5 ms·

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 t

by 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.

by Zak 16y ago

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.