3 ms·

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 t

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.
bad_user 16y ago
Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter They only need to turn off one big ISP or 2 before the others are going to shut down themselves. Look at what happened with Wikileaks. If someone can always find a flaw in crypto implementations, why bother with cryptography? That's a pretty big IF, because it depends on finding flaws, and there is no recipe for that and you're also not certain if you're going to find any, regardless of the time/resources invested. Also, crypto algorithms are public, peer reviewed and usually you're going to find out if a flaw exists sooner or later. And because there isn't any available method to make brute force attacks any easier or feasible if the key is large. I am pretty sure the government can shut down the Internet, but I can bet they aren't able to decrypt my communications if I won't allow it ;-)
- awakeasleep 16y ago
  What did you think of my point: '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. I think of that in terms of 1) simple manpower, 2) cooperation, and 3) perception.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    It's a valid point.

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.

bad_user 16y ago

Because the resources it'd take to kill the internet manually matter They only need to turn off one big ISP or 2 before the others are going to shut down themselves. Look at what happened with Wikileaks. If someone can always find a flaw in crypto implementations, why bother with cryptography? That's a pretty big IF, because it depends on finding flaws, and there is no recipe for that and you're also not certain if you're going to find any, regardless of the time/resources invested. Also, crypto algorithms are public, peer reviewed and usually you're going to find out if a flaw exists sooner or later. And because there isn't any available method to make brute force attacks any easier or feasible if the key is large. I am pretty sure the government can shut down the Internet, but I can bet they aren't able to decrypt my communications if I won't allow it ;-)

awakeasleep 16y ago
What did you think of my point: '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. I think of that in terms of 1) simple manpower, 2) cooperation, and 3) perception.
- bad_user 16y ago
  It's a valid point.