Joe Lieberman Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

[Wolfy]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101440-U-S-Government-Proposes-Internet-Kill-Switch

....This has got to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard in my life. >_> Yes, Shut down the LARGEST INFORMATION SOURCE EVER.

That's a damn fine plan when Information during war times is VITAL.

I'm all for protecting the country, but honestly, shutting down the internet isn't the way to do it. >_>

[Vekseid]

Fixed the title. Seriously, it's started by one narcissistic nutjob in the Senate, he owns it.

[Revolverman]

Because the entire internet goes though one place that can be cut, amiright?

[Wolfy]

Because the entire internet goes though one place that can be cut, amiright?

Well, their talking about somehow creating a switch that can Sever America from the rest of the World through the internet...Which would mean a switch that essentially shuts down all Internet Service providers in America at once.


Ya know what I say? Instead of putting forth a bull-shit idea like this, they should do something productive. Somehow Get 4chan/Anonymous to Protect America...have you see how organized those people are when they have a goal? It's almost scary. O-o

[Brandon]

*Ponders* does he not know that all military information classified as classified and above is required to either be in written format, locked away in a vault or on a computer that lacks a connection to the internet?

I do not see this bill as anything except an attempt to regulate what kind of information normal US citizens can see. Which makes propaganda more easily implimented in our society.

[GeekFury]

This would just cut the internet to the US right? If not what gives the US the right to cut the internet for the entire world? Time of crisis or not.

I know the new joke around the world is America now owns the world, but I did'nt relise it was true.

[Vekseid]

It was actually possible up until a decade or so ago. Now a majority of infrastructure is located outside of the US... though it would still be incredibly disruptive.

[Revolverman]

It was actually possible up until a decade or so ago. Now a majority of infrastructure is located outside of the US... though it would still be incredibly disruptive.

That's just it. The rest of the world will just build around the cut off US systems and resources. In the end it will only hurt the US. Economically, technologically, politically, and culturally. Never mind the millions that will still drill holes in whatever the Governments thinks it can do to control a decentralized communications network. Its like saying your going to turn off rain.

[RubySlippers]

There may be a few reasons to consider doing this like a massive cyber attack on our civilian network by a hostile foreign nation or something like to minimize any major damage and allow us to recover faster, the switch would need to be hub based to keep an enemy from using this trick on us though.

[Wolfy]

There may be a few reasons to consider doing this like a massive cyber attack on our civilian network by a hostile foreign nation or something like to minimize any major damage and allow us to recover faster, the switch would need to be hub based to keep an enemy from using this trick on us though.

As I said, get the guys from 4chan/Anonymous onto the government pay roll.

Best. Security. Ever. o3o

[Callie Del Noire]

Thing is.. you take a BIG chunk of the internet offline like that it will cripple and ruin all sorts of economic interests.  Infowar/Cyberattacks aside, consider how much buisness is interlaced on the international level.

FYI.. not everything secure is offline and unlinked, I've used the military's secure internet connections from time to time.

[GeekFury]

As I said, get the guys from 4chan/Anonymous onto the government pay roll.

Best. Security. Ever. o3o

Only problem is if the /b/'s get in, there will be many lulz, trolls and CP on the internet then.

[Asuras]

Yeah...it looks like this is just supposed to be used in the event of a "massive cyber-attack" of some kind. On 9/11 for instance the US grounded all civilian aircraft in US airspace, so this seems kind of analogous.

And the language in the bill is not "kill switch," it says that ISPs would have to comply with "emergency measures or actions," which presumably could be something more useful like filtering out traffic from certain countries, protocols, IP ranges, whatever.

[grovercjuk]

Is it just me or is there a trend developing? You see more and more stories about how WE the authorities need to control the Internet. Various reasons are put forward, terrorism, child pornography, cyber attacks etc.

         But always it comes down to WE need to have control over the Internet. For the reasons given or is it more that WE object to their being a flow of information over which we have no control.

[Synecdoche17]

As I said, get the guys from 4chan/Anonymous onto the government pay roll.

Best. Security. Ever. o3o

I followed the news about Project Chanology for a while - apparently, they actually succeeded in getting the Church of Scientology to shut down a branch in this area, which is more than anyone else has ever done against those blackmailers.

I think this bill is being blown out of proportion - like Asuras says, it's not weird to make ISPs comply with emergency measures, especially in light of the Chinese testing cyber attacks against the U.S. gov't.

[Vekseid]

Yeah...it looks like this is just supposed to be used in the event of a "massive cyber-attack" of some kind. On 9/11 for instance the US grounded all civilian aircraft in US airspace, so this seems kind of analogous.

And the language in the bill is not "kill switch," it says that ISPs would have to comply with "emergency measures or actions," which presumably could be something more useful like filtering out traffic from certain countries, protocols, IP ranges, whatever.

We already have that in the form of de-peering.

It would be more valuable to have a more thorough discussion and implementation of security audits across the nation.

[Asuras]

We already have that in the form of de-peering.

Does the government have emergency powers to enforce that on ISPs?

I also don't think that depeering includes selectively filtering traffic out on the basis of the protocol used, or a lot of other finer grained things based on the actual data that's passed around.

[Vekseid]

Does the government have emergency powers to enforce that on ISPs?

IP Networks, and yes. The government hasn't gotten involved for a long time, but if this wasn't possible the Internet wouldn't work.

I also don't think that depeering includes selectively filtering traffic out on the basis of the protocol used, or a lot of other finer grained things based on the actual data that's passed around.

Actually it looks like the bill doesn't quite say what the article says it does.  The article claims the government would be able to take over Elliquiy's servers, for example, while the bill itself says it can only enforce security standards. If they're well designed, I'm perfectly fine with that.

There are privacy, qualification and reasonableness concerns with what is termed 'critical information infrastructure', though.

[Asuras]

IP Networks, and yes. The government hasn't gotten involved for a long time, but if this wasn't possible the Internet wouldn't work.

Can you cite the legislation? I understand that the government is already involved in this area, but the main point made by Lieberman & co. is that the government's powers aren't well-defined to issue emergency declarations.

Actually it looks like the bill doesn't quite say what the article says it does.

I do think the sensationalism attached to it is exaggerated.

The article claims the government would be able to take over Elliquiy's servers, for example, while the bill itself says it can only enforce security standards. If they're well designed, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Very good.

There are privacy, qualification and reasonableness concerns with what is termed 'critical information infrastructure', though.

And yet, as this is a matter of emergency powers, I wonder whether or not meaningful definitions of privacy, qualification, and reasonableness can be enshrined in law in that context. The whole purpose of the legislation is to provide a contingency against an extreme, dangerous, extraordinary and unanticipated event after all.

[Vekseid]

Can you cite the legislation? I understand that the government is already involved in this area, but the main point made by Lieberman & co. is that the government's powers aren't well-defined to issue emergency declarations.

There isn't, cutting off another country requires soft power at this point. The primary use of cutting off an ISP is what we already use it for. Legislation won't help matters.

And yet, as this is a matter of emergency powers, I wonder whether or not meaningful definitions of privacy, qualification, and reasonableness can be enshrined in law in that context. The whole purpose of the legislation is to provide a contingency against an extreme, dangerous, extraordinary and unanticipated event after all.

Certainly at least qualification as critical infrastructure can, as well as privacy limitations. You can set hard limits on what gets defined as 'critical'. Elliquiy isn't, but imagine that Wikipedia or Facebook might be. That should likewise not necessarily permit the government access to any and all communications.

Reasonableness just needs stating. Any security implementation needs to have a defense in depth structure anyway.

[Asuras]

There isn't, cutting off another country requires soft power at this point. The primary use of cutting off an ISP is what we already use it for. Legislation won't help matters.

Completely cutting off another country would require participation of foreign countries, but I think we can at least get domestic ISPs to perform a substantial amount of filtering by themselves - and in the event of a putative "massive cyber-attack" (I'm not thrilled about the concept but there it is) a substantial reduction in harmful traffic can be consequential. And legislation is helpful on that point because the government can coordinate exactly what kind of filtering needs to be performed.

Certainly at least qualification as critical infrastructure can, as well as privacy limitations. You can set hard limits on what gets defined as 'critical'. Elliquiy isn't, but imagine that Wikipedia or Facebook might be. That should likewise not necessarily permit the government access to any and all communications.

This is speculative, but I don't think implausible:

Say that 1000 accounts on this server have been acquired or hacked by some group ( a particular foreign country, a cartel, mob, whatever). They are used to transmit messages not over e-mails but over your own private servers. Do you not suppose that it might be of a national interest (in this situation) that the otherwise private information on your server be examined?

[Vekseid]

Completely cutting off another country would require participation of foreign countries, but I think we can at least get domestic ISPs to perform a substantial amount of filtering by themselves - and in the event of a putative "massive cyber-attack" (I'm not thrilled about the concept but there it is) a substantial reduction in harmful traffic can be consequential. And legislation is helpful on that point because the government can coordinate exactly what kind of filtering needs to be performed.

I suspect Lieberman's goal is to put this under his jurisdiction, under the auspices of formalizing and streamlining what is already a technical reality, under the spurious belief that his reign as senator will last past 2012.

This is speculative, but I don't think implausible:

Say that 1000 accounts on this server have been acquired or hacked by some group ( a particular foreign country, a cartel, mob, whatever). They are used to transmit messages not over e-mails but over your own private servers. Do you not suppose that it might be of a national interest (in this situation) that the otherwise private information on your server be examined?

Elliquiy's pm system generates the better part of a million words per day, right now. Even ignoring this would be a landmine akin to wiretapping the private conversations of couples magnified immensely, if they can't trust me (or whomever I'm paying to run the server at that point if a thousand compromised accounts is escaping my notice) to apply appropriate filters, they've already lost.

- We already take quiet note of who accesses Elliquiy via proxy or tor for detecting ban evasion.
- I already take action to prevent stagnant accounts from getting compromised when their e-mail is hijacked.
- I certainly know better than they do what regular behavior looks like. Especially on a roleplaying forum.

So they are either capable of telling me what they are looking for, or do not have a genuinely legitimate claim.

[SuperHans]

"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."

Ah, the classic Orwellian pincer...have a free information source the government can't contol,  but can't touch it due to popular support? Do some fearmongering!

[Wolfy]

I do love how he uses the word "Cyber" alot...especially if you know it's other meaning...<_<>_>

[SuperHans]

I do love how he uses the word "Cyber" alot...especially if you know it's other meaning...<_<>_>

Probably wants to use the kill switch to delete his internet history without being noticed...

[Xenophile]

Well, strategically speaking, there might be a time when severing a potential access to sensitive areas might be necessary. If a Kill Switch could be created, which would ensure a nations exclusion for the WWW to protect itself from cyber warfare and cyber invasion, it'd be a strategically important defence.

Hell, if a nation only excludes itself from the Internet instead of ruining it for everyone, I don't have much against it. Besides, it'd take -a lot- to convince any commander to sacrifice the potential of the Internet. Not to mention pressure form civilian enterprises (and corporations which have a ball busting grip on the US government).

I guess the biggest issue would be how to re-integrate a nation back to the WWW once it's severed.

Still, I'd consider it odd if there wasn't even a discussion on the validity or use of this type of, admittedly extreme, defensive measures.

[Wolfy]

Well, the way they talk, it makes it seem like just flipping a switch to turn it off and on...and if It did work like that, there wouldn't be any problems re-integrating...

[Revolverman]

Probably wants to use the kill switch to delete his internet history without being noticed...

Or a Sex tape.

[TheGerbilyOne]

I am just suprised that someone used the term cyber 9/11 unironically.

I mean lets face it, yes a bunch of bad stuff can happen on the internet. Something that will result on a large scale loss of life like that? The term is obviously meant to invoke a sentiment that I do not believe is appropriate in a debate over internet security.

[BlisteredBlood]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101440-U-S-Government-Proposes-Internet-Kill-Switch

....This has got to be the stupidest idea I have ever heard in my life. >_> Yes, Shut down the LARGEST INFORMATION SOURCE EVER.

That's a damn fine plan when Information during war times is VITAL.

I'm all for protecting the country, but honestly, shutting down the internet isn't the way to do it. >_>

I'm not even going to bother reading that article. Mainly because I'm in agreement with you, Wolf. That has got to be one of the most dumbest ideas I have ever heard in my entire life. If you want my opinion on it, I think Mr. Lieberman is basically committing political hara-kiri by coming up with something as redundant as this.

[Vekseid]

Not quite, BB
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/joe-lieberman-and-the-myth-of-the-internet-kill-switch.php

It's no secret that Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) isn't the most popular guy in the Senate, or that his rather conservative positions on national security have left many people suspicious of his motives when it comes to national security legislation. So it should have come as no surprise when CNET chief political correspondent Declan McCullagh wrote that Lieberman intended to give the President the power of an "Internet kill switch" in the event of a national emergency -- and sparked an uproar.

But, surprising it was -- especially to Lieberman and his staff on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. They argued that, in fact, the bill limited the powers already invested in the President to shut down telecommunications providers. Leslie Phillips, the communications director for the committee, said, "The very purpose of this legislation is to replace the sledgehammer of the 1934 Communications Act with a scalpel." So, who is right?

...

[Asuras]

I suspect Lieberman's goal is to put this under his jurisdiction, under the auspices of formalizing and streamlining what is already a technical reality, under the spurious belief that his reign as senator will last past 2012.

I don't like Lieberman, but I don't care what his motives are either. But he seems to think that the law isn't clear on this point and so far no one has pointed out legislation which covers the topic of the present bill, and until someone does I wouldn't call it a technical reality.

Elliquiy's pm system generates the better part of a million words per day, right now. Even ignoring this would be a landmine akin to wiretapping the private conversations of couples magnified immensely, if they can't trust me (or whomever I'm paying to run the server at that point if a thousand compromised accounts is escaping my notice) to apply appropriate filters, they've already lost.

- We already take quiet note of who accesses Elliquiy via proxy or tor for detecting ban evasion.
- I already take action to prevent stagnant accounts from getting compromised when their e-mail is hijacked.
- I certainly know better than they do what regular behavior looks like. Especially on a roleplaying forum.

So they are either capable of telling me what they are looking for, or do not have a genuinely legitimate claim.

I'm not convinced that those policies are necessarily sufficient to say "the government will never have a national security interest looking here" but it's irrelevant because:

Some other server might not be so careful.

[Vekseid]

No, but that's what the point of actually requiring people running servers to adhere to security standards is meant to mitigate. I'd love to see that if implemented well. I could be up to speed fairly quickly, and sell my services to others >_>

Right now security isn't something people like to pay for.

[BlisteredBlood]

Not quite, BB
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/joe-lieberman-and-the-myth-of-the-internet-kill-switch.php

So then, what is the purpose of this legislation if the PoTUS already has the authority to do such? Either I'm not really following or maybe there's something I missed.

[Vekseid]

If you'd read the rest of this thread, it's part security mandates (which I support as someone who is not incompetent in the arena) and part power grab on the part of the DHS (which is less amusing)

[Josh the Aspie]

Ya know what I say? Instead of putting forth a bull-shit idea like this, they should do something productive. Somehow Get 4chan/Anonymous to Protect America...have you see how organized those people are when they have a goal? It's almost scary. O-o

If you could somehow get them all to sign on to be militia members with a special peace-time charter of stopping feline abuse (possibly using raids on kitten-mills for training purposes), and gave them free training by a combination of the US national guard and the ASPCA... that could be VERY scary.

Of course then they wouldn't be anonymous any more.