6 ms·
Proposed Bill Gives President Emergency Authority To Halt Web Traffic; Access Private Data
- drinian 18y agoThe reasoning offered for this law is that communications infrastructure is too important to let go, and therefore the President should be allowed to ignore privacy laws in "emergencies." Does a similar law exist for the postal service, suddenly allowing them to open everyone's mail if they feel like it?
- riahi 18y agoExactly how does this make us more secure, again? I can't imagine anything "critical" that is currently funneled through the internet. At the very least, there should be some examples where this would actually promote safety, rather than be an extension of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1797.
- silentOpen 18y agoLook, if we don't give them these powers now, we could risk a cyber-Katrina. Do you want that? You know how bad Katrina was? Well, the internet is very complex, connects everything, and is critical infrastructure -- just imagine how bad it could be! Chinese hackers could launch US nukes against US cities if we don't grant these powers! In reality, the legalization and deployment of this sort of power and technology would allow whoever is in charge at the time to divide the citizenry. If there is no net, large scale organization becomes much harder. If the net kills traditional informational channels and we give a single entity the kill switch to the net, we give that entity the kill switch to democracy. I still have hope that the USA hasn't become this misguided and corrupt. I don't think anything remotely like this will pass. If it does, though, we are well and truly fucked.
- iojovnb 18y agoIs this a change in policy? I thought we had to police the internet to stop child porn on months with an 'R' in them and to stop terrorism in months without an 'R'?
- jerf 18y agoDon't worry, I'm sure the internet-savvy, power-to-the-people, save-us-after-years-of-Bush-darkness President Obama would veto the bill.
- jobeirne 18y agoEither that's wonderful sarcasm or I live in a miserable world.
- thwarted 18y agoThis made me think of a sequel to Speed where they can't shutdown the internet because if the internet isn't transfering at least 10terabits/sec through some unknown core routers, it will explode.
- joubert 18y agoThis is quite amusing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008060501958_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06...
- ajju 18y agoCan you imagine Mother Jones publishing an article titled "Should Bush Control the Internet?" ? Why is this even a question? Two things: 1) Good luck trying to "shut the Internet down" after declaring an "Internet emergency". 2) Any sufficiently motivated law enforcement agent can probably already read your mail.
- pragmatic 18y ago1) The Feds would require Telecoms to implement systems to shutdown portions of "Teh Nets". You don't need to shut down web/email/etc servers you just need to update the config files in a few backbone devices (routers/etc). You could shut the internet traffic down in my state fairly easily. Most cities are served by a very few providers and all those providers rely on the underlying carries (ATT/Qwest/etc) to get data moved interstate.
- jrockway 18y agoThe first time the Internet is shut down, you can bet that two things will happen: 1) Big companies will complain very loudly, and probably cost the government and ISPs a lot of money defending lawsuits. (Can you imagine what would happen to Amazon if it were shut down for a day? Not something that's good for their bottom line...) 2) The damage will be routed around. Right now, we trust ISPs because they are convenient. But IP over amateur radio is certainly possible, as are mesh networks and other things like that. Remember, the entire point of the Internet is to route around damage.
- asciilifeform 18y agoI think the kill switch is intended for a martial law scenario, where lawsuits and the like will be irrelevant.
- jrockway 18y agoI assume people will still know how to build their own radios, however.
- ams6110 18y agoAnyone doing anything remotely private or personal on the internet is (or should be) encrypting anyway.
- khafra 18y agoI truly hope that the technical problem of actually using that authority to halt the internet is as intractable as it seems--perhaps pulling the plugs on the root DNS servers would do it for the web and some other services, but many P2P networks would still be up and running.
- chaosmachine 18y agoI imagine they've already had plans drawn up for multiple scenarios. How many squads would they need to dispatch to how many server rooms before things went black? And don't forget, the NSA has hardware in high places. http://www.google.com/q=nsa+att+server+rooms http://www.google.com/q=nsa+att+server+rooms
- buugs 18y ago> Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina." What is a cyber katrina, can you have a disaster of magnitude on the internet? I'd much rather they be worried about tangible things like bridges and roads. I really don't understand this quote at all. And I would really like to see internet companies turn off their connections in order to aid in prevent such an emergency that would be an interesting day.
- cmars232 18y agoIt's a hurriance in the tubes! You have to close the tube to stop the hurricane!
- gills 18y agoMore Change You Can Believe In. But seriously...don't they get it? It's too late. We can get around any centralized controls with ad-hoc and mesh wireless networks. Freedom will win in the end, and watching these tards struggle against that reality is so sad (yet strangely amusing).
- robotrout 18y agoIt's never amusing to have somebody continuing to remove your freedom, one bill at at time, year in, year out, decade after decade. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail, but they always move the ball a little closer to the end-zone. The ball never travels in the direction of more-freedom, only less. You're probably too young to get that, but after a few decades, the amusement begins to pall.
- mindslight 18y ago> We can get around any centralized controls with ad-hoc and mesh wireless networks Mesh networks are only viable when population density is high enough. Perhaps in 10 years we'll see progress on that front, but currently it's a non-starter. However, most businesses require the internet, and really trying to cripple it would destroy the wealth that the government leeches to survive. The saving grace is ultimately HTTPS traffic (since it's used by everybody), and the ability to tunnel arbitrary protocols over it.
- MaysonL 18y agoThis reminds me of a quote from Vernor Vinge's novel A Deepness in the Sky: "The worst tyrannies are those where a government requires its own logic on every embedded node."
- gojomo 18y agoIt's the new "button" carried around in the "nuclear football" -- the "internet off switch"!
- zandorg 18y agoMaybe it's not in anticipation, but to say "Behave, or else! :-P"
- mindslight 18y agoCould someone tell me what a "cyber katrina" is? Would that be like someone crashing Digg and HN would have to temporarily house all of the refugees? That could be pretty terrible. I know politicians are ignorant and really do think the same kind of catastrophic event could happen to any area "on their watch", but how exactly would the internet kill people and destroy homes? The worst thing that could happen to the internet is for it to crash (say, widespread router bug), and this bill would only make this possibility more likely.
- raintrees 18y agoFirst, I am trying to envision the reactions of all the companies that live and die by internet access (myself included)... Second, I am trying to envision Russia's, China's, et. al. response to the United States of America flaunting this ability...