Internet Kill Switch

[Hornblaster]

I figured you guys would enjoy this new Bill set to hit the floor.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/?test=latestnews

[deadaim]

I would be very interested in what GrouseGuy would have to say about this. Im pretty sure what he would say if George Bush tried it:rolleyes:

[Bray]

Wow, that's kind of scary. The Chinese do this same thing, they just call it censorship.

[Art]

I'm not surprised. There's all kind of stuff like this being tossed around. While the liberals will say, "No need to complain, they have not taken anything away from us." Anyone with some common sense has to think that sometime in the next 3.5 years that some of the crap like this will actually be passed.

I personally will fear Obama and the liberals much more when that get to that "wounded animal caught in a steel trap" stage. They are rapidly approaching that stage it appears. It is now being reported that Obama has the fastest falling approval ratings EVER. I think if it gets to that point where he realizes he's not popular and will not be re-elected is when we better start to worry about these communist tactics.

Now, I know some liberals hate to be associated with communism. That's why I find it ironic that they were so bent out of shape about the Govt. listening in on suspected terrorists phone calls, but I bet they will be 100% behind this.

[kmtpr]

Senate Bill Would Give President Emergency Control of Internet

Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 show the Senate bill could give the president a "kill switch" on the Internet and allow him to shut out private networks from online access.

FOXNews.com
Friday, August 28, 2009


A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a "kill switch" to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties.



Details of a revamped version of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 emerged late Thursday, months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

"We think it's a very bad idea ... to put in legislation," he told FOXNews.com.

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online (http://www.politechbot.com/docs/rockefeller.revised.cybersecurity.draft.082709.pdf ) -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html).

A Senate source familiar with the bill likened the new power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when he grounded all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, CNET News reported.

Spokesmen for Senator Rockefeller and the Commerce Committee did not return calls seeking comment before this article was published.

But Rockefeller, who introduced the bill in April with bipartisan support, said the legislation was critical to protecting everything from water and electricity to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records.

"I know the threats we face," Rockefeller said in a prepared statement when the legislation was introduced. "Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest."

The bill would also let the government create a detailed set of standards for licensing "cybersecurity professionals" who would oversee a single standard for security measures.

But many in the technology sector believe it's a job the government is ill-equipped to handle, said Franck Journoud, a policy analyst with the Business Software Alliance.

"Simply put, who has the expertise?" he told FOXNews.com in April. "It's the industry, not the government. We have a responsibility to increase and improve security. That responsibility cannot be captured in a government standard."

Clinton, of the Internet Security Alliance, praised President Obama's May science policy review, which he said would take cybersecurity in the right direction by promoting incentives to get the private industry to improve its own security measures.

But he faulted the Senate bill, which he said would centralize regulations for an industry that is too varied to fall under the control of a single set of rules without endangering the economy and security.

"We think a lot of things need to be done to enhance cybersecurity," he told FOXNews.com, but this bill is "not something that we could support."

[grouser68]

I am not posting on this thread to argue any points on here just ask a question(Ya know it's bad when ya gotta add disclaimers before ya post!:D) I read this and not going to degrade Fox News either but they do slant and editoralize to the right.

Whats the difference between this, and the Emergency Broadcast System we have on our Tv's, and radio?

The internet is a new media source compared to tv and radio with many differences between them.Does it need more regulation? I guess we will know that answer in about 50 years.

[kmtpr]

I find it interesting that even Bill Clinton is not for the above bill. More "control" over our lives, IMO. :mad:

[deadaim]

Whats the difference between this, and the Emergency Broadcast System we have on our Tv's, and radio?


Probably the same question Ahmadinejad asked the left a few weeks ago in Iran.......

[Foam Steak]

First off, I am not a network, cyber, internet guru so I don't know what I am talking about. In fact that is the case most of the time.

I have heard of cases of Chinese and Russian "cyber attacks" these are goverment sponsored attacks on our computer systems. I doubt China and Russia are the only countries dabbling in this type of warfare. With a limited amount of resources I could see a terrorist nation funding this kind of stuff and orchestrating some type of coordinated attack. The question then becomes how do you defend against it? If there is an escaped prisoner on the loose what do you do first? Set up roadblocks. Shutting down all non-government internet would be the most drastic of all roadblocks. Maybe there is a better way? Maybe not? I do not know. My guess is this would be an option of last resort. Flipping the internet switch would cost the country billions of dollars, and whoever did it would have to have a very good reason because they would likely end up in a crap storm of epic proportions.

Obama is the Devil, we all know that :). But in this case maybe they are just being proactive for the right reasons???? I don't know. Just throwing that out there.

[ptbrauch]

Yeah you set up roadblocks in the immediate vicinity of the break out. You don't halt all vehicles on all roads everywhere in the country. That's the difference between the two.

Frankly, I don't see how this would ever fly. So much business is conducted across the internet. I'm not talking about just buying stuff on ebay, but more and more company networks are now internet based. Today is our go-live day on a new program that controls and tracks everything from ingredients going into a product to where the product was shipped and its internet based.

[Bray]

Whats the difference between this, and the Emergency Broadcast System we have on our Tv's, and radio?



The emergency brodcast system is used to notify Americans of local and national disasters. It is a means of communication between the government and citizens. After a brief message has been delivered regular programming resumes.

What is being proposed is a way to completely shut off the internet from US citizens. No means of communication merely a method to "kill" the internet for American citizens. I could understand the need to close government run websites in case of a cyber attack. However, to shut off the internet entirely would be overkill. If the legislation is as vague as it is reported, the president would have the authority to shut off the internet for whatever reason he deems as an emergency. I don't care if our president is a democrat or a republican I don't want them to have the power to cut off the internet in the future. The Chinese do this in order to censor their citizens I hate to think our government is giving theirselves the oppertunity to do this in the future.

[grouser68]

The emergency brodcast system is used to notify Americans of local and national disasters. It is a means of communication between the government and citizens. After a brief message has been delivered regular programming resumes.

What is being proposed is a way to completely shut off the internet from US citizens. No means of communication merely a method to "kill" the internet for American citizens. I could understand the need to close government run websites in case of a cyber attack. However, to shut off the internet entirely would be overkill. If the legislation is as vague as it is reported, the president would have the authority to shut off the internet for whatever reason he deems as an emergency. I don't care if our president is a democrat or a republican I don't want them to have the power to cut off the internet in the future. The Chinese do this in order to censor their citizens I hate to think our government is giving theirselves the oppertunity to do this in the future.The internet is still in it's infancy, I personally think we rely on it too much already, just thinking out loud here. I know someone will "google" this to try and correct me of any discrepancies but.....As I recall should we ever be invaded the Interstates can be shut down for civilian use and used for military purposes only.Could you imagine what U.S.60 would look like if I-64 was shut down? All goods being moved on highways that size would'nt stop movement but it would surely slow it to less than a crawl! Should the internet be "invaded" and shut down I would think it would look a lot like the interstates being shut down.

[nutcase]

The bulk on all cyber attacks will be on goverment networks. To pull them from outside access is fine. To shut down private networks without ties to the goverment is only a way to stop communications between private parties.

Also you are right interstates can be shut down to move goverment equipment to areas needed. Mainly because certain lengths of interstate were built to allow planes to land in case of attack. But, it doesn't allow for all interstates to be closed at once. Finally, even if they were closed people have other means of clearing the area by using secondary roads.

[westkybanded]

The internet is still in it's infancy, I personally think we rely on it too much already, just thinking out loud here. I know someone will "google" this to try and correct me of any discrepancies but.....As I recall should we ever be invaded the Interstates can be shut down for civilian use and used for military purposes only.Could you imagine what U.S.60 would look like if I-64 was shut down? All goods being moved on highways that size would'nt stop movement but it would surely slow it to less than a crawl! Should the internet be "invaded" and shut down I would think it would look a lot like the interstates being shut down.


Apparently you look at the internet as some sort of new-fangled thing that is a toy for kids. I don't think you can wrap your head arround just what would happen should somebody "turn off" the internet. For one thing, all of those goods moving down the road would stop. Telephones would cease to function properly, there would be no more broadcast television available. Serious pandimonium.

[itallushrt]

I am not posting on this thread to argue any points on here just ask a question(Ya know it's bad when ya gotta add disclaimers before ya post!:D) I read this and not going to degrade Fox News either but they do slant and editoralize to the right.

Whats the difference between this, and the Emergency Broadcast System we have on our Tv's, and radio?

The internet is a new media source compared to tv and radio with many differences between them.Does it need more regulation? I guess we will know that answer in about 50 years.

The difference is TV, Radio, EBS are all ONE WAY media for starters. It's blasted out and short of call in radio shows, which are pre-screened, you can't interact. That is besides the point here though.

Think of all the businesses who use the internet, paying to use it's services, to provide a product. What this bill has the capacity of doing, in its current rendition, is to shut these folks down even if they are not the source of a problem. I see what these people are wanting to do with this bill, but it's kinda like treating a paper cut with a full scale emergency room surgical team who are equipped with meat cleavers instead of surgical tools. The real scary part is what could be potential serious consequences should this bill pass and an opposing country wish to take advantage of it. It would be nothing to bring an existing drone botnet alive, generate a massive DDOS attack on a host somewhere and then have the government shutdown that provider. If it was att, uunet, level3 or qwest there would be massive repercussions. Picture a ripple in a pool spreading out causing a blackout for millions of businesses.

The original purpose of the DARPA net, the modern internets predecessor, was to create a decentralized network that couldn't be affected by a single strike. This bill renders that theory useless.

[Foam Steak]

Yeah you set up roadblocks in the immediate vicinity of the break out. You don't halt all vehicles on all roads everywhere in the country. That's the difference between the two.

Frankly, I don't see how this would ever fly. So much business is conducted across the internet. I'm not talking about just buying stuff on ebay, but more and more company networks are now internet based. Today is our go-live day on a new program that controls and tracks everything from ingredients going into a product to where the product was shipped and its internet based.

Agreed, but without intimate knowlege of the types of attacks foreign countrys are capable of, I cannot say a complete shutdown would not be neccessary under certain conditions.

The thing that is suspicious about this whole deal is the fact that it is being driven by some stupid politicians. That is the weak link as far as I am concerned. If all the big computer companies telecomunications and security agencys were pushing this as a defence of last resort then there could almost be no argument against it. But since it is being pushed forward by a politician who in all likelyhood has no knowlege of computers other than as an end user then it looses some of its credibility.

[itallushrt]

Apparently you look at the internet as some sort of new-fangled thing that is a toy for kids. I don't think you can wrap your head arround just what would happen should somebody "turn off" the internet. For one thing, all of those goods moving down the road would stop. Telephones would cease to function properly, there would be no more broadcast television available. Serious pandimonium.


bingo.....

[grouser68]

Apparently you look at the internet as some sort of new-fangled thing that is a toy for kids. I don't think you can wrap your head arround just what would happen should somebody "turn off" the internet. For one thing, all of those goods moving down the road would stop. Telephones would cease to function properly, there would be no more broadcast television available. Serious pandimonium.Oh believe me I already know what would happen. When the virus hit the govt. puters last fall/winter I was in Afghanistan.It really hampered things for us for awhile but in the true American Spirit we charlie miked!:D

[Al]

Some people are so partisian towards the Democrat party of their father an grandfather that they cannot see that their party has been taken over buy extreme left wing radicals.

WAKE UP

[ptbrauch]

The original purpose of the DARPA net, the modern internets predecessor, was to create a decentralized network that couldn't be affected by a single strike. This bill renders that theory useless.

That brings up a good point, just how would they shut down the internet? Is that really possible?

[Bray]

The internet is still in it's infancy, I personally think we rely on it too much already, just thinking out loud here. I know someone will "google" this to try and correct me of any discrepancies but.....As I recall should we ever be invaded the Interstates can be shut down for civilian use and used for military purposes only.Could you imagine what U.S.60 would look like if I-64 was shut down? All goods being moved on highways that size would'nt stop movement but it would surely slow it to less than a crawl! Should the internet be "invaded" and shut down I would think it would look a lot like the interstates being shut down.

The difference is I64 being shut down becuase of a military invasion. We are talking about the internet being shut down for whatever a president deems as an "emergency". If a president thinks that misinformation is being spread around the internet in relation to legislation that could be deemed an emergency. I don't like the idea of giving the president more control than is necissary. There is already too much intrusion on our daily lives as is, the government doesn't need to control the internet too.

[ptbrauch]

I guess when they shut down the whole "report false info" website because it sounded too fishy, they decided the better way would be to just shut down the whole internet.

[Al]

I'm not surprised. There's all kind of stuff like this being tossed around. While the liberals will say, "No need to complain, they have not taken anything away from us." Anyone with some common sense has to think that sometime in the next 3.5 years that some of the crap like this will actually be passed.

I personally will fear Obama and the liberals much more when that get to that "wounded animal caught in a steel trap" stage. They are rapidly approaching that stage it appears. It is now being reported that Obama has the fastest falling approval ratings EVER. I think if it gets to that point where he realizes he's not popular and will not be re-elected is when we better start to worry about these communist tactics.

Now, I know some liberals hate to be associated with communism. That's why I find it ironic that they were so bent out of shape about the Govt. listening in on suspected terrorists phone calls, but I bet they will be 100% behind this.

Art I dissagree about the liberal to Communism relation.

Obama and liberalism have a bent and final end at Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism.

Does this sound familiar?

Totalitarianism is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible. Totalitarianism is generally chartacertized by the coincidence of authoritarianism where ordinary citizens have no significant share in state decision making and ideolgy.
Totalitarian movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an offical all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveilance and widespread use of terrorism.

This is the path Obama is headed down not communisim.

Just do research on the 40+ czars he has appointed and look at all the other people he has associated with. Look at all their radical militant back grounds, and their arrest records in some cases, and read their quotes from the past.

Obama numbers are crashing because people are seeing that this CHANGE is not what they bargined for.

Obama controls a huge part of our banking system, our housing through freddie mac and fanny may, our domestic auto industry, he has the mainstream media in the bag and he is controling NBC and company through GE's intrests, he has control of aig and is demonizing the rest of private insurance, and he attempting to control our healthcare system which is 1/6th of our economy. He is tring to control our energy usage and choice of fuels through cap and trade.
Now an attempt at free speech with kill switches on the internet?

What is next? Shut down talk radio with the fairness doctrine? Our guns and ammo?

[Al]

If you put all the social issues aside, the main difference between the liberals and the conservatives is their view of the roll of government in our lives.

Liberlaism leads to total control of the people buy the state and this internet deal is just one more step they are taking in that direction .

[westkybanded]

Oh believe me I already know what would happen. When the virus hit the govt. puters last fall/winter I was in Afghanistan.It really hampered things for us for awhile but in the true American Spirit we charlie miked!:D

First off, like I've said before- Thank you for your service!

Secondly, I understand that you're trying to downplay this issue since it's your boy Obama's doing. I assure you that at this point in American history, if you turn the internet off, it won't just be people bucking up and making the best of it. We've become too dependant. Lives will be lost.

[trust me]

What can any of of us conceive in our minds that would require hitting the kill switch on the internet? Would it be a matter of national security? Would it be to halt some massive virus attack?

Shutting it down won't stop any missiles or bullets. If a virus is making the rounds, shutting everything down won't stop it; it'll be right there ready to continue when you power back up.

The internet has one use: to spread information. People and computers use it to share information of all kinds. The only reason to shut down the internet is to halt the sharing of all that information.

Has anyone found any justification for this measure given by the bill's sponsors?

I have an inherent distrust of anyone that wants to limit the sharing of information. Sounds a lot like burning books to me.

[chad]

to be honest .... I wouldn't mind if they cut off that dang facebook.com .... :p

my entire family puts way too much info out there on that site ....

all kidding aside .... "killing" the internet would cause a great amount of "chaos" .... it would make Katrina look like a Birthday party ...

people just do not realize how much information, etc travels via the internet

[Al]

First off, like I've said before- Thank you for your service!

Secondly, I understand that you're trying to downplay this issue since it's your boy Obama's doing. I assure you that at this point in American history, if you turn the internet off, it won't just be people bucking up and making the best of it. We've become too dependant. Lives will be lost.

I agree the internet is the peoples voice today.

Millions of people feel helpless and are very afraid of this government.
There is ALOT of uneasyness brewing.

[grouser68]

First off, like I've said before- Thank you for your service!

Secondly, I understand that you're trying to downplay this issue since it's your boy Obama's doing. I assure you that at this point in American history, if you turn the internet off, it won't just be people bucking up and making the best of it. We've become too dependant. Lives will be lost.Not downplaying a thing West! I have not made one pro comment on this legislation.......none! I merely posted a couple of questions and relayed a story, thats it! I don't feel I know enough about this subject to form an opinion pro or con.This am was the first I saw anything about it.I reserve my right to form an opinion until I know more about it, and I wont rely exclusively on a posted Fox News report before forming my opinion.Seems some just leap to an instant opinion, I will not. Again, I am neither for or against it don't know enough about it yet. I do agree we have plenty of regulations already!

Has everyone that has formed their opinion read the entire bill in it's entirity, and understood every word?

[deadaim]

Not downplaying a thing West! I have not made one pro comment on this legislation.......none! I merely posted a couple of questions and relayed a story, thats it! I don't feel I know enough about this subject to form an opinion pro or con.This am was the first I saw anything about it.I reserve my right to form an opinion until I know more about it, and I wont rely exclusively on a posted Fox News report before forming my opinion.Seems some just leap to an instant opinion, I will not. Again, I am neither for or against it don't know enough about it yet. I do agree we have plenty of regulations already!

Has everyone that has formed their opinion read the entire bill in it's entirity, and understood every word?

Yes I have you and now you can too:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show

[Art]

What can any of of us conceive in our minds that would require hitting the kill switch on the internet? Would it be a matter of national security? Would it be to halt some massive virus attack?

Shutting it down won't stop any missiles or bullets. If a virus is making the rounds, shutting everything down won't stop it; it'll be right there ready to continue when you power back up.

The internet has one use: to spread information. People and computers use it to share information of all kinds. The only reason to shut down the internet is to halt the sharing of all that information.

Has anyone found any justification for this measure given by the bill's sponsors?

I have an inherent distrust of anyone that wants to limit the sharing of information. Sounds a lot like burning books to me.

That's exactly what I'm getting at. This seems like a trojan horse to me. On the surface, it may not seem like much, but couple it with ideas like the fairness doctrine, state run media, and all the other stuff aimed at silencing free speech from the opposing political party and it takes on a different light.

It is clear that this administration, and everyone else in fact, understands the power of the internet and the power it has to create opposition and spread information. The liberals used it against Bush with organizations like moveon, codepink, the Huffington post, blogs, Youtube, ect... Now the right is doing a similar thing. This is NOT a one party issue.

Obama realizes that the internet IS a major force these days. It has the potential to bring him down, and his agenda. It is a bypass around the mainstream media, which is obviously not in his favor. He obviously also realizes that it can be used to his advantage, as witnessed in the last election. We won't even get into the white house using tax payer money to hire companies to send out unsolicited emails to spread their propaganda, which as I understand is illegal.:D

Basically, I can't see this any other way then Obama laying a foundation to limit negative or damaging information from groups he disagrees with. It could just as easily be used by the next Republican administration as well. Sure, I could be wrong, but I don't like the idea of having a means to silence free speech at the hands of an overtly partisan and vindictive President. That's how business is done in Iran, China, and Russia, NOT the USA.

[grouser68]

Yes I have you and now you can too:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/showScanned it real quick and read some comments, seems everyone is concerned with total shutdown and supposedly that can be found in Sec. 18.All I could find in Sec. 18 was this, and all it states is about the Federal side shutting down and not the public use.

20 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text#)
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;


Where does it state total shut down of the internet to the public?

[Art]

Not downplaying a thing West! I have not made one pro comment on this legislation.......none! I merely posted a couple of questions and relayed a story, thats it! I don't feel I know enough about this subject to form an opinion pro or con.This am was the first I saw anything about it.I reserve my right to form an opinion until I know more about it, and I wont rely exclusively on a posted Fox News report before forming my opinion.Seems some just leap to an instant opinion, I will not. Again, I am neither for or against it don't know enough about it yet. I do agree we have plenty of regulations already!

Has everyone that has formed their opinion read the entire bill in it's entirity, and understood every word?

I'm kind of with you. I'm not 100% certain of what I've read in this bill. There is some very vague language though, and that is scary to me. I would like to know exactly what is a "critical network" and what would constitute shutting it down before I would be ok with one person having the authority to flip the switch.

I can tell you one thing though, I wouldn't hold my breath thinking you might learn more about this from other networks. If it has the potential to be viewed as negative by the public, which I believe it does, you will probably not hear about it on the NBC nightly news.:D

[itallushrt]

Agreed, but without intimate knowlege of the types of attacks foreign countrys are capable of, I cannot say a complete shutdown would not be neccessary under certain conditions.



As an IT professional...IT WOULD NEVER BE NECESSARY.

[trust me]

The part about shutting down Federal networks, that seems kind of redundant to me. There are innumerable levels of IT management way below Obama that could decide to shut down a network to protect it. Every IT policy in existence surely has some provision for pulling the plug to protect it. You don't need to pass a law to do that.

What "United States critical infrastructure information system" are we talking about? The phone system? The electric grid? The Internet itself?

[grouser68]

That's exactly what I'm getting at. This seems like a trojan horse to me. On the surface, it may not seem like much, but couple it with ideas like the fairness doctrine, state run media, and all the other stuff aimed at silencing free speech from the opposing political party and it takes on a different light.

It is clear that this administration, and everyone else in fact, understands the power of the internet and the power it has to create opposition and spread information. The liberals used it against Bush with organizations like moveon, codepink, the Huffington post, blogs, Youtube, ect... Now the right is doing a similar thing. This is NOT a one party issue.

Obama realizes that the internet IS a major force these days. It has the potential to bring him down, and his agenda. It is a bypass around the mainstream media, which is obviously not in his favor. He obviously also realizes that it can be used to his advantage, as witnessed in the last election. We won't even get into the white house using tax payer money to hire companies to send out unsolicited emails to spread their propaganda, which as I understand is illegal.:D

Basically, I can't see this any other way then Obama laying a foundation to limit negative or damaging information from groups he disagrees with. It could just as easily be used by the next Republican administration as well. Sure, I could be wrong, but I don't like the idea of having a means to silence free speech at the hands of an overtly partisan and vindictive President. That's how business is done in Iran, China, and Russia, NOT the USA.Art, I don't think kentuckyhunting.net falls under federal, or U.S.critical, so you will still be able to come on here and dog the Dem's and Rep's of your choice!:p;) I don't think the Fox News site falls under that either, so they will still be able to post what they want.I don't see the "stifiling in the name of politics you descibe.I am positive WND, and Citizen Wells are'nt Federal or U.S. Infrastructure critical sites either!:D

[itallushrt]

That brings up a good point, just how would they shut down the internet? Is that really possible?

yes and no. The basis of the internet is no more than a dynamic routing protocol, BGP v4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bgp),which strings together high bandwidth links from various providers. You don't even have to kill the routing table all you have to do is interject more specific routes into the table directing traffic to null (a virtual blackhole). A more hardcore means would be to kill the 4 NAPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Access_Point) which exist in strategic locations. Yet again you could also simply force the providers to withdraw the route advertisements for their respective netblocks. IP subnets are broken up for distribution by regional significance so it would be easy to severe the availability of US assets.

Of course the president would only have jurisdiction over domestic resources. The rest of the internet would function just fine.

[deadaim]

Art, I don't think kentuckyhunting.net falls under federal, or U.S.critical, so you will still be able to come on here and dog the Dem's and Rep's of your choice!:p;) I don't think the Fox News site falls under that either, so they will still be able to post what they want.I don't see the "stifiling in the name of politics you descibe.I am positive WND, and Citizen Wells are'nt Federal or U.S. Infrastructure critical sites either!:D

You think its funny Grouser but if it was Bush or god forbid Cheney you would be screaming bloody murder and you know it.............

[deadaim]

Scanned it real quick and read some comments, seems everyone is concerned with total shutdown and supposedly that can be found in Sec. 18.All I could find in Sec. 18 was this, and all it states is about the Federal side shutting down and not the public use.

(http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text#)
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;


Where does it state total shut down of the internet to the public?

SEC. 7. LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION OF CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS.
(a) IN GENERAL- Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall develop or coordinate and integrate a national licensing, certification, and periodic recertification program for cybersecurity professionals.
(b) MANDATORY LICENSING- Beginning 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States, or to be employed in the United States, as a provider of cybersecurity services to any Federal agency or an information system or network designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as a critical infrastructure information system or network, who is not licensed and certified under the program.
It also states
The president
...
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(3) shall designate an agency to be responsible for coordinating the response and restoration of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network affected by a cybersecurity emergency declaration under paragraph (2);
The problem with this bill, in the opinion of many, is it's lack of definition. "Cybersecurity" isn't defined, and here are the pertinent definitions.
CYBER- The term ‘cyber’ means--CommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(A) any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or an intranet, automatic data processing or transmission, or telecommunication via the Internet or an intranet; and
(B) any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term ‘Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks’ includes--
(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and
(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
In my opinion, very sweeping, too vaugue and disturbing. Essentially, any computer or network the government deems critical can be controlled and shutdown. And anyone providing the undefined service of "cybersecurity" at any entity, public or private, that is deemed critical, must be licensed by the federal government.

[grouser68]

The part about shutting down Federal networks, that seems kind of redundant to me. There are innumerable levels of IT management way below Obama that could decide to shut down a network to protect it. Every IT policy in existence surely has some provision for pulling the plug to protect it. You don't need to pass a law to do that.

What "United States critical infrastructure information system" are we talking about? The phone system? The electric grid? The Internet itself? I think it did say something about the phone system TM, can't remember where though. This may pertain to that, not a lawyer so not real sure.



9 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text#)
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security.

Not really sure if that means phone service, and elec. grid or not or just the internet specific.But it does state in the"interest of National Security".

[Art]

Art, I don't think kentuckyhunting.net falls under federal, or U.S.critical, so you will still be able to come on here and dog the Dem's and Rep's of your choice!:p;) I don't think the Fox News site falls under that either, so they will still be able to post what they want.I don't see the "stifiling in the name of politics you descibe.I am positive WND, and Citizen Wells are'nt Federal or U.S. Infrastructure critical sites either!:D

That's the thing. I don't think we are talking about specific websites, I think this is aimed at disabling internet access all together. It's all very vague, and that's how the govt. typically does things when they don't want you to know EXACTLY what they are doing. I can't say it's all bad, but it really doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.

[grouser68]

That's the thing. I don't think we are talking about specific websites, I think this is aimed at disabling internet access all together. It's all very vague, and that's how the govt. typically does things when they don't want you to know EXACTLY what they are doing. I can't say it's all bad, but it really doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.Well, the only thing I could find on a total "shutdown", or "kill switch" said Federal internet, and U.S. infrastructer critical.While I love our little site here, I am pretty sure it does'nt fall under either of those.:D

[grouser68]

Sorry guys, after "scanning " only, I don't see the big deal. One of the comments was that Pres. Bush was informed of this in May 2007, so he knew of this and I am sure he had something in the works to remedy it himself, if I may make that assumption. I would'nt think that he would want us attacked again from any front! At least thats what he said, I believed him.

H) According to the National Journal, Mike McConnell, the former Director of National Intelligence, told President Bush in May 2007 that if the 9/11 attackers had chosen computers instead of airplanes as their weapons and had waged a massive assault on a U.S. bank, the economic consequences would have been ‘an order of magnitude greater’ than those cased by the physical attack on the World Trade Center. Mike McConnell has subsequently referred to cybersecurity as the ‘soft underbelly of this country.’.Comments (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text#)Close Comments (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text#)Permalink (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/text?version=is&nid=t0:is:50)




(11) The Center for Strategic and International Studies report on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency concluded that (A) cybersecurity is now a major national security problem for the United States, (B) decisions and actions must respect privacy and civil liberties, and (C) only a comprehensive national security strategy that embraces both the domestic and international aspects of cybersecurity will make us more secure. The report continued stating that the United States faces ‘a long-term challenge in cyberspace from foreign intelligence agencies and militaries, criminals, and others, and that losing this struggle will wreak serious damage on the economic health and national security of the United Statesere are a couple of good paragraphs from the experts on this issue.

Can anyone post the supposed gloom n doom in this bill? I am not saying there is'nt any, I just can't find it.

Btw-thanks for posting the bill, it is very interesting, seems to me so far that our best interests are taken into consideration here, and not the total destruction of the U.S.

[quackrstackr]

It looks like chad has already figure out how to do it. Nicely played. :D

[trust me]

Chad obviously feels, as do I, that sometimes one must stomp the floor and make the dishes rattle, so everyone remembers exactly who is in charge.:D

[grouser68]

I think in this paragraph they are trying to tell us which sites they deem critcal.

(9) According to the February 2003 National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, ‘our nation’s critical infrastructures are composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping. Cyberspace is their nervous system--the control system of our country’ and that ‘the cornerstone of America’s cyberspace security strategy is and will remain a public-private partnership

[itallushrt]

Well, the only thing I could find on a total "shutdown", or "kill switch" said Federal internet, and U.S. infrastructer critical.While I love our little site here, I am pretty sure it does'nt fall under either of those.:D

This is precisely what you don't understand. When someone talks about shutting down the internet it doesn't mean they are going to go website to website and based on importance "turn them off".

US infrastructure critical....do you know what defines US infrastucture critical? Providers and their respective networks. Namely the big 3 UUNET, AT&T and Sprint. What does that mean? Don't confuse their data networks with their cellular (for att & sprint) or with anything else. These are serious data movers with serious bandwidth pipes that form the basis of the North American network. If you shut these folks down it won't matter where the website you are trying to reach exists because you won't be able to get there.

[itallushrt]

I think in this paragraph they are trying to tell us which sites they deem critcal.


Once again...if you are saying "sites" as in websites...THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

[itallushrt]

THIS (http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet-infrastructure1.htm) may help some folks understand how the internet actually works.

[Scott7m]

lol...... i can't beleive how naive some people can be when it comes to what this administration is trying to do, ignoring the facts and pretending that ol obama and his communist pals have nothing but our best interest in mind.

[Foam Steak]

As an IT professional...IT WOULD NEVER BE NECESSARY.

Case closed. If you haven't already, please ignore my previous posts. :D

On a completely unrelated subject, I count 4 turkeys in my back pasture right now and they are moving ever so slowly toward my treestand.

[itallushrt]

Case closed. If you haven't already, please ignore my previous posts. :D

On a completely unrelated subject, I count 4 turkeys in my back pasture right now and they are moving ever so slowly toward my treestand.


hahahahhaha.