US plans ‘internet kill switch’

[CoolBreeze]

In what has to be the ultimate irony or simply bad timing, the United States is in the midst of revisiting the creation of an internet kill switch to defend against cyber warfare just as Egypt on Friday moved to block internet access to stem free speech.

The legislation, which is being led by US Republican Senator Susan Collins, is ostensibly designed to create presidential powers to shut off the internet to protect against significant cyber crime threats to national security.

It is designed to create a mechanism where the US government can work with the private sector in the event of a ‘true cyber emergency.’

While Collins says the legislation is not designed to give any US president the same power that oppressive Middle East regimes such as that of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, the timing of the bill could not be worse.

On Friday, Egypt instigated a crackdown on the internet and mobile phones to prevent images and reports emerging, particularly via email, Facebook and Twitter, and to prevent rallies taking place.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/strategy ... rnet-kill/

[Bob Campbell]

Tell me again how that Republican "get big government out of our lives" thing is supposed to work again?

[oldtvman2]

Speaking of government taking controll of the internet, has anyone thought of what could be done with internet data storage? Look at what government or a hacker could get into with data stored on the internet. with or without a court order your whole life could be exposed. I know that everything is supposed to be secure but so was a lot of government data that is now on the open internet. If the government can't protect it's own data think what could happen to your data. Think about this before you use internet data storage.

[Tom Taggart]

Trouble with "clouds"--they mean either rain, snow, or something even worse. Can't see both sides now....

[The Interpreter]

Is that anything like what happened to Superman when he got near Carbonite?

[Scott Reppert]

"Kill the internet. KILL the internet. C-I-L-L...the internet"

Never a big Eddie Murphy fan, but I laugh every time...

[AmpedNow]

Free speech is the absolute enemy of dictators and tyrants everywhere. Shutting down lines of communication is the first thing they do when they feel their power slipping.

Could you imagine the outrage if W would have proposed something like this? I'm tired of the hypocrisy.

The situation in Egypt has me more concerned about our national security than anything since 9/11. It's hard to imagine a good outcome in all of this. Israel is in more danger than it's been in for decades. That peace treaty wont be worth the paper its written on.

Also, our gasoline could be $8-$10 per gallon if the Muslim extremists take over the Suez Canal. This brings up another issue that nobody is talking about: Do we take over and secure the canal if worse case happens? Are we even willing to this at this point if we need to?

[Bob Campbell]

Calm down Amp. First, the "kill switch" idea was first proposed under W's regime.
Second, There is no powerful Extremist faction in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is a relatively small fringe group.
Third, The Army, funded, trained and equipped by the US, is secular.
Fourth, The vast majority of Egyptians don't want to kill us, they want to BE us.
Fifth, none of our oil goes through the Suez Canal. Europe, yes. Some 40 percent of all their imported goods does.
Sixth, Israel can take care of themselves. Egypt does not pose an imminent threat to them.
At this point, odds of a canal shutdown are nearly zero. With the army coming down so far on the side of the protesters, Mubharak is done and there is a real chance of an inclusive democracy in Egypt.
The tipping point will come probably in the next 72 hours. It could be Poland (peaceful regime change) or Tiananmen Square.
Let's all root for Poland.

[Dave Harman]

First, the "kill switch" idea was first proposed under W's regime.

George Bush had a lot of bad liberal ideas. That doesn't make this any more acceptable.

[Scott Reppert]

Seriously?

It won't be an American that kills America's access to the internet.

People either hate or laugh when I get serious.

Which is why I try to make people laugh.

The other way...

[Jay Nunley]

George Bush had a lot of bad liberal ideas.

As usual, whem I don't know enough about something to form a real opinion, I annoy you guys with questions. As always, I'm honestly asking, not trying to make a point.

Why is it a bad idea? Is it because you think the government will shut down the internet in some self serving matter, to quell public uprising or critizism, or something like that?

How is it a liberal idea? I don't know what makes it liberal or what would make it conservative or whatever. Does the idea really have a political ideaology behind it?

What is the purpose of the internet kill switch? Why would there be a need to shut it down? To stop some kind of virus or other doomsday kind of thing? Is that sort of thing even possible?


I can tell you that government having the ability and/or authority to shut anything down is not something that sits well with me. At the same time I was glad when they shut down all air travel on and after 9/11, or when they shut down the area around a building fire, and etc. This is why I ask the above questions.

[Lester]

Does the idea really have a political ideaology behind it?

Probably not, but the support for it is. Look at our beloved Bob... he sounded off against it when it came up during the Bush administration, loved it just a few short months ago when it looked like Obama was driving it, and appears to be back to hating it since this story has an (R) as the supporter.

Regardless of which party is in power if this goes into effect, the other party will eventually have control of it too.

I'm less worried about them having the ability to shut it down than I am their ability to start it back up again.

[AmpedNow]

Calm down Amp. First, the "kill switch" idea was first proposed under W's regime.

Even if they did, it's still a crazy idea.

Second, There is no powerful Extremist faction in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is a relatively small fringe group.

I can't believe that they wouldn't actually try to take advantage of one of the best chances in decades to "take back" one of their homeland countries. This would be a strategic coup for them, and a pain in the ass for us.

Third, The Army, funded, trained and equipped by the US, is secular.

This is certainly a good thing...and one of the few circumstances that favors our interests over there.

Fourth, The vast majority of Egyptians don't want to kill us, they want to BE us.

Maybe so. But unfortunately, this may not be about the will of the Egyptian people after this all plays out...

As we have recently witnessed, radicals usually don't care about what the people want.

Fifth, none of our oil goes through the Suez Canal. Europe, yes. Some 40 percent of all their imported goods does.

It is still vital to the US economy and military to keep the canal traffic flowing. Any changes will have huge ripple effects through our still feeble economy. It's already having a direct effect on gas prices.

Sixth, Israel can take care of themselves. Egypt does not pose an imminent threat to them.

Yes, they can. But TMB has already vowed that the first order of duty is to shred the peace treaty, should they take power. This will be a huge thorn in our sides, and one we really can't afford. Once again, we're back to the Suez Canal issue...

Does Israel really need another avowed enemy to deal with?

At this point, odds of a canal shutdown are nearly zero. With the army coming down so far on the side of the protesters, Mubharak is done and there is a real chance of an inclusive democracy in Egypt.

Oh, TMB likely wouldn't outright shut down the canal to Western traffic... But they would try to milk it for all it's worth by imposing huge passage fees. This would make the price of everything skyrocket.

Politically, Mubharak is a walking corpse. But we still don't know who will replace him.

The tipping point will come probably in the next 72 hours. It could be Poland (peaceful regime change) or Tiananmen Square.
Let's all root for Poland.

I hope you're right. But we really don't know what will happen at this point. I'm just bracing for the worse-case scenario. It doesn't seem like the odds are in our favor.

[Bob Campbell]

Sadly, I have been immersed in this story all week (it's starting to bore the piss out of me). With reports from Cairo (CBS guys) and an Egyptian native on my show who spoke with his family hours before his appearance. I asked him if he was worried about his family and he said, "No, excited'. The mood there is much like Poland in the 80's, or here 240 years ago for that matter. The army is not going to let the canal close, nor will they be likely to welcome the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a hideously complex situation though.
And now the plug. Tomorrow, I'll have the Syrian ambassador to the US on the show (wsjs.com...4 pm) to ask him what effect the events in Egypt could have on the Middle East as a whole. Check it out.

Damn, I'm turning into some sort of talk show host.
Rather be doing Rock mornings and talking about important things...strippers...concerts...naked chicks who aren't strippers.

[Lester]

Rather be doing Rock mornings and talking about important things...strippers...concerts...naked chicks who aren't strippers.

Not sure why... the next 4-6 years are going to be a GREAT time to be doing exactly what you're doing.

[Bob Campbell]

Rather be doing Rock mornings and talking about important things...strippers...concerts...naked chicks who aren't strippers.

Not sure why... the next 4-6 years are going to be a GREAT time to be doing exactly what you're doing.

yeah, but it's ALWAYS a great time to talking about strippers, concerts and naked chicks.

[AmpedNow]

I meant to get back to this earlier, but have been too busy to post recently.

By no means am I an expert in any of this, so I'm just answering from my personal perspective and understanding.

Why is it a bad idea? Is it because you think the government will shut down the internet in some self serving matter, to quell public uprising or critizism, or something like that?

Not that they would, but why give the current (and future) administrations this much executive power in a free republic?

Theoretically, a sitting president would have the absolute power to instantly stop virtually all commerce and communication within the US by executive order just because someone pissed in his (or her) corn flakes that morning.

Add to that the supposed wording that makes it immune from legislative or judicial injunction or overturn, and we have an order that makes even congress and the SCOTUS irrelevant and powerless. This is truly a constitutional crisis waiting to happen... If not by Obama, then by a future president who may have dictatorial tendencies.

Because this order would be immune from checks and balances (which our constitution mandates), it makes the executive branch too power heavy.

Therefore, this should not and cannot happen under our current system of government. It's the stuff that tin pot dictators dream of.

And why it's a crazy idea.

How is it a liberal idea? I don't know what makes it liberal or what would make it conservative or whatever. Does the idea really have a political ideaology behind it?

This transcends traditional liberal/conservative politics... It comes down to how much untouchable power should be vested in the executive branch, regardless of who temporarily holds the office.

After all, there are still debates over whether or not the executive order in and of itself is constitutional... But this is not something relatively minor like shutting down a prison camp or a military base. This is about the worst executive power grab we've ever seen, by far.

What is the purpose of the internet kill switch? Why would there be a need to shut it down? To stop some kind of virus or other doomsday kind of thing? Is that sort of thing even possible?

My questions exactly.

Computer systems ranging from complex corporate and government mainframes down to your personal laptop already has a system "killswitch" of sort if you run antivirus and it senses some sort of intrusion. In this sense, it seems like a solution looking for a problem.

So, we're back to the original question...

[Lester]

Given the number of people that use the Internet as a source of news and communication... let's rename this thread for a second and see what y'all think...


US plans ‘broadcasting kill switch’

[genlock]

"Broadcasting Kill Switch"? That would be a Hillary Clinton speech.

[Jay Nunley]

I would have the same questions.