PDA

View Full Version : Internet "Kill Switch" Proposed Again



Ti-Amie
06-17-2010, 11:17 AM
A new US Senate Bill would grant the President far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of, or even shut down, portions of the internet.

The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects "shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined.

That emergency authority would allow the Federal Government to "preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people," Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who meets with the Democrats.

Due to there being few limits on the US President's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page Bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition.

TechAmerica, probably the largest US technology lobby group, said it was concerned about "unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach" and "the potential for absolute power". And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman Bill's emergency powers "include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems."

The idea of an internet "kill switch" that the President could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that ZDNet Australia's sister site CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to "declare a cybersecurity emergency", and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to "order the disconnection" of certain networks or websites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's Bill, which is formally titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said "I commend" the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that "we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realises the importance of protecting our cyber resources".

Under PCNAA, the Federal Government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also "relies on" the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US "information infrastructure" would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security.

The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman Bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over wiretapping without a warrant. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorised.

Lieberman said on Thursday that enactment of his Bill needed to be a top congressional priority. "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," he 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."

http://www.zdnet.com.au/internet-kill-switch-proposed-for-us-339303838.htm

Moose
06-17-2010, 11:42 AM
And if people would for any reason engage in an uprising, the government would have the power to cut off all means of e-communication.

Isn't this the kind of stuff we condemn China, and other nations with poor track records on civil rghts, for engaging in? Kinda chilling, if you ask me.

Ti-Amie
06-17-2010, 11:46 AM
And if people would for any reason engage in an uprising, the government would have the power to cut off all means of e-communication.

Isn't this the kind of stuff we condemn China, and other nations with poor track records on civil rghts, for engaging in? Kinda chilling, if you ask me.

Could this be why the "flash mob" craze scared so many people? There was a campaign on Twitter last night for fans of a particular television show to all send a tweet to save the jobs of two actors on the show at 9p Eastern. Most of the stuff has been like this but there's always someone somewhere thinking dark thoughts.

Moose
06-17-2010, 11:54 AM
Could this be why the "flash mob" craze scared so many people? There was a campaign on Twitter last night for fans of a particular television show to all send a tweet to save the jobs of two actors on the show at 9p Eastern. Most of the stuff has been like this but there's always someone somewhere thinking dark thoughts.

We had a "flash mob" situation here in Philly back in March - a few thousand kids/young adults ended up on South Street 9 pm on a Saturday night. Police were completely overwhelmed.

I don't know if that's worth surrendering civil liberties, however.

ptmcmahon
06-17-2010, 11:57 AM
And...what if this happens during a suicide pool?

Ti-Amie
06-17-2010, 12:05 PM
We had a "flash mob" situation here in Philly back in March - a few thousand kids/young adults ended up on South Street 9 pm on a Saturday night. Police were completely overwhelmed.

I don't know if that's worth surrendering civil liberties, however.

We had something similar happen in NYC a couple of months back when a crowd of young people flooded Times Square. They'd responded to a call posted on Twitter.

dryrunguy
06-17-2010, 12:11 PM
I'm assuming this is designed to be a preventive measure for some kind of a doomsday scenario?

ptmcmahon
06-17-2010, 12:12 PM
You just assume whatever keeps you satisfied :p

dryrunguy
06-17-2010, 12:21 PM
You just assume whatever keeps you satisfied :p

LOL!

But seriously, if that's actually the case, then I'm okay with it. Since 9/11, I think we've become more conscious of the unthinkable. It's hard to think of scenarios that could be implemented by zealots with a purpose. I can't think of a plausible scenario where something like this would be useful. But perhaps someone has. I don't know.

mmmm8
06-17-2010, 01:08 PM
And...what if this happens during a suicide pool?


:cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy:





Just to be clear, would this power allow the Pres to shut down ACCESS to sites or to shut down the sites themselves?

shtexas
06-17-2010, 01:12 PM
They'll put it right next to the button that authorizes a nuclear strike. I hope the President doesn't confuse them. ;)

Moose
06-17-2010, 01:14 PM
They'll put it right next to the button that authorizes a nuclear strike. I hope the President doesn't confuse them. ;)

Good thing it's not the Reagan era.

shtexas
06-17-2010, 01:16 PM
Good thing it's not the Reagan era.

Visions of Genesis' Land of Confusion video.

Charlie02123
06-17-2010, 05:50 PM
I remember a lot of people saying that Bush was the most powerful president in history (and Cheney the most powerful VP).

I'm a little concern that the trend continues.

As for potentially having the internet shut down for a day when "the unthinkable" happens: meh.

rabbit
06-17-2010, 05:55 PM
Just to be clear, would this power allow the Pres to shut down ACCESS to sites or to shut down the sites themselves?

Must be access. Most major sites nowadays are replicated on several servers, many outside the US.

ponchi101
06-17-2010, 06:13 PM
Speaking from a pseudo totalitarian country:
Hugo Chavez routinely blocks the news when something "wrong" is happening by going on air for hours. By law, here in Venezuela, the public TV stations have to join his impromptu speeches, or they can be fined or even closed down. Then, the only mean people have to know what is happening is via Internet: Facebook, Twitter, etc.
You let me know if you would rather have absolute free internet or some sort of scenario where, in the wrong hands, your right to be informed can be taken away in a second. If you want the second option, we can always page George Orwell for a little bit of an explanation.
Sorry, the subject is too close for my comfort.

Charlie02123
06-17-2010, 06:23 PM
Speaking from a pseudo totalitarian country:
Hugo Chavez routinely blocks the news when something "wrong" is happening by going on air for hours. By law, here in Venezuela, the public TV stations have to join his impromptu speeches, or they can be fined or even closed down. Then, the only mean people have to know what is happening is via Internet: Facebook, Twitter, etc.
You let me know if you would rather have absolute free internet or some sort of scenario where, in the wrong hands, your right to be informed can be taken away in a second. If you want the second option, we can always page George Orwell for a little bit of an explanation.
Sorry, the subject is too close for my comfort.
That's exactly who I've been thinking of.

mmmm8
06-17-2010, 06:45 PM
Yeah, my concern isn't about Obama, it's for making this legal for the future. Especially because I expect that in 10-15 years all media, including TV, etc., will come through some sort of online method, so this would give a President the opportunity to have full control of the information flow. Just seems unconstitutional.

craighickman
06-17-2010, 08:17 PM
I can't find my way to any nuance on this.

I find it reprehensible.

Kirkus
06-17-2010, 09:50 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

::

Leave it to turn-coat Joe Lieberman to author an unconstitutional bill.