

Americans Support an Internet 'Kill Switch' According to Survey   - privacyguru
http://www.securityweek.com/americans-support-internet-kill-switch-according-recent-survey

======
danielsoneg
Americans support a lot of crap they probably shouldn't and don't know a whole
lot about. This is why we have a Republic, not a Democracy.

Edit: To put this a bit less glibly, there's a whole range of things that the
"average American" doesn't know enough about to make a fully qualified
decision. That's not to trash "average Americans" - I wouldn't do a whole lot
better at making coherent, well-thought-out policies which take all available
information into account if put on the spot - but it is to say that just
because something polls well doesn't mean it should be policy. Our government
is supposed to represent the best interests of the people, not blindly enact
their will.

~~~
smokeyj
"average American" doesn't know enough about to make a fully qualified
decision.

If voters aren't qualified for a direct democracy, what makes them qualified
for an indirect democracy AKA republic? Wouldn't they just pick the wrong
representation, given the inherent ineptness of the public? If the public is
truly a fringe, and the government is supposed to represent the fringe,
wouldn't the government just be a fringe?

"Our government is supposed to represent the best interests of the people, not
blindly enact their will."

If they're not enacting the will of the people, then who's will are they
enacting? What qualifies these folks to know the best interest of everyone
else?

~~~
danielsoneg
Well, first, it's an imperfect system, which is all we'll ever get. We're
still human, after all.

I say "don't know enough" as a specific and non-judgmental quantifier, not an
overall statement - in other words, while otherwise competent and capable, and
possessing areas of expertise, the average person may not know enough about
specific issues and the diversity of interests surrounding those issues to
draft adequate policy, nor judge the quality of drafted policy. That's not to
say they couldn't learn, but people simply don't have enough time to fully
engage the issues of the day.

Because of this, we've elected to have a republic. Ideally, this means we
choose gifted and dedicated people to represent us and to, as their full-time
job, build up a body of knowledge and wisdom such to devise policies which
best address pressing issues (Ideally.). This is a concession to the fact that
we as citizens simply do not have the time to become experts both in our
chosen craft and in the business of state. As to their qualifications, they're
nothing but dedication, integrity, and intelligence. Ideally.

Obviously this isn't what we have, but it's the thinking behind what we wrote
down a few generations back, and I think it's still valid.

------
btilly
The sad thing is that anyone using an _Internet 'Kill Switch'_ would do far
more damage than most of the "cyber attacks" that we know about. And if the
ability was built, it would definitely become a target for cyber attacks.

~~~
blahedo
> _become a target for cyber attacks._

This, this, a million times this.

------
motters
These surveys are usually spurious, because they don't state what questions
were asked and who constitutes "the public". It's possible to get whatever
results you want either by cherry picking the kind of people you ask, or by
framing the questions in a way which is biased towards certain responses.

I bet if they asked a question such as "do you believe that the president
should have the right to prevent you and everyone you know from using
Facebook, Twitter and Gmail for an unspecified period of time?" the support
level would be rather minimal.

If it was framed as "do you believe that the president should be able to
temporarily suspend internet services to protect vital national security
interests in an emergency?" probably the majority would be in favour.
Protecting things in an emergency sounds like a good thing, it's vague enough
so that it doesn't sound like something which would apply to you personally,
and if it's only temporary then who cares?

These days many people who would not be classed as archetypal "nerds" are
highly addicted to internet use, and in the past I've seen people having
something close to a panic attack if they can't access their emails for half
an hour.

------
mmagin
I wonder if those surveyed realized that this would cut off their access to
Facebook, Twitter, etc, or if many were too clueless to realize that.

~~~
undefined_user
In the article it mentioned "portions" of the internet. So I have to assume
every one polled figured it would not be the part of the internet they are on
but the part they(the bad guys)are on. If there was such a thing.

Like someone else mentioned. The consequences for such a thing are so much
larger than what they are trying to stop.

------
pjscott
For anybody who'd like a summary of the issue itself, I think Bruce Schneier
covers the whole idea of an Internet Kill Switch pretty well here:

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/07/internet_kill_...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/07/internet_kill_s.html)

------
DjDarkman
I wonder what counts as an "emergency" and "cyber attack" and what is the
extent of a "portion"?

These terms seem too vague for me, take this example: Someone tweets that
Obama has killed a baby kitten, Obama could shut down Twitter because it's an
emergency, he was falsely accused. He could shut down Facebook too, and all
services that could be connected to Twitter to stop this cyber attack from
spreading.

No disrespect, but I seriously doubt that the majority of the people(not just
Americans) actually know how the Internet works, it's like asking a first
graders to solve a differential equations.

The Internet just works fine by itself it does not need supervision from the
US government, in fact it is one of the reasons it works so well.

------
mahmud
Americans also support a government-sponsored lobotomy for themselves, to
insert Patriotic God-Juice into their heads.

Why is this a surprise?

The U.S. is a success _despite_ the majority of the American people, not
because of them.

------
InclinedPlane
I thought they very _idea_ of the internet was to create an unkillable
network. This idea seems counter-productive and regressive.

