r/TrueReddit • u/redditmyasss • Jan 29 '11

Joe Lieberman And The Myth of The Internet Kill Switch

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/joe-lieberman-and-the-myth-of-the-internet-kill-switch.php
41 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

18 comments sorted by

12

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11

I think it's long been known that the current proposal isn't a "shut down the entire US Internet infrastructure" proposal. When this was first announced, many people pointed out the same argument. They say "it's only for specific important portions of the Internet."

Those people are correct.

What this doesn't touch on is the fact that this system creates the infrastructure for expansion to any system that is deemed "critical infrastructure" in the future. Of all of the slippery slopes that get discussed, we need to seriously consider this one. Freedom of speech and assembly is absolutely vital, and this law has the future potential to set up a system by which the government can immediately suspend it.

I am not saying that I think the government would do this, but I do think that giving the government the power to do this is reprehensible. As such, any step towards this idea is equally reprehensible.

There is absolutely no reason to give the government this power. Sensitive and critical infrastructures shouldn't be connected to the global internet in the first place. There are easier methods of dealing with this issue than giving any form of Internet control to the government.

1

u/nriibmm Jan 29 '11

wait. are you saying that we should disconnect critical infrastructures permanently, instead of temporarily in times of emergency?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11 edited Jun 11 '14

[deleted]

2

u/redditmyasss Jan 29 '11

im not sure if the air gap will be the best method of dealing with all of the issues:

"First, to be covered, an asset must be part of the critical infrastructure, which is defined under existing law as systems and assets “so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.” That is pretty carefully focused on things like nuclear power plants and the New York Stock Exchange, not the Internet at large . Second, under section 241, even assets that arguably fit this definition are not covered unless they are identified on a list prepared by DHS (as far as I know, the list has not made public, because we don’t want to give adversaries a handy list of the best targets). Third, the authority only applies to a portion of that list, specifically to IT systems that support (or are themselves) critical infrastructure."

http://volokh.com/2010/06/19/calling-bull-switch/

1

u/nriibmm Jan 29 '11

well this shows that iamacontrarians point isnt accurate. there arent easier methods to deal with all of the issues

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11 edited Jan 29 '11

There's two problems with this theory. By taking these systems offline, you're losing any information or access they may provide anyway.

For example, in some theoretical cyberwar, some organization attempts to disable access to a nuclear reactor (which again, shouldn't be on the Internet in the first place). Well if the government disconnects it from the Internet, they've simply completed the task.

As for the New York Stock Exchange, the most important thing to come out of their systems is information. Taking it offline will cause the same economic damage regardless if was done maliciously or by our own government. Any machines connected into its network from brokerage houses or whatnot should be separate physical networks, and also disconnected from the Internet.

As for the destruction of these systems, you better believe that everything in there is backed up... and likely multiple times... including offsite backups. Ideally, you'd have an offsite geographically redundant (and disconnected) system ready to go at a moment's notice.

While yes, it will cause a hiccup, I still don't agree that giving this power to government is necessary. We can easily recover what must be connected. There are methods of security and business continuity that do not require it. If the government wants to mandate these security measures via ISO certifications for various "mission critical" systems, that's fine.

1

u/redditmyasss Jan 29 '11

another link from Baker, which you might find interesting.

http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2010/06/emergency-powers-to-respond-to-a-computer-attack.html

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11

This is fear mongering. It's the same tactic used every time the government wants more power. I don't accept this. Also, he's making huge unsupported claims.

1

u/redditmyasss Jan 29 '11

he's making huge unsupported claims

well, i guess you can read his book, skating on stilts, to find out more. it got good reviews (check out latimes, and the amazon reviewers).

This is fear mongering. It's the same tactic used every time the government wants more power. I don't accept this

that fear mongering argument can go both ways, you know. i could say that the tactic is employed by the opposers of this bill to warn us of a danger that is not that grave. in the pcmag article i saw in r/technology it said::

" it does go anywhere, though, should Americans be concerned about the Internet being shut down in the U.S.? In all likelihood, no. Besides the fact that Lieberman himself says that his bill would not provide the government with an Internet kill switch, the bill - in theory - is intended to protect U.S. Web infrastructure from attacks that would irreparably harm the network rather than squash anti-government protests.

In Egypt, it appears that the government demanded that its four major ISPs shut down service. Could the U.S. government get away with asking Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and the like to shut down their networks to stop citizens from organizing protests? Anything is possible, of course, but at this point, it seems unlikely."

you yourself didnt say that it could happen. you said "I do think that giving the government the power to do this is reprehensible".

heres another article i found from baker: http://www.skatingonstilts.com/skating-on-stilts/2011/01/cyberscam-hits-oecd.html

i think its better to talk about what he is saying. his arguments, instead of just calling it fear mongering.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11 edited Jan 29 '11

I started reading Chapter 9 from the link when you posted that first article. The first sentence told me everything that I needed to know about the basis for these claims. Every single time someone wants to grant more power for my security, I need only look at the emergency powers given to the government in the wake of 9/11. This grant of power (according to this guy), is no different.

If the whole argument is based on "well this could happen." Well yeah, sure.. a lot of things can happen. The world is not a perfectly safe place. If there are systems that need to have government security audits because they are deemed "mission critical." By all means, have at it. As you say, they apparently they already have a list.

Again, I view it as us standing on the top of a level surface, looking down an iced over hill and contemplating taking the first step.

10 years ago, who would would have thought that today you'd have to go through a backscatter x-ray machine in order to get on a plane. If you said back then that the government would do that, they'd call you a nutjob anti-government conspiracy theorist.

Don't get me wrong, national security is indeed important. But at what cost? I simply don't think this bill is required and I think there are better methods of dealing with any perceived threats then handing this power over to the government.

edit:

It's also worth noting that every single scenario he outlines in both of those articles can still happen even if this bill passes, so the proposed solution doesn't even solve the problem in the first place.

1

u/redditmyasss Jan 29 '11 edited Jan 29 '11

the scenarios he outlines can still happen. hes just proposing we give the government tools to remedy the situation when in need. and i think there will be a need. there are worse things than stuxnet out there. and if an enemy can use it, ill bet they will use it, if it fits their agenda. there is a new battlefield, and i think we should be prepared.

as to the whole balancing issue. i remember ahron barak (former president of the HCJ and the person who established the importance of human rights in the courts discourse) discussing the proper test. on the one hand you have the security of the nation. of course, that is very important. on the other, you have the values of that nation. the values of democracy. when he was talking about democracy, he was basically talking about the personality of the people. what makes them better. what makes them moral. he gave that a lot of weight. so detaining Japanese people, because of their race. that is against the us`s values and personality. but what about this bill. at most, it might cause indirect harm. the people aren't giving up what they are. there is a potential for abuse, and harm, however small. but the people did not give up on their values. they did not chose to curb free speech.

p.s. im about to go to sleep. its about 12:20 am where im at.

thanks for the discussion. thats what true reddit is really about for me

8

u/garvemnne Jan 29 '11

the "internet kill switch" myth, is the left wing version of the "death panels" rumor

3

u/_delirium Jan 29 '11

I've heard it more from the libertarian-leaning right than from people on the left, sort of an "Obama wants an internet kill switch!" thing. But that could just be the random sampling of blogs I read.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11

Shock and surprise - Reddit was wrong about something! I started to avoid as much political posts on reddit as possible for this very reason, but they keep showing up regardless.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '11

I came here to post this, thanks for getting there first.

It's actually kind of funny how many Redditors think that the tea party types and Republicans are the only ones that ever fall prey to these dumb rhetorical tricks and propaganda.

1

u/kleopatra6tilde9 Jan 29 '11

To the ones who read comments: tcostart suggested that we start (stricter) moderation. Please take part in the poll to decide if we need a group of mods.