What Could Possibly Go Wrong: An Internet "Off" Switch

As you pointed out some good reasons why this is no good...

It shows that this "option" is not about common-sense or security.

This is about control.
Plain and simple!

a better way would to be able to selectively disconnect different computers, either the cyber attacker's, or the pentagon's, whichever is safest, or more feasible, but the entire internet? not a good idea.

This reminds me of how the federal reserve aka the central bank came into being. (And the patriot act for that matter)

Democrats brings up a bill to control the net, everyone "knows" dems aren't for national defense and have a propensity to tyranical control so it doesn't pass. So they trot out republicans to bring it up. Everyone "knows" they ARE for national defense and individual rights so may be they get it passed this time.

Who knows that the patriot act was Joe Biden's, yes dem v.p Joe Biden in 1995? It didn't pass then for the reasons mentioned above, so they wait for a good crisis and trot out a republican bush to do it.

The federal reserve- 100 years ago republican senator, I believe the grandfather (?) of the rockefeller listed above as the original bill maker of the net bill, brought up the central bank/ federal reserve bill but everyone "knew" the repubs are for the big banks, so it didn't pass. So they trot out the democrats to bring the bill up. Everyone "knew" the dems were against the big banks so it did pass, with some minor protections they quickly regulated out.

We are so being played over and over. Often by the same people. This game is getting tiresome. Anyone else tired of getting continuously played?

it doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it's just differing opinions.

Yea mycellium lay off the shrooms brah.
-The cake is a lie

Obviously only old white guys in Congress who refer to the Internet as "a series of tubes" would come up with stupid ideas like this.

They won't like end-to-end encryption because then they can't read what's being sent either ;)

Not differing opinions, that was the point. The same opinion, sold in two different ways, by two loudly opposed (but not really) groups, try one, doesn't work? try the other. Not a bad thing if they were honest about it. But if they were honest it wouldn't work.

So anyway all of those examples actually happened. For the fed reserve they were quite proud of their trick and bragged in the newpapers of the day.

"It shows that this "option" is not about common-sense or security."

True.

"This is about control."

False. It's about a pretense of common-sense security that allays the masses. "Duck and cover," anyone?

Having a kill-switch is just begging hackers to try something.. I think if you really want to keep it safe, Stop giving to anyone who just waltzes in McDonald's. The internet is a privilege.

GET TO DA CHOPPA!

the internet is a privilege, but it's becoming closer and closer to becoming a right. just think what your life would be without the internet, you would literally become a retarded (read: slowed) version of yourself. you would be cut off from an easy access to information that not everyone has.

while we are taking for granted the ease of use that the internet provides, to say that it can be totally replaced is stupid and wrong.

that being said you can find the same knowledge if you look hard enough, like say, the library, a local college, or even just a local school. people don't become teachers for the money, they do it for the knowledge, they would rather you be informed than be ignorant.

social interactions however are a different subject.

@Dirk Mcbratney..
"False. It's about a pretense of common-sense security that allays the masses. "Duck and cover," anyone?"

This is not about security or even a false sense of it for the masses.

As ghost points out, the internet is about information and the access to it(whether its a right is a diff. argument).
And while many use it socially, the ability for any one organization to "shut it off" is nothing but a means to control access to that info.

As an example, see articles on China and their approach to dealing with the Internet.
Are you going to try to tell me that China only blocks access to the full internet to allay the fears of the masses?

@ghost - driving is no closer to being a right and it's a far greater necessity for most people than the internet is so I don't see any validity in your statements.

One of my main issues with the bill is that there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes a threat great enough to enact the kill switch and/or who is advising the government to shut down the networks or what networks can be impacted.

When this bill first came out the Conficker worm was all hyped up as being a major threat. It did it's share of damage however it didn't cause any serious issues. The power the bill gives is way to broad

You've got to really not have the slightest understanding of how the internet works to propose such a kill-switch.
And these are the people forming our laws of the future.

I'm surprised POPSCI even entertains themselves with such a silly idea (even tho I -surprisingly- get the feeling that there are some writers at POPSCI who are lacking in understanding in this same area)

I think they mean a physical kill-switch like the ones on tv where they "kill the hardline." I have a feeling he's going for an isolation and not a termination. I don't see why putting a physical switch between ocean going fiberlines would be so impossible. Unless I'm mistaken that's where the bulk of the traffic comes from unless its from Canada or Mexico. Also, what does some ATM with a server in Dallas care if we cut off traffic with the rest of the world. Unless you're implying our banking data is handled overseas which is unsettling a bit. I think the satalite and radio packet is over stretched. What, are they going to have an army of cracked android phones on the canadian border ready to bring the doom of the USA.

Oh, never mind things like free speech and press, this is a very bad idea.
Worse though is language included in the bill that would prohibit court challenges.

There's quite a good case to be made that the Internet is inherently unstoppable because it represents the early stages of the next phase of an overall evolutionary process.
One that can be traced from formation of the 90 or so elements from hydrogen in stars and supernovae, right through to the development of technology. This is expanded upon in my latest book "The Goldilocks Effect" which is a free download in e-book format from the "Unusual Perspectives" website.

Declaration - I'm not American. I'm from the UK. Yes, some of your invented the Internet, but one of ours (working for a pan-European institution) invented the World Wide Web.

As a Brit, we generally love America - you guys stand up for values like free speech and democracy (most of the time), and we'll stand with you (most of the time.) Sure, we bicker once in a while - you don't like the way BP spilled oil over much of your coast - we don't like the way that Occidental had a similar disaster back in the '70s killing well over 100 of ours (Google: Piper Alpha) ... but what family doesn't have a squabble? Heh, we got the first woman Head of State, you got the first Black (English English for African-American), so we're together on the whole "we're people, not subcategories" thing.

But this assumption that the Internet is an American "National Asset", though? What's with that?

Heh - America IS strong to stand enough on its own, and you guys certainly don't NEED us, but... wouldn't we be better off going forward together? ... (And, yes, we'll have a go at bring the French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Polish, Turkish and that crowd that still live our side of the pond with us.... can you sort out the party invites for the Mexicans, and Canadians, eh?)

Mark in London

Agree that best way to terminate connections is to do it selectively to individual systems and not the entire network.
Perhaps even find ways to disable links once system senses threat ?...easy to say, perhaps ?

Now, even better, the clever use of misinformation, stored just for the hacker ?

Once a system is hacked, and the system becomes aware of threat, misinformation is transmitted back to hacker.

Better than denial of service, perhaps ?

the only problem is developing a system that knows when it's been hacked.

Could this be a precursor to the real reason for an internet "off switch: in the U.S.?

Breaking News Alert: Thousands of protesters battle police in Cairo
January 28, 2011 7:52:05 AM
----------------------------------------

Heavily armed riot police battled thousands of protesters across Cairo on Friday, as the Egyptian government sought to squelch a burgeoning pro-democracy movement that appears to be gaining strength.

Egypt's government shut down Internet connections and cellular telephone service in an effort to disrupt communication among the demonstrators, who have relied heavily on social networking sites to organize their protests.

But crowds nevertheless were gathering in response to organizers' call for a day of protests dubbed "Angry Friday," Tear gas blanketed much of this capital city's downtown, as demonstrators sought to converge on the centrally located Tahrir Square. The protesters were met by police wielding clubs and water cannons.

Washington Post
___
Perhaps, the U.S. "off switch" would also be internal depending on the situation.

Creig L. Speed yes, Mycelium, we have been played virtually since this country was founded. However, you are right in the past 50 years everything that comes out of Washington is a political Kabuki theatre act. Just like your example " The Patriot Act' even the name is a sham. It implies that if you don't buy into this invasion on our civil liberties you are not a patriot. It's basically an advertisement label. There are so many bait and switch scams that come from congress that it truly has almost become like the joke, How do you know if a Congressional representative is lying? ' there lips are moving! The U.S. calling on Egypt to respect their citizens right to protest peacefully. I guarantee that if mobs stormed the capital and set it on fire, there would be no holding back on our governments response. The protesters would be dealt with extreme prejudice. Extremists would be blamed in the aftermath.

"As Egyptians have taken to the streets to protest the 30-year rule of President Hosni Mubarak, the government has displayed its authoritarian bona fides by cracking down on the media and the people's right to free speech.

"Egyptian authorities have detained and beaten journalists and photographers, shut down the websites of two independent Egyptian newspapers and blocked access to social media sites, including Facebook and Twitter..."
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/tweets-not-war/

Remember what happened to our 1st amendment rights concerning the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?...

What is happening in Egypt, would probably happen here in America if the Internet was to be shut down.
Not only do we use the internet for our pleasures (reading, entertainment, movies, all that,) but many of us also use it to pay bills, record working times, and communicate with people all over the world. Add that to many other things the internet is good for, and then think of the chaos that would happen if all of a sudden it was all shut down. Nothing might happen at first, but after a couple days of not being able to get on, people would get the itchy finger!

Even the kids would be going nuts, without being able to log on to their gaming system and Black Ops against their friends in Europe or Alaska.

To add, I know there is more going on in Egypt than just Internet broadcasting. We've just become heavily dependent on the ease of access to any information we need at our finger tips. (Which is not a Bad Thing.)

I loved Kurt Russell in 'Escape From L.A.' That's what this article is about, right? A review?

@alias007
this is a review of what would happen when some moron politician tries to cut all internet connection, NOT OF A MOVIE.
anyways, if the internet was cut everyone would be effected, not just a few people.

@syfibookworm,

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I was comparing the aforementioned moronic politics to a movie. It's called sarcasm.

Wasn't Kurt Russel in Escape from New York (as Snake Pliskin)?

yup, there were two movies. :-) Twice the fun!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116225/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/

The Egyptian army called Wednesday for an end to the massive demonstrations that have rocked Cairo for more than a week and shaken President Hosni Mubarak’s decades-old grip on power. With Mubarak promising to step down after elections this fall, military spokesman Ismail Etman said in a state television address that the protesters should focus on “returning normal life to Egypt.” A printed message broadcast on state television said protesters should “go home.”

However, protesters who are demanding Mubarak’s ouster showed no signs of dispersing. Large crowds continued to gather in downtown’s Tahrir Square, Cairo’s central plaza.

Shortly before noon, Internet service was restored in Egypt, after having been blocked by the government for several days in what turned out to be a futile attempt to prevent the demonstrations.

Washington Post

Is Mu-bama learning from Mu-barak's experience? Probably. Mu-bama will probably include a mass drugging and even an EMP to knock out everyone's electricity.

"HealingMindN" - Mu-bama? Really?

Whatever points you were trying to make are downgraded by silly name-calling.

If you want to make the point that we have passively been giving up our free speech rights, starting sometime in the '80s or '90s when protesters were roped off and prevented from demonstrating near political conventions, or that since the Patriot Act we have been sheep who will go along with anything in the name of security, fine.

But making Obama the big bad boggy-man weakens any point you were making.

@ReasonableGuy, agreed. And I just had a flashback to "The Lion King". 'Mufasa, Mufasa, MuFASA!!!' hehe