Sen. Bond Disses Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill 171
GovTechGuy writes "Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has introduced his own cybersecurity legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, and he had some harsh words for a competing bill sponsored by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. Bond said that bill, which has been criticized for allegedly giving the president a 'kill switch' over the Internet, weighs down the private sector with mandates and puts too much on the plate of the already overburdened Department of Homeland Security. Sen. Bond's bill would create a new position in the Pentagon, reporting directly to the president, in charge of coordinating all civilian cybersecurity. Any private-sector involvement would be voluntary and free from legal challenge, rather than mandated."
Re:Stop that task in the name of the law! (Score:3, Interesting)
We just need a simple legal standard. If you're causing harm to the network by hacking other machines, you must upgrade. If you're simply using more bandwidth, you get charged for your overage. If you're doing something that manufacturer didn't intend like running Linux on your router, you're fine.
Re:How about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stop that task in the name of the law! (Score:5, Interesting)
You assume everyone has control of their server (Score:3, Interesting)
Most sites are running off of crappy shared hosting services, and the guy actually running the site has no idea how the server was configured, and whether current (or any!) security patches have been applied. He can do things like call phpinfo() to make sure that's at least current and intelligently configured, but he has no idea if the server itself is set up well, and more importantly, no way to fix it if it isn't.
This creates a huge problem if the server is pulled. Suddenly, all the shared hosting accounts go dark, and no one can even retrieve their site. Even assuming the site owner has a reasonably current backup, things like forum posts get lost, and the site operator is forced to send off a mass email explaining the problem (if he even knows what happened!) and then frantically try to rebuild the site elsewhere. Oh, and the hosting company usually owns the domain, so when it does come back up, he's still missing a huge chunk of his userbase.
I don't think it's an exaggeration to estimate that 90% of websites are on shared hosting accounts. Granted, it's the 90% that don't get much traffic, but every site has to start somewhere, and many simply aren't intended to be for more than a handful of users.
Re:How about this... (Score:3, Interesting)
"The Internet is under attack! What do we do?" (Score:5, Interesting)
"Kill it!"
Um, what?
How about instead funding some free-to-all open source antivirus, anti-spyware, etc. programs to hinder the spread of malware and botnets? And kill spammers while you're at it. Yes, those you can kill.
Re:International concerns? (Score:1, Interesting)
LOL. As far as I'm concerned, it's another reason to create an internet capable of living without America. TBH, I couldn't care what or how you want to do it in your own country, I'm sure you'll get what whatever you're "they" think is necessary. The only thing that really jumped out at me was the mention, yet again, of another responsibility for Homeland Security. I'm seeing this name everywhere now. Last time was onsite at the Gulf of Mexico. WTF? I thought they were your "terrorist police", but they look like they are becoming the "generic authority with all the power they want" police.
Re:Princes of Darkness (Score:1, Interesting)
Orrin Hatch proposed developing technology to remotely destroy computers [bbc.co.uk] that illegally download music. He has also proposed legislation that would eliminate any device that could copy media. [cnet.com] Orrin Hatch is a menace.
If you weren't such a RINO, Pudge, you would recognize the threat he and his anti-freedom ilk represent to the Republic.