

Senators decry link between Egypt and U.S. 'kill switch' bill - MikeCapone
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20030332-281.html

======
lukev
I still haven't heard a single remotely plausible argument for why a kill
switch is a good idea. What's the worst that a "cyber attack" can do? Take
down the internet? So why do it _for_ them?

Including text in the law forbidding the president from using it to prohibit
citizen's communication is incredibly disingenuous, too, given that that's one
of the main points _of the constitution_.

We already know the US government isn't _allowed_ to do this kind of thing. So
why give them the tools? If there's no tool there isn't even any temptation to
use it.

~~~
amalcon
I think it speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology, but to
be fair, the proposal is not to grant the power to _disable_ the Internet.

The proposal is to grant the power to _partition_ the Internet. So, it would
not be analogous to how Egypt disabled the Internet almost entirely within
their borders. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a subtle
distinction, or a huge difference. It still serves the exact same purpose
(granting the power to shut down "troublesome" communication channels even if
they are physically located outside the country). On the other hand, its
activation would not in and of itself impact the vast majority of American
citizens (because they only use U.S.-based sites).

~~~
InclinedPlane
The internet is a global _inter_ network, a network of networks, as it were.
That's where the name comes from.

Partitioning the internet is isomorphic to destroying the internet.

~~~
amalcon
Would you say that the Internet is "destroyed" whenever there's an earthquake
or something that cuts trans-Atlantic cables? Would you say that it's
"destroyed" by China's filtering?

------
jbooth
I'd be willing to bet Lieberman has barely used the internet. Ever.

I mean, my Nana won't touch it, and she's about 10x as progressive as him,
so...

~~~
patrickgzill
Look over Lieberman's job history ... he has never held a job in the private
sector, period.

~~~
jbooth
Well, plenty of people in the public sector know how to use a computer :)

------
iwwr
You see, the President will only switch off the internet to preserve freedom.

~~~
mikecarlucci
Maybe they'll cite Independence Day, when our own satellite communication
network was used against us. If the bad guys are using "our" Internet to
communicate we should shut it down and evacuate everyone to Area 51 with the
help of Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum.

~~~
sixtofour
Would that citation be fair use, or would the MPAA issue a DMCA notice?

~~~
mikecarlucci
It feels like it would pass a fair use defense test...not taking too more than
necessary and shouldn't harm the commercial market for the original.

And any bill with an internet shutdown is something the MPAA could get behind
:)

------
patrickgzill
What I don't understand is how it is acceptable to essentially "void" all the
contracts for internet and point to point/transport (which would travel over
the same fiber and routers) just because the gov't says so.

The entire idea of having a court system is to ensure justice in criminal
issues and in civil issues, protect the enforcement of contracts. Somehow this
is getting turned around.

~~~
eli
Isn't that kinda the point? If <foreign government> launched a massive DDOS
against US servers, you don't want people dithering over violating SLAs when
they could be stopping the attack

~~~
pyre
But why is a massive DDOS against US servers an issue though? As long as
critical infrastructure doesn't go down (i.e. you get what you deserve if your
nuclear reactors are controlled via a publicly accessible telnet session, or
if they can be DDOS'd at all) then the damage is minimal. It certainly doesn't
warrant a military-level response.

~~~
discardingsabot
_As long as critical infrastructure doesn't go down_

That's the whole point. Critical infrastructure is the only thing the bill
covers.

 _It certainly doesn't warrant a military-level response._

The bill has nothing to do with the military.

~~~
pyre

      > The bill has nothing to do with the military
    

The president is the commander-in-chief and this bill is about preventing
'cyber attacks' from outside of the country. That seems to be encroaching into
'military' territory in my book, even if there isn't a particular branch of
the military involved.

------
sixtofour
"When the President does it, then it's not illegal."

\- Richard Nixon

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8>

~~~
MikeCapone
"L'État, c'est moi"

\- Louis XIV

------
Vivtek
Senators decry people watching them break what's not broken. Film at 11.

------
CWuestefeld
I haven't seen any kind of justification for the provision making the
president's hypothetical action immune from judicial review. And I can't think
of any justification, either.

Anybody care to explain what they're thinking?

~~~
eli
I'm actually OK with the bill aside from this provision.

(Worth noting, though, that the bill hasn't been reintroduced yet so we can't
actually see that language... and CNET's source for this removal of judicial
review appears to be a single lobbyist for companies opposed to the bill.)

------
GHFigs
Here's an idea: let's pick out one provision of the bill that sounds sketchy
when summarized and whip ourselves into a massive rhetorical frenzy over it in
lieu of reading so much as a word of the rest of it and considering ways it
could be improved to better address the problems it is attempting to address.

Oh wait, you're way ahead of me, as usual. Stay classy, HN.

[http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3480rs/pdf/BILLS-111s3480rs.pdf)

~~~
andolanra
"A final decision in any appeal under this subsection shall be a final agency
action that shall not be subject to judicial review." Section 254(c)(1);
appears on pg. 402 of the linked draft.

I am against any law which contains those words. Other parts of the law are
troubling to various degrees, but that single sentence is enough for me to
know that I oppose this law.

------
VladRussian
considering that the Internet becomes an "additional, external, brain lobe"
(how many of you remember things instead of looking it up everytime, or take
for example Google voice/translate or any other traditional "brain" function
that tomorrow will be transferred to and/or extended by Internet) - any
government power on the Internet means government's power over your brain.
Because tomorrow the unconnected brain vs. connected will be like being a
pedestrian vs. riding a car.

------
eli
Of all the possible threats to a free Internet, the idea of a rogue US
President shutting it off seems pretty far down the list. This is not
something worth worrying about.

~~~
iuygtfrgth
True - a rogue US president isn't a problem.

Of course a Chicago mayor shutting off bits of it when there is a G20 protest.

Or an Alabama governor for a civil rights march.

Or just an MPAA owned senator shutting down an ISP because of a pirate copy of
a movie.

------
InclinedPlane
"No, it's fine, we're good guys, we won't abuse these powers."

Benevolent rule is still rule. And the risks of centralized power being
wielded by a benevolent authority falling into the hands of a malicious
authority is very real and should _never_ be ignored.

------
shareme
the reason for this bill are a bit somewhat false..

Note, to date the number one entity skilled and reacting fast to cyber attacks
on Net infrastructure has been commerce not government. In government has
shown to be poor performer in this area.

It would not surprise me if this bill was being lobbied by MPAA/RIAA

