Thread: internet off switch ?

Instead, the bill puts limits on the powers the president already has to cause "the closing of any facility or stations for wire communication" in a time of war, as described in the Communications Act of 1934, they said in a breakdown of the bill published on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee website.

How about somebody gets the ACTUAL text of this bill and posts it here instead of foaming at the mouth and speculating wildly? This sounds like more tea-bagger spin. An Internet kill switch? How the hell would you evenly do that, technically?

Originally Posted by brewbuck

An Internet kill switch? How the hell would you evenly do that, technically?

I think it's possible. It's not that the internet obeys that romantic idea of it-can't-be-shutdown. We may like to indulge ourselves in the fantasy of an Internet larger than life. But...

If you issue an executive order to kill all the international gateways in your country (perfectly doable), so no traffic gets in or out, and then order the turning off the country's root servers (even more easy), it's done. No more internet for anyone in that country.

edit: for clarity, what indeed may make the internet larger-than-life is the economy that will suffer a tremendous blow because of it, probably plunging that country into a depression, counting on local businesses dependency of this medium. But technically is perfectly doable. I suspect it could also produce a tremendous social backlash, depending on the country adherence to the internet. So, not being larger-than-life is probably incorrect. It's just that technically, it isn't. It's pretty mundane.

There is no reason they would actually turn off the internet. Except if it is necessary (or the think it is) during a war or there is some kind of dictatorship.

But there is danger in leaving so much power in one man or woman's hand. This we should have learned well from past history.

How about somebody gets the ACTUAL text of this bill and posts it here instead of foaming at the mouth and speculating wildly? This sounds like more tea-bagger spin. An Internet kill switch? How the hell would you evenly do that, technically?

Mmmmk.
Here's the bill, in all of its 2/3 page width, double spaced, page-wasting large font glory.
196 pages. This is going to be fun.

For those without an hour to skim through it like I did, here are the interesting parts, with the ever-attention-grabbing bold text highlights on my personal favorite parts.

Section 249 [page 76, line 10]:
(1) IN GENERAL.—The President may issue a declaration of a national cyber emergency to covered
critical infrastructure. Any declaration under this section shall specify the covered critical infrastruc-
ture subject to the national cyber emergency.

(2) NOTIFICATION.—Upon issuing a declaration under paragraph (1), the President shall, con-
sistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, notify the owners and operators of the
specified covered critical infrastructure of the nature of the national cyber emergency.

(3) AUTHORITIES.—If the President issues a declaration under paragraph (1), the Director
shall—
(A) immediately direct the owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure sub-
ject to the declaration under paragraph (1) to implement response plans required under sec-
tion 248(b)(2)(C);
(B) develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the
reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of
covered critical infrastructure;
(C) ensure that emergency measures or actions directed under this section represent the
least disruptive means feasible to the operations of the covered critical infrastructure;
(D) subject to subsection (f), direct actions by other Federal agencies to respond to
the national cyber emergency;
(E) coordinate with officials of State and local governments, international partners of the
United States, and private owners and operators of covered critical infrastructure specified
in the declaration to respond to the national cyber emergency;
(F) initiate a process under section 248 to address the cyber vulnerability that may be
exploited by the national cyber emergency; and
(G) provide voluntary technical assistance, if requested, under section 242(f)(1)(S).

Section 249, continued [page 80, line 1]:
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), the owner or operator of covered critical infrastruc-
ture shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Director under
this section during the pendency of any declaration by the President under subsection (a)(1) or an
extension under subsection (b)(2).

(2) ALTERNATIVE MEASURES.—If the Director determines that a proposed security measure, or any
combination thereof, submitted by the owner or operator of covered critical infrastructure in accord-
ance with the process established under section 248(b)(2) addresses the cyber vulnerability associ-
ated with the national cyber emergency that is the subject of the declaration under this section, the
owner or operator may comply with paragraph (1) of this subsection by implementing the proposed secu-
rity measure, or combination thereof, approved by the Director under the process established under
section 248. Before submission of a proposed security measure, or combination thereof, and during the
pendency of any review by the Director under the process established under section 248, the owner or
operator of covered critical infrastructure shall remain in compliance with any emergency measure or
action developed by the Director under this section during the pendency of any declaration by the Presi-
dent under subsection (a)(1) or an extension under subsection (b)(2), until such time as the Director
has approved an alternative proposed security measure, or combination thereof, under this paragraph.

Continued, page 81:
(3) INTERNATIONAL CYBER EMERGENCIES.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The Director, in coordination with the head of the sector-specific
agency with responsibility for covered critical infrastructure and the head of any Federal
agency that is not a sector-specific agency with responsibilities for regulating the covered crit-
ical infrastructure, shall—
(i) consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods and other
sensitive matters, inform the owner or operator of covered critical infrastructure
that is located outside of the United States and the government of the country in
which the covered critical infrastructure is located of any national cyber emergency
affecting the covered critical infrastructure; and
(ii) coordinate with the government of the country in which the covered critical
infrastructure is located and, as appropriate, the owner or operator of the cov-
ered critical infrastructure, regarding the implementation of emergency measures or
actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the
consequences of the potential disruption, of the covered critical infrastructure.

Sorry for the incredibly long bit of quoting but it's all very interesting.

Anyways... what I gather from this is that the government could theoretically "shut down the internet" [at least in the US] in the interest of national security. That doesn't mean it's going to happen. Note the part that says "least disruptive manner" in the first quote block. But yes... it is a possibility.

But there is danger in leaving so much power in one man or woman's hand. This we should have learned well from past history.

Agreed. Very much agreed.

And for the record I love tea.

I don't think this is a "good" thing but I think getting upset about it is a complete waste of time...

Originally Posted by bernt

Anyways... what I gather from this is that the government could theoretically "shut down the internet" [at least in the US] in the interest of national security.

OMG!!!


The US government could theoretically render the planet Earth completely uninhabitable to biological life (for centuries to come, and so assuming more alien asteroids with the seed of God in the middle do not arrive, forever) in less than 12 hours.

I have my fingers crossed we do not have to resort to anything that drastic either

Originally Posted by Elysia

But there is danger in leaving so much power in one man or woman's hand. This we should have learned well from past history.

This would be better or worse in the hands of 10 or 100 or even 100,000 hands?

I'm not going to discuss government forms. Let's just say I don't believe in any of them--republic least of all.

Originally Posted by bernt

Anyways... what I gather from this is that the government could theoretically "shut down the internet" [at least in the US]

Only in the USA. They could shut it down only in the USA. This would be a sad world indeed if the an USA president could turn off a worldwide network they don't own.

Don't forget about satellites... I doubt they could shut them down too.

The US government could theoretically render the planet Earth completely uninhabitable to biological life (for centuries to come, and so assuming more alien asteroids with the seed of God in the middle do not arrive, forever) in less than 12 hours.

Yes, and the complement to both scenarios is the next part of my post, which somehow got left out of the mix:

That doesn't mean it's going to happen. Note the part that says "least disruptive manner"

-----

Only in the USA. They could shut it down only in the USA. This would be a sad world indeed if the an USA president could turn off a worldwide network they don't own.

I did mention "in the US", just would like to point that out now.
And, if a country was willing the cooperate, the "Director" has the authority to request the shutdown of systems in other countries - the possibility is obviously infinitesimal but so is the possibility that that would actually have to happen.

Originally Posted by bernt

I did mention "in the US", just would like to point that out now

Yeah. Just reread that bit I quoted and you are right. I misinterpreted the text between square brackets.

Originally Posted by zacs7

Don't forget about satellites... I doubt they could shut them down too.

You reckon? Even if you accept the premise that a satellite can't be shut down, there is electronic warfare? Satellite communication does sort of rely on usage of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Originally Posted by Bubba

Although this law at first seems nefarious it's language seems less so. In the wrong hands this law could be devastating but so could a million other laws. The chances of this law ever being used are probably very slim to almost non-existent. In fact it's language seems to suggest the law is an 'out' or a 'saving face' move for government officials so they do not get accused of being negligent if such an attack were to happen and we were not prepared. It really just sounds like political bantering and gobbly gook written to protect the government in case an event like this occurred.

I agree. I'd interpret it as one of many "make provision so we can if we need to" cases. In the wrong hands, open to abuse. Otherwise, little to worry about.