Internet 'kill switch' bill approved (by Lieberman's committee)

[depakid]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald


The architect of the bill ... US Senator Joe Lieberman.
-----------

The US senators pushing a controversial new bill that some fear would give President Barack Obama the powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet have rejected claims it would give Obama a net "kill switch". The bill, titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, has been unanimously approved by the US Homeland Security committee and will be put to a vote on the Senate floor shortly.

Lobby groups and academics quickly rounded on the bill, which seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency. Any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

The critics said that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

Australian academics criticised the description in the bill's title of the internet as a US "national asset", saying any action would disrupt other countries as most of the critical internet infrastructure is located in the US.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/obama-internet-kill-switch-bill-approved-20100625-z8sf.html

[truedelphi]

1. K & R. When will the President get what this nation really needs -

Broad emergency powers enabling him to Seize BP, throw out Thad Allen and start getting the booms
placed properly in the Gulf...

No terrorist has ever brought about the type of Catastrophic Damage that Hayward and his Buddies have done.

[saigon68]

36. The DLC and Obama love this guy

They ill do nothing to this Used Condom of a man





The 3 Amigos campaigning for McLame

[Truth2Tell]

53. But he's a Constitutional Scholar (TM) nt

[Dawson Leery]

2. We must oust this bastard in 2012.

[cdsilv]

21. an internet kill-switch would be really simple.

just cut the links to the root dns servers. but then again maybe not...

[boppers]

23. Uhm, no.

Lookee:
http://www.root-servers.org/map/

[Incitatus]

31. If shutting down the entire enternet could be done by shuting down a few servers,

that sounds like either a design flaw or a calculated design.

[boppers]

50. It was a design limitation at first, for entirely technical reasons.

A 512-byte packet can only hold so much data.

There are only 13 server cluster entries (A-M). If you managed to take out all 13 clusters at the same time, the 'net (on a DNS level) effectively starts falling down. This has been attempted, but not successfully, mostly because of *massive* levels of redundancy and security that are now built in... you would have to maintain a concurrent attack on/through thousands of machines, stealthily, for many hours, without anybody noticing and taking countermeasures.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_denial_of_service_attacks_on_root_nameservers

[Posteritatis]

52. You *can't* "just" cut the links to them all

The US doesn't control most of them, there's god knows how many secondaries flitting about, and, because it needs to be emphasized, the US doesn't control most of them. Eleven out of twelve were taken down at one point and most people didn't notice.

The net is designed to be incredibly difficult to take down. This "kill switch" is slightly more realistic than legislation changing the value of pi to five.

[wordpix]

71. well I know I'll be working against him

:grr: :mad:

[TheWraith]

3. This whole thing is stupid.

Saying the President has the authority to shut down the internet is like saying the President has the authority to shut down the flow of the Mississippi river. It might be possible, but not quickly, not easily, and not for long.

[Taverner]

20. There will always be Peer to Peer

Sure, he could shut down the net, but we can always network Peer to peer - with our wireless routers if necessary

[kentauros]

47. There are plenty of privately-owned servers out there, too.

They can shut down as many ISPs as they want. Unless they go police-state on us, they're not going to be able to shut down all those private servers out there. And if you know even one geek, there's your information source for who has what and how to connect ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. How will you connect?

Take down the Tier 1 and 2 providers, and its over.

[kentauros]

60. I have connected directly to other computers before.

Why can't it be done that way? I have no idea what "tier" it is, only that it worked and didn't go through an ISP (that I know of) :)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

61. A LAN party/intranet does not the Internet make

The Tier1/2/3 providers are the the long haul carriers between ISPs and locations within ISPs. They go down and all there is left is an Intranet, not the Internet.

[kentauros]

63. I don't think it was LAN or Intranet,

since it was my computer to a single computer in another country (the other guy set up the connection and techie stuff.) And did any of the "tiers" even exist in the 1970s when all this started? Can't we go back to that?

I don't know the technical end of this stuff and likely wouldn't know what I was looking at if I looked it up online. So you're gonna have to teach, professor ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. It still went through the infrastructure...which includes the Tier 1/2/3 providers

[conspirator]

70. You can only create a wireless LAN in a densely populated neighborhood

My router can pick the signals of the routers in a certain radius only.
How will you reach other towns or countries without the telecom infrastructure.
You would have to erect your own telecom towers with antenas.
I don't think the cops and the elites would let you do that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. Not with anything substantial

When you own root, you have the rest of the network by the balls.

[IScreamSundays]

49. The thing that frightens me about this is...

Let's say some type of "emergency" occurs and the only to get information is cable or network news. There would not be a way to find out what is really up. We would be left to the mercy of the PTB. The thought of not being able to get on line and attempt to decipher what is really happening scares me to death. Back in the day, there used to be a back-up site for DU. I wonder if it still exists. Not understanding exactly how those internets work, I don't know if what I just said makes any sense. I sure would like to know how to be able to get on line in the event of some switch being killed.

[RandomThoughts]

4. So what organization would fear information?

Why would shutting down the Internet, or censoring it be needed in an open and free society?

Ding Ding Ding.




Although currently the problem of PR or possible censorship already exist with much of the information indexing, and systems people use under control of company boards of directors without civilian oversight.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. our society...

we are neither open nor free.

[JDPriestly]

25. Wouldn't this power be handy in the lead-up to a coup of some sort?

This is another pre-fascist idea. Why are there so many of them floating around all the time? All these simple answers. If we just do x, then y and z will never happen. Of course y and z are all the more likely to happen.

[Lorien]

33. if there were a revolution they wouldn't want the peasants texting or emailing

coordination efforts.

[704wipes]

65. yes, impossible to run a revolution out of the taverns

nt

[corkhead]

5. The two most stupid things I can think of involve Lieberman

This, and Al Gore picking that asshole as running mate.

[gateley]

6. According to the proponents: What is this SUPPOSED to do?

And, according to the critics, what might actually happen?

Thanks!

[SnakeEyes]

11. In a time of crisis, a cyberattack etc

where the internet is part of the problem the president would have the power to shut it down. Critics fear an abuse of it, should we ever elect someone that turns out to be a fascist

[gateley]

15. Thanks. I was just wondering what their justification was. nt

[wordpix]

72. if another member of Bushco/BFEE gets in, knowing what's really going down would be difficult

without the net.

We might have to resort to the Vietnam War day tactics of having speakers, marches and rallies, and watching TV.

[boppers]

13. Pro: Say an attack was coming through MAE East, from a specific range of IP's

Obama could issue an order to block that traffic.

Con: According to the noisiest of critics, Obama would shut down all dissent on the internet.

[gateley]

17. Thanks. On the surface it makes sense (if it would work) and I don't fear

Obama essentially censuring the internet. I'd be much more alarmed if Cheney was still calling the shots.

[Knight Hawk]

24. NO!

I do not want ANYBODY to censure the internet or ANY fom of free speech.I do not mind being poor so much but not FREE ,forget about it.

[RKP5637]

7. Rather than security hardening the internet we use a kill switch. IMO this is an

extremely backward approach. It makes as much sense as punishing honest hackers who find security flaws. Another backward approach in a backward nation. No wonder we are constantly in such deep shit with these decisions. The critics are absolutely correct, "rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favor ever" by terrorizing the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace."

Of course we have to realize, Lieberman, is an expert in everything.

[Beartracks]

29. That would be like Internet "Prohibition," right?

And probably just as effective. :eyes:

Let's rephrase your comment to read "rather than combat organized crime, prohibition would actually do them 'the biggest favor ever'" -- and as history shows, it did.

---------------------------

[RKP5637]

32. No, not like prohibition, I am speaking of hardening the internet infrastructure

against attacks by having security hardened gateways, servers and end users equipment. It is a process we go thought to secure the Internet if under attack making it seamless and fail safe such that it will remaining functioning even if attacked.

[Beartracks]

35. Sorry, I meant the OTHER approach...

... The idea of a kill switch or some kind of gubmint control would be akin to trying to stymie liquor sales -- people will still want it, and the criminal element will supply it and get rich doing so.

Okay, so it's not a great analogy...

But I am in AGREEMENT with you regarding infrastructure security.


-----------------------

[RKP5637]

37. Yep, we agree!

:toast: :hi:

[corpseratemedia]

8. Can't these people be even capable of being concerned with doing something to help people?

Or are they thinking there's going to be such a crisis coming up that the little peon nothings better not have access to information??

[christx30]

44. Quote: "Or are they thinking there's going to be such a crisis coming up"

Not unless they have it planned... Which isn't too far removed.
Hiter used the burning down of the Reistag as a pretext to a lot of his sweeping laws curtailing personal liberty. (I know I just killed this thread via Godwin's law)
Just seems that they want more and more power. One must wonder what they want the power for. If my 4 year old son came up to me asking for a hammer, the first thing I would do wonder why he wants it.
If they want to have the power to take down the greatest innovation in communication that humanity has ever seen, the first thing I want to ask is "why?", this dismiss the first or second explanation they come up with, and seek the truth.

[Politicalboi]

9. No picture warning

Ewwwwww. :puke:

[kenny blankenship]

10. I used to say the Police State creeps in on little cat feet.

But lately it's a rhino at a gallop.

[RKP5637]

19. Amazing, isn't it... and always under the guise of national security, do it for the

little people and think of the children, god and country. This is getting like the thunder of a herd of elephants.

[PJPhreak]

14. Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I see a Phat Court Challenge in 5,4,3,2...

[JerseygirlCT]

16. Holy cow

It's hard not to envision Lieberman and his masters on the right pushing for this now, in the hopes that another Bush would come along to use it.

[elifino]

18. This will cause interuption to a lot of manufacturing plants.

Most large manufacturing now depends on the internet to communicate between nation wide suppliers, customers, and scheduling product delivery to customers. The company I work for has plants nation wide, plus a plant in Mexico and Canada. All plants and distribution centers are managed from a central location. Most do not know that a lot of telephone traffic is routed through the Internet.

[NRaleighLiberal]

22. What we really need is a whiny Lieberman voice kill switch!

[earcandle]

26. There goes bill pay and online banking... hmmm...

[JDPriestly]

27. Why don't they just give the president the power to take the US Government's websites

off the internet.

What difference would it make if the rest of us stay on the internet? I don't understand how shutting down the internet would have any purpose other than to facilitate a coup of some sort.

[Jennicut]

28. Giving a President WAY too much power with this. I don't dislike Obama, I dislike what

would happen in the hands of an ultra conservative. And I apologize that bastard Lieberman is from my state. I didn't vote for him in 2006 but I know many moderates and some Dems that did and boy do they regret it now. I think he retires in 2012, his poll #'s this year have been pitiful.

[Incitatus]

30. So do systems under US control have the ability to affect comunications

among the rest of the world? Does the US really have the ability and authority to stop Europe, South America and the Middle East from communicating with each other? Or will this just make it so US citizens will be severey limited in their ability to communicate and disseminate information?

If the concern in a cyber-terrosim they could simply implement a program that limits/shuts down access to government systems and those directly linked to national security like banks and power stations.

[caraher]

34. A seriously idiotic idea

First, I don't care whether you trust Obama or not, Obama will not be president forever. The real question is not whether you like the idea when your person is Prez, it's what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

Second, as someone pointed out above, so many things rely on the Internet that any kind of big shutdown is likely to cause much more harm than it's supposed to prevent - even assuming it occurs for a valid reason. Nobody can account for all uses of the Internet, and I think we'd see unnecessary deaths.

Third, just because its early development occurred here doesn't change the reality that nobody owns the Internet. It's not a US "national asset," it's fully international.

Finally, the whole point of the original architecture developed years ago by DARPA was to have a decentralized network capable of surviving a nuclear exchange. There's no "kill switch" in the architecture (though to be sure, there can be choke points). A lengthy, continent-wide power outage might do the trick - and be every bit a precision instrument as whatever it is Traitor Joe was dreaming about after watching "24" and deciding this would be a great idea.

[snooper2]

67. It's funny reading the posts in this thread "oh noes!"

they take my internets down!

If people knew how many caching servers alone there are...or what caching was..

Your idea won't even work by the way :P Any and every carrier class central office has full battery backup and generators. We have enough diesel at each of our CO to run at least 72 hours. After that it's just a matter of grabbing some more fuel. :)

It would be hilarious,

Holy Joe to Snooper-
yo, you are hosting a bunch(millions) of web sites and providing basic DIA to SML businesses. Could you go ahead and take all that down.

Me, no

Holy Joe, Why?

Me, Because those same companies have other traffic running besides their DIA connections, like VoIP.

Holy Joe,
VoIP traffic uses the Intertubes?

Me, sometimes dumbass

Holy Joe,
Well, just take it all down

Me, I can't for a couple reasons, mostly so we don't get sued for breach of contract.

Holy Joe,
Just take it down

Me, well, you are going to have to talk to the FBI as well cause on a couple of those companies we are enforcing some CALEA taps as well.

Holy Joe,
CALEA? What is...

Me, go talk to the FBI you stupid fuck and go away :rofl:

[BadgerKid]

38. Not sure I trust this...wait til (if) the GOP is back in power

and this bill will be the basis for cutting off people who disagree with the administration.

[Illuminated]

74. Not sure I trust this at all....

Ok fine I get your point. But to remain consistant everyone here would be screaming blood murder if the GOP tried this.

What is the end game....? I think it is time to realize that maybe, just maybe the current administration doesnt have our best interests at heart... And if thats the case who does have our best interests at heart? (Note: Not a comfortable logic train.)

[Dover]

39. Seems stupid to depend so heavily on such a vulnerable technology to begin with.

Online commerce, especially banking, can be corrupted or wiped out in the blink of an eye.

[hayu_lol]

40. Isn't it time for Spineless Harry Reid to kick Lieberman's ass...

off any Dem committee he is on or chairs?

Wants to be an Indie...let him find an indie committee.

[Truth2Tell]

54. Why would he?

I'm sure he's fine with Lieberman's performance.

This bill passed out of committee unanimously. I'm about certain Harry Reid supports it completely, along with just about everything else Lieberman does.

[Amonester]

42. That's not a problem for the banksters: they'll just ask (and get)

another bail out, but the little people who depend on their little accounts will be told to go eff themselves (as usual).

[boppers]

51. You are assuming it's highly vulnerable to begin with.

How many times are core machines attacked? Millions of times a day. How often has the entire internet been shut down?

Never.

Not once.

Part of the BS being peddled is that there needs to be government control of the internet because its "vulnerable". It's not. There are vulnerable machines, vulnerable locations, vulnerable choke points, but as a general form of technology, it's designed to handle attacks, and failures, on a *massive* scale, and simply keep on working.

[Odin2005]

41. Loodrtman is a fucking FASCIST.

:grr:

[Joe Bacon]

43. LIEberman strikes again.

That asshole is the #1 argument for either supporting a recall amendment against Senators or supporting term limits.

[Imagevision]

45. Same ole song - silence the messenger...

[New Dawn]

46. Fascism is on the march in the USA.

[Ruby the Liberal]

48. This is a monumentally bad idea.

I am not as worried about abuse at the hands of the current administration as I am about unknown future administrations.

[superconnected]

55. With Lieberman behind it. You know it's wrong.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Unfortunately so is the Obama administration

[mvd]

76. And I believe both he and Lieberman are wrong, then

Why shut off for everyone because of a few? The internet could be used to get vital info. out in an emergency. Plus, what would an "emergency" be?

[Xenotime]

56. Anything that has the power to shut down Faux and FReeperville..I support

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

64. I can only imagine what an autocrat like a President Bush or Cheney would do with this extreme

First Amendment trashing power, and if it's a Republican or corporatist controlled Congress, that won't mean shit for a safe-guard.

With this we join the likes of China and Iran.

[rayofreason]

68. Obama wants this.

And if it is passed EVERY future president will have this power.

What bullshit. More power to the government means more ability to diminish your freedom and squash those who disagree with their masters.

[Toucano]

69. Kill switch? Lieberman?

Not gonna do it.

Too easy.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.