Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Security The Internet United States News IT

Most Americans Support an Internet Kill Switch 398

Orome1 writes "Sixty-one percent of Americans said the President should have the ability to shut down portions of the Internet in the event of a coordinated malicious cyber attack, according to research by Unisys. The survey found that while Americans are taking proactive steps to protect themselves against cybercrime and identity theft, only slightly more than a third of Internet users in the US regularly use and update passwords on their mobile devices – creating a potentially huge security hole for organizations as more consumer devices invade the workplace. The findings illustrate that recent events such as the Stuxnet computer worm attack and the attempted Times Square car bombing may have heightened the American public's awareness of and concern over global and domestic cybersecurity threats."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Most Americans Support an Internet Kill Switch

Comments Filter:
  • by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:00PM (#34041722)

    Regarding technology, that isn't a Troll.

    Americans, by and large, are willfully ignorant of as much technology as they can avoid being coerced by necessity to understand.

  • by Dalzhim ( 1588707 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:08PM (#34041842)

    ... that the design principle at the foundation of the Internet should be re-engineered. The Internet was meant to be a means of communication that couldn't be severed easily.

  • Re:Sad truths (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <[ten.frow] [ta] [todhsals]> on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:14PM (#34041928)

    I suppose a lot of this comes from the fact that not EVERYONE is aware of what a killswitch would even mean. If you think about how much people overall understand the internet, the majority of people out there probably just assumed it would be nice to have. It is very unfortunate that we live in such an age where ignorance is more dangerous than anything else.

    I believe this is more of 69% "don't know what the killswitch is". So they think that in the event of an attack, hitting the killswitch will magically kill the attacker or such. If you defined it as "during a cyberattack, would you justify turning off the Internet", you'll find that proportion is probably "no". After all, people need their Facebook/Farmville/Netflix/Hulu/online shopping/etc.

    That and it probably sounds like a nice idea. But they don't realize just how much of their daily routines depend on the Internet.

  • by Securityemo ( 1407943 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:22PM (#34042040) Journal
    Only the problem is that people are led to believe that this would somehow protect the internet or the assets connected to it. I can only hope that "internet kill switch" is a code word for more granular segregation mechanisms, or that the U.S. media is just spinning a yarn and Unisys is fishing for contracts.
  • Re:Sad truths (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vlm ( 69642 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:38PM (#34042216)

    I suppose a lot of this comes from the fact that not EVERYONE is aware of what a killswitch would even mean.

    I've been on the net since 92 and in the biz since 97 and I have utterly no idea what it means.

    Do they mean the fedgov would inject a 0/0 route into BGP? Morons used to do that occasionally so I have prefix lists to filter them out.

    To they mean getting the biggest "tier 1" ISPs in the DFZ to ... "shut off" or whatever? Those guys can just barely, on a good day, eventually coordinate a simple router software update in a day or two. OK, thats not me and I have plenty of peering at the local NAPs.

    Its like the concept of an all-motor-vehicles kill switch, so we can press it every time there is a divorce custody dispute and somebody issues an Amber alert. Uh, we don't got that kind of tech, at least not yet. Not even sure if its theoretically possible from a technical standpoint.

    Its not as simple as "send in the troops to chop the fiber with a fire axe" because that means shutting down the SCADA electrical grid, all telephones, all nuke power plants, all fedgov fiber would also be chopped, etc.

  • Please repeat... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @04:54PM (#34042446)

    "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

    Until you stop doing this stupid shit!

  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @10:21PM (#34045458) Homepage Journal

    So, the Psyop [npr.org] Worked. [cnet.com]

      Propaganda 101. [wn.com]

  • by fluffy99 ( 870997 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2010 @10:49PM (#34045600)

    Taking it one step further...

    A mechanism to shut down (ie. disconnect from the rest of the world) part of the (American portion of the) internet (since, for the most part at least, there are too many possible routes in and out of most countries for any one country to be able to totally disconnect a country other than itself) is a potential weak point and a target for an attack.

    Such a system would increase any security risks defeating the whole purpose... no sane country would mandate such a thing.

    I think some countries like China and Iran have the right idea. The free flow of internet in and out of the country is a risk. Consolidating and putting protections on those links addresses that risk. A good example is the Stuxnet virus, which was effectively stopped by filtering the command-control IP at the edge of the country.

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...