Probably Not The Best Time To Introduce Legislation That Can Be Described As Having An 'Internet Kill Switch'
from the that's-not-going-to-fly dept
We've already discussed how, contrary to the claims of some, there really isn't an attempt to create "an internet kill switch" in the US. There is a (admittedly bad) proposal concerning how the US would respond in the event of some sort of "cyber attack." The proposal itself would allow the government to mandate how certain "critical infrastructure" pieces of the internet should respond in the event of such an attack. What isn't explained is why such a legal mandate is really needed. If you're running the Hoover Dam, say, (and stupidly have important infrastructure connected to the internet) and the feds point out a way to avoid or minimize an ongoing hack attack, are you really going to say no?That said, since the bill has falsely been described as having an internet kill switch, it seems like particularly bad timing to re-introduce it now, just after Egypt actually did pull out its own version of an internet kill switch.
While it may be a good thing that this bill gets killed off no matter what (since it is a bad piece of legislation), I'm a bit worried by how quickly everyone has jumped on this "internet kill switch" claim to describe it. What happened in Egypt is important to pay attention to and to learn from, but it doesn't mean that we should immediately jump to the conclusion that that's what the US is trying to do. There are serious problems with the bill, and we should discuss those, rather than just calling it an internet kill switch, when that's not what's in the bill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: internet, kill switch, politics, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unintended consequences
Before the shut off there were small demonstrations in many places. Once people were no longer able to communicate/coordinate, they all just went to the one main square - making the protests seem even *bigger* (not to say they are small either).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hands off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hands off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hands off...
Hmmm....I'd like to trust both...but I trust neither of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hands off...
Um, um, well... normally neither. In this case I'd rather trust the free market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hands off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hands off...
True. I actually started to put free in quotes and thought better of it. I figured it might be distracting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hands off...
How about this definition:
The 'free market' is about screwing as many people as possible while giving them the barest minimum you can get away with.
unadulterated capitalism isn't nearly as pretty as you might imagine. unadulterated gov't control isn't good either.
Compromise is how govt's form and function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hands off...
I'll go for the free market. After all the ballot box, can be used as a form of dictatorship by the majority. As in the example of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until then, though, I'm gonna take a Machiavellian stand on this particular bill. Let's use bills which actually shouldn't be struck down by public insanity to push for rational thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why wouldn't it be called an Internet Kill-Switch?
If we can prevent the first step towards that situation certainly that would be a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is It Not Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is It Not Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given some of the legislation that has been passed over the years that gives American governments frighting powers of intrusion into peoples lives in contrast with the extreme secrecy under which all American administrations operate it's not surprising people have reacted the way they have. Especially if there is no good explanation why this bill is needed.
In light of the recent reports of ISPs refusing to host Wikileaks because of intimidation from the US administration it's very easy to believe that the American government craves a way to turn off the Internet. It was certainly a lot easier to operate in secrete when the Internet wasn't an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
America's inability to even secure it's own borders, caught up in a fight of the rights of illegal immigrants (think about the children!) is itself a great symbol. Absolute freedom, like any absolute thing, usually backfires in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just the opposite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]