U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 25 NEXT
 

What? Don't do that! What if he gets pissed at a modern warfare kid calling his mum a whore? The world would suffer the presidents rage quit wrath...

I've seen a cyber-9/11. I've also seen it done with legos.

This is ridiculous.

"preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people."

Yep, because the internet clearly exist only for America.

TheRightToArmBears:
Whaaaaaaaaaat?

This is insane. I cannot think of any event that is even remotely feasible that would require the entire internet to be turned off.

even if some hackers in another country managed to gain control of the US economic assests via the internet? Some one hacks into the NY Stock Exchange database? Someone gains control of TEH NUKEZ?!?!?!?

Now I realize that the last one is far fetched, but the other 2 are quite possible. With more and more of the US' military assets being stored on computers, there are more risks being made.

Really, if you can't imagine a single scenario in which the internet can be abused, you need to watch more movies.

One cyber-pres. having complete cyber-control of my interwebz...
...
...
...No

This is madness, at the press of one cyber-button he can end my whole cyber-parade...
...
...
...NO

I think I make myself clear enough, well, that's my 2 cyber-cents worth.

They've been proposing this garbage for a year now. Its just so Obama can sink his vile little hands into even more of our lives. Its not even because of this but this is the first president I've actually been afraid of to an extent. I don't trust this guy, not even a little. I knew when he was banging on about hope and change and all that other nonsense it was all garbage. Shocker I was right. Hope everyone here in America enjoys the massive tax hikes that are coming in 2011 because Obama didn't reinstate Bushes tax cuts.

We must alert Al Gore and tell him his invention may be in danger!

Agayek:

Mr. Grey:
I could have sworn Lieberman was an Independent Democrat. So wouldn't he be left wing? Or is that the problem? I haven't paid much attention with politics, they've increasingly made me jaded and depressed.

Both of the major political parties in the US are becoming more and more similar, so it doesn't much matter. The fact of the matter is, it's irrelevant which "side" it comes from. All the matters is that he's scaremongering in a fairly pathetic and transparent attempt to increase the power of the federal government. It's foolishness at it's finest, or worst as the case may be.

He certainly isn't making the incumbents look good, which is something he might want to do if he wants to keep his job.

Owyn_Merrilin:

mrF00bar:

Lizmichi:
Oh my good lord. I can see it now, so we'll lose words in our language and they'll be able to listen to us threw our TVs. If anyone gets what I'm referencing I will be surprised.

I do, I forget what the book is called though.

It's definitely 1984. The giveaway is the loss of words in the language.

*Gives Cookie*

Savagezion:

Chris^^:
fair enough, i think thats quite a good idea

lolwut

i'm quite opposed to free speech without moderation

but more OT i think that if theres a danger of national security being compromised leaders should have the ability to do everything it takes to prevent such an occurence

Kollega:
Any proof of that? If you don't have any proof, then i claim that the Internet was "techincally invented" by Russians.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/internet.htm

The foundation was laid by the US in the early 70's with the ARPAnet, which connected several computers in several universities and research labs together. Over the next 10-15 years, there was a flurry of research into it, with several smaller scale "internets", until 1989 when an English researcher working for CERN created the World Wide Web.

I would argue that the US invented the internet, since the ARPAnet was paid for and built by American scientists, and its design is still the backbone of the 'net, but it's semantics at this point.

spookydom:
The internet does not belong to the U.S government. It is not theres to shut down.

While this is true, the ISPs that run your connection to the internet has to listen to them.

Frankly, this is incredibly... dangerous. It's like if the government just decided to ban walking one day, society would practically collapse.

Frankly, it's kind of adorable how the government thinks that they stand half a chance against the hackers.

This coming from the same lovely government that almost considered passing a law that would make the value of Pi (3.14159...) equal to 3 because the concept was confusing to young children. (Granted this was a hundred years ago, but the point remains). The president received the Nobel Prize for saying he was going to do things, not what he had done, but for what he said he would do. Sadly, it might actually pass.

Fuck no.

Times of crisis being 4chan raids, of course.

What? Do they expect something from the plot of Die Hard 4? Don't turn off the interwebz, just think of ways to protect your secrets, or, don't put them on the f*cking computer, keep them in folders for Sam Fisher to steal.

That's 16 "cybers" and GOD DAMN IT I hate the U.S. Government right now. Do you see this? *waves hand in direction of interet* NOT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. SOD OFF YOU AUTOCRATIC FOOLS.

"Can't stop the signal" indeed. I'm going to start burning things if I ever have my internet shut off. You want to see a national crisis? Make it impossible to play online video games AND THEN make it impossible to go to online forums.

You will literally have people breaking into government buildings and shooting people while yelling "LAWL! PRESS X NOT TO DIE!"

Imagine the mass Homicide.
All those WoW addicts... lol

Andy Chalk:
U.S. Government Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

image

A bill sponsored by U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman would give the President a virtual "kill switch" that would allow him to effectively turn off the internet during times of crisis.

The proposed legislation [PDF format] would compel any internet providers, search engines or software companies, at the discretion of the U.S. government, to "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Lieberman, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the measures would allow the government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people." Any company that failed to follow orders would face presumably stiff fines.

"For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets," Lieberman said. "Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies - cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals."

To counter those potential cyber-shenanigans, the bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the "security status" of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in "information sharing" with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that "relies on" the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would also be "subject to command" by the NCCC under the proposed new law.

"We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources," said bill co-sponsor Senator Susan Collins.

Lieberman is apparently attempting to make the bill more cyber-palatable by offering immunity from cyber-lawsuits resulting from anything "related to a cyber-vulnerability" after the President has declared a cyber-emergency. Nonetheless, the cyber-bill is expected to meet with stiff cyber-opposition; the Center for Democracy and Technology pointed out that it "includes authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems," while the lobby group TechAmerica worried that its relatively few cyber-limitations raised cyber-serious cyber-concerns about "the potential for absolute power."

Cyber-Source: ZDNet

Permalink

I may be for this, but it would have to be ONLY during times of cyber terror. And honestly, I'd rather them only allow this for the government's websites. If a company isn't smart enough to have offline backups to their data, they deserve to go under in a cyber attack.

My concern is that, unbeknownst to the American people, the government has proposed and/or passed sweeping legislation that puts unheard of control over any company, product, speech, etc. Their are advocates that have said that any blog hostile to any proposed legislation in Congress should be blocked, etc. Some believe that this is an attempt to regulate our freedoms (or destroy them all together) allowing for an unheard of powerful government. If this was part of an attempt to extend these powers, I'm not for it at all.

The bill has to have a clearly defined problem that would cause a kill switch. Further, it needs to ensure that the government won't shut off only sections of the internet. For example, if the bill says, "The Federal government has the right to turn off any one person's access to the internet because of reasonable threats against the people of the United States..." without clearly defining what "reasonable threats" are, than the government could hypothetically shut off access to a radical conservative or liberals site simply because it disagrees with some part of the current governments objectives.

A present day example would be if the government deemed wikileaks a national security threat (which it probably is anyways...) and shut off access to it. How would people feel about that?

And legally, wikileaks and other people would have NOTHING they could do about it.

Woodsey:
Oh yeah?

Well the US government can suck my cock.

I'm with Wooders. Why the fuck do Americans think they're in charge of everything? It's the fucking internet. The WORLD WIDE WEB.
Also, wtf? Cyber 9/11? What the fuck are they going to do, bomb Wikipedia? Replace all the Disney songs on youtube with porn? OH WAIT.

Grr.... this is obnoxious. I heard Lieberman was a decent fellow a few years ago too... what happened?

I'm pretty sure its impossible to just "turn off" the internet.
It would be harder to get to and use, sure, but I'm calling bs on this.

And BS on this bill EVER passing.

This doesn't even make any sense. Something bad is happening on the internet so you bring the whole thing(and by extension, pretty much the world, even if it is only stuff located in the US which the wording suggests it isn't) grinding to a halt? That's like nuking a robbery in progress and saying "Problem Solved!!!".

Wouldn't this stop a communication a lot of people and companies rely on all the time, thus losing millions in the worlds economy. All because they can't stop hackers getting into their files.

...The more I look at this, the more I feel that this wouldn't be for "emergency cases" as they want to claim it is for...

theApoc:
Wow, just had to restate how completely f'ng stupid you fucktards are. The article is complete nonsense and if any one of you imbeciles took the time to read the attached PDF you would know that. They are not proposing an internet "kill switch" but rather protocols for handling infrastructure related emergencies.

How you people actually survive is astounding.

I read about 20 pages of it and it sounded like a very long winded way to say they were installing Norton's Anti-Virus. It is just seems very vague and that is what scares me with bills like these.

Help guys, he accidentally the entire internet.

LordWalter:
That's 16 "cybers" and GOD DAMN IT I hate the U.S. Government right now. Do you see this? *waves hand in direction of interet* NOT GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. SOD OFF YOU AUTOCRATIC FOOLS.

"Can't stop the signal" indeed. I'm going to start burning things if I ever have my internet shut off. You want to see a national crisis? Make it impossible to play online video games AND THEN make it impossible to go to online forums.

You will literally have people breaking into government buildings and shooting people while yelling "LAWL! PRESS X NOT TO DIE!"

HAHAHAHHAAHAH, this made me LAWL IRL. :D

But, I think the internet IS government property... after all, pretty much all the landlines and satellites etc. either are government property or are sanctioned by the government. So in essence, whether directly or indirectly, the government does own the internet.

My problem isn't with privacy (if you honestly think you have a right to privacy on the internet, you're an idiot), or that they'd "take what is mine" or something. It's that they'll use this to enfringe upon our ACTUAL rights, such as free speech and stuff like that.

I am more worried about this:

"...the bill would give a newly-formed National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications the authority to monitor the "security status" of private websites, ISPs and other net-related business within the U.S. as well as critical internet components in other countries. Companies would be required to take part in "information sharing" with the government and certify to the NCCC that they have implemented approved security measures. Furthermore, any company that "relies on" the internet, telephone system or any other part of the U.S. "information infrastructure" would also be "subject to command" by the NCCC under the proposed new law."

Are you fucking kidding me?
This is not my country but what you are going at is Dictatorship trough an office of the government!
FUCK YOU!

I feel like creating the kill switch could be more problematic than leaving it be. What happens if someone hacks it and activates our killswitch? That would leave millions of people in the dark. Tons of things need the internet in order to function, and if an outside source found a way to actuvate the killswitch we ourselves made then we would be completely fucked.

Well if its in times of crisis then it will be ok. People need to get closer to each other in those times rather then on facebook.

WHy dont they put a sticker on this saying "all your internetz are belong to us"

Did anyone bother to read the PDF before over reacting like a 15 yr old girl? I doubt anyones escapist or other gamer site sessions will be interrupted by this. Its very doubtful it will pass, why does everyone always over react and sensationalize these types of stories...children. This place really needs to stop calling itself "NEWS".

I believe that it would really just cut off the internet for the US, not the world. like a connection disruptor.

thenumberthirteen:
Don't scoff at the risk this could be Cyber 9/11 times 1000!

The trouble with the internet is it was designed to withstand Nuclear attacks. You can't stop the signal.

So cyber 9/11 would be over 9000?

In the U.S., the DARPAnet, which would lay the base for the internet, was invented. The DARPAnet was designed to move packets of information through any of all available pathways so that communication could take place during a nuclear war. In a time of true crisis, destroying the internet would be akin to destroying the ability of government agencies to communicate with each other. An internet kill switch would, if anything, make the U.S. more vulnerable to attack.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 25 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here