Obama internet 'kill switch' bill approved

[The Northerner]

The US senators pushing a controversial new bill that some fear would give President Barack Obama the powers to seize control of and even shut down the internet have rejected claims it would give Obama a net "kill switch".

The bill, titled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, has been unanimously approved by the US Homeland Security committee and will be put to a vote on the Senate floor shortly.

Lobby groups and academics quickly rounded on the bill, which seeks to grant the President broad emergency powers over the internet in times of national emergency.

Any internet firms and providers must "immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed" by a new section of the US Department of Homeland Security, dubbed the "National Centre for Cybersecurity and Communications".

The critics said that, rather than combat terrorists, it would actually do them "the biggest favour ever" by terrorising the rest of the world, which is now heavily reliant on cyberspace.

Australian academics criticised the description in the bill's title of the internet as a US "national asset", saying any action would disrupt other countries as most of the critical internet infrastructure is located in the US.

This week, 24 privacy and civil liberties groups sent a letter raising concerns about the legislation to the sponsors, including that it could limit free speech and free inquiry, Computerworld reported.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/obama-internet-kill-switch-bill-approved-20100625-z8sf.html

[Rex]

1. Look America seems to be all about fucking over the working poor now.

Everyone get on board! I'm sure they will find a way to deny poor people access to the Internet, just a matter of time.

[Dank Nugs]

2. So, this is how freedom dies.

[EmilyKent]

3. Well, it could remove the US from the web,

which would do the US tremendous damage, but it wouldn't affect the rest of the world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Right now it would

the US has most of the root servers... under her control. Yes, we could theoretically turn the web dark in oh five minutes flat.

I wish people understood web architecture... there is only ONE root server out of US control and that was like prying nails. Why I suspect we will see OTHERS emerge in the next five years. In essence we will see a parallel system emerge... or many.

[EmilyKent]

8. Nonsense.

[Dank Nugs]

12. I really hope so. We can't let them trash the free flow of data, no matter the cost. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. 3,2,1 for root servers to emerge in places

other than the US and for a parallel internet

By the way, I am not surprised... our paranoia is at an all time high.

[EmilyKent]

5. Here you go.

http://www.root-servers.org/map/

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Do look at what are global and what are local

[EmilyKent]

10. The web is set up so no one country

can shut it down, or even damage it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Okie dokie

you may want to look at oh Georgia, speaking of cyber warfare...

Yes it can, and that is what OFFICIALLY they are afraid off. There are other reasons...

[EmilyKent]

16. You may want to get out of your basement.

There are root servers all over the world, and yes, more than one internet.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. What basement

and you may want to cut down your personal attacks.

Jesus age... yes there are servers around the world, but the ROOT servers, are in the US... this has been an issue for years.

You are confusing the ROOT ZONES with the actual, honest to goodness ROOT SERVERS... that are still part of Darpa...

Now I am not going to argue with you... but this bill, assuming it becomes law, will lead to more of those servers round the world... some closed to US.

[EmilyKent]

21. The American basement

that insists America rules the world. It does not. Sorry.

It never has, anymore than England did, or Rome for that matter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Nobody is insisting on that except in your imagination

that said YOU DO KNOW the history of DARPA NET? Perhaps you don't.

Suffice it to say that the distributive network does not have global distribution OUTSIDE the US... for many pesky reasons that have to do with DARPA, NATO and a few other treaties.

You may want to do some research.

And I am not saying the US controls the net because of some idiotic imperial policy. You probably don't know this SON, but I did not grow up in the United States... nor do I consider the US to be superior. But in this respect, the ROOT SERVERS with GLOBAL capacity are STILL located in the US. IF THIS BILL becomes law, you will see PARALLEL webs emerge and SEPARATE GLOBAL root servers. That has NOT HAPPENED YET... but I am sure a few nations are going FUCK IT... and since hegemony is dying (bout bloody time) well then.

OPEN A FUCKING HISTORY BOOK... damn it!

And by the way this is why Droopy Lieberman is pushing this out of committee!

There are days...

:banghead:

[EmilyKent]

25. Well, you seem to be.

And who invented the web, hmmmm?

Not Americans.

The world will survive without US participation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. You do need a history course

or more than just a history course. a course in manners

[EmilyKent]

32. No, I am fully familiar with the web.

And I don't have a flag impeding my vision, or my manners.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. So yuo are telling me Darpa is not

US government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

http://web-ext2.darpa.mil/

And that they are not part of the military? What exactly does MIL stand for?

Oy vey...

Definitely there are days...

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

:banghead:

This is history... read the books before you burn them!

Oh and I am done with you... have a good life

[EmilyKent]

34. DARPA is ancient history.

And so is your view of the world.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheMadMonk]

36. CERN invented the World Wide WEB. The US MILITARTY invented...

...the underlying architechture over which the WWW operates as a multiply redundant communications network that might continue operating after a nuclear exchange.

HOWEVER the US controls most of the root servers which translate human readable text names into machine readable numeric IP addresses.

So yes theoretically the rest of the world can continue to operate if the US pulls the plug. However, I'd lay London to a housebrick, that at least one of the contingency plans includes dumping as much "poisoned" data into subordinate DNS servers about the world and even the one independent ROOT server. It would take several hours, if not days to restore worldwide connectivity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. This guy, don't get that

I am expecting though, if this bill becomes law, that the rest of the world will move FAST to a parallel network that will include root servers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I'll raise your bet though

London to a housebrick... those are low odds, I'll wager all of Western Europe and North America to a house brick

:hi:

[Hydra]

50. Here's a goody, since you pointed it out

G
Operator: U.S. DOD Network Information Center
IPv4: 192.112.36.4
ASN: 5927
Location: Naples, IT
Type: Global

[polly7]

38. OMG, Canada needs to get working on these servers! nt,

[Rex]

6. Paranoia of what? Terrorism...not a chance I want to know what the Powers That Be

are really afraid of that they would pull such Draconian actions! They finally fall in love with the way China runs things?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. The end of empire and retrenchemt is comming

how far down the rabbit hole do you want me to go?

Suffice it to say, American hegemony is over... and what they fear is the potential social disruption... or worst.

The net plays quite a bit of a role in organizing.

Is that far enough down the rabbit hole?

[Rex]

18. But to what end? So people can't google if their fellow Americans

are rioting in the streets? And if the empire comes to an end, how will they be able to hide that? Just blocking the Internet won't do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Originally it was meant for military coms

in time of nuclear war. That is the origin of the DarpaNet...

I think droopy wants to go there, and can't get it that if you managed to turn the net dark (which might be a trick on it's own with a few geeks...) and that is assuming a lot... well then we simple peasants will be easier to control To do that you need to also turn cell phones off, damn phones off, and the printing press off. I am sure a few mimeographs still exist somewhere.

[Rex]

24. Yeah I remember 'surfing' the BBS with my commadore64.

back in the 80s. You make my point very valid - you would have to turn off a hell of a lot more then the 'Internets' for those types of authoritarian systems to take hold over our Democracy. It would disrupt trading/commerce and sink our country in a heartbeat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Exactly and my gaming rig

could serve as a temp root... and so could you... Apache is your friend...

There are ways to kill even those temp root servers and ad hoc networks... but all those geeks that got the bbs network going... as long as they have electricity they can get this going.

Of course would be temporary and play havoc with non geeks... ah the glory of getting those early IP addresses. Why most commercial concerns would go the way of the dodo very fast. And why they would NOT do it. It is a collective economic suicide pact quite honestly.

Oh and let me add.... this... DROOPY is an idiot!

Now I feel much better.

[Rex]

30. Yeah I still can't believe supposedly 'educated/rich men and women

believe the "Internets" is/are full of tubes! I don't think the govt could pull it off, not smart enough collectively, imo. China started early, much to late for America to follow suit.

[Turborama]

14. That should read "Presidential internet 'kill switch' bill approved"

Misleading headline makes it sound like Obama is behind this when in fact it's a bill put forward by Lieberman and Collins.

I didn't know that the President already has these powers...

But the architects of the plan, committee chairman Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins, have this week released a http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=ab5cfa0e-d174-494b-bba3-7488f03f1cb1">"Myth v. Reality" document that hits back at these criticisms.

The senators rejected the "kill switch" claim, arguing that the President already had authority under the Communications Act to "cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication" when there is a "state or threat of war".

They said under the new bill the President would be far less likely to use the broad authority he already has under current law to take over communications. It would provide "a precise, targeted and focused way for the President to defend our most sensitive infrastructure".

Any action would be limited to 30-day increments and the President must use the "least disruptive means feasible" to respond to the threats. Action extended beyond 120 days would need Congressional approval.

The bill would not give the President the authority to take over the entire internet, target specific websites or conduct electronic surveillance.

(from the article in the OP)

[sandnsea]

22. Thank you n/t

[Turborama]

27. You're welcome

I find it extremely annoying and frustrating when people only comment on headlines (or snippets) instead of actually reading the full articles and doing some fact checking for themselves.

[realisticphish]

15. I don't like the entire concept of ownership of the internet

the internet is one of the greatest developments in human communications, and defining it as a national asset scares me. Of course, practically, the telcom companies control the internet, because they control access.

I just don't get the practical benefit of this bill (well, I DO, but in terms of benefit re: the stated reasons)

What national emergency would be aided by shutting down the internet? I really don't understand their logic. And I suspect that many don't really care; they just don't like having an anarchic entity like the internet lurking, and want to have a way to control it if it gets too scary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. You know the ORIGIN of the Internet is DARPA NET

and the goal was for comms to continue in time of NUCLEAR war...

As in read DOD project. The fact that we civilians were allowed in is another story. And there are PARALLEL networks run by DoD to this day.

[HEyHEY]

26. You'll be glad its there if a massive cyber attack breaks into missle launch systems

And that dude from Hackers isn't around.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. And that woudl be a valid reason

actually.

Alas the Military (which has been penetrated a few times over) has a cyber command. The private sector is on it's own. And you know what? DoD is vulnerable... my local utility is EXTREMELY vulnerable...

Here is a scenario for ya.... turn the utilities off during the heatwave...

Need I say more?

[Greyhound]

35. Movies aren't real. The missile systems connect to independent hardened networks,

they can't be hacked without physical access and even then it is nearly impossible.

Osama Bin Boogeyman can't launch, blow up, redirect, or even get near our missiles.

[HipChick]

45. I'd worry more about an 'in-house' threat...

Whose to say,anyone with clearance to access those, wouldn't be a martyr..

[Greyhound]

55. Or simply an enlisted or commissioned capitalist that wants to retire in style.

In spite of all our protestations to the contrary, we treat our troops like disposable crap and a couple million dollars will buy you a lot.

[ixion]

37. Gee, just like China...

How incredibly lame.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

39. Just run the next great Windoze version on net servers, they just put out a

winner, so it will be time for the next Millenium or Vista to appear soon so they will have something to fix again... then the internets will shut themselves down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. That's why the architecture for root don't call for

windows....

[Better Believe It]

43. Here's the full text and signers of the letter objecting to the bill.

June 23, 2010
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
The Honorable Susan Collins
The Honorable Tom Carper
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

RE: Civil Liberties Issues in Cybersecurity Bill

Dear Senators Lieberman, Collins and Carper:

The Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee will soon consider the
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, S. 3480. We are privacy, civil
liberties and civil rights groups writing to express our concerns about the
legislation. Changes are needed to ensure that cybersecurity measures do not
unnecessarily infringe on free speech, privacy, and other civil liberties interests.

Scope. The legislation, among other things, creates a National Center for
Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) with significant authority over covered
critical infrastructure (CCI) owners and operators. This makes the determination of
what is, and is not, a CCI system or asset important to the scope of the legislation.
However, the bill does not adequately define CCI, giving rise to concern that it
includes elements of the Internet that Americans rely on every day to engage in free
speech and to access information. Some have regarded the national
communications system itself as a “critical infrastructure” in other contexts. We ask
that you clarify the scope of the legislation by restrictively defining CCI so that
cybersecurity responsibilities the bill imposes fall only on truly critical network
components.

Preserving Free Speech in Cybersecurity Emergencies. The bill authorizes the
NCCC, in an emergency declared by the President, to take unspecified emergency
actions to preserve the reliable operation of particular covered critical
infrastructure. The government can compel companies that own or operate critical
infrastructure systems to take those undefined actions for 30‐day periods that may
be renewed indefinitely. While the bill makes it clear that it does not authorize
electronic surveillance beyond that authorized in current law, we are concerned
that the emergency actions that could be compelled could include shutting down or
limiting Internet communications that might be carried over covered critical
infrastructure systems. This section should be amended to articulate the specific
emergency actions the NCCC can compel, and any applicable limits on those actions.
It should also be amended to ensure that emergency measures undertaken do not
unnecessarily disrupt Internet communications. The Internet is vital to free speech
and free inquiry, and Americans rely on it every day to access and to convey
information. Any cybersecurity action the government requires that would infringe
on these rights of free speech and free inquiry must meet a traditional First
Amendment strict scrutiny test: (i) the action must further a compelling
governmental interest; (ii) it must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest; and
(iii) it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Finally, the bill
should also be amended to require an independent assessment of the effect on free
speech, privacy and other civil liberties of the measures undertaken to respond to
each emergency the President declares. It is imperative that cybersecurity
legislation not erode our rights.

Information Sharing and Privacy. The bill requires CCI owners and operators to
share cybersecurity “incident” information with DHS, which will share some of that
information with law enforcement and intelligence personnel. It includes an
important limitation: the incident reporting mandate does not authorize any federal
entity to compel disclosure relating to an incident or conduct surveillance unless
otherwise authorized under the surveillance statutes or other laws. However, the
bill does not indicate what might be included in an “incident report” and we are
concerned that personally‐identifiable information will be included. To minimize
the privacy impact of sharing personally identifiable information, we ask that you
ensure that information sharing activities be conducted only in accordance with
principles of Fair Information Practices as articulated by the DHS Privacy Office.

Transparency. Cybersecurity measures that have an impact on the public should
be transparent to the public to the maximum extent possible. Unlike other
proposals, your legislation does not appear give the National Security Agency and
the Department of Defense an outsized role in securing civilian government and
privately‐owned networks. Such a role would no doubt mean less transparency
about cybersecurity activities, and more concern about whether they comply with
the law. While the bill includes several provisions requiring reports to Congress,
including reports about cybersecurity emergencies and about monitoring Internet
traffic to and from government agencies for cybersecurity purposes, it should clarify
that these reports must be made available to the public. We would like to explore
with you other reporting requirements that would help the public better assess the
impact of cybersecurity measures on civil liberties.

Thank you for considering our views. If you would like to discuss them further, or
would like to respond to this letter, please contact Michelle Richardson at the
American Civil Liberties Union, 202/715‐0825.

Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union
American Library Association
American Association of Law Libraries
Association of Research Libraries
Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Center for Democracy & Technology
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Constitution Project
Cyber Privacy Project
Defending Dissent Foundation
DownsizeDC.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Government Accountability Project
Liberty Coalition
Liberty Guard
Muslim Public Affairs Council
Muslimah Writers Alliance
National Lawyers Guild – National Office
OpenTheGovernment.org
OMB Watch
Political Research Associates
Rutherford Institute
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
cc:
Howard Schmidt, Cybersecurity Coordinator, The White House
Philip Reitinger, Deputy Under Secretary, National Protection and Programs
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security
Members of Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
Rep. Jane Harman
Rep. Peter T. King

http://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/20100624_joint_cybersec_letter.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Impressive, some folks DO get it

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. and so forth and so on.........

[mcollins]

48. Map of worldwide root servers

http://www.root-servers.org/

[Edweird]

49. My oh my.

[crikkett]

51. Paving the way for data centers to move offshore n/t

[Odin2005]

52. More Creeping Fascism.

[Arkana]

53. Jesus Christ.

Please, Mr. President, do not sign this abomination.

[Catherina]

57. Abomination indeed. This is truly frightening. n/t

[Shireling]

54. From Democracy Now 7/8/10:

Amy Goodman ended her news update with this:

Report: Raytheon Hired for NSA Surveillance of Infrastructure Hacking

And the Wall Street Journal has revealed the National Security Agency has launched a new domestic surveillance program to detect cyber assaults on critical U.S. infrastructure. The program, dubbed "Perfect Citizen", would rely on sensors to track unusual activity in the computer networks behind infrastructure such as the electricity grid and nuclear-power plants. The military contractor Raytheon has been awarded a contract worth up to $100 million dollars for the program’s initial stage. The expansive program has raised concerns about the NSA potentially intruding on domestic affairs as well as privacy rights. An internal Raytheon email even says of the program: "Perfect Citizen is Big Brother."

I hope that she has a show on this, so that we can understand it more.

Anyone want to look this up in the Wall Street Journal?

[Catherina]

56. In no way is this directed at websites like WikiLeaks

...

Lieberman’s committee spokeswoman, Leslie Phillips, said the bill was an effort to defend the nation’s most important electronic networks, “the networks that are most central to our daily lives,” not at attacking anything. She was particularly agitated at any suggestion that the bill might give the White House the opportunity to try to shut down individual websites on national-security grounds.

“In no way is the senator’s cybersecurity legislation directed at websites—WikiLeaks or anyone else’s,” she said. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange did not reply to a request for comment via email.

The bill would create a new federal agency, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, within the Department of Homeland Security, with a director who would require Senate confirmation.

The center would work with private companies involved in what is described in the bill as “critical infrastructure”—a list including companies involved with electric grids, telecommunications networks and the Internet—to come up with emergency measures in the event of a crisis. Under the bill, the White House could demand that the emergency measures be put into place, including restrictions on their access to the Internet, if the president declared a national cyber-emergency.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20100618/061810.obamashutinternet/