Internet Kill Switch

[Luk3us 63]

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."

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/rea...net-Kill-Switch

 

 

Someone has been watching Die Hard 4.0.

[CraftManiac 1]

OOOoooOOOoooOOOooo

 

Nice... but how will it work?

 

Luckily it won't work for me...

 

Man they are stupid...

 

(shutting down the Intrawebsz...)

 

And a pooload of other thoughts...

[recover 2]

This is just ridiculous. The internet is pretty much decentralized, so the only thing they can do is shut down the internet for themselves, which should be quite contra-productive.

[Nmenth 291]

We cannot afford to wait for a cyber-9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber-resources

What attack on the internet would be worse than the government taking the whole thing offline?

 

Since there is a constant traffic that has been made necessary over time, it would be like putting concrete barriers on every highway and road simultaneously without warning. Do you think that won't cause a problem of massive proportions?

 

Halting the internet would be like crashing ten million cars, and possibly could cost just as much to repair. As they are well aware, our lives and money exist in the virtual world now.

 

I might have to empty out my nuclear stockpile a little bit to show them that the physical world needs their attention more and leave my internet alone.

[Inferno 22]

This is just ridiculous. The internet is pretty much decentralized, so the only thing they can do is shut down the internet for themselves, which should be quite contra-productive.

They could temporarily shut down all internet providers. Theoretically.

[sith_wampa 6]

I might have to empty out my nuclear stockpile a little bit to show them that the physical world needs their attention more and leave my internet alone.

I support this.

[dbjs2009 25]

Is the US government serious about this subject? Because this is insane , No one can renounce on the Internet..

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Why is my government full of idiots?

[recover 2]

They could temporarily shut down all internet providers. Theoretically.

Yes, but only in the US. Hence my statement.

[Inferno 22]

Yes, but only in the US. Hence my statement.

Ah, I thought you meant just he US government by 'they', since they're the one making the decisions, not the whole country.

[Nmenth 291]

Even if it is just America that they would attempt to control, a lot of the internet is based in America and it would affect the whole world (I imagine)...

[dbjs2009 25]

Even if it is just America that they would attempt to control, a lot of the internet is based in America and it would affect the whole world (I imagine)...

 

Maybe you're right Nmenth..

[Luk3us 63]

There are so many other technologies link into the internet these days that this would do FAR more damage than what it could possibly be envisioned to stop. Even if it was only the US, it would still cause an uproar.

 

Who comes up with these ideas anyway, I mean seriously, they should be fired.

[Guest Stevie_K]

I guess the American government had to do something to flex against the Chinese hacker society. This idea however is complete nonsense.

[Sonic 296]

Why is my government full of idiots?

Its not just your government, I'd say every countries' government is full of idiots. I know ours is.

[sith_wampa 6]

Who comes up with these ideas anyway, I mean seriously, they should be fired.

No, Joe Lieberman should be thrown in the spike pit.

[Inferno 22]

Its not just your government, I'd say every countries' government is full of idiots. I know ours is.

True.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

I guess I can post this then:

 

<secret> "politics is bull****."

<Albrecht> It took him that long to figure it out? I've been saying that since the tender age of 10.

<Doctor Destiny> Politics isn't bull****. The idiots who dominate politics are full of bull****.

<Albrecht> Yep, and whilst there's not a system of politics that filters them out it always will be. Politics nowadays is the 'lowest common denominator'. the idiot who makes the best promises and does the most Jesus loving gets elected regardless of skill, ability to meet promises or the cadre of oil execs behind him pulling sets of strings...

<Doctor Destiny> The whole problem isn't the people. It's the generation they're all from. They're all part of that generation who is afraid of technology, loves guns and war and think we should strive for the 1950s. We need a new generation of politicians who can identify with us, instead of pining for a dead era.

<Albrecht> yeah.. but politicans are onyl accepted if they're from that era, if anyone younger stands all the old people don't vote for them and the media don't cover them ass all their shereholders are old

It went on but nothing all that relevant.

[Nmenth 291]

<Doctor Destiny> The whole problem isn't the people. It's the generation they're all from. They're all part of that generation who is afraid of technology, loves guns and war and think we should strive for the 1950s. We need a new generation of politicians who can identify with us, instead of pining for a dead era.

I disagree. While someone from 1950 does have certain era-related prejudiced ideals, they also have 60 years of life experience. Now a 30-year-old might have an alternative perspective that may be beneficial to a modern world, but I would not so easily trust a 30-year-old in a place of authority.

 

Just as someone who is 60 can be a complete moron, so can someone who is 30, 40, 50, or any other age. Nearly everyone is influenced by their generation and peers, and that can cause problems if they are unable to relate to everyone.

 

As an old guy can find difficulty in pleasing our generation, it is no wonder our elders have difficulty accepting a younger person. However, the old guy has the advantage of double the years of life experiences to draw from. If I had to choose between some guy still living in the past or some collage graduate that believes he now knows all the world has to offer, I'll take the old guy, because frankly, most of our generation are imbeciles, even if we can figure out how to fix our parents' electronic gadgets for them.

 

We may inherit the world, but it is not ours yet and we do not have the right to usurp it. In some cultures, the oldest people are held in the utmost respect, and for a good reason. Our generation has no more business running everyone's lives as they see fit than the 1950s generation, but at least they have experience to back up knowledge, something no diploma, charisma, or even genius is going to equal.

 

We just need politicians that aren't so caught up with themselves that they can't see the world as a whole, unfortunately, that breed of politician is not in plentiful supply.

[Inferno 22]

Life experience is relative. There are also young people with a lot of life experience, and older people with very few life experience. Of course life experience is important, as are modern views and the preparedness to make changes.

 

Maybe this is why Obama was chosen, because he has both life experience and modern views. Just a thought.

[sith_wampa 6]

Maybe this is why Obama was chosen, because he has life experience

False, but if that's what people believe, it would make sense.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

Kill switch is old news. And yes, it would do more damage to flip the switch than to be attacked.

[Nmenth 291]

Life experience is relative. There are also young people with a lot of life experience, and older people with very few life experience. Of course life experience is important, as are modern views and the preparedness to make changes.

While I'd agree life experience is somewhat relative, I'd say generally speaking, it is not. If you've lived 30 years, you've experienced 30 years, if you've lived 60 years, you've experienced 60 years. Yes, you could have a very eventful 30 years that gave you many experiences, but by average, someone that is 60 has double the experience.

 

Everyone is prepared to make changes. The problem is whether those changes are ones we also want. I believe having once been young, the old are better suited for making the changes than the young that have yet to be old.

 

Maybe this is why Obama was chosen, because he has both life experience and modern views. Just a thought.

There are many reasons I think he was chosen, this may possibly have played a part, but he is also 48, which is almost exactly between 30 and 60. It is kind of a compromise on the ages I suppose you could say.

 

However, I was not referring to Obama, or any person specifically, I was responding to DD's generalization that older generations are stuck in 1950 and wanting a new generation. Even now, people our age (mid-twenties), cannot relate with the next wave of kids, and so it is with all generations. We are always going to have different perspectives and ideals, so who is in the best position if every 10 years, the entire mindset is changed again? The older person, due to experience.

 

My point is you can't judge generations' political views, because everyone is biased, but the older generations have lived longer which gives them an immediate obvious advantage over a younger generation.

 

I'll try to clarify my point to avoid any further confusion; politicians don't acquire their positions due to their age alone (Obama is proof of that) and shouldn't, but if they were, I'd go with the 60-year-old over the 30-year-old because if everyone is biased toward their own generation, at least the old guy has lived through more and theoretically should be more prepared to handle more.

[sith_wampa 6]

Nmenth is showing his genius again.

[Inferno 22]

While I'd agree life experience is somewhat relative, I'd say generally speaking, it is not. If you've lived 30 years, you've experienced 30 years, if you've lived 60 years, you've experienced 60 years. Yes, you could have a very eventful 30 years that gave you many experiences, but by average, someone that is 60 has double the experience.

True. I was just saying that there are always exceptions.

 

Everyone is prepared to make changes. The problem is whether those changes are ones we also want. I believe having once been young, the old are better suited for making the changes than the young that have yet to be old.

Not everyone is prepared to make changes. Though older people tend to have more life experience, also means they have less experience and/or knowledge with the changes that have occurred lately. Surely older people are accepted as wiser in a lot of cultures, but also note that changes don't often occur in cultures where older people are viewed as more valuable. In these cultures, older people are more valuable, without question.

 

There are many reasons I think he was chosen, this may possibly have played a part

I do realize his only skill isn't his age, Nmenth

 

However, I was not referring to Obama, or any person specifically, I was responding to DD's generalization that older generations are stuck in 1950 and wanting a new generation.

I know

 

Even now, people our age (mid-twenties), cannot relate with the next wave of kids, and so it is with all generations. We are always going to have different perspectives and ideals, so who is in the best position if every 10 years, the entire mindset is changed again? The older person, due to experience.

It's not just our mindset that changes. Our entire lifestyle has been changing quite rapidly over the last couple of hundred years, in which case the best option would be a candidate, with life experience, and awereness, but more importantly, understanding of the current developements in society.

 

I'll try to clarify my point to avoid any further confusion; politicians don't acquire their positions due to their age alone (Obama is proof of that) and shouldn't, but if they were, I'd go with the 60-year-old over the 30-year-old because if everyone is biased toward their own generation, at least the old guy has lived through more and theoretically should be more prepared to handle more.

Naturally. But wouldn't you rather go with a 60-year-old who is the least nostalgic and conservative? I would.