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."
Most Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
should be more careful what they wish for
Re:Most Americans (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. They probably think that stopping Chinese hackers means disconnecting the connection to China. They do not realize that it is their (our) computers that are doing the attacking and that the internet kill switch will interrupt their eBaying and porn surfing.
Re:Most Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm actually surprised at how low the poll results are.
In some ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad that the US isn't a direct democracy.
Re:In some ways... (Score:5, Informative)
How in the world is this troll? We are not a direct democracy PRECISELY type for this reason. Someone needs to brush up on their Civics class...
Re: (Score:2)
Beware the idea of keeping the people out the real decisions because they are too dumb or inexperienced: getting people dumbed down and their lowest instincts tickled so that an elite can rule over them with the praetext of protecting society from itself becomes feasible.
I dunno how it would end up for national security.
But for money policies we left the matter to central banks so we could have stability and dunno what else, and debt became widespread, money rules de facto over law, insolvent banks compete
Re:In some ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
A Democracy allows you to execute a man with a simple majority vote. No need to prove guilt. It's a tyranny. It's what happened to Socrates.
Rule by Law, like our Constitution, is preferable.
Now we just need to enforce it rather than ignore it.
Re:In some ways... (Score:4, Informative)
Beware the idea of keeping the people out the real decisions because they are too dumb or inexperienced: getting people dumbed down and their lowest instincts tickled so that an elite can rule over them with the praetext of protecting society from itself becomes feasible.
One word: California. The place where they vote ballot measures to jack up spending (usually on "get tough on crime" crusades), and suppress taxes at the same time. Then they wonder why they spend so much of their income servicing debt. They have voted on measures that make it impossible for legislators to pass a budget. And who do they blame for the gridlock in the state Capitol? The legislators!
Direct democracy is the greatest threat to civilisation. Californian voters need a good slap upside the head, told to eat what's put in front of them, and stop acting like the childish entitlement merchants they are. California doesn't need more direct democracy, it needs a king. The state is an example of democracy run amok.
I dunno how it would end up for national security.
But for money policies we left the matter to central banks so we could have stability and dunno what else, and debt became widespread, money rules de facto over law, insolvent banks compete with their fractional reserve in the same league of your hard earned money. Not the best deal.
Central banks are accountable to their respective legislators. In Britain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the finance minister) used to have direct control of interest rates. It was a disaster because the government kept fiddling interest rates for party political reasons, usually around election time. It doesn't take a genius to guess what that led to. Stability was greatly improved when that was delegated to the Bank of England.
Re:In some ways... (Score:4, Funny)
Holy crap - someone used the distinction between a direct democracy and a republic or representative democracy in the correct context and to provide topical commentary. Color me shocked.
Most Americans? (Score:2, Funny)
Internet is the fastest method for info to travel (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"A killswitch means we no longer get instantaneous information, either, should we have to use it."
Amateur Radio, the original geek hobby, still exists. Packet radio for teh (slow baud rate) win!
Re: (Score:2)
Heck of a lot closer to 0.5%, but the real answer is what percentage of the population has a friend / relative / coworker / neighbor ham radio guy... Probably 10%?
The constitutional republic was designed (Score:5, Insightful)
...to protect us from democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me like that didn't work so well.
Honest Results? (Score:4, Insightful)
"A majority of the American population is willing to grant the President the authority to cut short their Internet access to protect both U.S. assets and citizens, suggesting that the public is taking cyber warfare very seriously," said Patricia Titus, VP and CISO, Unisys. "Our survey shows that the American public recognizes the danger of a cyber attack and wants the federal government to take an active role in extending the nation's cyber defense. It will be up to officials in all branches of the federal government to respond to this call to action in a way that is measured and well planned."
I suspect selective polling, ambiguous questions, and/or selective interpretation of the results. I really wish they'd post the surveys' actual results, scope of participants, etc. for these kinds of things.
Obligatory question (Score:2, Informative)
Sure...give the government an internet kill switch. What could possibly go wrong?
You know what's really sad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because most members of the American public have heard of Stuxnet, and know that it incorporated multiple vulns on multiple devices/OSes, and was targeting Iranian nuke facilities. Puhleeeese.
Please take my freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
from the please-take-my-freedoms-I-don't-deserve-them dept.
Not much more to say.
Sad truths (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 t
Be afraid, consume. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's ridiculous (Score:2)
Most people have no idea of what it is, nor have the vast majority of the American public even heard about it let alone taken the time to become educated about it.
Internet emergency controls (Score:4, Insightful)
Arguably, we should have some emergency controls for the Internet. I'd suggest that the following emergency systems be implemented:
This would be enough to deal with serious overloads, outages, or viruses, but doesn't have censorship implications.
Re:Internet emergency controls (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time the government is in control, there is a censorship issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mail servers forward only text email, stripping all MIME content. Useful in case of serious virus trouble.
Cell phone switches handle voice and SMS messages only. Maybe raw pictures on some platforms. No downloads, no "apps", no tethering, no IP.
Under severe overload conditions during a cyber-attack, the FCC should be able to order an advertising shutdown. All advertising servers must go offline until the emergency is over.
All this should be publicly tested occasionally, like the Emergency Broadcast System.
This would be enough to deal with serious overloads, outages, or viruses, but doesn't have censorship implications.
#1 - Can I have that now?
#2 - So, in the event of a major telecoms emergency, make sure people can't download security updates for their phones? And make sure that I can't ssh into my servers to fix them from wherever I am ASAP? And make sure I have to tie up bandwidth voice calling 30 people instead of just sending an email explaining how to fix things?
#3 - Advertising shutdown would mean that some sites that depend on advertising revenue to stay up would be at danger of collapse. Collapse is sometimes
Facebook (Score:2)
In other words, 61% think... (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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:In other words, 61% think... (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS. the very concept of an "Internet killswitch" is nonsense on the face of it. Think about it: what, exactly, will the President shut off? MAE-EAST? Google datacenters? Sprint core routers? Facebook webservers? All of Comcast's residential netblocks? Undersea fiber between San Francisco and Australia? The most fundamental aspect of the Internet is its decentralization, designed specifically to PREVENT any single entity from shutting down the network. The entire discussion consists of uninformed blathering from morons and those who hope to make a truckload of money selling them nonsense solutions.
!Generalizing at all (Score:2, Insightful)
61% << "Most"...
61% ~= "Not quite two-thirds"
Poor reporting (Score:5, Insightful)
When are reporters going to learn that they need to include the actual wording of the question posed in the poll for people to actually understand what was asked? From what little information is in the article, there is a wide gamut of ways the question might have been posed that would affect the outcome. Why, oh why, can't they learn to include the actual question in addition to their canned analysis of the results? 100% of Americans think that the linked article is useless (plus or minus 99.99997%).
Re: (Score:2)
When are reporters going to learn that they need to include the actual wording of the question posed in the poll for people to actually understand what was asked?
Even that is not enough. Different people interpret questions differently depending on their own circumstances. Here's a trivial example - ask a question about "coke" and in some parts of the USA many people will think you are talking about sodas in general, not just coca-cola. The discrepancies get even wider when you ask a question of people in a foreign country but try to interpret their answers in the context of your own country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaving out the question allows them to shape the story to their own will, generate more controversy (and thus more viewers/readers), and twist facts support a particular agenda. They won't learn to include the question because they learned not to, as it gives them a greater advantage.
Unisys (Score:3, Insightful)
Should I be surprised that Unisys [wikipedia.org], a corporation which describes itself as selling IT solutions to "governments around the world" [unisys.com], comes up with a survey result that shows a "majority" of Americans support a possible government program that would likely see the government purchasing a large amount of product from Unisys?
Not is call. (Score:2)
USA don't own internet. Is a global thing.
If USA want to disable free information disemination in a disaster, can plug the cable on his "house", but sould not touch other countries free roam of information. Is not USA what have to decide that.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA did invent the Internet and hosts a HUGE portion of the content. Still, you're right, and should be able to reach all the local and other non-USA hosted sites while we (the USA) shuts it off temporarily. Do not fear, the porn will be back online shortly thereafter. Gambling sites, malware distribution hosts, and the other localized content should remain available through locally cached DNS entries. Sorry for any inconvenience!
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet == easy to kill now (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a sec... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo.... We want to stop a malicious DOS attack on the Internet by... DOSing the Internet?
Brilliant!
Honest Question (Score:2)
It seems to me something you'd notice and g
Probably too obvious of a solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the internet, by design, is built to route around damage (and taking "portions" offline would count), wouldn't the only real way to prevent an attack be to remove either the source or destination computers from the network?
And removing the destination system would by far be the simplest and least disruptive way to do it. (At least until you track down the source computer).
In a related note (Score:2)
I can't believe this thread has gone on this long (Score:2)
... without mentioning the possible benefit of stopping Skynet when it attempts to take over?
So, tie the hidden "terrist" nukes to ping (Score:2)
If the nukes the "terrists" have planted on U.S. soil can't ping one another through the net... they go off.
Who was the fucktard who came up with this piece of brilliance?
Hard to judge (Score:2)
I don't have a theoretical objection to a "kill switch" that'd take the nation offline (to the extent that that's even feasable), but I'm not sure such a thing would be useful - the harm in taking our networks down would probably outweigh almost anything but complete loss of network functionality - the internet is almost as fundamental as roads for our society and economy.
I'm curious how community peer networking would change were the internet down for awhile.
Blazing sadles (Score:3, Funny)
"You've got to remember, that these are just simple farmers, these are people of the land, the common clay of the new west. You know . . . morons."
Of course they are going to say that. (Score:5, Informative)
If you google 'Unisys', the first result is an article saying that Profit Tanks at Unisys Corporation [zacks.com]
Apparently their year-over-year profits are down 54%, to $21 million from over $50 million a year ago, and their Technology sector revenue declined 31%. Apparently this is driven by a lack of demand for their ClearPath server line.
So by pumping this 'intenet kill switch' idea, it may be that they expect to be first in line to implement it, and get some handsome profits from the taxpayer pie in the bargain.
This is about as believable as Bill Gates and other tech leaders trumpeting that there were not enough skilled US IT workers a few years back. Sure there were, just not at the immigrant prices that Gates and others wanted to pay. Here's a video from a recruiter seminar instructing recruiters on how not to find qualified American applicants for jobs [youtube.com] while putting in the legally required advertisements. Look for the speaker stating at about 1:44 into the video that "our goal here is clearly not to find a qualified and interested US worker".
Of course corporations are going to release self-serving announcements like this -- it's just fulfilling their legal mandate to act in the best interests of their shareholders. In other news, the sky is blue.
On the other hand (Score:3, Funny)
Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is total nonsense written on some corporate blog I've never heard of before.
I remember a survey which said that only around 30% of Americans even trusted the sitting president, so how does this nonsense survey stack up against that?
It's all garbage.
They're going to kill the web when it matters, and this is just sales spin to stop Americans from doing what the French are currently doing; forcing their government to do what the hell they tell it to rather than whatever evil, selfish shit it wants to do.
What a concept! A government held accountable by the people! Horrors!
No wonder Bush hated the French. They're not brain-dazed lightweights who let their government rob them blind without lifting a finger.
-FL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ever tried explaining a buffer overflow stack-smashing attack to someone?
Only "for fun and profit."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the Psyop [npr.org] Worked. [cnet.com]
Propaganda 101. [wn.com]
Re:News: Most Americans. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Nay, but most Americans have no idea about computers, let alone computer security.
This is not a question of computers or security so much as it is a question of the freedom of information, communication, expression and speech. Perhaps the propaganda machine has convinced the American public otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News: Most Americans. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a question of computers or security so much as it is a question of the freedom of information, communication, expression and speech. Perhaps the propaganda machine has convinced the American public otherwise.
Yes, and the propaganda machine is cheating! It's using common sense override codes such as "terrorist" and "are you not a patriot?". By the way "are you a communist?" still works.
Re:News: Most Americans. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
(and that's not picking on Republicans; the numbers would be the same the other way around, I'm sure.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most probably had no fucking clue what was being asked
I suspect you got that right. They would not realize that the "kill switch" probably (i) would cut the US from the internet, but leave the rest of the world largely connected, (ii) would have to disconnect US segments from one another, because a cyberattack would be hosted as much inside the US as outside, (iii) would severely hamper communication inside the US and between the US and the rest of the world, leaving official propaganda supreme in the US, (iv) would cripple commerce and logistics inside the US
Most Americans. . .are really stupid (Score:3, Funny)
We already have several of these. They are called 'MIRVing ICBMs', but they functionally do the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That kind of logic reminds me of the "Nike Hercules" program which attempted to thwart incoming Soviet nukes by detonating Ameri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
may have heightened American's awareness and concern.
Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but hightened concern in the US doesn't normally equate to hightened awareness. We are still that country that bans matches on board of aircraft because of security "concerns," but allows on butane lighters because of a lack of awareness.
If American's security concerns about the internet were heightened, I wouldn't keep coming across people surfing with expired copies of Norton Antivirus on XP SP1 machines that spew more wo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You, sir, are an enemy of the people.
Please don't speak on this subject again.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The people saying the government should be able to knock out sections of the net are the probably some of the same people who own zombie systems because they can't be bothered to install patches or like to click on every file sent to them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And English, or French, or Asians somehow have special knowledge the excludes them from this group? Really?
They are not addicted to the viewpoint "if its not in The Bible, I don't need to know it".
Not so much a gain of "special knowledge" as a lack of "special knowledge"
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really the only reason? Surely, not wanting to look like a huge tool* is a good reason too.
* unless you regularly haul lots of stuff
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the idiocracy tag when you need it?
Re:News: Most Americans. . . (Score:5, Informative)
Where's the idiocracy tag when you need it?
About nine keystrokes away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
actually 61% of all biased studies on internet kill switches support internet kill switches. /what a load of crap.
Re:This just in. (Score:5, Funny)
Just to clarify, is that to hit someone with your cock? or is that to hit someone in the cock? If it's the latter, then your solution may be flawed since 61% may include both male and female. You may need to throw in a vaginachop to cover all your bases.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The results are a reflection of how the question was asked. If they ahd asked:
"Do you support the president having a kill switch to remove Websites that post articles criticizing the president or the government?" The result would probably be just 10-20% in favor.
Re:This just in. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>Oh, but both my question and yours are loaded with misleading and biasing rationales for granting the president authority, aren't they?
No shit Sherlock. That was my point. The original question was worded to predispose uninformed citizens to say "yes the president should be able to stop cyberattacks". The question is biased/misleading, and the results meaningless but they give those who desire to control the internet the data they need to justify it. "The majority americans say the net should have a killswitch." Like Noam Chomsy said, they are manufacturing consent via slanted questions that give them the answer they desire.
An ideal poll would simply ask, "Should the president have power to turn off the internet?" without biasing the question to give the answer desired.
.
>>>just like the president can abuse many of the powers he has.
Yeah well, it's not the current president I fear. It's the future president that resembles somebody like Julius Caesar, or Nero, or Napoleon, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Mussolini, or Pol Pot. We've handed him exactly the tool he needs to silence dissent and strengthen his grip. We should not be giving so much power to just one man, or even one group of men. Such powers should be divided across multiple departments, and multiple levels of government, in order to dilute the damage any one person/group can cause.
.
>>>plausible deniability
A leader doesn'tt need that when he (or his parliament) has been given near-absolute power. You can do your oppression out in the open, and nobody will be able to object (again see my list of former democracies that fell to dictators). To mangle a quote from a German Christian pastor: "First they came for our guns, but we did not object because we did not need guns. Then they came for our free speech, but we did not object because free speech is not absolute. Then they came for the protesters & reporters, but we did not object because we were not protesters or reporters. Then they came for me, and no one was left to object. Or allowed to speak-out for fear of being jailed like me."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You may need to throw in a vaginachop to cover all your bases.
I don't know, I usually don't get past 2nd base when I do that.
Re:This just in. (Score:5, Funny)
61% of Americans need to be cockpunched
50.9% of Americans do not have a cock to punch. (2000 census)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
61% may need to use their brain more. That doesn't mean they have said device with which to satisfy that need.
Umm... I beg to argue (Score:3, Funny)
(btw... I actually like her)
It's all in how you phrase the question. (Score:4, Insightful)
And 39% think that during an "attack" the President should NOT be able to shut down the route used by the attackers.
I'm thinking that that 39% include the people who understand that "cyber attack" is a meaningless term and that no authority should be granted on the basis of a meaningless term.
Here, try this instead:
If it makes as much sense as the original then there is a problem.
Re:It's all in how you phrase the question. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or:
"The President should have the ability to shut down Google in the event of a coordinated malicious cyber attack on irs.gov."
or:
"In the case of a malcious DDoS attack the President will assist with the mother of all DoS attacks."
Re: (Score:2)
or
"In case of yet another microsoft windows security hole the president will shut down all computers, including macs"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
61% of Americans need to be cockpunched. Thoroughly.
I believe you are referring to hitting someone with a rooster, otherwise half of the population would not be covered by your opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
to the one who mod me as troll, you would gain a better understanding of society if you read Chomsky manufacturing consent and if you do not want to read you can watch : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730# [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think the conservative right gets their porn? Any other way risks public exposure and ridicule.
Re:Users vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
the Internet was liberated and experimental from scratch, you must not be on the same Internet as I am because as time goes I only see more restriction and more commercialization ...
Re:Users vs. Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As Internet becomes more liberated and experimental
Which Internet are you using? The Internet we have now is just a mishmash of businessmen and scam artists looking to make a quick buck, with a couple barely noticeably rays of hope coming from the hacker community.
Re: (Score:2)
So 61% of America's balls are in your ass? Not that there is anything wrong with that....
Re: (Score:2)
Eyeballs. He's the goatse guy.
Re:Most Americans watch Fox News (Score:5, Insightful)
What?
39% of Americans say they regularly get news from a cable channel.
Only 40% of Republicans regularly watch Fox News.
I'm sure you were just trying to make a point... but when your point hinges on more than 50% of Americans getting their news from FN and thus are stupid, and it's not even close to 50% ... the point seems to kinda fall apart? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on which way the "switch" works. I'm for cutting off botnet mules and insecure users like those lazy/stupids you're referring to! So, we DO need a kill switch, just one in the direction of the spam, botnets, malware, and Windows users. Just kidding on the last one. You can take my word for it, I almost named my daughter Princess Leia. So, you KNOW I'm a bro!
Re: (Score:2)
Tell my mother... that I feel fine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Easy fix, Have a fourth big red button that confirms one of the other three big red button push.
With this safety mechanism, they wouldnt have to worry about accidentally pushing a big red button, they could press them all the time for drills, playing pranks on foreign visitors etc.