Lieberman tells Web users to ‘relax’ about ‘kill switch’(rawstory.com)
rawstory.com
Lieberman tells Web users to ‘relax’ about ‘kill switch’
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0620/lieberman-relax-kill-switch/
7 comments
As the person on Hacker News least likely to be generous to Joe Lieberman's perspective on anything, and most particularly inclined to think poorly of anything he has to say about the balance of civil rights and national security, and, unfortunately, one of the small-ish number of active HN people who deal with the problems "shutting off parts of the Internet" would attempt to solve, let me just say one thing.
I think he's right.
IAmA person who thinks he might manage to defend this crazy-sounding Lieberman argument. Ask me anything. I may not be able to answer everything, though.
I think he's right.
IAmA person who thinks he might manage to defend this crazy-sounding Lieberman argument. Ask me anything. I may not be able to answer everything, though.
1) In the event of a true national emergency the President would order action to be taken without a law in place. Ex: Posse Commitatus, the military can not be used for policing but past Presidents have regularly violated this law. If the cause is mildly just enough, the resources will not be invested to punish them.
2) There has been ZERO concrete examples given of situations that would necessitate use of this new power and why. The Patriot Act was a response to terrorism yet has been used exclusively to investigate money laundering for organized crime. Because this is also a law against an unspecific fear and not against a highly specified vulnerability, what this law will actually be used for is anyone's guess and, like the patriot act, its true use will be invented much later.
3) This IS the authoritarian Great Firewall. Giving the president the power to kill parts of the internet is the SAME THING as allowing executive branch agencies to arbitrarily filter specific content.
4) Coercing ISPs to install traffic-control gateways controlled by the executive branch is the legitimization of domestic spying.
5) It's an unnecessary expansion of the department of Homeland Security to include a cyberwarfare branch. The Department of Homeland Security is quite possibly the most wasteful branch of our government. Homeland Security contracts have been some of the worst of the worst of pork-barrel spending.
6) Lieberman is a tool.
2) There has been ZERO concrete examples given of situations that would necessitate use of this new power and why. The Patriot Act was a response to terrorism yet has been used exclusively to investigate money laundering for organized crime. Because this is also a law against an unspecific fear and not against a highly specified vulnerability, what this law will actually be used for is anyone's guess and, like the patriot act, its true use will be invented much later.
3) This IS the authoritarian Great Firewall. Giving the president the power to kill parts of the internet is the SAME THING as allowing executive branch agencies to arbitrarily filter specific content.
4) Coercing ISPs to install traffic-control gateways controlled by the executive branch is the legitimization of domestic spying.
5) It's an unnecessary expansion of the department of Homeland Security to include a cyberwarfare branch. The Department of Homeland Security is quite possibly the most wasteful branch of our government. Homeland Security contracts have been some of the worst of the worst of pork-barrel spending.
6) Lieberman is a tool.
Explain to me why this would be a good idea.
Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communication is frightening and awful.
The reasoning behind it? We can stop communications from attacking countries in times of war.
The reality is that there are many other modes of communication for the kind of 1 to 1 communication an attacker would need, but there are far fewer ways for the type of 1 to 1000's communication activists and thinkers need.
Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communication is frightening and awful.
The reasoning behind it? We can stop communications from attacking countries in times of war.
The reality is that there are many other modes of communication for the kind of 1 to 1 communication an attacker would need, but there are far fewer ways for the type of 1 to 1000's communication activists and thinkers need.
I don't think the reasoning behind this has much to do with "communications", but has rather a lot more to do with the industrial and financial infrastructural systems that have ended up connected in one way or another to the Internet.
Wouldn't it make more sense to disconnect them from the internet than to try and shutdown communication to/from some sections of the world? The ability to momentarily create a strong perimeter defense doesn't make much sense to me- it would only work against an attacker that didn't plan for it.
As soon as the world knows you have a kill switch, any organized attack will have domestic components, and which means that you still have the possibility of the president screwing up the normal economy, but no additional defense.
As soon as the world knows you have a kill switch, any organized attack will have domestic components, and which means that you still have the possibility of the president screwing up the normal economy, but no additional defense.
Regardless, it would have an effect on communications.
And so, why would it be a good idea? That's still what I haven't hear. (It also sounds like your justifications differ from Leiberman's–he's interested in the communications aspect.)
And so, why would it be a good idea? That's still what I haven't hear. (It also sounds like your justifications differ from Leiberman's–he's interested in the communications aspect.)
Can you please explain precisely why the President does not have the legal authority to compel internet providers to follow his instructions during a time of war right now? Please cite independent legal authorities.
Also, given the atrocious way in which Patriot Act powers have been abused, let alone the manner in which illegal telecom surveillance has been completely ignored (silly people, prosecution of criminals is only for citizens, not government agents!), why exactly should we given Lieberman the benefit of the doubt on these issues at all? Lieberman has failed to investigate any of those issues despite chairing the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. What else does Lieberman have to do in order to convince us that he does not respect civil liberties at all?
Also, given the atrocious way in which Patriot Act powers have been abused, let alone the manner in which illegal telecom surveillance has been completely ignored (silly people, prosecution of criminals is only for citizens, not government agents!), why exactly should we given Lieberman the benefit of the doubt on these issues at all? Lieberman has failed to investigate any of those issues despite chairing the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. What else does Lieberman have to do in order to convince us that he does not respect civil liberties at all?
I can see his point, and the underlying goal (to protect critical Internet-connected systems from cyber criminals) is noble.
But I do have a question: Would "shutting off parts of the Internet" really work to deter cyber criminals? I honestly don't know the answer, but would love to hear it.
But I do have a question: Would "shutting off parts of the Internet" really work to deter cyber criminals? I honestly don't know the answer, but would love to hear it.
No. Shutting off parts of the Internet wouldn't put even a tiny dent in cybercrime. There are, however, circumstances in which it might save people's lives, particularly people who rely on continuously available electricity to live.
What circumstances? I realize I already asked you a similar question earlier in the thread, but I'm not trying to be combative, I promise :).
I see, so the argument is then utility operators can't install ACLs so we need to have the government do it for them?
For patients requiring treaments to stay alive, there are generators at every hospital and ambulances to pick up patients in dire need. Even taking your ludicrous scenario of total US power outage attack at face value...oil will still continue to burn without the internet. :D
For patients requiring treaments to stay alive, there are generators at every hospital and ambulances to pick up patients in dire need. Even taking your ludicrous scenario of total US power outage attack at face value...oil will still continue to burn without the internet. :D
In an actual war or national emergency, couldn't the president just ask nicely, and get enthusiastic compliance from all the necessary major actors? Why is an explicit new power required?
Isn't it likely that in the event of actual cyber-sabotage, private-sector experts might discover the attacks first, and share countermeasures rapidly among themselves, without any participation of the (slow-moving, often ham-handed) White House and Defense Department?
Might the existence of this bill's new power -- and followup requests to formalize it in automatic systems -- encourage cyberspace national defense planning to over-rely on crude traffic kill commands to the private sector compared to other defense-in-depth?
Isn't it likely that in the event of actual cyber-sabotage, private-sector experts might discover the attacks first, and share countermeasures rapidly among themselves, without any participation of the (slow-moving, often ham-handed) White House and Defense Department?
Might the existence of this bill's new power -- and followup requests to formalize it in automatic systems -- encourage cyberspace national defense planning to over-rely on crude traffic kill commands to the private sector compared to other defense-in-depth?
tcptacek is correct: there is some need for government action here ahead of a crisis. The internet, while doing vastly more good than harm, has also created systemic risks which need to be proactively managed. Waiting for a catastrophe is howling mad.
I'm much more concerned with how "emergency" is defined. Ideally I'd like to see both executive and judicial involvement in mucking around with the net, since in addition to defending the nation under attack you are also effectively constraining hundreds of millions of people's civil rights in various ways at the same time. That's a little too much power for one schmuck and anything that might be called an emergency.
I'm much more concerned with how "emergency" is defined. Ideally I'd like to see both executive and judicial involvement in mucking around with the net, since in addition to defending the nation under attack you are also effectively constraining hundreds of millions of people's civil rights in various ways at the same time. That's a little too much power for one schmuck and anything that might be called an emergency.
Even if the Americans do decide that the president has the authority to "kill the internet", they get to use this power exactly once.
Then the rest of the world routes around it and doesn't let the US become a single point of failure again.
The reasonable side of the argument is that what they really want to be able to do is air-gap the US should it find itself under attack by the rest of the internet. Unfortunately, right now, so much of the internet routes through the US that doing this is almost the same thing as shutting down the internet.
Then the rest of the world routes around it and doesn't let the US become a single point of failure again.
The reasonable side of the argument is that what they really want to be able to do is air-gap the US should it find itself under attack by the rest of the internet. Unfortunately, right now, so much of the internet routes through the US that doing this is almost the same thing as shutting down the internet.
You are assuming that the idea is actually to "kill the Internet", and not that it is just horribly, horribly miscommunicated using that concept. What if instead of this they were saying something like "we may at some point need to kill all traffic from all ISPs going to any IP address with the ASN 31336 and a TCP destination port of 80 or 5151"?
This is absurd. If there's a valid reason justifying the kill switch, it should be clearly communicated by Lieberman. It is not the job of anyone here to ferret out Liberman's justifications; it is Lieberman's job to explain himself. He has a website. He makes frequent media appearances and he often communicates with journalists. If given all that, he remains completely incapable of communicating his ideas clearly, then he clearly is far too incompetent to be a US Senator.
Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there any reason to believe that Lieberman has been prevented from clearly explaining his ideas on his own website?
Perhaps I'm wrong. Is there any reason to believe that Lieberman has been prevented from clearly explaining his ideas on his own website?
[deleted]
I'm not even a little bit interested in debating the merits of Joe Lieberman with you.
This is much more sinister, because people might let it slide.
If there's a legit reason to do this, can't Obama just ask the top tier ISPs to implement such a filter? Do we really need legislation to this effect?
Because the ISPs could just say "no".
This doesn't make any sense. We've already seen major telecoms roll over and participate in massive illegal government surveillance. And that didn't involve a war on American soil. We already understand exactly how this works: major telecom firms have enormous contracts with the federal government and/or pending regulatory issues before federal agencies. That gives them a huge incentive to do what the government wants, especially since the government can credibly promise to indemnify their illegal acts.
Given this history, WHICH JUST HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, there is no credible reason to believe that ISPs would "just say no" during a real national emergency.
Given this history, WHICH JUST HAPPENED IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, there is no credible reason to believe that ISPs would "just say no" during a real national emergency.
In an actual war or emergency, what are the chances ISPs would refuse a presidential request? Are major ISPs typically stubborn and obstructionist in the face of major security threats, or cooperative?
To follow up on this point, a portion of revenue of most ISPs and telcos comes from contracts with the federal government.
In a time of emergency and war, a large multinational is not going to bite the (large and powerful) hand that feeds them.
A related current example is BP with the oil spill. BP could very well have said fuck you to the Obama administration and not set aside a compensation fund. However, this would have been done at the cost of current and future federal government contracts.
In a time of emergency and war, a large multinational is not going to bite the (large and powerful) hand that feeds them.
A related current example is BP with the oil spill. BP could very well have said fuck you to the Obama administration and not set aside a compensation fund. However, this would have been done at the cost of current and future federal government contracts.
in an actual war or emergency, the president would issue one of those things called "executive orders" - basically laws that don't need to go through congress.
There is no justification for this bill to exist, other than because these senators decided "If China can do it, then why can't we?"
There is no justification for this bill to exist, other than because these senators decided "If China can do it, then why can't we?"
I'd rather we wait for this to actually occur before introducing new laws.
Wait for what? A nationwide calamity?
I'm kind of dumb....What type of calamity could possibly occur that would justify such an action?
Also, its frightening to see that people welcome the great firewall of america.
Also, its frightening to see that people welcome the great firewall of america.
Yea that's a good question. What kind of event ARE we really talking about here? Do you have an example of something that might require this kind of response?
Is it really just for cyber attacks? What if we were in a war with, say, England. Would contact with them through the internet be cut off? I am guessing yes, but it's a really interesting thought.
I'm loathe to find myself on the same side as Lieberman, but giving The President the power to "kill switch" the internet seems like it's not THAT big of a deal considering he has a secret service guy following him around with a briefcase that he can use launch nukes.
As Commander in Chief of the US military (as determined by the Constitution), it makes sense for him to have that power. However, shutting down parts of the Internet is unconstitutional because as far as I'm aware, it doesn't grant that power to the President (and by "that power", I don't mean specifically shutting down the Internet. I mean the idea behind it).
Right... so this will liberate the Americans?
All this is, is another way of controlling speech. The internet is the last truly open medium. To allow the government to shut it off because of War or other reasons would be ridiculous. This 'switch' violates freedom of speech by isolating Americans from parts or all of the now 'World' wide web.
All this is, is another way of controlling speech. The internet is the last truly open medium. To allow the government to shut it off because of War or other reasons would be ridiculous. This 'switch' violates freedom of speech by isolating Americans from parts or all of the now 'World' wide web.
This would require all internet traffic (seemingly) to be routed through a bunch of points controlled directly by the executive branch. My big brother alarms are a-buzzing.
No, but it might require all default-free ISPs to honor some kind of court order requiring them to install certain ACLs.
It does not matter where the decision to shut off traffic is made.
Be it court order to load an ACL or a central routing point, the outcome is the same. Take a look at FISA warrant approval rates if you think judicial oversight means anything in the face of national security.
Be it court order to load an ACL or a central routing point, the outcome is the same. Take a look at FISA warrant approval rates if you think judicial oversight means anything in the face of national security.
I'm not sure what your point is. Are FISA warrants granted far too freely? I'm sure they are. And yet FISA safeguards were problematic enough for the Bush administration that Cheney and his legal team had to go through contortions to create an end-run around them. Read "Angler", the (excellent) book on Cheney's role in the previous administration, for more on that.
But be that as it may: whether the system is abused in the future or not, it seems to me hard to refute the idea that unfettered connectivity to a network that has been (perhaps negligently) connected to critical infrastructure around the country is something that the executive branch will have to address.
But be that as it may: whether the system is abused in the future or not, it seems to me hard to refute the idea that unfettered connectivity to a network that has been (perhaps negligently) connected to critical infrastructure around the country is something that the executive branch will have to address.
I was responding directly to your attempts to diffuse big brother concerns by implying judicial review would occur.
The requirement of judicial oversight does not preclude big brother attempts at censorship. Particularly when the courts feel they are deciding issues of national security. Your citation of the Bush administration does nothing but affirm this point.
Taking your argument about critical infrastructure at face value (which is still a big leap, as you've yet to define any concrete scenarios other than a power outage), there are better ways of achieving the same end goal without denying american citizens their natural and constitutionally affirmed rights.
The requirement of judicial oversight does not preclude big brother attempts at censorship. Particularly when the courts feel they are deciding issues of national security. Your citation of the Bush administration does nothing but affirm this point.
Taking your argument about critical infrastructure at face value (which is still a big leap, as you've yet to define any concrete scenarios other than a power outage), there are better ways of achieving the same end goal without denying american citizens their natural and constitutionally affirmed rights.
I may have missed this, but what kind of event is this supposed to protect against? Does anyone know the scenarios that Lieberman is worried about?
For what it's worth: A friend used to host his website. The night before an election, they had two expensive dedicated servers running full tilt (static website). That was expensive so Lieberman switched to shared hosting with someone else for the next election. When his website shut down (with some sort of "over quota" text), he blamed his opponent for "hacking" it.
I suppose it's hard to tell the difference between a DDOS attack and lots of website visitors, but a skilled technician is expensive and smarter than a hosting control panel.