Internet kill switch

[Timkin]

Ah...now a light bulb is on.. I was trying to read where I had said that ....

There is a topic ....the Esoteric Agenda.. Google it... Perhaps the persons spoken of here who are telling our President and  Senate what to put in place could be part of the elite group whom is spoken of in this topic, that think most of us should be wiped out. 

[civil42806]

Ah...now a light bulb is on.. I was trying to read where I had said that ....

There is a topic ....the Esoteric Agenda.. Google it... Perhaps the persons spoken of here who are telling our President and  Senate what to put in place could be part of the elite group whom is spoken of in this topic, that think most of us should be wiped out. 

wtf?

[JeffreyS]

Stephendare you do not have an opinion on the kill switch?

[JeffreyS]

Perhaps a kills switch for all the government internet access if they need protection from some cyber attack.

[Dog Walker]

They put guards around military bases and security around government buildings because roads lead to those places.  What would we be saying if they wanted authority to close all roads, airports, etc because of a "possible" attack on those places?

Not just NO!, but HELL NO!  Shame on you for even thinking about it.  Forget about it!  Take it out in the back yard and bury the stinking thing!

[Cricket]

As far as the internet, there is a mindset out there that opposes ALL forms of censorship, that says that all information is sacrosanct and our constitutional freedom of expression must be protected at all costs. That includes information that compromises our own security as a country.

Then there is the talk about the internet kill switch.

I come down somewhere in the middle on the side of our government's ability to selectively block certain information on the internet based on criteria that is provable and can be legally established. We are still a country of laws. I would be less inclined to go along with this if we lived under a more controlled and dictatorial form of government.


There are dangers with both policies but more so with the first.

[Jason]

I don't see how it could be done.  Even if it could, it would probably be the largest most complex technological undertaking ever attempted.

The "internet" is a gargantuan glob of anything and everything connected to an external network.  There is no central hub for the US to just install a kill switch.  You would have to have every single internet service provider, distribution company, and their constituants all on board and likely billions and billions of dollars to rework infrastructure and programming for that to happen.  Even if it were possible for someone like AT&T to just "turn off" their network, who is going to pay for their downtime while the threat is cleared?

[Shwaz]

Somewhere beyond the grave Orwell just collected $5 from Huxley with a big fat I told you so.

We need a team of citizens to get started building the world's strongest proxy 

[Dog Walker]

I don't see how it could be done.  Even if it could, it would probably be the largest most complex technological undertaking ever attempted.

The "internet" is a gargantuan glob of anything and everything connected to an external network.  There is no central hub for the US to just install a kill switch.  You would have to have every single internet service provider, distribution company, and their constituants all on board and likely billions and billions of dollars to rework infrastructure and programming for that to happen.  Even if it were possible for someone like AT&T to just "turn off" their network (if it were even possible), who is going to pay for their downtime while the threat is cleared?

Yes, that's the scary part.  A "kill switch" sounds easy, but the implementation would require gov't control of thousand and thousands of switches and domain name servers.  Way too much control!

[Timkin]

?

[Shwaz]

According to research by engadget this is anything but a 'kill switch':

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/the-internet-kill-switch-and-other-lies-the-internet-told-you/

Last week, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, led by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) became the subject of some debate when news spread that it was calling for a so-called "internet kill switch" which would give the President the power to shut down the whole darn thing in a state of emergency. Apparently, however, nobody bothered to do any research into the topic until very recently -- and of course, the truth is far more complicated than a horrifying phrase like "internet kill switch." Because as it turns out, according to the 1934 Communications Act (which is still in effect today), the President already has the power to shut down any and all telecommunications systems in situations he or she deems it necessary for national security, and Lieberman's call was for a reassessment of the Act.

So what are Lieberman's evil plans for the 'net? His proposal, S. 3480, is a far more subtle document than the original act, which essentially says "hey, do whatever you have to do, man," and calls for the designation of cyberspace as a 'national asset.' It essentially calls for the private owners of critical infrastructure to develop risk assessment plans, and plans to mitigate that risk, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. There are also several recommended procedures called for in the event of an emergency, but none of them have anything to do with a mechanism to shut anything down, and the director would be expressly prohibited from requiring owners to use any specific mechanism. So... the exact opposite of a kill switch. Also, it's worthwhile to note that the entire proposition calls for these changes to be developed by the private sector itself, rather than imposed on it. Kind of makes the story a little less interesting, that's for sure.

[Dog Walker]

Thanks for the fact check!

[Timkin]

I think as it stands now , the Government has too much control.  They also tax us every stinking way they can think of. Makes me think they have someone employed just to dream up new ways of draining our wallets.

I hope there never is implementation of such a thing as disrupting the internet.   That is completely absurd and to me hinges on living in a dictatorship.  No thanks.

[buckethead]

According to research by engadget this is anything but a 'kill switch':

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/the-internet-kill-switch-and-other-lies-the-internet-told-you/

Because as it turns out, according to the 1934 Communications Act (which is still in effect today), the President already has the power to shut down any and all telecommunications systems in situations he or she deems it necessary for national security, and Lieberman's call was for a reassessment of the Act.

Kind of makes the story a little less interesting, that's for sure.

This may liven it back up.

The FCC has gone ahead and put out a Notice of Inquiry to go ahead with Deem and Pass reclassification of ISPs away from being “information services” under the law, which was the plainly obvious intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. You see, in Comcast v. FCC, the courts have strictly limited how much regulation the FCC can do of information services. So, the FCC is going to declare that ISPs are now phone companies, and regulate accordingly.

http://www.redstate.com/neil_stevens/2010/06/22/its-official-deem-and-pass-internet-regulation-is-the-third-way/

I know it's partisan link. I welcome evidence to the contrary.

I read a judge had ruled the FCC did not have authority over the internet, so our benevolent despots decided to reclassify the internet as a telecommunications company rather than "information services". Sorry for the hit and run... I'll clarify when I have a bit more time. (Later today... Must run)

[buckethead]

The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers before voluntarily ending them earlier that year.

Because the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20001825-38.html

The court decision was a setback to efforts by the Federal Communications Commission to require companies to give Web users equal access to all content, even if some of that content is clogging the network.

The court ruling, which came after Comcast asserted that it had the right to slow its cable customers’ access to a file-sharing service called BitTorrent, could prompt efforts in Congress to change the law in order to give the F.C.C. explicit authority to regulate Internet service.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html