12 ms·
Senators decry link between Egypt and U.S. 'kill switch' bill
- iwwr 16y agoYou see, the President will only switch off the internet to preserve freedom.
- MikeCapone 16y agoWe had to destroy <strike>this village</strike> the internet to save it.
- pavel_lishin 16y agoWe need to draft a bill that would allow him the power to switch off freedom to preserve the internet, just in case.
- mikecarlucci 16y agoMaybe they'll cite Independence Day, when our own satellite communication network was used against us. If the bad guys are using "our" Internet to communicate we should shut it down and evacuate everyone to Area 51 with the help of Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum.
- sixtofour 16y agoWould that citation be fair use, or would the MPAA issue a DMCA notice?
- mikecarlucci 16y agoIt feels like it would pass a fair use defense test...not taking too more than necessary and shouldn't harm the commercial market for the original. And any bill with an internet shutdown is something the MPAA could get behind :)
- lukev 16y agoI still haven't heard a single remotely plausible argument for why a kill switch is a good idea. What's the worst that a "cyber attack" can do? Take down the internet? So why do it for them? Including text in the law forbidding the president from using it to prohibit citizen's communication is incredibly disingenuous, too, given that that's one of the main points of the constitution. We already know the US government isn't allowed to do this kind of thing. So why give them the tools? If there's no tool there isn't even any temptation to use it.
- iuygtfrgth 16y agoA couple of years ago they announced something similar with GPS. On the same day two bits of government made announcements. 1, A massive funding for improved GPS security to prevent terrorists causing chaos by them blocking GPS signals. 2, An increase in the powers of everybody from the port authority to the girl guides to have a kill switch to shut down GPS if there was a threat of a terrorist attack.
- icefox 16y agoFinally I have a justification for making an android application that will tell you where you are based upon photographing the stars.
- ecyrb 16y agoMight find this useful: http://astrometry.net/ http://astrometry.net/
- iuygtfrgth 16y agoUseful when you absolutely definitely need to be there on time - and the other side has just destroyed your GPS satellites http://books.google.ca/books?id=QymEXZIWEe8C&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=trident+d5+star+mapper&source=bl&ots=qaX9IMKBV2&sig=yYHVvWUK8JZtlkPcovk1LQt8vdE&hl=en&ei=R-VJTba-JYS2sAOz9JHlCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.ca/books?id=QymEXZIWEe8C&pg=PA332...
- 16y ago
- Vivtek 16y agoSenators decry people watching them break what's not broken. Film at 11.
- CWuestefeld 16y agoI haven't seen any kind of justification for the provision making the president's hypothetical action immune from judicial review. And I can't think of any justification, either. Anybody care to explain what they're thinking?
- eli 16y agoI'm actually OK with the bill aside from this provision. (Worth noting, though, that the bill hasn't been reintroduced yet so we can't actually see that language... and CNET's source for this removal of judicial review appears to be a single lobbyist for companies opposed to the bill.)
- patrickgzill 16y agoWhat I don't understand is how it is acceptable to essentially "void" all the contracts for internet and point to point/transport (which would travel over the same fiber and routers) just because the gov't says so. The entire idea of having a court system is to ensure justice in criminal issues and in civil issues, protect the enforcement of contracts. Somehow this is getting turned around.
- eli 16y agoIsn't that kinda the point? If <foreign government> launched a massive DDOS against US servers, you don't want people dithering over violating SLAs when they could be stopping the attack
- pyre 16y agoBut why is a massive DDOS against US servers an issue though? As long as critical infrastructure doesn't go down (i.e. you get what you deserve if your nuclear reactors are controlled via a publicly accessible telnet session, or if they can be DDOS'd at all) then the damage is minimal. It certainly doesn't warrant a military-level response.
- discardingsabot 16y agoAs long as critical infrastructure doesn't go down That's the whole point. Critical infrastructure is the only thing the bill covers. It certainly doesn't warrant a military-level response. The bill has nothing to do with the military.
- pyre 16y ago> The bill has nothing to do with the military The president is the commander-in-chief and this bill is about preventing 'cyber attacks' from outside of the country. That seems to be encroaching into 'military' territory in my book, even if there isn't a particular branch of the military involved.
- 16y ago
- jbooth 16y agoI'd be willing to bet Lieberman has barely used the internet. Ever. I mean, my Nana won't touch it, and she's about 10x as progressive as him, so...
- patrickgzill 16y agoLook over Lieberman's job history ... he has never held a job in the private sector, period.
- jbooth 16y agoWell, plenty of people in the public sector know how to use a computer :)
- jackvalentine 16y agoI don't see the relevance of what you're saying? At best it is an attack on the man and not on what he's saying. If his arguments are incorrect, correct them. Don't smugly point out his work history as if it somehow contributed to the conversation. Edit: This cropped up on HN a few days ago again, http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html I feel "DH1" covers what I'm trying to say to you.
- lanstein 16y agoas he
- eli 16y agoYeah, and he's got a stupid face! That's why I don't support his bill!
- eli 16y agoOf all the possible threats to a free Internet, the idea of a rogue US President shutting it off seems pretty far down the list. This is not something worth worrying about.
- iuygtfrgth 16y agoTrue - a rogue US president isn't a problem. Of course a Chicago mayor shutting off bits of it when there is a G20 protest. Or an Alabama governor for a civil rights march. Or just an MPAA owned senator shutting down an ISP because of a pirate copy of a movie.
- sixtofour 16y agoAny power given to the government is something to worry about. Any power given will eventually be used, and not always the way we thought it would when we gave it.
- shareme 16y agothe reason for this bill are a bit somewhat false.. Note, to date the number one entity skilled and reacting fast to cyber attacks on Net infrastructure has been commerce not government. In government has shown to be poor performer in this area. It would not surprise me if this bill was being lobbied by MPAA/RIAA
- GHFigs 16y agoHere's an idea: let's pick out one provision of the bill that sounds sketchy when summarized and whip ourselves into a massive rhetorical frenzy over it in lieu of reading so much as a word of the rest of it and considering ways it could be improved to better address the problems it is attempting to address. Oh wait, you're way ahead of me, as usual. Stay classy, HN. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s3480rs.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s...
- eli 16y agoBut a lobbyist working for companies opposed to the bill told CNET that a new version that no one can see yet is really bad! What more do you need?
- andolanra 16y ago"A final decision in any appeal under this subsection shall be a final agency action that shall not be subject to judicial review." Section 254(c)(1); appears on pg. 402 of the linked draft. I am against any law which contains those words. Other parts of the law are troubling to various degrees, but that single sentence is enough for me to know that I oppose this law.
- VladRussian 16y agoconsidering that the Internet becomes an "additional, external, brain lobe" (how many of you remember things instead of looking it up everytime, or take for example Google voice/translate or any other traditional "brain" function that tomorrow will be transferred to and/or extended by Internet) - any government power on the Internet means government's power over your brain. Because tomorrow the unconnected brain vs. connected will be like being a pedestrian vs. riding a car.
- sixtofour 16y ago"When the President does it, then it's not illegal." - Richard Nixon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8
- MikeCapone 16y ago"L'État, c'est moi" - Louis XIV
- InclinedPlane 16y ago"No, it's fine, we're good guys, we won't abuse these powers." Benevolent rule is still rule. And the risks of centralized power being wielded by a benevolent authority falling into the hands of a malicious authority is very real and should never be ignored.
- gizmomagico 16y agoAnd the risks of centralized power being wielded by a benevolent authority falling into the hands of a malicious authority is very real and should never be ignored The government is a malicious authority, just as Egypt has proven. The only difference is in the current levels of totalitarianism.