[Doofy]

Obama to be given the right to shut down the internet with 'kill switch' | Mail Online

President Obama will be given the power to shut down the Internet with a 'kill switch' in a new law being proposed in the US.
He would be able to order popular search engines such a Google and Yahoo to suspend access their websites in times of national emergency.
Other US based Internet service providers as well as broadband providers would also come under his control in times of a 'cybersecurity emergency.' Any company that failed to comply would be subject to huge fines.

I trust that Barry is prepared to pay for lost business revenue should he use said switch.

[BadKosh]

Another power he doesn't have.

[TheoCryst]

The article tries to make it sound like he was already given the power; it's just a bill in the Senate. And it sounds like a bad idea to me. Hopefully this won't have much support and will fade quietly into the night.

[hyteckit]

All your planes are belong to Barry.

Pres. Obama can ground all planes too when there is a terrorist attack.

Scary!

[The Final Dakar]

Hello, contrarian.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I trust that Barry is prepared to pay for lost business revenue should he use said switch.

Nahh, that's not how good ol' Uncle Sam works these days. BP will get the invoice, or better yet it will come out of the BP trust fund. The Prez will sign the check though, after the one he signs to George Sorros. (I know that's a link to an outside forum, but the first post has links to media reports describing the ridiculously corrupt bargains for those who aren't clued in. Obama is looking like Sorros's puppet.)

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Nahh, that's not how good ol' Uncle Sam works these days. BP will get the invoice, or better yet it will come out of the BP trust fund. The Prez will sign the check though, after the one he signs to George Sorros. (I know that's a link to an outside forum, but the first post has links to media reports describing the ridiculously corrupt bargains for those who aren't clued in. Obama is looking like Sorros's puppet.)

Thanks for Pres. Reagan and Pres. George HW Bush.

In August 1990, when President George H. W. Bush signed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) into law and authorized use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), the Fund was already four years old. Congress created the Fund in 1986, but did not pass legislation to authorize the use of the money or the collection of revenue necessary for its maintenance. It was only after the Exxon Valdez grounding and the passage of OPA that authorization was granted.

[OAW]

From the same article ....

The proposed legislation, introduced into the US Senate by Lieberman who is chairman of the US Homeland Security committee, seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

A sustained terror attack on multiple cities would be considered a national emergency as would a cyber attack by 'hackers' on the US financial system.

The director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned earlier this year that the US is 'severely threatened' by malicious cyber attacks.

The number of attacks on Government departments has increased by 400 per cent in the last three years.
Under the proposed bill, which has been dubbed an Internet kill switch', the US Government would effectively seize control of access to the internet.

Lieberman argued the bill was necessary to 'preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people'.

He said: '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. 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.'

His bill is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.

While the US Government would not be able to control the internet in other countries access to the most popular sites would be cut off.

So if there's an all-out cyber-attack against the US financial system or power grid, this legislation would grant the President the authority to shut down access to the internet in the US in order to thwart it. Seems pretty sensible to me. Alternatively, we could just let the "free market" sort it all out.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

All your planes are belong to Barry.

Pres. Obama can ground all planes too when there is a terrorist attack.

Scary!

Don't you realize? Obama would be pushing for a "government takeover" of the airline industry if he did that!!

Oh no ... that'll never do. Just let the planes keep flying. The "free market" will decide which airlines survive. Whichever ones have the least number of planes blown up will have a really good market position for sure.



OAW

[sek929]

I'll have to keep a Sears catalogue handy for when the porns go down.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So if there's an all-out cyber-attack against the US financial system or power grid, this legislation would grant the President the authority to shut down access to the internet in the US in order to thwart it. Seems pretty sensible to me.

So, if someone wants to harm the US economically by disrupting the Internet, you protect yourselves by... ...ummm... ...disrupting the Internet.

Yes, makes perfect sense.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, if someone wants to harm the US economically by disrupting the Internet, you protect yourselves by... ...ummm... ...disrupting the Internet.

Yes, makes perfect sense.

I'm pretty sure if someone was stealing from your bank account, you would quickly call your bank and put a stop to it by either closing your account or putting a temporary hold on it.

The problem isn't just the disruption the internet, but what hackers might take control of. Power grids, nuclear plants, our financial system, and so forth.

If someone hacks into the government computers and set off the sequence to launch the nukes, you don't want the government to shut it down?

Bye bye England. You have been nuked by a teenage hacker in China.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'll have to keep a Sears catalogue handy for when the porns go down.

Hopefully it's the lingerie section and not the power tools section.

Then again, it's none of my business on you get your kicks.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

So, if someone wants to harm the US economically by disrupting the Internet, you protect yourselves by... ...ummm... ...disrupting the Internet.

Yes, makes perfect sense.

Your characterization of the scenario is very misleading. Consider it this way ....

On 9/11 the US was attacked via our own commercial airlines. The financial and military headquarters of the country were targeted. One completely destroyed and the other severely damaged. It stands to reason that the plane that crashed in PA was intended to target the political headquarters of the country. The President, in his capacity as Commander in Chief, grounded all commercial flights in order to prevent further attack. As is his duty under the Constitution.

Now having said that, if there were a sustained cyber-attack against the New York Stock Exchange .... or Federal Reserve systems ... or the power grid ... or nuclear facilities ... and internet was the mechanism by which said attack was being successfully carried out ... then yes, it makes perfect sense for the President to have the authority to shut down the means of attack in order to fend it off.

I think you would be hard pressed to legitimately argue any substantive difference between these two scenarios.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The problem isn't just the disruption the internet, but what hackers might take control of. Power grids, nuclear plants, our financial system, and so forth.

Exactly. I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept for some to understand.

OAW

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm pretty sure if someone was stealing from your bank account, you would quickly call your bank and put a stop to it by either closing your account or putting a temporary hold on it.

Who watches their bank account 24/7?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

The problem isn't just the disruption the internet, but what hackers might take control of. Power grids, nuclear plants, our financial system, and so forth.

Why are your power grids and nuclear plants plumbed into the Internet in the first place? How stupid has someone got to be to even contemplate hooking those up to the Internet?

The only thing which needs to be plumbed into the Internet is the financial system, because what keeps it afloat is punters using it. No punter availability = financial collapse. And anyway, your financial system has enough redundancy to cope with an attack (ours has three failover systems ready to go at a moment's notice. Pretty sure yours has too.).

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept for some to understand.

It's a difficult concept to understand because I can't really comprehend how anyone could be so stupid as connect those facilities to the Internet in the first place. I mean, we hear about people putting their lives on Facebook and laugh at them for being stupid when they get stung by it... ...but the level of stupidity required to do that pales beside the level required to connect a bleedin' nuke station up to teh nets. Really, I can't even begin to imagine how stupid someone's got to be to even contemplate that kind of thing.

[subego]

Is there any evidence whatsoever that the entities in question wouldn't voluntarily follow a directive from the president to shut down operations during a nationwide cyberattack?

I'm not comfortable giving the president vague, unilateral powers for a problem which even in theory has never been shown to exist.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Who watches their bank account 24/7?

Half of the neocons on this forum, that's who! That IS their life. Without the filthy money, they are nothing. Sad!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's a difficult concept to understand because I can't really comprehend how anyone could be so stupid as connect those facilities to the Internet in the first place. I mean, we hear about people putting their lives on Facebook and laugh at them for being stupid when they get stung by it... ...but the level of stupidity required to do that pales beside the level required to connect a bleedin' nuke station up to teh nets. Really, I can't even begin to imagine how stupid someone's got to be to even contemplate that kind of thing.

You get no argument from me on that point. We even have military facilities being hacked into over the net and one would think that wouldn't be the case. But at this stage in the game it is what it is. And outside of nuclear facilities we still have the financial system. So because these are the facts on the ground ... even if you took the nuclear facilities out of the equation. And in light of that, a sustained cyber attack against the US over the internet is something that President should have the tools to thwart.

So again, I simply don't see how it's cool for one President to actually shut down commercial airlines after 9/11 ... but another President being given the mere authority to shut down access to the internet in the case of a massive cyber attack is a problem.

OAW

[subego]

Was there a law in place that specifically allowed him to do that, or did he just make an executive order?

Honest question. I don't know the answer.

[subego]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Half of the neocons...

Neocons call themselves xfinity now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Was there a law in place that specifically allowed him to do that, or did he just make an executive order?

Honest question. I don't know the answer.

Actually, it was an order from the FAA's national ops manager, Ben Sliney. First day on the job.
Ben Sliney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You get no argument from me on that point. We even have military facilities being hacked into over the net and one would think that wouldn't be the case. But at this stage in the game it is what it is. And outside of nuclear facilities we still have the financial system. So because these are the facts on the ground ... even if you took the nuclear facilities out of the equation. And in light of that, a sustained cyber attack against the US over the internet is something that President should have the tools to thwart.

Shutting down the Internet assists the terrorists in their mayhem-causing activities. Like turning off your router if you receive a DDOS - it just gives the attacker a win.

I get the impression that whoever cooked up this idea has watched Die Hard 4 a few too many times.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Obama to be given the right to shut down the internet with 'kill switch' | Mail Online

I trust that Barry is prepared to pay for lost business revenue should he use said switch.

I can't believe you would choose to side with the terrorists over your President.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I can't believe you would choose to side with the terrorists over your President.

I don't have a president. Unless you count Von Rompuy, which I don't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't have a president. Unless you count Von Rompuy, which I don't.

Ah, right. Forgot. Still though, can't believe you'd side with the terrorists.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I get the impression that whoever cooked up this idea has watched Die Hard 4 a few too many times.

That would be Senator Joe Lieberman and your assessment of his mentality (thinking unrealistic actions are completely doable) is spot on.

[Wiskedjak]

In all seriousness, I think this is a horrible plan. But, I don't think it's any worse than the invasive airport security theatre, no fly lists that innocent people can't get off of or warrantless wiretapping also implemented with the excuse of fighting terrorism and *applauded* by many of the same Conservatives in here complaining about the Internet off-switch being propose.

[dcmacdaddy]

The problem with sensitive national industries connected to the 'Net has more to do with businesses not wanting to spend money than national security. The US Department of Defense has moved all their inter-departmental, and inter-agency, communications to their own private network. For example, the CIA is all private. From what I know of IT operations at CIA, staff who need access to the public internet get two physical computers on their desk plugged into two separate physical networks (one internal, one the public intarwebs).

After 9/11 there was talk of creating a similar infrastructure for the electricity systems in our country but it was declared to be too costly and an onerous burden to impose on the energy producers in this country. It might be time to revisit this idea. With the amount of dark fiber in place all over the country I don't think it would be too costly to create a separate communications network for our energy producers/distributors.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ah, right. Forgot. Still though, can't believe you'd side with the terrorists.

It's getting harder to figure out which side are the terrorists these days.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

From what I know of IT operations at CIA, staff who need access to the public internet get two physical computers on their desk plugged into two separate physical networks (one internal, one the public intarwebs).

This is exactly how I operate. No way I'm risking exposing accounts or creative assets to the outside world, no matter how many firewalls I'm sitting behind.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

It's getting harder to figure out which side are the terrorists these days.

That's been hard to figure out since September 12, 2001. Could you imagine what Conservatives would be saying if Barry had implemented warrantless-wiretapping? I suspect it would look much like this thread.

[ebuddy]

Lieberman's wrong on this one IMO. There are multiple forms of redundancy in this case and the more sensitive apparatuses are intranet, not internet as dc mentioned. This isn't to marginalize the possibility of a seizure, but even the most effective attempts from mock-ups at best cripple, not decimate traffic. With more effective means of attribution, this would be mutually-assured destruction.

I'm not in favor of a governmental seizure of access unless severely limited in scope. The proposals I've seen essentially make Doofy's point of; "secure the net against a seizure that would cripple commerce by seizing it and crippling commerce."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

That's been hard to figure out since September 12, 2001. Could you imagine what Conservatives would be saying if Barry had implemented warrantless-wiretapping? I suspect it would look much like this thread.

As a current supporter of warrantless wiretapping, there's nothing to suggest Barry wouldn't have implemented such a strategy. Of course right or wrong, (right IMO as long as they're opposed to the practice regardless) Conservatives would be outraged. Why?

There's a difference between handing your neighbor the keys to your house or handing them to the guy on the corner wearing the Che Guevera t-shirt.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's a difference between handing your neighbor the keys to your house or handing them to the guy on the corner wearing the Che Guevera t-shirt.

True- the guy in the Che t-shirt is obviously such a clueless dolt that he couldn't possibly pose any threat. My neighbor on the other hand actually works for a living and has a brain. Plus I might still owe him his power drill back or something.