blog comments powered by Disqus
Showing 270 commentsReal-time updating is paused. (Resume)0 new comment was just posted. Show
Sigh. Wired truly are irresponsible idiots. Literally the first section of the link:
"Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 provides nearly unchecked authority to the President to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” and “authorize the use of control of any such facility or station” by the Federal government. Exercise of the authority requires no advance notification to Congress and can be authorized if the President proclaims that “a state or threat of war” exists. The authority can be exercised for up to six months after the “state or threat of war” has expired."
The intent of the law isn't to give the president sweeping powers, but to control sweeping powers he ALREADY HAS. (Whether it goes far enough is another question.) Why does Wired link that whilst obviously failing to read it? Why the fuck is Wired tolerating people making death threats against US senators, on the basis of its own misinformation?
That maybe the case that some shadow of legislation maybe laying there but this YES WE CAN PARTY is doing just that YES WE WILL. This is an overt grab for power to silence & kill free speech to quell discent at any cost. Tell me what form of government does that make the Obama camp?
This is a very dangerous Bill, true the people should fear their government but rather their government should fear the people but here is coming another part of the noose around the neck.
Yes it was by another Progressive. There are a lot of people who are studying to get their degrees on line at accredited colleges..
Seems contradictory to have a kill switch on information just when we need to be able to access information. Isn't this what Chavez did? Do you enjoy the idea that you will not only loose net, but radio, and tv? Maybe it is time for me to reinvest in a ham radio.. KBR0027.
That has been an illusion for literally decades. Elections exist only to keep the Mundanes in a state of comfortable ignorance and false security.
Governments are instituted among people to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that all individuals are born with. When it becomes destructive of those rights, it is our duty as free individuals to rise up and end such government and erect new safeguards for our liberties.
I think I've read some of those words somewhere before...can't quite put my finger on it...
It's only a matter of time before any government feels compelled to restrict it's citizens freedoms in order to protect itself from an perceived threat and to justify those restrictions as necessary to protect it's citizens. We are seeing the beginnings of the end of the United States and of our constitutional freedoms. It's time to wake up before we have our own Mubarak to deal with.
This is how they always start out. They say we are doing this to protect you.
They always say that and then they start adding more and more so called protections for our own good.
It is like they try to control our guns by saying perverts shouldn't have guns or criminals shouldn't have guns and then they say we can only have certain guns. The Constitution says we are allowed to have guns. It doesn't say anything about perverts, felons, or what type of guns. They just keep inching in until they take away everything. I want everyone to have a gun, even criminals. If they break into a house, they don't know who has a gun and who doesn't have a gun. It keeps crime down.
Now, they got cameras all over the place even in little towns. Big Brother is definetely watching. They asked permission in our city to put up some traffic cameras at high accident spots. Nothing like this was mentioned. We gave them an inch and they took the whole yard stick.
Now, they want to shut down our Internet at their whim. Next what?
Please dont start trying to equate gun control with an Internet shutdown. And yes, perverts, felons, or what type of guns are all fair territory to be regulated. The constitution is clear about providing for the general welfare of citizens, and allowing ANYONE to have ANY weapon is clearly not in line with that.
What planet are you from with a statement like "I want everyone to have a gun, even criminals."?
Please take a moment to ponder the fact that: when guns are outlawed for private citizens, only the criminal will have a gun,...because they dont give a damn about laws and then not only will our marxist govt have you by the gonads, the criminals will be emboldened to do what they want without opposition.
Bringing a flyswatter to a gun fight is about as smart as having a islamic prezedent/
Does it say in the Constitution that a convicted felon can't have a weapon? No, it does not. If Britain had won the Revolutionary War, Washington & Jefferson would have been hanged and there wouldn't have been a Constitution.
Consider this: since the 2008 election, more americans have bought guns that in any other time block, the crime rate is now lower than it has been in years. Why? Because criminals have begun to realize that they are not the only ones who have power. The private citizen and the homeowner and the family are threats to the would be burglar, rapist, criminal. They know that they will more than likely be lookin down the business end of a 12ga or a .40 cal Glock when they go about doing thier mischief. Even the odds. it works.
The beginning of the end started about 9 years ago after 911.Then the middle of the beginning worsened sharply in Jan 2009 now we are near the end of the beginning. End is in sight unless we of all of us regardless of our politics stop it NOW!. Mr B in Egypt has showed us our future. As a 67 year old I may not live to see it--its up to you young folks to decide right now what kind of country you want to live in. Twitter on kids and ignore your freedoms--you won't miss them til they are gone
Simple observation... Everything that Nixon was impeached for is now legal. Police now can arrest you for recording their actions on the job in three states (Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois). Not saying we're heading that way. But man do we have a weird way of making people feel free.
No, he resigned. Coincidentally, he resigned immediately before impeachment proceedings were to commence. Since the Plumbers were caught red-handed and their actions were traced back to Nixon, his conviction would have been a done deal. So you are technically correct while still managing to miss the point.
All you had to do was clarify that Nixon resigned while facing near-certain impeachment. Instead you provoked an argument by unnecessarily calling the poster a moron. Please try that on your boss or a cop soon and let us know how that works out for you.
Twenty years ago, it may have been possible to "shut down" the Internet. Today, the damage done to the economy would dwarf any potential cyberthreat.
Next up, legislation to shut down the US power grid in response to a possible electrical storm...
(Edited by author 3 weeks ago)
I think that a better example would be allowing financial entities to operate largely without oversight which was a terrible decision based on the disasters of the last 30 years, starting with the S&L crisis and extending through the Enron, WorldCom and other fiascos
First? You might want to look up an obscure Italian totalitarian movement that was in power during WWII.
(Also, we aren't as free as we should be, but we aren't fascists yet. I regularly criticize government policy and have yet to have my door broken down as a result.)
That's the best part about politics; everyone wants power but they can't possibly envision anyone but themselves wielding it, ergo, they fail to see why nobody should have this power.
The one ring can't be used for good.
Hey, why not turn off the electricity, phones, and water too. And do not forget to impose a draconian curfew and institute martial law while you are at it? Sounds like the first step to a totalitarian state masquerading as national security. Shut down the internet? So much for the Bill of Rights.
And this is why Ron Paul needs to be president in '12. He isn't apart of this two-party sham that is American politics. He doesn't "play the party game", he actually has principles that he has stood behind for decades, principles of individual freedom. If America continues in this illusion of the two party system, and keeps on going back and forth between the "Bushs" and "Obamas", then it will be in for a rude awakening when it finds out that, in fact, democrats and republicans aren't so different after all, and that at the core of things, both parties as a whole are working not against each other, but towards the same goal: more power in the hands of the few. Ron Paul 2012
Puh-lease. Ron Paul isn't like the established political parties because he's so far out there he might as well be running for "King of the Martians." Haven't we had enough of Tea-Party type crazy to want more?
And it's because of the short sightedness of people such as yourself that we find ourselves in this mess in the first place. There's nothing "out there" about what Dr Paul is saying. I'd wager you don't even know what he's saying and are just reacting, as so many do nowadays, on party line propaganda force fed to you by the self same people that seek to centralize power in Washington. Why not try and wake up and have a thought or two not brought to you by MSNBC or Fox news or the at least make informed statements instead of just vague ones based on little knowledge and much ignorance.
Ah, another idiot who has swallowed the media BS regarding Ron Paul. You've apparently lost your gag reflex. This "Ron Paul is crazy...blah blah blah" is all politically driven hogwash, based on half-truths, quotes out of context, and outright lies. But hey, if the media prints it, it must be true...right? LOL
The Left is far more dangerous, my children, check your history, but power corrupts all, SO GIVE IT TO NONE. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or protecting yourself from burglars. I have no gun, but I understand the warning about government power it speaks to.
Don't fall for the stereotypes and propaganda. Do not let any of them gain power to stop our communication.
just because we have a democratic president does not mean AT ALL that we are being steered by the left and that its "more dangerous" ... and what are you even comparing that to.. the right? you need to get educated... we don't even have a two-party government anymore.. thats the delusion given to us so it appears we have a CHOICE in the matter, but really, the social and fiscal points of view from either a Dem or a Rep are not confined to the parties they represent... OBVIOUSLY
I completely agree. We are in a one party system with only a slight variance between them. It's this variance we're led to believe is 'left" or "right". They use this to great effect to spin the masses around like tops. When they stop spinning and try and get their bearings their made to spin again over another "situation" created to just keep them spinning, never stopping to take in their surroundings and make informed decisions based on actions, observations, and history, not words and promises. All that's left to do is demonize the people, very few though they may be, that can't be made to spin. That's the easy part. Just call them crazy and make them stand out from the herd, tapping in to the primal need to fit in to a group, and people will stay away from them, even though what their saying may make perfect sense if they'd take the time to listen without prejudice.
It should not be a contest, but: U.S.S.R, Communist China, Castro & Che, Weather Underground, Eco-raiders Most of the presidential assassinations, movies with Bush getting assassinated, posters to abort Palin, etc.
The Right is no angel, but the body count leans to the left, and the Left tends to romanticise efforts to give power to the peasants even though the opposite always happens. The Right takes no pride in their killers and crazies of the past.
The idea of America is to limit political power, not the individual. The giant corporations are most dangerous when they collude with a powerful government. Competition and a few regulations will keep the corporations limited. But it is up to us not to get suckered into thinking there is a free lunch. Those politicians will promise you the world to get that power. They want to have the power to kill the Internet, in an emergency, of course.
"An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."
If the system that controls the floodgates to Hoover dam is controlled over the Internet, the engineer who designed it should be made to sit in the corner of the room with a dunce cap for an extended period, then horsewhipped and subsequently sued. The best security for critical infrastructure is to not put it on the Internet in the first place. A distant second-best, if someone gets it into their heads that the Internet must be used, to allow access only via VPN. The fact that a Homeland Security aide said this is evidence that the people pushing this legislation are either lying or incompetent. Though I suppose they could well be both.
If the Internet has become a potential failure point for critical infrastructure, you're doing it wrong. That is the problem that needs to be fixed.
I seriously doubt they are controlled over the internet, but they are probably connected to a network that has an internet connection. Therefore, they could possibly be hacked.
However, I'm not really sure what this bill is proposing. Its quite easy to disconnect a valuable system from the internet. Grab the network cable in the back of your machine and pop it out. Its impossible to hack something that isn't connected to anything!
Sorry to say but the fact of the matter is that sooner or later ALL, (U.S.) included , experience a civil war. We have already had one and with the way the politicians and government are going here it is only a matter of time before we have another.
Swarming Bee Theory 3 weeks agoHannibal. I guess that is supposed to be a scary screen name? What a well trained duplicitous stooge you are, with your sanctimonious prattle about "protecting our freedoms". And then you close out your rant by pronouncing others seek therapy if they do not agree with your tin-horn oratory? You are offensive and antagonistic, and even worse than that, you don't have any idea what you are talking about. We don't need the Orwellian "Patriot Act", or an "internet switch" (that's assuming there is such a thing), any more than we need your sanctimonious "protection". The Chinese hackers with their Keystone cops attempt at DOS attacks and infiltration are more noteworthy for their clumsiness and laughable ineptitude. All they managed to do was embarass themselves, and piss off Google. If you are having trouble sleeping because you think the Russians are coming (really?), or somehow 100,000 "mallicious" Chinese hackers are going to suddenly overwhelm our nation, I suggest it is you that might be in need of some counseling, and medication. What you are totally missing, and as an American citizen (may I assume you are an American citizen?), is that Egypt is attempting, at this very moment in time, to shuttter all forms of communication in their country, in a desperate effort to quell the people's opposition. Why on earth, sir, would you want to offer an "internet switch"- such a perfect weapon of control and suppression, to the government? Our founding fathers intended, and explicitly encouraged, that we all maintain a healthy and active skepticism when it comes to self governance. Everything about our government, from the balance of powers, and even the 2nd amendment (not that I am big fan), are all expressions of self regulating checks and balances, intended to prevent anyone from ever gaining the kind of autonomous unchecked power that the King of England had over his citizens. Put that in your pipe and smoke it before you go rattling your sabre for more "patriot acts" and "interenet switches" to keep the boogeymen at bay.
Bees, I refrained from attacking anyone personally. You on the other hand resorted to ad hominem attacks. You laugh about the Chinese denial of service attacks which shut down Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and several other companies for three days. It was a trial run and it was succesful. Rant all you want to Bee, but when you are hit by the Netherlanders or the Russian cyber criminals, you will be ranting another tune.
As the country who invented the internet - it was a DARPA invention by the way, and I was one of the first on the internet before the Brit who came up with the Worldwide Web software and it was a very different place. Now pedophiles troll indiscriminately, every perversion is freely available, terrorists use it to communicate all over the world and leftist groups practice calumny on hundreds of websites. Collectively De Sade and Goebbels would be proud of our brave new world.
I don't object to Obama having that power, as much I as I personally detest that inept rookie who calls his political opposition "enemies". Shades of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton! I wonder what you are so fearful of Bees? We've lost most of our collective rights in the last two years than we have in the last twenty. That is a fact. If I, a staunch fiscal conservative who sees the need for our rookie to have this power to protect us, what are you so fearful of? Or are you another leftist paranoic? You should get together with Ron Paul's Libertarians. You are all birds of a feather. By the way, Hannibal is my real middle name. Boo!5 people liked this. Like ReplyReply
Hannibal, sir. I think I may be functioning as your analyst here, to some extent. You seem to be co-mingling some personal issues that you are struggling with in regards to how various individuals utilize their freedom and liberty. And by doing so you have accidentally highlighted the strength of my argument, and the fallacy of your own position. Let me explain; you are certainly not alone in being frustrated and angered by the hijacking of the internet by all sorts of con-men, thieves and dangerous wackos of all stripes.
Oh, if only you could, Mr. Hannibal sir, if only you could, clean out the scum, once and for all! Our once proud country could shine and prosper again! Mr. Hannibal, sir, if YOU were our president, and YOU had such a switch at your disposal, would you not be tempted to shut it down, to stop for once and for all, all those perverts and the would be terrorrists and wackos? You could clean it all up, in one fell swoop! Total control, in one switch. We are talking about legislation that is intended to empower the government to shut down the internet. This is not an evaluation of the success, or failure of the internet as a tool of self expression. This is about handing a tool of oppression and control to the government. To use your reference, back at you- Goebbels would be very proud. You see, Hannibal, it is a dangerous and slippery slope we are rocketing down.
You also characterized the president as an inept rookie. I think you may have a point here as well, one that also highlights the weakness of your position. It just so happens that while I do not agree that Obama is an "inept rookie" (more like a seasoned politician cloaked in liberal platitudes, he is really a Trojan horse centrist), I do not inherently trust our government to act in the best interest of its citizens. I believe it is up to ALL of US to maintain VIGILANCE of our own government. As they say, good crops require constant gardening. I am sure if you have been around as long as you claim, you know what that is in reference to. And so, for differing reasons, we both seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. The government is not to be trusted with such a dangerous weapon of control and oppression. An "internet switch" is one tool that is too sharp for the proverbial sandbox.
Oh and Crackerboy- why don't you try writing a coherent paragraph or two before you appoint yourself sheriff of the forum- you might actually contribute something to the conversation. Or not.
Excellent post Sir! Except that I find Obama to be more republican than you give him credit for. But he sure does talk that liberal platitude hand jive real fine, now don't he? You'd swear he actually believed it, wouldn't you?
captmoore 3 weeks agoAnything that says Homeland Security will have the power is quite ominous. I honestly believe that even if this legislation passed they would ever be able to shut down the whole of the internet at once and certainly lawsuits would be thrown at the government if passed as unconstitutional. with that said i would never ever want the government in control of the internet, whoever is in office.
Nothing good could come from this. It just shows how BOTH parties are completely messed up. Bush started these travesties DHS, Patriot Act, Gitmo and el. However, Obama and the Democrats have done nothing to reverse or back away from Bush's policies. It just keeps getting worse and it is hard to find anyone on the Left willing to admit it is messed up. We are really stuck between Suck and Suckless. What ever happened to, "Power to the people"?
How shocking. Who would have expected that a senator who voted for most of Bush's expansions of government power would then want to keep all this lovely power for himself once he became President?
(Though, to be fair, the kill switch seems to be more Lieberman's baby than Obama's.)
This is a Freedom of Press issue.
Given that a very large number of people get their news from the Internet, would not having a kill switch be the modern equivalent of shutting down the newspapers a hundred years ago?
To propose this "Switch" law takes some serious ignorance about the Constitution in my mind.
kamikrazee 2 weeks agoIn the tradition of the Patriot Act, and in the wake of the tragedy in Tuscon, all manner of ideas come to the surface from those who would protect us from ourselves, while preserving their own positions of power and privilege.
What I fear most, today, is the disproportionate responses that these notions might provoke.
It's like they are using the same template over and over for every assault on our liberties.It's always for our own good just like the National Socialists of the 1940s. The propaganda ministry over at Homeland seems to be running things more and more these days. Government by and for the people, yea right.
What I would like to know is why; “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam”; is on the 'Internet'. Some geek thought it would be 'cool' to be able to control the dam functions from his XBox at home?
Someone else in this post said it best.. "SkyNet"
This is exactly what I was thinking. Why would anyone connect critical systems controlling dams, nuclear plants or factory machines to the Internet? I mean seriously, you want decent security just don't put in a physical net connection in the first place.
Dewdle 2 weeks agoFear the Government that fears your Linux-based Server. You can have my outlaw website when you pry my cold dead fingers from the keyboard. When outlaw websites are outlawed, only outlaws will have websites. Internet control is hitting what you're aiming and flaming at. ( Sorry...I live in Wyoming and I'm in a blizzard of these kinds of bumper stickers on any given day ).
The First Amendment is only half what we need. We need a Zero Amendment. All digital information is made up of zeros and ones, isn't it ? Where's that zero..Net Neutrality as a constitutional right ? We should all thank the government and DARPA for inventing the internet, but that was 40 years ago. It's time they got out of the way and the entirety of the Web became as 'public domain' as the Earth's atmosphere.
Between the government wanting censorship and master access , and the likes of Verizon, ComCast, AT&T, et al wanting to control content, bandwidth , and speed for a hefty price on their terms 24/7/366 , we have the equivalent of a whole new Civil Rights Movement here.
well thought out response monkey. no not that many, but from a few alternative governments, like, china, russia, india, and europe. to balance things a bit. too much power corrupts. can u imagine sarah palin in charge of the internet off button? you post a dumb reply, like the one you just did, sarah doesnt like it, and boom, the internet gets shut down. not too good, thats why we had the balance of power in the cold war. balanced a lot of american imperialism.
Hannibal_SW 3 weeks agoNone of you get it. This gives the President the power to cutoff China if they launch another attack like they did eight years ago. The Chinese government trains over a hundred thousand crackers who are preparing to shut our country down when those communists finally decide to attack Taiwan. That will happen soon enough.
Or how about the Netherlands whose government refuses to discipline their malicious crackers who constantly attack the DoD, the FBI, our financial sector etc. They openly tout their websites where they share techniques for cracking, trade hacked passwords and other information. This is tantamount to the same state sponsored criminal actions we see in North Korea. That country should be the first one turned off and maybe we can be treated to a song about being shunned by Anouk, the Dutch songstress.
What about the Russian cyber criminals who crack millions of identities and steal billions of every currency on the planet every week?
Any one of them should be cutoff right now. The U.S. who is presumptively the most powerful nation on the Earth right now faces many wanna be emperors who'd like nothing more than reducing us to a second class nation. Preventing that is the intent of the bill. I think its hilariously ironic that the proposed wording is an exact copy of the restrictions in the Patriot Act. Many of you who voiced your outrage in here about this new Act also voiced your outrage over the Patriot Act. I would suggest you take a course in logic, or perhaps seek out a good analyst.
Last time I checked we didn't shut down large parts of our infrastructure over petty cyber criminals. To be frank I'd love to see your information from unbiased sources, and I'd love to get your understanding of how cyber crime works.
Don't forget about all those dangerous radicals in the US. We must immediately shut the whole thing down forever. Quick! You don't have to wait for the rest of us. You can sever your connection immediately and you will be safe. If we had only stuck to your version of the net, we wouldn't have any problems. Would it stop Bradley though? Anyway, we can't shut North Korea down or they would immediately attack us with nukes. Never should have had the cold war. Turing was right!
love that freedom of speech - since it comes with absolutely no responsibility for intelligent thought, reasonable discussion, or benefit of the doubt focus. Just immediately think the absolute worst about those that serve in public office while in the same breath demand every possible benefit and consideration for YOUR individual plight.
Your post belongs on TWIT... (and I don't mean TWITTER.
I don't CARE ! No one should have that power. Neither Jesus Christ, Bouddha or ME the nicest person on Earth neither Obama, the greatest super-hero to have been elected (or whatever.. )
Sooner or later, someone worse will use it or he/she will be corrupted.
it's not fantasy, it's History. History of humanity.
to protect right of citizens every powers need a counter power. Every kill switch need a counter kill switch. Every route of internet need another routes.
We need more private internet networks interconnected to ever more private and public network and ever more countries interconnected by ever more routes.
Very soon, we will start to see easy program to create a virtual network upon wifi interconnexion in cities (mesh). It would be enough to interconnect people by their own devices in a city, even if the cable/gsm network is shutdown.
willyD200 2 weeks agoFor all of you that are still young ...get ready for the new american dictatorship!
Everything that has been passed in the last 10 years has geared this Country towards this happening.
Corporations will own you and your supposed Government will be holding their hands!
I'm too old to live long enough to see it completed ,but from what I've seen in the last few years it's not "if" but when. This Corporate run government will never allow you to protest for any real changes...if you still believe you have this chance your dreaming! Everything they do now is geared towards total control ....and when they try and spin it off as for your safety....well...if you believe that you deserve all that's happening!
Good luck as a new and better "slave"
Are we on a bridge of glass?
Where does it lead? Where do we fall if it breaks?
Our technologies are on the verge of solving most every energy or food problem for the world. However; This economic transition and the human scramble for power makes it all very precarious.
ejames429 2 weeks agoAn Internet "Kill Switch" is a really bad and dangerous idea! That would be like having (law abiding) people who own weapons rounded up and jailed during times of public unrest. It sounds great on paper but is fundamentally against the intent of the Constitution (the founding fathers didn't envision the Internet). It would be like shutting down all news outlets in order to control all the news during a crisis. We get more and more of our information from the Internet and having a kill switch is against freedom of the press and free speech! If businesses and the government are vulnerable to attack via the Internet then those companies and agencies of the government should have better security and an private off switch that takes their systems off of the Internet in times of crisis and unrest or hostile attack.
repar 2 weeks agoI don't think so, missy! Yeah, we're going to give kill switch power to the powerful who like to run things. Like anyone trusts anyone else to do the right thing if things hit the fan. What a bunch of baloney Ms. Collins is spouting. If you want to protect the internet then there are other ways of cutting off a cyberattack besides a kill switch that is controlled by God knows who. Does anyone trust the government not to misuse something like a kill switch in the case of Wikileaks downloading more incriminating and embarrassing documents about the government, or maybe Goldman Sacks (which, to some, may be the same thing!). This bad idea needs to be nipped in the bud. We are not giving up any more of our civil rights, thank you very much. If the Internet goes down, so be it. We'll have to learn to get along the old fashioned way--face to face! What a preposterous and dangerous and stupid idea!! Did Collins think of it herself or is she a straw woman for some other entity??
Maine has the slogan: "The way life should be." I think my state senators have lost touch with that slogan. Life should not be killing the internet. This is not Egypt or China. I think Collins needs to focus more on jobs and the economy. Or how about getting the bridge from Kittery, ME to Portsmouth, NH rebuilt. There are a lot more problems going on that are far more important that this legislation.
If they pass it, they should be voted OUT just for this. This is a treasonous assault on civil liberties and freedom in general.
Reading the Constitution didn't seem to help this Congress. Were they asleep, drunk or did they just do it for show? They seem more like the Supreme Soviet of the USSR than the Congress of the United States. If Jefferson or Washington would come back today, they would be in the street screaming over this. This disgusting Senate wants to control the sheeple, not defend the ideals on which the nation was founded.
I suppose if they shut off the internet, they will also blackout the windows of the steeple in the Old North Church.
goldengaix 2 weeks ago
This comment has been edited for Christian political correctness by the Supreme Homeland Security Kill Switch Intra Committee. The HSKSC employees Great Firewall of China technical commie gumbo hacker specialists in advance of the establishment of the New World Order United Greater China North American States of Pyongyang. All Hail the DISQUS Moderator!!! ;>).
This was originally introduced by Rockefeller a dem and Snowe a rep then was reintroduced by Lieberman another dem. The two parties are working together on what can only be called a ridiculous piece of legislation that would be thrown out on grounds of being unconstitutional before it could even be put into place. But it does show how bad our own government has gotten that they think something like this is anywhere close to being appropriate.
Not sure which of these is more scary: The Internet Kill Switch described in this article, or the plan to require that all citizens have a single Cyber Identity that can be tracked back to their real name (search on "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" ). Both plans sound like something right out of Mussolini's playbook. Either way, if you don't trust Obama and Napolitano, you will likely have much to worry about. Similarly, after Obama and the Dems go out of power (and they will of course like all cycles), and Romney or Huckabee or Jeb Bush or (god-forbid) Palin come into power, then the rest of you can worry.
Me? I'm just trying to figure out how much porn I should stockpile before this all hits.
As a security expert in Fortune 10 companies for years, I can tell you this is a power grab and does nothing to protect US citizens. Think about it - If the people operating the flood gates of the Hoover Dam have connected their controlling systems directly to the internet, how can you trust them in the first place ?
greengestalt 2 weeks agoWe are seeing in Egypt the true purpose of the "Internet Kill Switch"... to bypass the people's right to assemble to protest and express grievances and to help outright to suppress dissent.
Thank you, you pathetic puppet of the USA, Egypt.
It is not unreasonable to expect that someone in the year 2105 uses this legislation to impede his political enemies.
The legislation is not needed now, since it solves a hypothetical and unlikely case where the government wants to shut down servers and routers because of cyberattacks, but the server administrators refuse to shut them off and the government requires additional legal powers. It seems to me purely and simply a power grab where the incidental powers are the ones that are really lusted over.
I used to get all bent out of shape over every story like this, then realized that most of these egregious bills never make it out of committee. Good idea to keep an eye on it and any politician who has voiced support for it, but realize it ain't even a bill on Capitol Hill yet.
I wonder if the politicians would approach this legislation differently if instead of granting the president power to shut down internet, it gave him the power to shut down internet *and phone* usage.
These politicians are so ridiculously out of date.
qqqqqq 2 weeks agoI can't trust people to make security decisions when they put the floodgates to a huge dam under internet control. The correct time to cut these things off of the internet is the day they're found to be ON the internet. Hospitals should not put their IV drip rates under internet control either. There has to be some common sense and its lacking in our government.
rvierumaki 2 weeks ago"The bill is designed to protect against “significant” cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said"
-Read: We need a good excuse to silently wrest more liberty from the sleeping hands of democracy.
"An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack"
- Why on God's green earth are critical infrastructures and controlling devices even connected to the public internet, and in some cases, coded to run on insecure and unstable platforms? Either someone is really stupid or an evil genius, both of which are disturbing.
Will someone in our government PLEASE PROMISE US that our internet will NOT be interrupted, regardless...? In cases of natural or political emergencies, in many cases cell phones and the internet are THE ONLY WAYS we can connect with family members who are now scattered across our great country. To be DEPRIVED of this would be a violation of OUR civil rights - the ones we pay our taxes to keep in force.
Exactly, most Americans are fat inert masses who are more in tune with American Idol and tabloid journalism than what their government is doing to them. Give them a welfare check and free food and they will give up anything.
(Edited by author 2 weeks ago)
WhoCaresFU 2 weeks agoIf this "lady" had any clue of reality, which she can't because she is a stupid US woman, she would just be quiet. But she will not be, because like most American sheep (men & women), she lives in la-de-da clueless land. Don't forget that this woman was voted in by the US sheep. Which says it all....
(Edited by author 2 weeks ago)
Actually, it is the Obama administration. Obama had this planned LONG before he got into the White House. I have been warning people for years that Obama wants a kill switch or little red button to control the internet in the Oval Office. It is the PROGRESSIVES, i.e.,members of Congress and the Senate who want to silence free speech and the voice of Americans who can see through and do not approve of their agenda.
> An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack.
Are you kidding me with that crap? Yeah, that's a totally plausible scenario: the system which controls the Hoover Dam's floodgates is connected to the Internet. This idiot has watched too many movies.
Anemone999 3 weeks agoAny Internet "kill switch" is the stuff of urban legend. First, lawmakers aren't technologically savvy enough to come up with anything effective. Secondly, anything that even remotely had the chance to interfere with any sort of online commerce would have the corporations up in arms over the government interfering with them doing business.
(Edited by author 3 weeks ago)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "corporations" more likely than not the ones who came up with this legislation in those annual meetings with lawmakers and politicians...shit, I can't remember the name for those meetings...but yeah...Corporations care a shit-ton about money, and the best way to ensure that flow doesn't end is to allow the government a tighter grip on everything. Gradual change can be a wolf in sheep's clothing sometimes.
Let's not forget that most of the internet is handled through..gasp.. corporations that provide internet service via their servers. A kill switch not need to shut of the individual as much as corporations stopping it. Really, if you look at it, it wouldn't require legislation but more a mutual agreement between companies.
You guys are both correct for the most part, but we, at least, are not YET stifling the internet as a whole, or giving those in power the means to do so.
Don't get me wrong, Canada is a shithole sitting on top of a shithole.
What even defines a "cyber threat," tell me that... this goes right along with "terrorism" ...anything can be deemed a threat and everyone is subject to being called a "terrorist" if they challenge the american govt in any way... loopholes loopholes loopholes
In cyber warfare -- seems to me -- that there is never a threat -- only the results of an attack. I mean, can you hear a worm or a trojan coming? Or see it on radar? They can come from anywhere, anytime, undetected until the attack.
So, if the attack is successful and begins spreading it would be a good thing to be able to shut down it's propagation channels to keep it from spreading once it's existence is known. Why would that be dumb?
The problem is, that by the time you detect a cyber attack, chances you are already too late to to stop its propagation; once a cyber attack begins in earnest, a targeted cyber attack will have already silently propagated to all the intended targets and it will have been far too late for intervention.
A cyber attack is not like a virus or trojan, it is targeted and specific.The only instance where shutting down the internet would help against such an attack is if the internet was shut down while the attack was being planned--hardly an effective solution.
The best defense against such an attack, vigilance. Teach you operators to watch their systems, and maintain their process-trees. Keep your firewall active, and for gods' sake screen your employees clearance levels thoroughly.
You're right. I didn't make the differentiation between the methods of attack -- worms, virus, trojan, and a whole bunch of other ways -- and the overall attack strategy. And the human operator is the weakest link as you say.
Still, since it is impossible to figure out all possible attacks, having a way to isolate small and large sections of the CONUS internet and maybe the whole CONUS internet might not be a bad thing. For one thing, thinking about how it would be implemented might give some unexpected insights. I'm sure people have already put some thought into the idea.
Dumky 3 weeks agoIrony.
Of course they will not say that such power could be used for really bad things. Maybe they even honestly believe it. But it is a fact and there are numerous precedents of slippery slope.
In any case, government should maybe focus on its primary task (protecting the citizens from murder, rape, fraud or theft), rather than itself being an aggressor on various private owners of network infrastructure, under some paternalistic pretense.
You only need a kill switch when you are doing something evil and you are scared people will use it to protest against you. We all saw what they did to the Egyptian people, now they ask for a way to do the same to us if we ever disagree with them.
-That is what they keep telling us right? If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear...
ct01 1 week agoIf the government is worried about their systems, why don't they isolate them and manage them separately? If there's a problem, why worry about managing non-critical systems and also the entire infrastructure? Just shut down the managed isolated systems themselves and you don't have to worry about anything else. Seems like a complete kill-all solution is too big a scope and too much to manage, not to mention completely unnecessary.
Maybe we should shut down the phone lines of Sen. Collins' home and office to see if she likes the idea of being shut up and shut down. Dang, I hate to think about how many idiots "we the people" have sent to Washington, D. C. But, at least they are congregated into one area. I worry about the state who's i.q. soars to new heights when there politicians leave their home state.
Turning off the Internet, if it was indeed possible would do more financial harm than any perceived act of cyber-terrorism could ever achieve. So now instead of an actual attack you simply let it be know you are about to make such an attack. The US shuts down the net and does the terrorists jobs for them.
Y'know, I just read the bill. To me, it seems to be 99% about protecting the infrastructure. Isn't that what we need government to do?
Most of the bill outlines the creation of an agency and how it operates. It provides for sharing best practices between private sector and government and between the various government agencies. Although it does give the President power to respond to a national cyber emergency, it is overwhelmingly angled towards avoiding disruption rather than shutting anything down.
It directs the agency to work cooperatively with the private sector to secure infrastructure and communications networks in advance of trouble. It goes out of its way to establish mechanisms for assisting owners of critical infrastructure and specifies education of the public and State and local governments of ways to mitigate and remediate vulnerabilities.
It also specifically prohibits censorship of information, interception of information, control of infrastructure, the ability to compel the disclosure of information or any act which prohibits communications unless there is no other way to avoid a disruption. I agree that these are just words, but how do you construct policy without them?
Here is the "Prohibited Actions" section:
(6) PROHIBITED ACTIONS- The authority to direct compliance with an emergency measure or action under this section shall not authorize the Director, the Center, the Department, or any other Federal entity to--
‘(A) restrict or prohibit communications carried by, or over, covered critical infrastructure and not specifically directed to or from the covered critical infrastructure unless the Director determines that no other emergency measure or action will preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of the covered critical infrastructure or the national information infrastructure;
(B) control covered critical infrastructure; ‘
(C) compel the disclosure of information unless specifically authorized by law; or ‘
(D) intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication (as those terms are defined insection 2510 of title 18, United States Code), access a stored electronic or wire communication, install or use a pen register or trap and trace device, or conduct electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.1801)) relating to an incident unless otherwise authorized under chapter 119, chapter 121, or chapter 206 of title 18, United States Code, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).
(7) PRIVACY- In carrying out this section, the Director shall ensure that the privacy and civil liberties of United States persons are protected.
I'm a liberal who supports this administration vigorously. I am also a supporter of moderate Republicans like Susan Collins. I am also glad the ACLU and others are on the case because there is absolutely the need to monitor the method by which the goal of this legislation is achieved.
But this "kill-switch" issue is standard readership-generating hyperbole. And I'm not even saying that's a bad thing. But these trolls who leap to the extremes, screaming ridiculous accusations every time the government (OK -- this government) tries to do its job are either working for corporate interests or are stupid.
wirelessphil 2 weeks agoWhy is it that every time a reporter enters a telephone, cell phone or internet building they always photo the back of the equipment with all the wires?
If anyone ever worked in one of those places, they know all the wires are numbered so it is NOT as confusing as the reporter makes it out to be!
This bill will either A. not pass or B. be shot down immediately by the courts. Fact is, something like this is unconstitutional due to the reliance that the press has on the internet. Most, if not all forms of news media use direct internet feeds to get their information in the first place and in this day and age where news is close to instant, something like this could be crippling. Freedom of the press is the answer to this.
Over our dead bodies. Far too dangerous a precedent to set.
The "best tools available" are the anonymous hackers who's skills are light years beyond those of any US enemy & who would step in on their own to assist.
We're learning a lot from the Egyptian Revolution regarding electronic comm tools and the ways around them. Techs have banded together to make this happen.
Congress needs to *catch up.*
I'm 56, yet feel like I'm dealing with a bunch of clueless fogies from another era. Smh.
"The bill is designed to protect against “significant” cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said"
in other words, designed to "officially" excuse themselves of any wrongdoing in shutting down the net during one of their manufactured False Flag Cyber Operation which comes JUST IN THE NICK OF TIME to stifle any form of an organized grassroots protest.
Not sure which of these is more scary: The Internet Kill Switch described in this article, or the plan to require that all citizens have a single Cyber Identity that can be tracked back to their real name (search on "National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace" ). Both plans sound like something right out of Mussolini's playbook. Either way, if you don't trust Obama and Napolitano, you will likely much to worry about. Similarly, after Obama and the Dems go out of power (and they will of course like all cycles), and Romney or Huckabee or Jeb Buch or (god-forbid) Palin come into power, then the rest of you can worry.
Me? I'm just trying to figure out how much porn I should stockpile before this all hits.
Instead of a a kill switch maybe a seperate internet should be used for critical operations like the electric grid water systems. Plus the idea of having an non internet based way of controling these systems. So if a kill switch needed to be used then it can be an focused and should be easier to ID an attacker on a restricted Internet.
“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency.”
These are weasel words—intentionally vague and meant to scare people into supporting the bill. The example he gives is about the government intercepting a remote attack on the Hoover dam, which apart from being extremely far-fetched, really has nothing to do with the Internet at large, and more to do with their internal network security.
Why, Why and Why would the computers controlling the floodgates of the Hoover Dam ever be connected to the Internet in the first place. That is unimaginably irresponsible! Things like that should never be exposed to the Internet and legislation such as this should be entirely unnecessary.
Why, Why and Why would the computers controlling the floodgates of the Hoover Dam ever be connected to the Internet in the first place. That is unimaginably irresponsible! Things like that should never be exposed to the Internet and legislation such as this should be entirely unnecessary.
I hope our communist govt seizes the internet, shuts down talk radio, shuts up conservative opinion and gets on with our plan to take over this turd bucket we call a democracy. Its time for total govt control of the insane masses and control thier miserable trailer trash lives. The govt needs lackies, sock puppets and slaves for its marxist take over of north america. power to the browns, blacks, immigrants and islam. Time to stop democracy.
Anemone999 2 weeks agoThere isn't going to be a kill switch to the Internet. Even those who cite Egypt as an example should read the recent article in "Computer World" which states that residents are already finding their way around the shut down. Quote: "Egyptians with dial-up modems get no Internet connection when they call into their local ISP, but calling an international number to reach a modem in another country gives them a connection to the outside world."
A total Internet shutdown will never happen in this country as there are so many more ISPs and options. More importantly, the corporations that run this country (if you don't think that's true, look at the "Citizens United" ruling) will never allow the disruption of online monies their way. Now, if you want to discuss net neutrality and the corporations' ability to manipulate access so that they eliminate competition or negative press for them, etc.--sure, that's totally believable.
It's a liberalism-vs-authoritarianism issue, not a GOP-vs-Tea Party issue. There are Tea Party speakers who staunchly support free speech, and there are also Tea Party speakers who call for the assassination of people whose speech they disapprove of.
0 new comment was just posted. Show
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Internet ‘Kill Switch’ Legislation Back in Play | Threat Level | Wired.com
Posted by Elyssa D'Educrat at Saturday, February 19, 2011