enough, F. Paul Wilson used something along those lines as a big part of the plot of his latest novel Fatal Error. The "bad guys" need to take down the Internet as part of the story, and he lays out a pretty elaborate scheme that they use to do it. http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Error-Repairman-Jack-Wilson/dp/076532282X http://www.amazon.com/Fatal-Error-Repairman-Jack-Wilson/dp/0... Unfortunately this is the most recent of a pretty long series, so it probably would't be much fun to read unless you had read the series up to this point. But if anyone wants an interesting fictional scenario where the 'Net is knocked entirely (or almost entirely) offline, there ya go...
- jerf 16y ago
  I am at a loss as to what this additional infrastructure really permits that having lots of armored men with guns does not. Armored men with guns are a flexible bunch, they can do lots of things. The marginal distinction to the person in power between pressing a button and ordering other people to go shut the net down is pretty minimal; it's not like without this switch, the President is going to actually have go out and point guns at the network admins himself, Independence Day-style. My real worry, and the real reason this shouldn't be done, is that it shouldn't be made so easy that some clever hackers can do it, or gets accidentally triggered for some reason. But ye olde "shoot the place up" can take down the internet pretty effectively. "Stray backhoes" have done a decent job a couple of times within my experience as it is; the hard part is keeping the net running, not shutting it down.
  - sunir 16y ago
    The question is how many armed men with guns will it take. Armed men with guns are not an infinite supply, and during a massive unrest, presumably in high demand. Why make it easy?
  - awakeasleep 16y ago
    I see this argument get a lot of play. These sorts of things are important because ease dictates more of what happens in life than posibility. Make it easier to turn off the net, there is more chance of it happening, and it'll take less resources from the controlling party to do it. Like you said, 'they' could already turn off the internet. So why bother with the effort to make a killswitch? Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter. ~~~~~~~ An similar argument might be, "If someone can always find a flaw in crypto implementations, why bother with cryptography?" or "You can walk anywhere a car can go, what's the point of having a car?"
    - navyrain 16y ago
      This point cannot be emphasized enough. Furthermore, it is certainly possible to imagine a scenario where ordering armored men to shut off the internet would be politically unfeasible, but spinning a story which necessitates of shutting off from the greater world internet might be within grasp.
LiveTheDream 16y ago
It absolutely does matter! The government "just doing it" as described is an extreme, reactionary measure comparable to all those authoritarian governments we criticize daily. Contrast this to a federal kill-switch policy, approved by elected officials who ostensibly represent their constituents. Though the end result is the same, the context is drastically different (which in turn will affect how many people interpret the action -- crazy civil liberty violation, or prudent and justified response).
- dlokshin 16y ago
  So totalitarian is not totalitarian if willingly imposed? I respectfully disagree.
redthrowaway 16y ago
It does matter, because the government can kill dissent without declaring martial law and giving legitimacy to protests. It's a far more preferable option for them.
Natsu 16y ago
> Well, good news, it doesn't matter. If the situation has deteriorated to that point, the government will just do it anyhow. I'm more worried about them using it selectively and routinely, rather than as an emergency measure.

marshray 16y ago

Obama already claims to have the power to commandeer networks in the form of an obscure provision in a pre-WWII law relating to communications base stations. People in the US government are becoming painfully aware though just how dependent every bit of our infrastructure is becoming on continued internet function. Nobody is really sure, for example, just how much of the phone and power networks would stay up if all IP routing is shut down. So more than likely, any new laws passed are going to have the effect of giving the president the fine-tuned ability to tamper with specific websites, addresses, protocols, etc. even if that's not the how the bill is sold to the public.

eftpotrm 16y ago
I'm sorry to be picky, but The President of the United States of America has the power. That office currently resides with one Mr. B. Obama, but if it's an obscure provision in a pre-WWII law it's hardly a power he's introduced against the grain of history and so can be personally tied to and held against him.

GHFigs 16y ago

They say it's to protect against cyber-warfare And if it is?

nika 16y ago

The situation in america will not change until people stop supporting those who enact and propose legislation like this. Who wants to give the president the kill switch? It would be good to know a full list of all sponsors of such a bill and whether Obama has endorsed it or not. Regardless of party, these people who have not even read the US constitution (or comprehended it if they have) should not be re-elected.

jrwoodruff 16y ago

What is this bill? Could you please link to the proposed legislation as I have not heard of this bill. I would like to know if my senator/representative is introducing or endorsing this bill.