Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Security The Internet Politics Your Rights Online

Senate Panel Approves Cybersecurity Bill 269

Posted by kdawson
from the wrong-meme dept.
GovTechGuy writes "A Senate Committee approved a bill that would give the president an emergency 'kill switch' over the Internet, but added some restrictions to the bill. The president may no longer simply assert that the threat remains indefinitely, he must now seek Congressional approval after 120 days. Still, privacy advocates are concerned about the government's ability to shut down private networks. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) 'said she was disappointed to read reports that the bill gives the White House a "kill switch" for the Internet, an authority she says the president already has under a little-known clause in the Communications Act passed one month after the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. ... Collins [argued] the new bill actually circumscribes the president's existing authority and puts controls on its use.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senate Panel Approves Cybersecurity Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Agent Z5q (144666) on Friday June 25, 2010 @08:57AM (#32689196)

    Wait a minute, is this the USA or North Korea I'm living in?

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      I don't know.
      In the USA there is public debate of the law and it's pros and cons are discussed. People can public voice concerns and safe guards and restrictions to the law may added to avoid or at least minimize abuses.
      On top of that people are free to make stupid comments comparing the US to a totalitarian dictatorship and not be thrown in jail.

      If you live in North Korea there is no restrictions to what you can see or read except that government protects the people from having to see any lies. And since t

      • by JWW (79176)

        In the USA there is public debate of the law and it's pros and cons are discussed.

        That's true right now, except it won't be true for the internet after the president uses the kill switch.

        I am appalled that anyone can even begin to think this is a good idea.

        I've feared from the very beginning that the whole "net neutrality" debate would yield sweeping, draconian policies for the internet. Well here we go....

        • Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday June 25, 2010 @10:31AM (#32690532) Homepage Journal

          I suggest you actually read the law.
          The Communications act already give the president permission to do this. It was passed right after WWII started.
          Do you think you could send a telegram to Japan or Germany in 1943?
          Nope.
          The really rampant fear that people seem to have is just mind numbing at times. Yep go ahead and please debate this but do not use such silly chicken little fears in the debate!
          All that can do is make anyone questioning this bill to look like a nut job.
          Instead of this boarder line pathological fear let us all reason.
          Why should we pass this law?
          What benefits will it have.
          What risks are involved.
          How can we prevent abuses while keeping the benefits there are any?

          No president will use this law lightly because it would be stupid. This would be at the same level as declaring martial law.

          Besides if the government would never use this to silence opposition or debate.
          They would use bot nets to make classic DOS attacks on sites that couldn't be traced or some other tactic that would be more subtle and wouldn't disrupt commerce and the smooth running of the internet.
          To use the big red switch would be clumsy inefficient, and just stupid. Please if the government was going to be that evil don't you think they would be as smart and effective at being evil as some random poster on Slashdot?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Shotgun (30919)

            The really rampant fear that people seem to have is just mind numbing at times. Yep go ahead and please debate this but do not use such silly chicken little fears in the debate!

            That's right, because there is just no precedent that the Federal government would ever chase a thread of legitimacy into outright oppression. They would never declare a common weed to be an illegal substance, and then spend billions of dollars every year to incarcerate otherwise innocent citizens. There is no way that this silliness would extend to giving police the power to shakedown and search people without a warrant, protection against such being explicitly declared in the Constitution.

            Nope. You're

    • Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by captaindomon (870655) on Friday June 25, 2010 @10:58AM (#32690896)
      Although I can appreciate the comparison, and it is useful for helping to understand why a police state / dictatorship is a dangerous path we don't want to start down, we also need to be very careful. The USA is NOT remotely like North Korea, and by comparing them too closely, we minimize and marginalize the problem that North Korea is, both for its citizens and for the world. Let's show the citizens of North Korea some respect and admit that life in the USA is NOT like life in North Korea, or Iran, or large parts of Africa. It seems like people that make statements like this have not traveled much, or talked to people that have lived under true dictatorships.
    • "Wait a minute, is this the USA or North Korea I'm living in?"

      If you are in NK you won't see this reply.
  • Could someone please explain how this would actually work in practice? There isn't a single point that all internet traffic goes through, so how exactly would they achieve this? What about dial up and such?
    • by Pojut (1027544) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:01AM (#32689248) Homepage

      From what I understand, they would shut things down at the ISP level.

      "What's the point of a modem noise, if you are unable to connect, Mr. Anderson?" sort of thing.

    • by ZDRuX (1010435) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:04AM (#32689278)
      This will be done at the ISP level. All ISPs in America will have to comply or face fines and other charger I'm guessing. Sort of like having your own remote-controlled kill-switch box at every ISP.

      I don't see how anybody in America will be able to use the internet to get news or communicate with other Americans in a time of emergency if this should ever go into effect.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I don't see how anybody in America will be able to use the internet to get news or communicate with other Americans in a time of emergency if this should ever go into effect.

        Maybe we need an RFC for "IP over Ham Radio?"

        Or can the government jam Ham Radio bands if they feel like it as well?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I don't see how anybody in America will be able to use the internet to get news or communicate with other Americans in a time of emergency if this should ever go into effect.

          Maybe we need an RFC for "IP over Ham Radio?"

          Or can the government jam Ham Radio bands if they feel like it as well?

          There is one, called Packet Radio. Although as far as I know it's really slow.

        • by arctanx (1187415)

          Yes, ham radio tends to use the AX.25 standard for packets of IP data. This typically operates at 300 baud on HF bands and 1200 baud on VHF, so it's not fast, but it does the job. They also have the 44.0.0.0/8 allocation to assign IP addresses for this purpose.

          However, this tends to be forbidden in wartime: "Again during World War II, as it had done during the first World War, the United States Congress suspended all amateur radio operations." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_amateur_radio#World_War_ [wikipedia.org]

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      It would give the US gov 12-24 h of 'breathing room' by shutting down the congested telco networks around a part of the USA lost to a natural or man caused disaster.
      But why would the US gov be using insecure, best effort US rust belt quality patched up Bell junk?
      The US gov has its own networks?
      How would it work? Your cable, adsl, wireless service would just not see your isp for x hours and tech support would be a recording about technical difficulties.
      Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, your local religious lead
      • by JWW (79176)

        Yep, this is more about the government controlling its citizens communications in a time of crisis than about actual "security".

        There is a large feeling and sentiment out there that believes things were much much better when citizens got information from only a handful of easily controlled and managed sources than from each other.

        Its true freedom vs. perceived freedom.

    • "Could someone please explain how this would actually work in practice?"

      There will now be three big red buttons on the president's desk; "Nuke", "Net" and "Nurse" (installed during the Reagan era).
    • Most likely, every ISP in the US would be required to respect an order by the president to shut down communications between certain points on the Internet. Thus, if a website such as Wikileaks should somehow manage to get their hands on embarrassing videos of possibly illegal wartime activity, the president could issue a shutdown order under the guise of a national security and thus require all US ISPs to block access to said embarrassing videos.

  • Joe Lieberman (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Friday June 25, 2010 @08:57AM (#32689216) Homepage Journal

    Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.

    Remember, he is the guy who wants to spend about 187 million to upgrade the Secret Service systems/hardware (pork belly spending obviously), and now he is the guy who came up with this 'Cybersecurity Bill'.

    Obviously this has nothing to do with any cybersecurity, the politicians will approve it, whether republicans or democrats, so that they have a way to kill dissenting opinions and news that the Internet allows to spread around. One of the arguments Lieberman gave for this is that China can do it so USA should also be able to. Does USA want to follow China in terms of treating the dissent, the freedom of press, the freedom in general? I guess now, that everything else is made in China this is just the next logical step - import their governing principles as well (at this point it doesn't seem that much needs to be imported anyway).

    • Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party.

      Hey! We don't want him either. He's like a mysterious festering lump. No one knows when exactly he got there, we're all pretty sure we want him gone, but he won't just go away on his own.

    • Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party.

      Progressive blogs and forums have a word for him: DINOSAUR. It stands for [punditkitchen.com] "Democrat in name only, sorry-ass undercover Republican".

      • by JWW (79176)

        You don't like him so you just assign him to the other party?

        I don't think the republicans really want him either.....

        He's exactly the type of old school political hack that needs to be cleared out of Washington regardless of what party they belong to.

        • by DavidTC (10147)

          While I agree it's absurd for people to randomly assert people in their party don't belong...

          ...Joe Lieberman isn't actually in the Democratic party. He got voted out. And then conservative voters plus incumbent recognizance plus Democratic party cowardice got him reelected under a third party he invented.

          Lieberman is not a Democrat. Really and truly. Democrats run and get elected on Democratic Party tickets.

    • Re:Joe Lieberman (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zancarius (414244) on Friday June 25, 2010 @04:00PM (#32695438) Homepage Journal

      Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.

      I'm a Republican, and I really can't stand the guy. Remember, this is the same Joe Lieberman who has supported in the past activities that involved censorship of specific media (music albums, etc.).

      I'm currently reading the bill as was linked from this comment [slashdot.org], and it reads as though it were crafted by Symantec, McAfee, Sophos, and all the other "security" vendors who would very much like to be granted a fantastic revenue stream required by law to line their pockets (aside: I suspect it was crafted by them or by lobbyists for their industry)! What I mean specifically can be best explained by reading a small snippet of S. 3480:

      develop and acquire predictive analytic tools to evaluate threats, vulnerabilities, traffic, trends, incidents, and anomalous activities;

      This is on page 49 of the PDF. There's 10 pages of recommendations about acquiring "tools" to achieve specific goals--in other words, purchasing the required devices from recommended vendors. The entire bill if it survives as it is written is nothing other than a government-issued directive to dump a significant amount of taxpayer money into various security firms in effort to protect national resources. Though, what worries me is that there appears to be mandates for federal oversight of private systems to ensure that they're following best practices. Coming from the same government that has used the password "password" to protect critical systems, I can only fear that such a mandate would be much more harmful than any sort of purported "cyberattack."

      If you read the FAQ [senate.gov] the Senate has posted relating to the bill it is clear that no one on the panel has any understanding of what "security" really is. Worse, while the FAQ claims that this bill restricts the powers given to the President under the Communications Act of 1934, I can't help but read into S. 3480 that it is going to involve so much government oversight that we might be swamped simply trying to implement all of the requirements. I hope I'm wrong; I am not a Congress critter, so it's feasible this language might be directed exclusively toward Federal networks.

      The Slashdot summary appears to be incorrect. It appears that the time limit placed upon such measures is 30 days. However, I can't help but think that it can be extended indefinitely. From the bill:

      (1) IN GENERAL.--Any emergency measure or action developed under this section shall cease to have effect not later than 30 days after the date on which the President issued the declaration of a national cyber emergency, unless--
      * (A) the Director affirms in writing that the emergency measure or action remains necessary to address the identified national cyber emergency; and
      * (B) the President issues a written order or directive reaffirming the national cyber emergency, the continuing nature of the national cyber emergency, or the need to continue the adoption of the emergency measure or action.
      ** (2) EXTENSIONS.--An emergency measure or action extended in accordance with paragraph (1) may--
      *** (A) remain in effect for not more than 30 days after the date on which the emergency measure or action was to cease to have effect; and
      *** (B) be extended for additional 30-day periods, if the requirements of paragraph (1) and subsection (d) are met.

      I really hope that doesn't imply such an action could be extended indefinitely, but the way I'm reading it sort of suggests that if the President or the director of the office this bill creates d

  • I have the Internet on my computer, have had since 1995.

  • The president may no longer simply assert that the threat remains indefinitely, he must now seek Congressional approval after 120 days

    President to Congress: "Look I sent you guys an email asking to extend the Internet being turned off, and nobody responded!"

  • by Nautical Insanity (1190003) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:09AM (#32689332)

    I'm probably crusin' for a brusin' by saying this, but there probably should be some form of last defense for computer systems throughout the nation. In the event of a highly-destructive fast-spreading virus, being able to shut off all connection at the ISP level would buy enough time for security researchers to find a way to negate the threat.

    That said, I have qualms about the implementation. Some proposals:

    1) The killswitch needs to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Either all ISPs are mandated to shut down or none. The economic magnitude of such a decision would force any internet shutdown to be only used in the face of an even worse threat.

    2) The requirements for activating the shutdown need to be more specific than "an emergency." Japan was able to spend itself into debt by repeated use of "emergency" spending. The requirements for a shutdown of the internet should be a clear and widespread danger to computer systems.

    3) 120 days is far too long of a time to have before the decision should come up for review. Four months without computer-to-computer communication that has become integral to the economy is far to long to be granted without oversight.

    I have not yet had a chance to read the PROPOSED bill. Note that this story is about the bill making it out of committee, not becoming law. Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposed bill?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by roman_mir (125474)

      Think of the children, right? Fast spreading viruses and all that other nonsense, that's in the hands of the admins of the ISPs, who right now can do what they find necessary to fight those threats, that's part of their jobs.

      However this bill has nothing to do with any of that. This bill is about Joe Lieberman, about his 187 million dollars he wants in pork belly spending for the Secret Service in his state, it's about the politicians getting tired of all that dissent, of people not watching the news on t

    • by Pojut (1027544) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:23AM (#32689488) Homepage

      Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposed bill?

      Ask, and ye shall receive [senate.gov]. Note: PDF link

      I found it at this page [senate.gov].

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        Thanks Pojut. I liked page 185
        "test, evaluate, and facilitate, with appro- priate protections for any proprietary information concerning the technologies, the transfer of tech- nologies associated with the engineering of less vul- nerable software and securing the information tech- nology software development lifecycle;"
        NSA trickle down for your next Windows, Mac and Google device.
    • by Manip (656104) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:26AM (#32689526)

      Much like the old guys at the Whitehouse I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies. The destructive power of this kill switch is ironically the only thing dangerous enough to warrant even having a kill switch. Even if there was some kind of "super virus" that was taking out routing on the internet, shutting the internet seems about as effective as killing the patient to save their leg.

      I'm really yet to read any scenario that makes sense where having this would be useful. I can think of many cases where the government could happily abuse it for political reasons - particularly if they had the power to shutdown political opposition in order to "protect the public from terrorism."

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Much like the old guys at the Whitehouse I think you've been watching too many Hollywood movies.

        This [wikipedia.org] was not a Hollywood movie. I will agree that the scenarios where this could be abused far outnumber the number of scenarios where this bill would be useful. However, it is impossible to prove that there exists no scenario where this power would be necessary.

        Even if there was some kind of "super virus" that was taking out routing on the internet, shutting the internet seems about as effective as killing the patient to save their leg.

        An analogy to counter yours would be the treatment of heartworms in dogs. If you take appropriate preventative measures there shouldn't be a problem. However if you fail at that, the treatment for heartworms is a small dosage of arsenic.

        I can think of many cases where the government could happily abuse it for political reasons - particularly if they had the power to shutdown political opposition in order to "protect the public from terrorism."

        And here I

    • http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3480 [loc.gov] -- really though, there should be a law, or at least a "best practice" requiring that bill numbers be reported in print and links to Thomas be report in on-line journalism. They stupid article linked in the /. summary didn't even give the name of the bill. I had to find it searching for the 3 co-sponsors, plus the Senate committee name. And then, it was one of 11 results. This is why people are uninformed, even when they're not lazy.

      • by bsDaemon (87307)

        There needs to be a colon ':' at the end of the link or it won't work... it got cut off by slashdot formatting.

    • by Xugumad (39311)

      I've been thinking something similar. In the case of a fast, adaptive virus, it might be essentially impossible to clear out an infestation without being able to slice the Internet down into smaller chunks (e.g., isolate the US, or each state, or smaller). 120 days is far, far too long; 30 days then having to explain what's going on would be much more sensible to me...

      • When you talk about destructive viruses this could be a way to stop destructive memes (mind viruses) from spreading. This seems to be about information control and I'm definitely against that and all forms of censorship. If something is so dangerous and so much of a secret that we'd have to shut down the entire internet to keep it from spreading, or if an idea really is so destructive that its better to shut the internet off, the kill switch in all likelyhood is going to cause more harm than any possible w

      • by DavidTC (10147)

        30 days is too long.

        I have no idea why we need to have any time limit at all. If the president does this, and Congress asks him why, he should have to respond, even if it's two hours later. And Congress can undo it at any time.

        I don't understand why we'd give the president the ability to do shit like this for any amount of time without permission.

    • There should be a last line of defense for important computer systems throughout the nation (military, government, essential services like water and electricity, emergency services). It's called an Air Gap.

      Wait, we already have an Air Gap between essential systems and the internet? (Except NASA and the US army, according to Mr McKinnon). You mean... Joe Terr'rist can't fire up his Mac and shut down the entire power grid to the US from Iraq? Was Die Hard 4.0 a total brain fuck? [penny-arcade.com]

      What about mobile data and s
    • I disagree. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by elucido (870205) *

      The passing of this bill will be the end of the internet and the end of all free speech on the internet. The US government will be able to determine what is or isn't dangerous enough to shut off the internet. In my honest opinion it's just ridiculous to give something as important as the internet BACK to the government. They had the internet and gave it to corporations and this is what lead to the internet as we know it, and now they want to go back to how it was?

      No virus, no worm, is so much of a threat th

    • by spikenerd (642677)

      ...there probably should be some form of last defense for computer systems throughout the nation.

      Why? I'm serious. Why would we need that? Here's how I see it: Some fast spreading worm tricks everybody else's OS into copying it onto their hard drives and executing it. Then the worm approaches my computer. It says "Please copy me onto your hard drive and execute me." My computer says "No", because I don't use the same pathetic vulnerable OS as everyone else. But all the masses want to be safe, so they give the president a kill switch. All this does is put the responsibility on the government to bear ou

  • by theJML (911853) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:10AM (#32689348) Homepage

    Yeap, this means it's time to get a hard copy of the entire internet so we can just keep surfing in offline mode.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ch-chuck (9622)

      Would suck to work at archive.org during an emergency - wandering hordes of internet addict zombies would converge on the place from all over to get their fix.

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Yeap, this means it's time to get a hard copy of the entire internet so we can just keep surfing in offline mode.

      Hard copy? That's a lot of paper!

    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

      There is, to my observation, currently a back-up effort under way in Norwegian IP blocks. Just hop on a plane and ask everyone you see if they would contribute their portion of the recovery data! /generalizing can be fun sometimes

  • ISPs (Score:2, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474)

    Obviously the simplest way to implement such a 'feature' is to go after the ISPs, set some sort of a coordination framework among the ISPs, mandate that those ISPs set up a bunch of new hardware/software/whatever it takes to cut out subnets/IP addresses/entire cables from the rest of the Internet. This is not going to improve the democracy of the country of-course, but that's the point, remove the dissenting voices, and of-course the motives are as always 'pure' - there is a cyberwar going, didn't you know

    • I've found the best way to cut off the internet is to unplug the cable. I'm pretty sure that the "Internet Kill Switch" will be a little red button activating a relay which quite simply turns off the fibre converters.
  • I thought that the whole point of the internet was that it would continue after a significant part was switched off or bombed away. So this will not stop any foreign groups from communicating and the USA is effectively plugging its fingers in its ears when this law is used.
  • by Myopic (18616) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:24AM (#32689492)

    It seems to me that 120 days before needing approval from Congress is about 113 days too long. Maybe 118 days too long. Assuming the President had a valid reason to use this power, it's reasonable to think that Congress would approve similarly. The internet is pretty fricking important, and it's hard to imagine it going away for four months.

    Also, of course, shutting down the major pipes won't make the internet disappear, it will just send it back to the Dark Ages of the early 1990s, when people manually connected their computers together and the routing software took care of the rest. Maybe IRC would see a comeback.

    • Regarding your signature, I bet you get a lot of flack for lacking the knack to crack the stack. You hack and you hack, alas and alack, yet without the knack you'll never crack that stack.

      This was a Dr. Seuss poem, wasn't it?
    • The terror organizations that this law undoubtedly targets rely on a working, global Internet to function. Without it, they are dead in the water, whereas our government and military can continue with our own proprietary Intarwebs.

      • I've been on the internet for a long time and I've seen all sorts of hackers. I've never met any of these E-Terrorists. Everybody who is anybody knows how to function in the real world. Cyberspace is only used as a communication tool and if the USA were to shut down the internet the criminals and terrorists, along with the majority of hackers and smart people would just go to another network and on top of that it would be something decentralized and it would be something spontaneous.

        Shutting down the intern

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Immediate_crisis_management [wikipedia.org]
      Took a few days to really admit and later hackers passed information and data to the press from government computers.
      So 120 days is just fine to keep things closed, tight and slow leaks.
    • This is like the talk of martial law and plans to build camps. Shutting down the internet will trigger so much chaos that there would be riots in the streets. To shut off the internet for MONTHS would create more chaos than 911, more chaos than Katrina, it would be like a blackout that lasts for a month where the majority of young people wont know how to communicate with their friends and family. They wont know how to get their news. They'll be confused and will accept news from random sources.

      Also theres n

      • Without internet, there's no "work" for me to go to. My internet is my phone, and pretty much my only way to communicate and get news. You think your bank will operate without internet?

        Shutting it down to prevent a disaster? Eh? Shutting it down *is* the disaster. Doing it for 120 days... that's just INSANE. These are the folks who are running this country???

  • by ch-chuck (9622) on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:25AM (#32689510) Homepage

    A new Disney flick leaked - if not stopped immediately that could cause irreparable hard to the entertainment economy.

    • by thijsh (910751)
      This may sound ridiculous now, but is exactly the kind of unintended consequence of a law you can expect... Laws are always abused by stretching them to the limit of what the words can possibly mean... You should never judge a law by what the intentions are (hint: they are *always* 'good'), but by the unforeseen possible (mis-)uses later on.
      • Exactly, the quality of a law is not judged on how well it does what it was supposed to do, but how robust it is to abuse.

        And as someone earlier said, 120 days is about 117-119 days too long (assuming the power is needed in the first place).

        • by thijsh (910751)
          Funny, it works for a law, but just as good for software security... We need some software security experts to shoot holes in laws: white-hat law-hacking (with the back-hats being the scumbags abusing the law)... :-)

          But you're right, the time should be limited to the time needed to organize an emergency meeting, perhaps +1 day. So 1-3 days sounds just about right.
          But if you is it needed i'd say NO, they can better make a kill-switch law for the power grid, we only have like 15 minutes ahead warning for a
  • Actual use (Score:5, Funny)

    by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Friday June 25, 2010 @09:44AM (#32689766) Journal

    Michelle: Are you coming to bed?

    Barrak: I can't. This is important.

    Michelle: What?

    Barrak: Someone is wrong on the Internet.

    Michelle: Oh, for the love of-- {pushes button}

  • If you care about information continuing to flow if/when the TCP/IP networks are shut down, maybe you should look into setting yourself up as a UUCP node and making peering arrangements? Remember how UUCP mail and news worked? It was a bit like telephone-based bit torrent. It was completely decentralized. As long as you could set up a phone connection with your nearest peers, the data would flow.

    • You have alternatives to the internet which involve the use of radio. You can communicate very well over the radio. You can send email, you can browse websites, you can do all of that. It's not necessarily going to be as fast but it depends on the power of your antennas.

    • You can communicate via laser, via microwave, and theres probably other ways I don't know about.

      If the internet goes down a spontaneous network will replace it probably overnight.

  • I'm tired of, "Well, it could be worse," being the norm for the US government.

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...