3 ms·
What 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 s
by patrickgzill 16y ago
What 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.
- patrickgzill 16y agoActually it would be trivial to shut down such an attack, using the existing tools and policies already in place.