How would you feel if the president of the United States had the ability to turn off access to the internet in the United States under the guise of a serious security emergency. A new 197 page bill (Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA) sponsored by Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman would give the president a "kill switch" and force broadband providers, search engines and other web-based companies to comply with orders to shut down services. Those that do not comply under this new bill would be fined.
Under PCNAA, the Federal Government would have the power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees. These companies would be on a list that is to be compiled by Homeland Security based on their reliance on "the internet, the telephone system or any other component of the US information infrastructure." These companies would be under the command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security. In other words another layer of bureaucracy..
Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think Lieberman’s new bill is the bees’ knees – both senators have pushed for similar far-reaching bills related to the internet in the past that failed to garner any support. The feeling among those that follow cyber security is that Lieberman’s bill will suffer a similar fate. Here’s a bit from ZDNet on Lieberman’s thinking on the matter:
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."
Scary stuff.
Source: ZDNET
Lieberman’s now claiming that the bill doesn’t do what McCullagh says it does, but in fact actually scales back the President’s powers. There’s more at Information Week.
So now I’m conflicted between my mistrust of Lieberman and my mistrust of McCullagh. Guess I’ll have to keep an eye on this as it develops.
…oh, okay. So by "liberal" you meant Joe Lieberman. The guy who supported the Clinton impeachment, advised the Dems not to run on an anti-Enron platform in ’02 because they didn’t want to appear too anti-business, ran for President in 2004 as the only Democratic candidate who supported the war in Iraq, refused to investigate the Bush Administration after Katrina, was defeated in the Democratic primary in ’06 and then ran AGAINST the Democratic nominee, endorsed John McCain in 2008, and scuttled the public option and lowering the age for social security in last year’s healthcare bill. THAT Joe Lieberman.
Yeah, he’s a huge liberal. Because he criticized Bush once in an election year.
I was referring to Lieberman, not Obama.
—
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I wouldn’t describe Obama as a liberal (he’s made it pretty clear he’s a moderate, regardless of all the "SOCIALIST!!" rhetoric), but other than that I have no argument. In point of fact, not only did he criticize Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance, but he turned around in 2008 and voted for retroactive immunity for the telecoms who assisted. And then, when his supporters criticized him for it, he said they had misunderstood him.
RTFA. It’s Joe Lieberman proposing this, NOT Obama.
That asshole obama doesn’t give a damn about protecting the internet from attacks, he wants to control what information gets released. Same reason why he wants to destroy talk radio, just in a bigger, more totalitarian scale.
Same reason he doesn’t give a damn about environment, he just wants to make money off industries who produce waste. Why do you think he’s sucking 20 billion from BP right now? Cleanup? Ha, you’re funny (and delusional). I mean, the EPA can now regulate CO2 emissions, will be be fined for breathing soon? Its pathetic that environmentalists don’t even know about the gases they are nagging about.
If that idiot decides to "shut down" the internet, hopefully someone will be pissed enough to go after him and show who’s ASS REALLY NEEDS TO BE KICKED…
I cannot believe the insanity he gets away with, and how can people be so blind about what’s going on.
Two quick points:
1 – Everyone seems to thik this would be a technological kill switch; vulnerable to attack through the very network it’s made to kill. I suspect that it would more resemble a phone list. IE. contact everyone on this list and tell them to shut down, just backed by the power of law.
2 – The very idea of shutting down the internet in an emergency is laughably ironic. DARPA wanted it made to act as a redundant communications network in case of nuclear attacks.
===============
Chris Kimberley
My problem is that it’s hilarious that a liberal – who was very outspoken about President Bush having the authority to tape record international phone conversations with actual suspected terrorists – is actually suggesting such an idea.
—
With the first link, the chain is forged.
No, HELL no, and HELL FUCKING NO!!!!!
If this were in place months ago a BP lobbyist would have bribed them into using it.
Such a system being abused is an absolute certainty, not to mention as said, one hacker gets to this, and the entire country’s financial structure is, for lakc of a better term, utterly and completely fucked, and worse, someone would do it for laughs.
Bullshit. Someone must tell him to that douche that "abuse of power" is not a political tool.
———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com
Well god damn it, who let Lieberman watch Die Hard 4?
Somebody has been watching too many 80’s hacker movies…
This is just absolutely retarded.
Invest time and money in better cyber security, not in a giant OFF switch and the beauracracy involved in it. An ‘off’ button is not a solution. Eventually you’ll have to turn everything back on, and GUESS WHAT? The "hackers" that you were so afraid of? They’ll still be there.
Also, didn’t the US government specifically ask Twitter NOT to shut down during the Iran elections so that, during a period of chaos, communication lines remained open?
Yeah, those crazy liberals, always supporting increased powers for the President to infringe on civil liberties in the name of national security…
Cult of personality or no, do you actually have any examples of liberals saying this is a good idea? Like, people in the mainstream. "Much of the Internet" is pretty damned vague; you can find random people on comments sections who will defend even the stupidest positions.
Anyhow. Not a partisan issue; it’s a bad idea regardless of who’s in office. Lieberman is my least-favorite person in Washington, he’s a terrible chair for the Homeland Security committee, and I wish he would just go away.
This idea has been around awhile now- at least since 2008.
Its funny… About a year ago, when Obama-mania (a cult of personality bigger than Jesus and Hulkamania combined) was still in full force, this idea was met with far less animosity than it is today. in fact, much of the internet as well as the pundits loved the idea that our fearless leader could use his magic powers to protect us.
It’s nice to see that some sensibility has returned.
What problem is this solving that cannot be handled locally by turning off the power only of the site that is being attacked?
I’m a network engineer by trade and I just don’t understand what they think they are protecting by turning off the whole US infrustructure. I mean if you want to know who is attacking you and why then you kind of need the net for a counter attack or defensive move.
This idea is loads of stupid.
First, have we not learned of the abuse of power that the government has held before? Even "well meaning" laws have been enacted and then been used for far more broad reasons to violate the Human and Civil Rights of individuals who clearly were innocent of even any POTENTIAL criminal act. All in the name of "national security" or even in the name of "Protect the children!".
Secondly, have we not learned, both in reality AND in fiction just how dangerous setting up such a system could prove to be? Not only in the hands of those who INTEND to use it, but in the hands of those who intend to gain access to that power illegally? Do no presume that the system’s defenses are fool proof. Such presumptions tend to be proven false eventually. It’s said other countries have such an ability. But what evidence is there that no one has TRIED to gain access to those systems to hold those country’s internet services hostage, in whole or even in part? Even the mere attempt and failure teaches those who make the attempt how to better their attacks. And just how GOOD have the US computer systems been in recent past to stand up illegal access? Can such a system even be considered safe in the US government computer system, even if we could trust the government itself to use it properly? After all, it only takes ONE successful illegal access to do some significant damage.
Third, let’s not forget the "oops" factor. Whether faulty programming, or some mechanical failure that causes the system to "misfire". And should the system cause a shutdown, we must not forget the ability to RESTART the system after either accidental, illegal intentional, or even legal intentional shutdown. Turning it off could be easy, but a fault of restarting could still exist.
Too many things can easily go wrong with such a broad system.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
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."
This statement has NOTHING to do with the kill switch bill in an emergency. I think if this bill got past & an emergency in the U.S. did happen & the internet was shut down, then where would we (the American people) get their information on whats going on if the T.V.’s are showing the same thing or if the radio stations keep saying the same thing or if the T.V.’s go down & the radio stations go down & any otgher form of communication go down that we had no access to! What about our cell phones or home phones?!?!!? Lieberman is pretty stupid to come up w/this bill. I hope it gets denied. Something else to control the American people.
"It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry
The president should not have the power to shut down the internet.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
http://www.killatia.com/Even though he hasn’t gone after video games in years, it looks like Lieberman is still ever the censorcrat. Hopefully it won’t get very far, but I plan to notify my representitaves once I know the name and reference number of this bill.
Senator Joe Lieberman, first class a–hole!
What we got here is failure to communicate!
DDOS your ISP by accident- golden. I almost WANT there to be killswitch, now. 😀
To further your comment, imagine how long it’s going to take to reboot the internet.
You know how certain sites crash when 1000’s of people try to log in at once. (i.e. The days when Blizzard start selling blizzcon tickets.) Imagine the 3 hundred million or so people trying to connect online at once the moment they hear that the internet is back on.
I can’t help but laugh at the idea of the president pressing a button that makes the internet go down, only to have no efficient way (or no way at all) to bring it back up again- especially after finding himself in a situation where he needs to call in the troops, and can’t use the interwebs to do it.
"Nice going, jackass. You broke the internet and the country without installing a goddamn re-boot button."
CT resident here, people around these parts like are lukewarm to Lieberman, but when dolts like Ned Lamont are the alternative it is easy to see how Joe keeps getting back in.
Lieberman, on his way out? We should be so lucky. He’ll be 70 when he’s up for reelection in 2 years, but there are plenty of lifers in the Senate. John McCain is almost 74, Ted Kennedy died at 76, Ted Stevens was voted out at 85 (largely due to a corruption conviction that was later overturned), Robert Byrd is 92 — Strom Thurmond didn’t retire until he was 100 years old.
So no, Lieberman may be old, but he could have two, three, maybe even four terms left before he goes away.
I’d much rather see the voters in Connecticut finally throw him out on his ass, but I don’t have much hope of that happening anymore.
And if I recall correctly, countries that do these blackouts are widely decried when they do it.
"Their not part of the technology generation either. They are retards."
While I agree that this internet kill switch proposal is bull please don’t assume that someone isn’t a retard because they are part of the technology generation.
Their not part of the technology generation either. They are retards.
"It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry
Finally a reply that reflects what I was thinking. Thankfully, Lieberman and his generation are on their way out, to be replaced by folks who at least have some idea of what technology does and of why it’s not ‘the devil’.
im impressed, i really am. just when i believe that humans can’t be any more stupid, lieberman had to go and pull this stunt. this has got to be the most retarded thing to come out of DC yet. how the hell did we end up with this batch of retards? was the ‘other guys’ really that much worse?
No … Just no … That is all
No no no no no NO. First of all it’s too much power. Second of all it’s a dangerous weapon that does not need to be made, and unlike nukes it can’t even function as a deterrent. Third of all what situation would possibly exist to make that necessary?
On the plus side if the president ever used it their approval rating would immediately plummet and there’d be protests (possibly riots) in D.C.
Seriously when would they ever need this?
—————————————————-
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.
I don’t know how many times I can say "NO!" until my voice dies, my fingers crack from furious hitting of ctrl+c and ctrl+v, and lieberman’s ears and eyes bleed from the reading and uttering of this stream of continuous nay saying. However many times it is, it is still not nearly enough to show how bad of an idea this really is.
This is bad for many reasons.
Mainly I fear the 1st scenario. As more systems wholly switch over to IP based technology (the phone system for one), it would be easier and easier to kill the network in a given area in order to enforce a media blackout, in both journalists and citizens.
Man this is agravating. Even if this bill were to pass, SOMEONE would find a way around it.
This is a really scary thought. What I think they fail to realize is the moment they send out that order to shut down the internet, pretty much all the economic infrastructure in this country will be shut down as well. People will be unable to function completely.
I really think this proposal is completely unnecessary. Yes the terrorists could gain access to some our our infrastructure, but I think we would be better served by focusing on better security for servers and networks rather than a kill switch.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
Oklahoma Game Development
Rusty Outlook
Random Tower
My Patreon
i think there are some other countries that have the ability to shut down the internet… i recall stories of gov’t creating press black outs during controversial events, and then censoring media afterwords…
Really, all the gov’t needs is something along the lines of "The news reports about gov’t action is informing and aiding terrorists"… and thus the gov’t can shut down sites who are reporting news it doesn’t like…
No. Absolutely not.
The internet must remain free. Shutting down the internet, for any reason, is just asking…no, BEGGING, to be abused.