Joe Lieberman Proposes "Internet Kill Switch"

[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.