6 ms·

Senate Bill gives Obama 'kill switch' on web‎

12 points by newacc 17y ago

eli 17y ago
Uh, what percentage of the Internet backbone is running on government infrastructure? The President hardly needs a new law if he wanted to shut things down.
- nailer 17y ago
  Assuming you meant US government: since most internet traffic is outside the US, not as much as you'd think.
jacquesm 17y ago
I wonder how much of the worlds commerce would shut down if the American government decided to see how well this works. The internet may have been a DARPA project in the long lost past to keep communications open in the face of a nuclear war, the fact is that with a 'US sized hole' in the routing tables plenty of traffic will have trouble making it to its destination. http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/img\dsnl\internet15jan06.png http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/img\dsnl\internet15jan06.... Shows a pretty picture on what the rough topology of the net looked like in 2006, the legend of the graph is here: http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/dsnl.aspx http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/dsnl.aspx I can't imagine Canada would be very happy either. If the US would ever even for a test try this trick I'm fairly sure there would be worldwide calls for a boycott.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  With the amount of commerce at least somewhat reliant on the internet, I think it would be far more than calls for a boycott. It would be a near worldwide call for economic sanctions. Crippling another countries economy is easily justifiable as a military attack, or at least a very prominent precursor. It will never be used, because the results would likely be dire.
tptacek 17y ago
No, it doesn't. See comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=791586 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=791586
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
GiraffeNecktie 17y ago
The HN submission is a wee bit inflamatory (the bill gives "Obama" the kill switch) The actual title of the article is "Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet". Aside from that, surely there's a more appropriate (i.e. technically credible) source for the HN readership than Fox News.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  Can we just let the whole Fox News vendetta go for a bit? Please? The web is full of all kinds of sources -- that's why we double and triple-source interesting news tidbits we see. Continuing to trash one or the other sources that don't fit your ideals is just so much noise to everybody else who don't share your views. Hell -- for controversial articles I check sources on everything. So it's not germane to the nature of the story, which should stand (along with the title) on it's own merit.
  - jcromartie 17y ago
    They are known for being inflammatory and wildly inaccurate. Fox News has a tendency (or some of their pundits) to take an incorrect technical view and run with it in a totally insane direction. Example: Glenn Beck and a guest going on at great length about how the "Cash For Clunkers" program's website allowed the gov't to tap into your computer and seize all of your computer files, and install a "tracking cookie" that let them "tap into your system at any time in the future." They failed to mention that the scary EULA this nonsense was based on was only for participating dealer employees to access, and not something that the general public could even find if they wanted to.
    - cema 17y ago
      Yes, Fox is known for being inflammatory. However, all mainstream general-purpose media sources are known to be very inaccurate. (I say "general" because reports by subject-oriented media are usually done with a higher degree of accuracy and by people who understand the subject matter better than an average person, or an average journalist.) So, take them all with a grain of salt. And do not let your political, religious and other biases affect your judgment. Okay? :-)

12 points by newacc 17y ago

eli 17y ago

Uh, what percentage of the Internet backbone is running on government infrastructure? The President hardly needs a new law if he wanted to shut things down.

nailer 17y ago
Assuming you meant US government: since most internet traffic is outside the US, not as much as you'd think.

jacquesm 17y ago

I wonder how much of the worlds commerce would shut down if the American government decided to see how well this works. The internet may have been a DARPA project in the long lost past to keep communications open in the face of a nuclear war, the fact is that with a 'US sized hole' in the routing tables plenty of traffic will have trouble making it to its destination. http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/img\dsnl\internet15jan06.png http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/img\dsnl\internet15jan06.... Shows a pretty picture on what the rough topology of the net looked like in 2006, the legend of the graph is here: http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/dsnl.aspx http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/com_test/dsnl.aspx I can't imagine Canada would be very happy either. If the US would ever even for a test try this trick I'm fairly sure there would be worldwide calls for a boycott.

electromagnetic 17y ago
With the amount of commerce at least somewhat reliant on the internet, I think it would be far more than calls for a boycott. It would be a near worldwide call for economic sanctions. Crippling another countries economy is easily justifiable as a military attack, or at least a very prominent precursor. It will never be used, because the results would likely be dire.

tptacek 17y ago

No, it doesn't. See comments here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=791586 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=791586

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

GiraffeNecktie 17y ago

The HN submission is a wee bit inflamatory (the bill gives "Obama" the kill switch) The actual title of the article is "Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet". Aside from that, surely there's a more appropriate (i.e. technically credible) source for the HN readership than Fox News.

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Can we just let the whole Fox News vendetta go for a bit? Please? The web is full of all kinds of sources -- that's why we double and triple-source interesting news tidbits we see. Continuing to trash one or the other sources that don't fit your ideals is just so much noise to everybody else who don't share your views. Hell -- for controversial articles I check sources on everything. So it's not germane to the nature of the story, which should stand (along with the title) on it's own merit.
- jcromartie 17y ago
  They are known for being inflammatory and wildly inaccurate. Fox News has a tendency (or some of their pundits) to take an incorrect technical view and run with it in a totally insane direction. Example: Glenn Beck and a guest going on at great length about how the "Cash For Clunkers" program's website allowed the gov't to tap into your computer and seize all of your computer files, and install a "tracking cookie" that let them "tap into your system at any time in the future." They failed to mention that the scary EULA this nonsense was based on was only for participating dealer employees to access, and not something that the general public could even find if they wanted to.
  - cema 17y ago
    Yes, Fox is known for being inflammatory. However, all mainstream general-purpose media sources are known to be very inaccurate. (I say "general" because reports by subject-oriented media are usually done with a higher degree of accuracy and by people who understand the subject matter better than an average person, or an average journalist.) So, take them all with a grain of salt. And do not let your political, religious and other biases affect your judgment. Okay? :-)