I honestly didn't realize that, so thank you for clarifying.
My skeptical side wonders if that really changes much, though. Sure, some ISPs would stay up but many of the largest backbones and retail ISPs are deep in bed with the government already, and would have a lot to lose if they fell out of favor. Congress already had to give the telcos retroactive immunity once to cover them for the illegal warrant less wiretaps that they ran for years. I'm not sure if they feel compelled or are just looking to find favor, but either way it's hard to not imagine them going along for the ride if the president was calling.
And while I think some kind of cyberwar is a serious threat, that defense scenario doesn't make much sense when gamed. That kind of response implies a decapitation attack: either looking to disable our networks/economy or attacking infrastructure and critical systems and making things go boom.
A kill switch doesn't help anything if they just wanted us offline in the first place. You may need to drop off for a while to get back in control but I'd be surprised if the big SLA's didn't cover acts of war the same as earthquakes. In the case of major ongoing infrastructure attacks you have to believe that'd be setup well in advance and just triggered - with boots on the ground and satellite gear to handle the glitches, all while coordination and response was that much more difficult.
Looking for examples of internet controls around the world it's hard to not conclude that social control is the primary motivation, really only China has any real defensive posture. Maybe we are the exception to the rule.
I do think it's rather far fetched that it'd actually ever get used in that way though. I think it's just the product of paranoid minds that have been high on the patriot act for ten years now.
My skeptical side wonders if that really changes much, though. Sure, some ISPs would stay up but many of the largest backbones and retail ISPs are deep in bed with the government already, and would have a lot to lose if they fell out of favor. Congress already had to give the telcos retroactive immunity once to cover them for the illegal warrant less wiretaps that they ran for years. I'm not sure if they feel compelled or are just looking to find favor, but either way it's hard to not imagine them going along for the ride if the president was calling.
And while I think some kind of cyberwar is a serious threat, that defense scenario doesn't make much sense when gamed. That kind of response implies a decapitation attack: either looking to disable our networks/economy or attacking infrastructure and critical systems and making things go boom.
A kill switch doesn't help anything if they just wanted us offline in the first place. You may need to drop off for a while to get back in control but I'd be surprised if the big SLA's didn't cover acts of war the same as earthquakes. In the case of major ongoing infrastructure attacks you have to believe that'd be setup well in advance and just triggered - with boots on the ground and satellite gear to handle the glitches, all while coordination and response was that much more difficult.
Looking for examples of internet controls around the world it's hard to not conclude that social control is the primary motivation, really only China has any real defensive posture. Maybe we are the exception to the rule.
I do think it's rather far fetched that it'd actually ever get used in that way though. I think it's just the product of paranoid minds that have been high on the patriot act for ten years now.