I don't believe the U.S. has an "off" switch for the entire Internet. I believe there's probably one for the USA and one in most countries for local nets.

I know Jafo has an 'off' switch of his own. He makes us Mods clean and oil it everyday. And make him coffee.

Well, as was stated, they indeed can shut down DNS servers located in US. However, this will be VERY temporary and non-global solution, as DNS caches will keep working for 1-4 days, and hooking up own DNS root and propagating it through ISPs will take only several hours once officials decide to do it.

And thats why such bills are very good thing - the more publicity and abuse on US side the more chances that EU and other country authorities will take preemptive counter-measures to the issue and just finally force their ISPs to use only local DNS roots or implement some other fall-back strategy.

Just want to mention that this is both a very interesting thread to a weirdo like me and a solid example of how there's no clean way to ban "politics" from non-joeuser sites in Stardockia.

Re the OP title question, I tend to agree with the general Lieberman-tech-idiot take while having a solid sympathy for folks who might feel obliged to try to protect our net.vulnerable infrastructure from things like what happened to Iran's nuke fuel refineries. There's no excuse for a 'kill switch' that might stop us from carrying on amongst ourselves, but some serious software/teams ready to deal with infrastructure problems is another thing entirely.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially when a snake-oil salesman is giving directions and handing out free kool-aid.

Not really a political thread per se.

There is however, a good reason in the case of foreign cyberattack  to be able to isolate us from it.

Obama has said something about it:  He lambasted Mubarak for hitting the Egyptian kill switch.

The problem with any such kill switch is who/what has authority over it.  If it were ever to be implemented here (a really bad idea IYAM), we should never, never give sole authority over it to any individual office-holder, President or otherwise.  That would make a really bad idea a completely insane idea.

I'm OK with methods to protect our internet infrastructure from cyber attack, that 'isolate' us from foreign connections in an emergency (assuming that is technically feasible) but I'm not OK with an internal kill switch.

I think its a waste of time.

A) Government Systems like the DoD are already isolated in many, many cases.

Sole power of the internet kill switch in the hands of the President does not bother me terribly... as he has the power of a much bigger kill switch... I think it rhymes with smuclear whistles.

C) Technology produced by third parties and opponent governments would develop a counter before such a system was fully deployed by our vapidly slow legislature and bureaucrats, and the people here would be also try to purposely circumvent it.

D) It would be politically costly for any administration, though hardly insurmountable.

-US taxpayer money is better spent in any one of 3 ways in no particular order.

1. The revitalization of infrastructure to create jobs (as opposed to backing banks in a manner that the World Bank and IMF explicitly suggested against in similar cases worldwide but are mysteriously silent on for the US). Roads, Pipes, Underground Electric Systems, new Infrastructure for electric cars, cost effective use of airships.

2. Practical military hardware improvements, many of which to be found in your local Raytheon despite industry standard overspending.

3. Space exploration... because why not.

Or hell... a free puppy and handgun for every citizen... really anything is better than financing a internet kill switch in my opinion.

NOTE: I am not responsible for how one decides to use their free puppy and handgun. Handgun may be loaded upon shipment of package in loose box with puppy, handle with care.

While there may be tens of thousands of ISP's, the number of actual cables in and out of the USA is far fewer - roughly 44; less than one per state. As such, if you wanted to isolate the USA from the global internet, it is doable.

Similarily, here in Norway there is just ONE hub connecting north and south.

The internet is not very vulnerable to random attacks. However, to targeted attacks it is quite vulnerable.

I am not so scared of Lieberman's 'off-switch' - suggestion. I am not convinced it would do any good, but in certain worst - case scenarios, it would be a good option to have. Ultimately, by the time you realize you need to throw the switch, it is most likely too late, though.

Implementation would mostly be by laying the legal and technical framework down - tell the line owners that in case we call, you need to have a plan / way to turn off your hubs and backbone lines. There would not be an actual switch in an office somewhere.

Am I a bad person if I admit this would make it worthwhile for me?

You can see the results of a CNET poll on this subject HERE

It referred (essentially) to an expansion on the wartime powers of a President, and did not probe conditions where some the majority might agree.

Whether the pentagon does it, the DHS head or the president.  The decision would still be the president's.  Any president's.  I would not want that ability in anyone's hands, no matter how noble.  The fact that it can be done means the capability already exists.  However, in times of emergency, the government can always exercise its emergency powers (Marshall law) and the point is moot.  I am afraid that giving politicians that power to "decide" outside of an emergency is just ceding too much power to them.

Khardis - if you realize that (by the time....too late), do you not think that the powers have already realized that as well?  So the urge to pull it early - and thus too often and for little or no reason - would be greater.  There is an old saying in management.

better to ask forgiveness afterwords than to ask permission beforehand.

As a side note to this discussion what I am seeing here is the main problem that technology brings with it, the inherit inability to remember how to get things done without it. 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20030332-281.html

Edit: Deleted for being a tard posting in the wrong account.

-psychoak

In Australia we also have politicians determined to control the internet, and it has been dragging on for so long now but they just cannot let go.

Now the federal government are rolling out a new national broadband plan which everyone thinks they are doing for the benefit of all Australians, but i will bet money on it that in the end this will 'just happen' to touch down in some way that will give the government more control over the internet.

This is the new evil of modern democracy.... it is the insatiable desire to be in control of everything and the inability to tolerate something they do not control such as the internet. They just cannot stand it, it makes their eyes twitch just like the police boss of the pink panther (peter sellers movies). 

I heard about the plan.  Now this is just hearsay, so please correct me if I am wrong.  But they are planning to spend roughly $1000 per person to get everyone up to 10mb/sec internet access.  While most of the rest of the world is now working on getting to 100mb/sec access speeds.

Sounds like something the US government would do.

Let me pose a directed question:

Let's say (for the sake of fun) there is/are control switch/switches to the transoceanic cables and satellite "up/down" transmissions. Now, let's say strong evidence comes into the NSA's (or other agency's ) possession that a concrete plan and date/time exist to perpetrate a cyberattack on the US Government and all it's Agencies existed. Doesn't matter who or the motive.

Add in a simultaneous or preparatory attack on privately owned PC's to subvert them to be a botnet/DNS attack net against businesses and critical command/control nodes and critical communication nodes.

In this scenario, you are the President/Commander in Charge of the switch/switches and the security of the US and the well being of it's citizens.

What action do you take? Why? I'm honestly interested in your thinking.

1. Laugh loudly.

2. Show this 'plan' to my assistants so they can laugh too.

3. Issue an order to fire head of that agency because of complete incompetency.

The only situation I can imagine when such 'emergency switch' would make ANY sense is civil war/riot inside USA. As for 'cyberattacks', ordering to nuke all data-centers would be as smart as such 'switch'.

http://www.nbn.gov.au/

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

The 10mb/sec figure came from the opposition with their BS dumb arse mobile network. One of the reasons they lost the last election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/11/urnidgns852573c400693880852576e-idUS222688325020100311

http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/wwlp_local_cyber_attacks_plague_govt_websites_20090709

http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/south-korea-hit-by-cyber-attack-2357/

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/02/02/2257241_hackers-attack-egyptian-govt-sites.html

About us: http://www.pcworld.com/article/164092/panel_calls_for_national_dialog_on_govt_cyberattacks.html

Not meaning to overemphasize the possibility, but: http://tinyurl.com/ygcmh9b

They're not the only ones capable.

Shut down the GOVERNMENT access (to and from) the internet.  That secures the government from the hacks, allows us to still browse myalmamater.edu and amazon.com.  In other words, do not use a sledgehammer to kill a fly.

Thanks. That is why I asked for the correction.  The 1gb is what some of the tighter countries are working towards (like S. Korea), and it seemed outrageous from the price/performance standpoint.

That just makes it a costly bauble instead of an expensive boondoggle!

That would still leave the public open to a botnet attack... unless we left on an Intranet (inside the US) and shut out any non US ISP...?

This is a interseting topic but really nothing more then a maybe or what if. The only way the entire Internet could go off if is there was a Off/On switch which tihs post is about. The rest of it is all guessing and opinions which are fine but just saying. I read every link just posted and saw nothing that shut the entire Internet down in fact the attack on the goverment Personal computers didn't even shut them down and was fixed quickly. It was mentioned before but lets be real people are getting paid a lot of money for research. I'm not saying research isn't needed but the US does get carried away. Years ago and I will use Equal Sweetener as an example. It was used by many then pulled for about 3 to 5 years. Now it is being used again and has been for several years. Well I'm sure a lot of people made a lot of money first saying to pull it then the years it took to OK it again. This is only a small sample as it happens with drugs, etc. and everyone has seen this with many other things. There are billions spent on BS every year but yet people are staying out of trouble but making a lot of money and for all I know a lot of this may be part of making money as they know they can get away with it. So lets say there was a cyber-attack. If it happened there would be a major plan behind it other then to shut our Communications down. So if we use the off switch to do it the other plan would still be able to take place. I'm also sure the Goverment and other high profile places have everything available as of now in place and working on better protection as I write. So, let those important places shut down if they have to but let me worry about my own computer with a botnet attack or anything else.

If we are to assume that the "intelligence" agencies aren't just blowing hot air, my first impulse would be to wait until five minutes before the deadline, lock down the whole Web, and then come on TV and tell the public what happened. But that leaves a few problems, such as the fact that if "somebody" is smart and devious enough to stage a cyberattack of that scope, then "somebody" is probably also capable of knowing that I know, planting false intelligence, or otherwise ensuring that the attack will not come on the expected date (either being moved a few days, or not coming at all), which would cause me to look like a total goober in front of the entire world. So that's not really an option. Instead, I'd start beefing up firewalls, and put the "net lockdown" systems on some kind of hair-trigger alert in which they could be activated in a few seconds or less, including similar lockdowns for important businesses and . Then I'd publicly say that there was a severe risk of a cyberattack and explain the situation. If any agency or company started to show the slightest abnormality, that system and only that system would be cut off from the net until we could trace the problem.

Note that this assumes two things: the first is that the lockdown system is compartmentalized so that individual networks could be cut off, as opposed to the sledgehammer Liebermann is proposing. The second is that somewhere in the US government or a trusted commercial contractor there are actually people who know a fair amount about web security. If either of these things aren't true, then I'd kind of be screwed no matter what I did.