Internet Kill Switch: Addressing Cyber Threats or Expanding Federal Power?

[Evo]

Do First Amendment Rights trump War Measures and Security in Times of National Emergency?

The Government won't be infected, they have a private network. Are they concerned about you and me getting infected?

I can forsee any company afraid of cyber terror to go back to good old fashion private lines, and only have a website connected to nothing with access to the public. Private lines can go anywhere in the world. That was how the original "internet" was made. No MPLS.

 

[turbo]

The government's worst threats rest in human engineering and sneaker-net. Disaffected employees on the inside are in the position to do the worst damage. We have seen in the past that some US citizens have been happy to pass classified information to foreign intelligence services, so their ability to compromise the intranets used by their offices and labs should be a focus of the security folks.

Having consulted for companies that engage in the production and distribution of electrical power, I can see how someone with access to equipment that controls parts of the grid, including load-balancing software, etc, could create a big problem. When I was a kid, I used to visit the large hydro-dam in our town, and I knew the people who worked there. Gradually, they were phased out in favor of remote controls until there was hardly anybody there anymore, apart from maintenance people.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Gradually, they were phased out in favor of remote controls until there was hardly anybody there anymore, apart from maintenance people.

And nobody bothers to do a background check on the maintenance man

(Yes, I know people do background checks on maintenance men)

EDIT TO ADD:

They should sign a bill giving them super-strength and the power of unpowered flight while they're at it.

http://totallytruemedia.webs.com/BBCSuperpowers.htm"

 

[mheslep]

The Government won't be infected, they have a private network. Are they concerned about you and me getting infected?

They're not concerned about their private (Secret, SCI) networks regards this topic. They're concerned about the majority of the government that is on the public net, and power companies and the like - that's per a talking head on the Sunday shows yesterday.

 

[Office_Shredder]

and power companies.

This sounds like something out of the latest Die Hard... was that actually feasible?

 

[jreelawg]

To me it seams like they are concerned mainly about 2 things. The first, is getting a control on leaked classified information, and preventing classified information from being disseminated, the second, critical infrastructure of the country including things like utilities, financial services, stock market, etc. So yes, I think they are concerned about more than just government lines. Things included in the discussion as an intent of the bill, is to have a regulatory agency which regulates the private cyberspace industry, including things like requiring certain security protection. The bill goes into detail about enforcing preventative measures. Basically it boils down to protecting information as a nation asset, on all levels.

The thing which isn't clear, as the language may not be specific enough, and authorizes such wide reaching power, is, can this power be used to censor the internet, and restrict certain information.

You can see how this can come into play, when you look at things like the recent Iranian protesting, where both sides, seamed to have relied on things like youtube, and twitter.

I imagine they might wish to make sure that site like youtube for instance are a U.S. asset as opposed to the enemy's as well.

I wonder from the language of the bill, if the above would be authorized. If so, would this mean that a privately ran website based in the U.S. could be legally forced to participate in propaganda, or maybe at least forced to participate in preventing the efficiency of enemy propaganda?

And if all this is so, does this apply to all forms of communication as defined in the bill, and where is the line drawn at?

 

[turbo]

Hard to tell, jreelawg. "Communications" is an awfully slippery word in these times.

 

[turbo]

I should add to a previous post, the prolification of very compact data-storage devices, including thumb drives and super-tiny memory cards can make it very easy to slip mal-ware into otherwise well-isolated intranets. If I was an IT/security guy at a sensitive facility, I would do my best to centralize computing capacity, so users had dumb terminals, seriously reduce the numbers of unsecured stand-alone computers, and make sure that users had no access to USB ports on the network. Tiny memory cards can carry more code than whole hard drives less than a decade ago.

 

[nismaratwork]

And nobody bothers to do a background check on the maintenance man

(Yes, I know people do background checks on maintenance men)

EDIT TO ADD:


http://totallytruemedia.webs.com/BBCSuperpowers.htm"

Wow, well, I'm going to dry heave for a while, thanks for the link! *dies a little inside*

 

[mgb_phys]

critical infrastructure of the country including things like utilities, financial services, stock market, etc. So yes, I think they are concerned about more than just government lines. ... Basically it boils down to protecting information as a nation asset, on all levels.

So given a choice of requiring certain levels of security, which would great a market demand for improved security in Windows and applications which benefits everyone - and simply voting themselves more powers and harsher sentences for 'hackers' which will they pick.

There was a similar story a couple of years ago - on the same day they announced funding for research into a new improved GPS that couldn't be jammed by terrorists, because so many people rely on GPS it would cause chaos.
And that a whole new set of government agencies from the CIA to the Whitehouse librarians bridge club would have the power to shut down GPS in the US in the event of a terrorist attack.

 

[hagopbul]

what is the emergency that need to cut internet communications ?

only in the us or in the world

 

[CAC1001]

What do you guys think of Net Neutrality? On the one hand, I can see the argument about not wanting big cable companies to control the flow of traffic on the Internet, on the other hand, I can also see the argument that creating government regulation of the Internet to "increase fairness" could result in the exact opposite (as regulations can end up doing this).

 

[CAC1001]

This is a perfect example of how ignorant and irresponsible politicians can be dangerous. They are venturing into territory that they know nothing about.

The US government has a safe intranet that has no access to the public internet.

Could it be more that they are responsible, but ignorant...? What I mean is if a politician thinks the government should have some kind of emergency controls for the Internet in case of some kind of national security threat, they might view it as irresponsible not to have anything in place...?

But their ignorance keeps them from understanding how the Internet really works?

 

[jreelawg]

Could it be more that they are responsible, but ignorant...? What I mean is if a politician thinks the government should have some kind of emergency controls for the Internet in case of some kind of national security threat, they might view it as irresponsible not to have anything in place...?

But their ignorance keeps them from understanding how the Internet really works?

Maybe they aren't ignorant, just irresponsible.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is a perfect example of how ignorant and irresponsible politicians can be dangerous. They are venturing into territory that they know nothing about...

That is essentially their job 24/7, as they are generally not qualified to do much more than hold office and run for office. This is why advisers are so crucial, and apparently asleep at the wheel.

 

[ibnsos]

Could it be more that they are responsible, but ignorant...? What I mean is if a politician thinks the government should have some kind of emergency controls for the Internet in case of some kind of national security threat, they might view it as irresponsible not to have anything in place...?

But their ignorance keeps them from understanding how the Internet really works?

If someone remains willfully ignorant about a subject, but proceeds to regulate said subject, how is that not irresponsible?

Would you say a judge that failed to learn any laws beyond his school days was responsible or irresponsible? How bout after he just sentenced you to prison from said ignorance?

 

[nismaratwork]

If someone remains willfully ignorant about a subject, but proceeds to regulate said subject, how is that not irresponsible?

Would you say a judge that failed to learn any laws beyond his school days was responsible or irresponsible? How bout after he just sentenced you to prison from said ignorance?

I think that is both irresponsible, and should be criminal as well.

 

[edward]

Some of you guys need to get serious about a form of national electronic defence that we can live with.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html

The local government closes off streets every time it rains, yet someone thinks that as a nation we are all electronically fine and dandy.

Ironically the first thing a foreign entity may want to do is to shut down our communications.

 

[mgb_phys]

Ironically the first thing a foreign entity may want to do is to shut down our communications.

And now all they have to do is tweet a threat and the government will shut down the internet for them!

 

[Proton Soup]

Some of you guys need to get serious about a form of national electronic defence that we can live with.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/pentagon.hacked/index.html

The local government closes off streets every time it rains, yet someone thinks that as a nation we are all electronically fine and dandy.

Ironically the first thing a foreign entity may want to do is to shut down our communications.

that is really a matter of the data shouldn't have been sitting out there for anyone to access in the first place. but you know Congress, they don't like to pay for anything. end result? we got exactly the sort of data security we paid for.

 

[Proton Soup]

related?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/01/business/la-fi-ct-piracy-20100701

Feds shut down nine websites in movie piracy crackdown
The sites had made pirated versions of 'Toy Story 3' and 'Iron Man 2' available within hours of their release in theaters. The crackdown is part of a renewed effort to curb film and TV piracy online.
July 01, 2010|By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times

Adding some swashbuckling to its tough talk on fighting piracy, the federal government on Wednesday seized several websites that had offered downloads of pirated movies such as "Toy Story 3" and "Iron Man 2" within hours of their release in theaters.

Federal authorities announced that they had seized domain names from nine websites engaged in the "criminal theft of American movies and television." The websites include TVShack.net, PlanetMoviez.com, ThePirateCity.org and Ninjavideo.net. Combined, the sites drew 6.7 million visitors a month, authorities said.
Advertisement

Officials also seized assets from 15 bank, investment and advertising accounts and executed residential search warrants in North Carolina, New York, New Jersey and Washington, according to a statement from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which coordinated its investigation with the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

The crackdown, which involved 100 agents working in 11 states and the Netherlands, was part of a renewed campaign dubbed Operation in Our Sites by federal authorities to curb Internet counterfeiting and piracy. The announcement comes a week after the Obama administration unveiled a detailed plan on how to tackle global piracy, including targeting illegal websites.

...

 

[Office_Shredder]

Nope

 

[mgb_phys]

related?

surely you can't be suggesting that democratically elected politicians would use the threat of terrorism to further the aims of industry groups that had funded their election?

 

[Newai]

What kind of attack are they expecting? Flipping a switch on the Internet would cause more problems than simply dealing with the attack, which is a daily thing anyway.

Cracked has something to say about it: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-world-without-the-internet/

 

[nismaratwork]

Why do people find it hard to understand why elected officials, who above money and other motivators tend to want power, would not simply want the option to fully control this? If you can't have it, having the ability to kill it is the next most powerful option, and these are a bunch of borderline psychopaths.

 

[Proton Soup]

surely you can't be suggesting that democratically elected politicians would use the threat of terrorism to further the aims of industry groups that had funded their election?

fine patriots, every one. there could stenographically-coded messages in those pixels.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Have we come to the point that we're suggesting the government is going to turn off the internet so people stop pirating movies?

 

[Proton Soup]

Have we come to the point that we're suggesting the government is going to turn off the internet so people stop pirating movies?

Nope

 

[nismaratwork]

Have we come to the point that we're suggesting the government is going to turn off the internet so people stop pirating movies?

I believe we've come to the common realization that no one appreciates powerlessness like those in some kind of power. The internet and all TCP/IP based communication transcends the ability of even highly motivated entities such as China to fully control it. Governments are used to being able to turn off electricity, or water, or phones or telegraphs. I believe the most plausible reason for this irrational desire for a "kill switch" is a misguided desire for control.

Obviously greater control would be amazing, and desirable in some areas, but as spam shows us, control is HARD.

 

[brainstorm]

wouldn't shutting down the internet be as easy as flooding as much bandwidth as possible with useless data? Isn't this already being accomplished by youtube and other data sharing?

If the concern is enemies obstructing communication, couldn't the government simply send out bots that neutralized recognizably large file packets by looking for certain kinds of tags? That would free up bandwidth in the event of it being flooded, wouldn't it?