4 ms·

>Being able to completely turn off the Internet in your country seems to be a non-negotiable capability to develop for any non-democratic state. Which technolo

>Being able to completely turn off the Internet in your country seems to be a non-negotiable capability to develop for any non-democratic state. Which technologically advanced democratic countries DON'T have this capability already developed and deployed? Do you think the 3 letter agencies in the likes of UK, Israel, Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland, Sweden, etc don't know how to turn off the internet in their countries? They'd be really incompetent if they don't. Switzerland even had all its bridges wired with explosives from like the 19th century and all the way through the cold war to blow them up inc ase of an invasion. Do you think the internet infra is somehow spared this kind of strategic planning?

whatshisface 10mo ago
The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary
- bagels 10mo ago
  Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.
- 0x1ch 10mo ago
  Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.
  - mhb 10mo ago
    This "current administration" thinking is exactly the problem. When your version of the current administration had the power to diminish the power of the administration, did it do that? None of them do. Somehow there's always a failure of imagining that whatever the current administration is won't always be current.
    - 0x1ch 10mo ago
      Well, that's the fun part of democracy. You don't get to bet on the status quo remaining the same.
- joe_mamba 10mo ago
  > X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself. If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?
  - ryandrake 10mo ago
    I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
  - worldsavior 10mo ago
    I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
    - joe_mamba 10mo ago
      Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
      - 10mo ago
- akabalanza 10mo ago
  I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence
- themgt 10mo ago
  > The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. The link you provided says: In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies. The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet. The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?
- chasd00 10mo ago
  I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.
- cromka 10mo ago
  > The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law Good one, buddy. That's a good one.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved. In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.
- veidelis 10mo ago
  The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.
- vovavili 10mo ago
  >cannot do it, because there is actually a law Oh sweet summer child.
- hadlock 10mo ago
  Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find. For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.
- xorcist 10mo ago
  Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned? Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned. Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.
lillecarl 10mo ago
I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet. Our government doesn't own our internet infrastructure, it's owned by private companies. The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass.
- SJC_Hacker 10mo ago
  Guys with guns can be pretty convincing
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  > I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet You guys do. Säpo and Telia were a customers of mine when I was still an IC.
- joe_mamba 10mo ago
  >it's owned by private companies. So what? If it's on Swedish ground then it's under Swedish government(military) enforcement in case the shit hits the fan. >The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass. Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime, or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply?
  - lillecarl 10mo ago
    > Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime Pretty much > or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply? They'll be dragging them to court. We're a democracy, we don't just send soldiers after our own.
    - joe_mamba 10mo ago
snowwrestler 10mo ago
Could you describe technically how it would be accomplished in the U.S.?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  FBI agents show up at a few dozen major datacenters with bolt cutters? Half the internet goes down by accident when AWS or Cloudflare have a big issue every few years.
  - snowwrestler 10mo ago
    Yes it would not be hard to take down a few data centers or services (just seize their domain) but that’s not remotely close to completely turning off the Internet. There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers. We also run tons of crucial stuff over commercial links thanks to encryption. Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example.
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      > There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers. And they largely rely on a surprisingly centralized infrastructure to function. > Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example. Sure, but in the sort of scenario you're considering "take the Internet down", that has already occurred.
      - snowwrestler 10mo ago
        If the government has already been disrupted, then who is taking down the Internet? No, the goal of “take down the Internet” is to degrade the organizing of protestors / agitators / insurgents, while preserving the ability of government to organize against them. It only works if the government has a separate sufficient infrastructure, or completely controls routing on shared infrastructure. Neither of those are true in the U.S. To pick just one recent newsworthy example, the federal government does not have a way to deny Signal messaging to their opponents, while preserving their own use of it.
lurk2 10mo ago
The Americans often achieve the same ends with different means; use of mass surveillance to account for the threat of open communication, forcing sales of social media platforms to friends of the regime, domain seizures on pirate sites, Know-Your-Customer (KYC) laws, Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws, etc. The American model is still preferable, but being preferable often gives people the false impression that open communication is a solved problem because they have limited assurances at the political level when what they should be after is more expansive assurances at the technical level.

whatshisface 10mo ago

The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr8336/summary

bagels 10mo ago
Laws in the era of lawlessness. Laws never really stopped all crimes anyways.
0x1ch 10mo ago
Given everything going on in this country, I don't think a silly law from 1944 is going to deter the current administration from trying.
- mhb 10mo ago
  This "current administration" thinking is exactly the problem. When your version of the current administration had the power to diminish the power of the administration, did it do that? None of them do. Somehow there's always a failure of imagining that whatever the current administration is won't always be current.
  - 0x1ch 10mo ago
    Well, that's the fun part of democracy. You don't get to bet on the status quo remaining the same.
joe_mamba 10mo ago
> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself. If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?
- ryandrake 10mo ago
  I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
- worldsavior 10mo ago
  I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
  - joe_mamba 10mo ago
    Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
    - 10mo ago
akabalanza 10mo ago
I'm sure there is at least one security-claiming act that can be used to override that sentence
themgt 10mo ago
> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law against cutting off communications systems dating back to 1944. Of course there have been attempts to make it possible. The link you provided says: In 1942, during World War II, Congress created a law to grant President Franklin D. Roosevelt or his successors the power to temporarily shut down any potentially vulnerable technological communications technologies. The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would reverse the 1942 law and prevent the president from shutting down any communications technology during wartime, including the internet. The House version was introduced on September 22 as bill number H.R. 8336, by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI2). The Senate version was introduced the same day as bill number S. 4646, by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY). The bill did not pass and did not become law. So what are you referring to?
chasd00 10mo ago
I don't think it's technically feasible to blackout the US but if it came to that no law would stand in the way of the attempt.
cromka 10mo ago
> The USA cannot do it, because there is actually a law Good one, buddy. That's a good one.
epolanski 10mo ago
Laws are just words, not real barriers as this and previous administrations proved. In fact, it's likely that you can turn off the internet, and then, after some time, a judge will rule on the topic.
veidelis 10mo ago
The US also are by law not allowed to start a war without the approval of Congress, right? But they did anyway in Venezuela.
vovavili 10mo ago
>cannot do it, because there is actually a law Oh sweet summer child.
hadlock 10mo ago
Even if your optimism had some basis in reality, about 12 guys with $5 serrated pocket knives bought on aliexpress could knock out 80% of communications in under an hour. Fiber optic strands are alarmingly tiny, and wrapped in day-glo orange plastic tubing making them intentionally easy to find. For whatever reason it's taboo to talk about how fragile infrastructure is, but if you wanted to shut something like comm links down, that's a problem for whoever installs the new judiciary. Chances are, whoever gets the job of being the new judiciary is likely to rule it as acceptable use of emergency powers.
xorcist 10mo ago
Does it really matter what is illegal if it is pardoned? Starting insurrection to overthrow election? Pardoned. Killing police officer? Pardoned. Ordering contract killings? Pardoned. Large scale drug smuggling operation to the US? Pardoned. Brand anyone who follows the law as a criminal and make sure to have them fired, and you can even ignore the constition that says power to regulate trade lies with the senate and enough of civil society might just decide to play along.

lillecarl 10mo ago

I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet. Our government doesn't own our internet infrastructure, it's owned by private companies. The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass.

SJC_Hacker 10mo ago
Guys with guns can be pretty convincing
alephnerd 10mo ago
> I highly doubt the Swedish government has a way to turn off our internet You guys do. Säpo and Telia were a customers of mine when I was still an IC.
joe_mamba 10mo ago
>it's owned by private companies. So what? If it's on Swedish ground then it's under Swedish government(military) enforcement in case the shit hits the fan. >The government could impose legislation to force providers to comply with shutting down international peering but I have a hard time seeing it pass. Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime, or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply?
- lillecarl 10mo ago
  > Do you think if Russia invades Sweden tomorrow, private businesses can still do whatever they want like in peacetime Pretty much > or will they have to follow the new waartime rules set by the government and enforced by armed soldiers knocking on their door dragging them to court if they refuse to comply? They'll be dragging them to court. We're a democracy, we don't just send soldiers after our own.
  - joe_mamba 10mo ago

snowwrestler 10mo ago

Could you describe technically how it would be accomplished in the U.S.?

ceejayoz 10mo ago
FBI agents show up at a few dozen major datacenters with bolt cutters? Half the internet goes down by accident when AWS or Cloudflare have a big issue every few years.
- snowwrestler 10mo ago
  Yes it would not be hard to take down a few data centers or services (just seize their domain) but that’s not remotely close to completely turning off the Internet. There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers. We also run tons of crucial stuff over commercial links thanks to encryption. Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example.
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    > There are millions of servers on the U.S. Internet outside of major data centers. And they largely rely on a surprisingly centralized infrastructure to function. > Taking Internet trunks offline would disrupt most domestic functions of government, for example. Sure, but in the sort of scenario you're considering "take the Internet down", that has already occurred.
    - snowwrestler 10mo ago
      If the government has already been disrupted, then who is taking down the Internet? No, the goal of “take down the Internet” is to degrade the organizing of protestors / agitators / insurgents, while preserving the ability of government to organize against them. It only works if the government has a separate sufficient infrastructure, or completely controls routing on shared infrastructure. Neither of those are true in the U.S. To pick just one recent newsworthy example, the federal government does not have a way to deny Signal messaging to their opponents, while preserving their own use of it.

lurk2 10mo ago

The Americans often achieve the same ends with different means; use of mass surveillance to account for the threat of open communication, forcing sales of social media platforms to friends of the regime, domain seizures on pirate sites, Know-Your-Customer (KYC) laws, Anti-Money-Laundering (AML) laws, etc. The American model is still preferable, but being preferable often gives people the false impression that open communication is a solved problem because they have limited assurances at the political level when what they should be after is more expansive assurances at the technical level.