Presidential Internet Kill Switch?

[Heath Ledger]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20007418-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

Senators propose granting president emergency Internet power
by Declan McCullagh Font sizePrintE-mailShare108 comments Yahoo! Buzz
.Share5290 18diggsdiggA new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet.

The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the 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 caucuses with the Democrats.

Because there are few limits on the 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 U.S. 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 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 Web sites.

On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the 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 realizes 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 U.S. "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 warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to "conduct surveillance" of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized.

Lieberman said 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."


A new cybersecurity bureaucracy

Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including "no less" than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.)

The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the "security status" of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide "situational awareness of the security status" of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States -- and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm.

Selected private companies would be required to participate in "information sharing" with the Feds. They must "certify in writing to the director" of the NCCC whether they have "developed and implemented" federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been "approved by the director." The NCCC director can "issue an order" in cases of noncompliance.

The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. "This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction," says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker."

To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable.

If there's an "incident related to a cyber vulnerability" after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab.

Another sweetener: A new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardize their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products.

Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticizing the Lieberman bill, calling it a "very important piece of legislation."

McAfee is paying attention to "a number of provisions of the bill that could use work," Gann said, and "we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions."

Last updated at 9:14 p.m. PT.

[Stringer_Bell]

Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act? :lol

Lieberman and Rockefeller are some funny dudes, putting another layer of inefficient bureaucracy between the users and the internet. I'm no expert on teh internets themselves, but this shit totally sounds like it can do more harm than good. And you don't even need a tinfoil hat to see that!

[Wild Cobra]

Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act? :lol

Lieberman and Rockefeller are some funny dudes, putting another layer of inefficient bureaucracy between the users and the internet. I'm no expert on teh internets themselves, but this shit totally sounds like it can do more harm than good. And you don't even need a tinfoil hat to see that!

This isn't protecting the internet, it's making the means to seize control of it. Think about it. The Socialist/Marxists cannot allow free speech when they begin the actual take-over.

[velik_m]

Wasn't the whole purpose of internet a network that cannot be taken down?

[Nbadan]

This has been posted...it has subpoena protections for individuals and it's a bill sponsored by Joe Lieberman with no co-sponsor yet, I believe...

[Winehole23]

Wasn't the whole purpose of internet a network that cannot be taken down?I thought so too. Silly me.

[SnakeBoy]

Wasn't the whole purpose of internet a network that cannot be taken down?

It can't be shut down completely but if they use enough toilet paper at one time they could probably clog up the tubes enough to make it pretty much unusable.

[Stringer_Bell]

This isn't protecting the internet, it's making the means to seize control of it. Think about it. The Socialist/Marxists cannot allow free speech when they begin the actual take-over.

While I agree with the first part of your reply, the second part is indicative of the tinfoil hat stuff I was referring to in my post. I noticed the same conspiracies under the Bush administration, it is nothing new. And the "Socialist/Marxist/Communist" name calling game is only used to suit the needs of the current administration's opponents...just as it was used back in the day for a variety of things.

http://godhatesprotesters.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/little_rock_integration_protest.jpg

[word]

It can't be shut down completely but if they use enough toilet paper at one time they could probably clog up the tubes enough to make it pretty much unusable.

It's always been this way from day one. If you control the top level domain nameservers (DNS), run by InterNIC, which is Network Solutions and ICANN. Those two organizations alone could muck things up pretty quick and make the vaste majority of the internet unaccessible. The only things you'd be able to get to is what you had mapped on your own servers, unless of course, you've memorized the IP addresses of all your favorite porn...I mean websites. Even then, they could block entire blocks of IP addresses, although, as long as there was a route it could find it would get there. It would require also controlling the big telecom companies as well as InterNIC. Shut down a few big routers, block IP addresses. It could all be done, in a matter of hours if not minutes.

[Cleveland Steamer]

welcome to the New World Order.

[ducks]

the reason he wants to have control of the internet
people can find how many laws the president is breaking

[ChumpDumper]

We're at war -- the president can do anything he wants.

Remember that argument?

[DMX7]

We're at war -- the president can do anything he wants.

Remember that argument?

Yeah, but Bush didn't abuse his absolute power...ever.

[ElNono]

http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/06/27/usb_panic_1.png

[PixelPusher]

http://regmedia.co.uk/2007/06/27/usb_panic_1.png

That's the proper label for what would actually happen if the internet were shut down.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Its actually pretty hilarious to see republicans go all up in arms over this, but when the previous adminitration did similar or worse, you could hear the fucking crickets.

Don't get me wrong, I think their sentiment is right. This is bullshit. I just find the double standard hilarious. Ofcourse, this also applies to Democrats that don't say shit now.

[Wild Cobra]

Its actually pretty hilarious to see republicans go all up in arms over this, but when the previous adminitration did similar or worse, you could hear the fucking crickets.

Don't get me wrong, I think their sentiment is right. This is bullshit. I just find the double standard hilarious. Ofcourse, this also applies to Democrats that don't say shit now.
I don't see the similarity. What did I miss? When did the last administration try to put methods in place to take control?

[ducks]

We're at war -- the president can do anything he wants.

Remember that argument?

ducks never ever said that

[Wild Cobra]

ducks never ever said that
I think Chump is just being a big Chump again.

[ChumpDumper]

ducks never ever said thatHow could anyone tell?

[Oh, Gee!!]

the reason he wants to have control of the internet
people can find how many laws the president is breaking

Joe Lieberman wants the president to have this type of control so people can't find out about Obama breaking laws?

[Wild Cobra]

Joe Lieberman wants the president to have this type of control so people can't find out about Obama breaking laws?
That doesn't sound like Lieberman to me. I disagree with his politics, but I at least give him some credit.

[Wild Cobra]

Where's my answer:


Its actually pretty hilarious to see republicans go all up in arms over this, but when the previous adminitration did similar or worse, you could hear the fucking crickets.

Don't get me wrong, I think their sentiment is right. This is bullshit. I just find the double standard hilarious. Ofcourse, this also applies to Democrats that don't say shit now.
I don't see the similarity. What did I miss? When did the last administration try to put methods in place to take control?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't see the similarity. What did I miss?Apparently a lot of school.

[LnGrrrR]

So wait, let me get this straight:

When the President asks for the power to detain suspects indefinitely without trial, the Right is happy.

When the President asks for the power to shut down the Internet in case of suspected nefarious activity, the Right is not happy.

<----confused

[LnGrrrR]

Also, this is no surprise to me. Obama has shown that all his talk about greater transparency and restoring civil liberties was bs. Which sucks, because that was the main reason I voted for him.

I guess I'll have to vote for Ron Paul next election.

[LnGrrrR]

It's always been this way from day one. If you control the top level domain nameservers (DNS), run by InterNIC, which is Network Solutions and ICANN. Those two organizations alone could muck things up pretty quick and make the vaste majority of the internet unaccessible. The only things you'd be able to get to is what you had mapped on your own servers, unless of course, you've memorized the IP addresses of all your favorite porn...I mean websites. Even then, they could block entire blocks of IP addresses, although, as long as there was a route it could find it would get there. It would require also controlling the big telecom companies as well as InterNIC. Shut down a few big routers, block IP addresses. It could all be done, in a matter of hours if not minutes.

On top of this, the US, afaik, controls ICANN which sits uneasy with the rest of the world. If anyone has the power to shut down the internet, it's the US.

[word]

If anyone has the power to shut down the internet, it's the US.

For the most part, that's true. The Internet, big *I* is just a conglomeration of networks and apps like email and the WWW. There would be networks that survived. Plenty of big internal nets of the gov and banks etc don't use DNS. Strictly IP. They buy a block of IP's and never register a domain to those IP's and run a VPN using only IP addresses. The TLD's of the various country domains .. dot uk...dot az...dot 'what the fuck ever'... would survive in pieces but the big INTERNET as we know it, would not. They could not talk to each other. The US controls that. Hell, most of the Internet resides on the .com domain. By far. Trust me, I tried to move some stuff to a .us domain and it just didn't go. Hell even spurstalk, technically, should not be a .com domain. It's in violation of interNIC rules as most .com's are. .com = commerce...doing business. Spurstalk does business ? Not at this time they don't. .org or .us is their legit legal domain.

[SnakeBoy]

It's always been this way from day one. If you control the top level domain nameservers (DNS), run by InterNIC, which is Network Solutions and ICANN. Those two organizations alone could muck things up pretty quick and make the vaste majority of the internet unaccessible. The only things you'd be able to get to is what you had mapped on your own servers, unless of course, you've memorized the IP addresses of all your favorite porn...I mean websites. Even then, they could block entire blocks of IP addresses, although, as long as there was a route it could find it would get there. It would require also controlling the big telecom companies as well as InterNIC. Shut down a few big routers, block IP addresses. It could all be done, in a matter of hours if not minutes.

Yeah, actually I was just making a joke but I guess you didn't find it funny. How bout a youtube video!....

_cZC67wXUTs&feature=related

[LnGrrrR]

So wait, let me get this straight:

When the President asks for the power to detain suspects indefinitely without trial, the Right is happy.

When the President asks for the power to shut down the Internet in case of suspected nefarious activity, the Right is not happy.

<----confused

bump

[Veterinarian]

Will people head West in search of internet if this happens?

[sabar]

I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.

If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.

[Winehole23]

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.Most Americans probably don't understand what you said, even though some of them just read it.

Whenever martial law is declared, we're fucked.

[Winehole23]

Hopefully it's just another club we swing over other countries.

[Veterinarian]

I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.

If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.


You don't understand computers tbh. And I don't feel like explaining.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.

If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.
the only purpose I can envision is the government being afraid of free speech, Americans communicating it's wrong doings to each other.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.

If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.

If the government only takes their own computers off the network, then the worm is still out there. I'm guessing the proposal is to isolate areas of the internet in case of a worst-case scenario.

And honestly Sabar, you should look up what bot-nets are. A large enough bot-net could cripple networks. And that's just simple DDoS; not even looking at malicious rootkits/trojans/etc etc.

[LnGrrrR]

the only purpose I can envision is the government being afraid of free speech, Americans communicating it's wrong doings to each other.

I'd expect that of you WC. The only purpose you can imagine the government would want power over the internet is to destroy freedom of speech, yet the only reason the government wants the power to indefinitely detain suspects is to protect our freedom. You certainly have funny ways of looking at things.

For the record, I don't agree with this bill/proposal. I'm just speaking from a network technician standpoint, and one who works with government networks to boot.

[Drachen]

I'd like to hear one plausible scenario in which killing the Internet would ever be necessary.

If the government if afraid of an attack, they can take their own crap off the networks. What is a cyber-terrorist going to do, send spam e-mail or spread a virus to windows machines?

I seriously can't envision any purpose for this proposal.

Let me say that I don't like this idea at all. Lots of power to be given. However, to answer your question what if there was a concerted effort to take over the US electrical grid (not government owned), to take over all of our nuclear power plants (not government owned), or take over aspects of the financial sector (not government owned, though terrorists taking it over may be an improvement, lol). I am guessing scenarios such as this are the "reason" for this kill switch. I do agree with you that the President should have (already had) a kill switch for all governmental internet connections.

[LnGrrrR]

AFAIK, there is no "kill switch" for government networks for various reasons. It's just not feasible to shut an entire military network down; certain circuits must remain open due to operations/missions. Now, there might be a "kill switch" for NIPRNet (Non-secret), but I doubt there is one for SIPR. The President would probably just send the word out to the various NOSCs to deny all/most traffic at the base firewalls/DMZ.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd expect that of you WC. The only purpose you can imagine the government would want power over the internet is to destroy freedom of speech, yet the only reason the government wants the power to indefinitely detain suspects is to protect our freedom. You certainly have funny ways of looking at things.

I should have specified this administration. Look at how many ways they attempt to take over parts of this nation. They clearly don't think us "little people" have the same rights they do.

I cannot believe you are comparing detainees, who can be separated, with the internet.

[LnGrrrR]

I should have specified this administration. Look at how many ways they attempt to take over parts of this nation. They clearly don't think us "little people" have the same rights they do.

I cannot believe you are comparing detainees, who can be separated, with the internet.

Honestly? You trust the government when they say Mr. X is a bad guy, and we have to keep him in detention indefinitely, but we don't have enough evidence to put him on trial.

But you don't trust the government when they say they need power/control over the internet.

It's not that hard to see the distinction. Any "kill switch" would not be on/off; it would involve shutting down certain geographical areas/nodes.

Obama has no love for civil liberties, and neither did the last administration. That's what this is about.

[Wild Cobra]

Honestly? You trust the government when they say Mr. X is a bad guy, and we have to keep him in detention indefinitely, but we don't have enough evidence to put him on trial.

It's not that there isn't evidence, it's that the evidence is classified, or it's someone removed off the battlefield of an ongoing war.

Do you believe in a "catch and release" policy for soldiers, as if they were fish?


But you don't trust the government when they say they need power/control over the internet.

I don't trust the government beyond it's constitutional mandates. Even then, those in control who are corrupt will abuse their power. I immediately am skeptical when for no proper reason, someone wants to control something.


It's not that hard to see the distinction. Any "kill switch" would not be on/off; it would involve shutting down certain geographical areas/nodes.

For what purpose? It's not needed.


Obama has no love for civil liberties, and neither did the last administration. That's what this is about.

There is no comparison between the two. The last administration took steps that were reasonable in a terrorist war scenario. This current administration is putting it's hands everywhere it can find any flimsy reason to take control.
[QUOTE=LnGrrrR]

[ElNono]

It's not that there isn't evidence, it's that the evidence is classified, or it's someone removed off the battlefield of an ongoing war.
Do you believe in a "catch and release" policy for soldiers, as if they were fish?

But they're not classified as soldiers, are they?


There is no comparison between the two. The last administration took steps that were reasonable in a terrorist war scenario. This current administration is putting it's hands everywhere it can find any flimsy reason to take control.

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

But they're not classified as soldiers, are they?
Enemy combatants are the same for purposes of having them remain in captivity.

In previous wars, prisoners were not released unless there was a prisoner exchange, or when the war ended, with few exceptions. No matter how you slice it, these people are in captivity related to "the war on terror." When that war ends, then they can be released, and I''m sure some will get a trial then.

Life simply stinks sometimes.

[ElNono]

Enemy combatants are the same for purposes of having them remain in captivity.

In previous wars, prisoners were not released unless there was a prisoner exchange, or when the war ended, with few exceptions. No matter how you slice it, these people are in captivity related to "the war on terror." When that war ends, then they can be released, and I''m sure some will get a trial then.

They're not considered prisoners of war... so your comparison is moot.


Life simply stinks sometimes.

Yeah, 'end justify the means' and what not... we heard you loud and clear the first time... :sleep

[jack sommerset]

If we get a cyber attack so bad that our country has to shut down the internet, they don't need some executive order. Just fucking do it. You start writing bullshit laws or bills or legislation some dickweed will figure out loopholes and shut the damn thing down whenever they want.

[ElNono]

This whole 'cyberattack' thing is vastly overblown... but scare you is what they want, and I expect people to bite...

[LnGrrrR]

It's not that there isn't evidence, it's that the evidence is classified, or it's someone removed off the battlefield of an ongoing war.

What about Jose Padilla? Or are airports considered battlegrounds?

What about Obama's quote that military commissions, which could be held in secret, still wouldn't provide evidence for some detainees, which must be kept anyways because of their potential danger?


Do you believe in a "catch and release" policy for soldiers, as if they were fish?

As ElNono pointed out, they're not soldiers. Tell me, do you believe in a "catch and possibly keep indefinitely without trial and/or proof of their actual actions" policy? Because that's what we have now.


I don't trust the government beyond it's constitutional mandates. Even then, those in control who are corrupt will abuse their power. I immediately am skeptical when for no proper reason, someone wants to control something.

Too bad there weren't more people like you when our government proposed invading Iraq and Afghanistan in order to control those countries.


For what purpose? It's not needed.

Are you privy to classified information on our cybersecurity? You don't know for sure that it's not needed anymore than I do.


There is no comparison between the two. The last administration took steps that were reasonable in a terrorist war scenario. This current administration is putting it's hands everywhere it can find any flimsy reason to take control.

Yes, the last administration was a modicum of restraint.

[LnGrrrR]

This whole 'cyberattack' thing is vastly overblown... but scare you is what they want, and I expect people to bite...

Yup. But us network technicians have to make money somehow! :D I've found all career field "experts" tend to predict the worst... after all, if they predicted relatively light consequences for skimping on security, what's the point of hiring a security specialist?

[LnGrrrR]

When that war ends, then they can be released, and I''m sure some will get a trial then.


Mmh... and praytell, what are the metrics that would bring about the "end" of this war? Is there someone in charge of "terror" that could surrender, thereby bringing an end to all "terror"?

I assume we'll go after who's in charge of the "drugs" then so we can see if we can make him surrender as well... an end to the War on terror AND drugs!

Although the evil tyrant that runs "poverty" will still be out there... but the war on poverty is a war for the next generation to fight. I'll be satisfied defeating terror and drugs, personally.

[ElNono]

Yup. But us network technicians have to make money somehow! :D I've found all career field "experts" tend to predict the worst... after all, if they predicted relatively light consequences for skimping on security, what's the point of hiring a security specialist?

As you know, even in the worst case scenario, the biggest consequences have to do with economics, that is, loses at the corporate level, not the government/national security level.

This whole thing is tantamount to the new 'copyright czar' position, where tax dollars are now spent to protect corporation's interests. Something corporations should do with their own money.

Either way, job security is never a bad thing. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

As you know, even in the worst case scenario, the biggest consequences have to do with economics, that is, loses at the corporate level, not the government/national security level.

This whole thing is tantamount to the new 'copyright czar' position, where tax dollars are now spent to protect corporation's interests. Something corporations should do with their own money.

Either way, job security is never a bad thing. :lol

Yes, to be honest, I can't imagine anything truly affecting essential military operations due to SIPRNet and other various networks. As you stated, economics would be the biggest, but there's a possibility for a giant DDoS like Russia did to Georgia's government sites a few years back. Of course, I'm not "in the know".

[ElNono]

Yes, to be honest, I can't imagine anything truly affecting essential military operations due to SIPRNet and other various networks. As you stated, economics would be the biggest, but there's a possibility for a giant DDoS like Russia did to Georgia's government sites a few years back. Of course, I'm not "in the know".

I'm not aware of Georgia's infrastructure to really comment. I know DDoS attacks are handled pretty expediently in the US. Not to mention that some of the newer backend routers already detect and deal with that.
Nevertheless, a kill switch would be effectively a DDoS on steroids, so what's the point?

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not aware of Georgia's infrastructure to really comment. I know DDoS attacks are handled pretty expediently in the US. Not to mention that some of the newer backend routers already detect and deal with that.
Nevertheless, a kill switch would be effectively a DDoS on steroids, so what's the point?

*shrug* Got me. I don't even want to know who would try orchestrating such a large attack on us, given the deep packet inspection stuff we're installing. I can't imagine how long even a botnet attack would stay anonymous.

And yes, those detect and deny routers are Suh-weeeet.