![]() |
Presidential control of the internet...? |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123> |
Author | ||
WGP guy2 ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() I play the Bag Pipes Joined: 23 September 2005 Location: 17h 45m 40.04s Status: Offline Points: 2585 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posted: 28 August 2009 at 12:03pm |
|
![]() |
||
FreeEnterprise ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4910 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
NoooooooO!O!!O!OO!!!
There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."
Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network. |
||
They tremble at my name...
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Mehs ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() An Hero Joined: 27 March 2004 Location: Neutral Zone Status: Offline Points: 3907 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Networks were created neutral and thus should remain so or the innovation of the Internet will cease to exist or turn to crap. If there was such power over the tubes who knows what could happen!
|
||
[IMG]http://i27.tinypic.com/1538fbc.jpg">
Squeeze Box ☣ |
||
![]() |
||
choopie911 ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30773 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Net neutrality is hugely important, I'll be really, really, really unhappy if that changed.
|
||
![]() |
||
agentwhale007 ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Forum's Noam Chomsky Joined: 20 June 2002 Location: Statesboro, GA Status: Offline Points: 12014 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
For somebody a little more dork than me, what exactly would be involved in a cyber terrorism attack?
|
||
![]() |
||
FreeEnterprise ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Not a card-carrying member of the DNC Joined: 14 October 2008 Location: Trails Of Doom Status: Offline Points: 4910 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The new "policies" that companies would have to jump through to pass the governments "standards" are a slippery slope, and will cost big bucks.
The sad thing is, the internet was made so that in the event of a major loss (nuclear attack) anyone could hook up and start communicating with just a phone line...
So to have the power to shut it all down... That would take a serious restructuring of the current system. As you can't "shut it down" currently. It is just a series of computers. None needing others to work...
I guess Obama can look at how china handles their internet...
Nice pick guys, this Obama is the most power hungry politician ever.
|
||
They tremble at my name...
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Frozen Balls ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() Strike 1, filter dodge, 1.28.10 Joined: 14 June 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5865 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Skynet!
|
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Darur ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() Stare directly into my avatar... Joined: 03 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9178 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
It's a very broad term. Anything from DDoS attacks to widspread virus releases could technically be called "cyber terrorism". Heck, some of 4chan's antics could probably qualify as "cyber-terrorism". The thing is, people have been talking about it for years and we've never actually seen any catistrophic attacks. For the most part, attacks are either done by people who simply can and want to (e.g blaster worm) or, more reccently, by people who are trying to make money. It just isn't feasible to try to destroy the tubes. In the event of a real attack, I'm pretty sure anyone being targeted would just shut down their servers and call it a day. I don't see what they hope being able to shut down entire ISPs will accomplish. That's like killing everyone in the world who might want to steal the Hope Diamond instead of putting the diamond in safe. It's a weird move, considering Obama was pro-net neautrality. |
||
Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
||
![]() |
||
High Voltage ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() Fire in the disco Joined: 12 March 2003 Location: 127.0.0.1 Status: Offline Points: 14179 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Haven't you guys seen Die Hard 4?
|
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
jmac3 ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Official Box Hoister Joined: 28 June 2004 Status: Offline Points: 9204 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
First thing I thought of. IT IS A FIRE SALE EVERYTHING MUST GO! |
||
Que pasa?
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
Kayback ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Ask me about my Kokido Joined: 25 July 2002 Location: South Africa Status: Offline Points: 4183 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Didn't Al Gore invent the internet anyway? So surely they can control it :)
KBK PS, the previous post may contain sarcasm |
||
![]() |
||
Peter Parker ![]() Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 996 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Tricky stuff. Governments have always had (and appropriately so) the power to seize/control/shut off national infrastructure and major industry during national emergencies. And at this point, the internet really is part of the infrastructure. For national security purposes, it would seem we either have to allow the government to step in during emergencies, or accept rules restricting the application of the internet to non-essential functions.
There is of course the very important matter of process and safeguards, but the fundamental principle seems to be the lesser of two evils.
|
||
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
![]() |
||
WGP guy2 ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() I play the Bag Pipes Joined: 23 September 2005 Location: 17h 45m 40.04s Status: Offline Points: 2585 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
One has to wonder...why are national infrastructures accessible and functioning on the public internet anyway?
The gov already has plenty intranets, why not contain all of their stuff on intranets rather than having to mess with the public internet. |
||
![]() |
||
Peter Parker ![]() Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 996 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Well, taking the government off-line would certainly increase security - and many critical systems are in fact not connected to the internet.
Of course, going off-line would increase cost, decrease the free availability of information to regular folks, and generally be a pain in the butt.
More importantly, it wouldn't fix the problem. "Infrastructure" isn't just public stuff - most of the infrastructure is private or semi-private. Power plants, big factories, airplanes, airports, seaports, roads... a lot of private stuff there. To insulate "the infrastructure" from teh interwebz you would have to take half the country off-line.
And even then it wouldn't be enough. Imaging cyberattacks on the stock exchanges? Health insurance reimbursements? Gasoline distribution networks? FedEx? Heck, just a bunch of random office computers in Mid-Town?
The internet basically makes EVERYTHING "infrastructure" for security purposes, since the internet can be used to attack anything.
|
||
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
![]() |
||
choopie911 ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30773 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Why? I'm not saying there isn't a reason, I just think that being able to communicate over large areas is a pretty important thing, and someone else deciding when you can and can't do that isn't really a good idea. What makes their judgement better than the users? |
||
![]() |
||
Peter Parker ![]() Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 996 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
I don't think that is what this is about. Imagine that evil haxorz start systematically opening all the sluices in hydroelectric facilities across the nation. Flooding, blackouts - all kinds of bad things happen. Once it were discovered, we would need to take every other dam offline right NOW, even if that means taking all of Oregon offline as well, and that could be more effectively done by government than by any private actor.
For instance.
|
||
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
![]() |
||
Darur ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() Stare directly into my avatar... Joined: 03 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9178 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Yeah, but thats ENTIRELY beyond what would be necessary. If sys admins started noticing external attacks on their network, they don't begin firing off countermeasures and hacking the IPs to tie up the intertubes. They pull the plug on external traffic. The whole hollywood hacking thing doesn't happen in real life. It's addressing a problem that's in the imagination of hollywood scriptwriters
|
||
Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
||
![]() |
||
Peter Parker ![]() Member ![]() ![]() Joined: 02 March 2003 Location: New York Status: Offline Points: 996 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Hence my point about controls and oversight. The problem with emergencies is that the mostly take you by surprise. Emergency powers, almost by definition, have to be fairly broad to be meaningful. But at the same time, of course, you are right that we ought not give emergency powers for emergencies that cannot happen, or emergency powers unrelated to or in excess of the actual emergency.
I think part of the problem here is that we don't have a lot of experience with real cyberwar/cyberterrorism, and at the same time technology keeps changing. So we are left with a situation where there is an apparent vulnerability, but we don't really know what the attack would be or what the fix would be. Not easy.
BUT - as to this:
I think you have a vastly optimistic view of (a) the capabilities of corporate admins, (b) the authority of corporate admins, (c) the willingness of corporate admins to cut off external traffic, and (d) the number of facilities/companies who even have sys admins at all.
If I am guilty of overestimating the prowess of Johnny Zero, you are guilty of overestimating the state of computer defense in corporate America.
:)
Wanna know what it would take to shut off 90%+ of all windmills in North America? Hack into one web server.
Edited by Peter Parker - 28 August 2009 at 7:09pm |
||
"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
||
![]() |
||
Darur ![]() Platinum Member ![]() ![]() Stare directly into my avatar... Joined: 03 May 2003 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 9178 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
To an extent I suppose. I am basing my opinion on what I know of network security. I'm hardly suggesting network techs are all knowing and all powerful, quite the oppisite. What I am saying is that in the event of a deliberate attack on the internet (which is still a silly concept), system admins would be more likely to shut down their servers then risk someone gaining illegal access. If you pull the cord, it doesn't matter if you're trinity, you're not gaining access to that system. The way I'm reading this proposed bill, Obama would have the power to limit access or activities on the internet to hopefully stop any coordinated attack. I can only assume that these are the only two options since there is no way any entity (save for God perhaps, no, not the forumer) could truly monitor everything on the internet with present technology, and even if it were possible, sorting all that data would be impossible, and reacting would be harder still. So that leaves the option of shutting down the internet essentially. That is overkill, and again, its approaching the problem from the wrong side. Sorry, I'll explain myself better a litte later, my Circuits class starts in 15 minutes.
|
||
Real Men play Tuba
[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
||
![]() |
||
choopie911 ![]() Moderator Group ![]() ![]() Commie Canuck Joined: 01 June 2003 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 30773 |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
The way I see it, the people who should be monitored are smart enough to know how not to be. As a result the people who are monitored are innocent and uninvolved.
|
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |