Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Internet United States Politics Your Rights Online

Senators Introduce Bipartisan 'Unplug Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020,' Preventing a President From Denying Access To the Internet (senate.gov) 82

Posted by BeauHD from the getting-with-the-times dept.
Yesterday, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Gary Peters (D-MI) introduced the bipartisan ''Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020'' (S. 4646), which would help protect Americans' First and Fourth Amendment rights by preventing a president from using emergency powers to unilaterally take control over or deny access to the internet and other telecommunications capabilities. Slashdot reader SonicSpike shares an excerpt from the announcement: In a World War II-era amendment to Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress gave the Executive sweeping authority to put under direct government control or even shut down "any facility or station for wire communication" should a president "[deem] it necessary in the interest of the national security and defense" following a proclamation "that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States." Cause for alarm over such power has only increased across the decades with the technological revolution, which has included email, text messages, and the internet, as well as the expansion of television, radio, and telephone networks.

The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would amend Section 706 to strip out this "Internet Kill Switch" and help shut the door to broader government surveillance or outright control of our communications channels and some of Americans' most sensitive information. The legislation would also reassert a stronger balance of power during a national emergency between the Executive Branch and the people's representatives in Congress. You can read the "Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020" here (PDF).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senators Introduce Bipartisan 'Unplug Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020,' Preventing a President From Denying Access To the Inter More

Senators Introduce Bipartisan 'Unplug Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020,' Preventing a President From Denying Access To the Inter

Comments Filter:

  • If you want to kill the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:29PM (#60537676) Homepage Journal

    Then do what California does and shut the power off every time it is too hot or too windy or whole rates are too high.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by rednip ( 186217 )

      Don't worry, your 'God Emperor Trump' will simply sign an all powerful statement to nullify any congressional oversight. Thanks to the GOP going 'ride or die' with shitler, we are as close as ever in over 200 years to an actual king.

    • Re:If you want to kill the Internet (Score:4, Informative)

      by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @05:01PM (#60537822)

      Then do what California does and shut the power off every time it is too hot or too windy or whole rates are too high.

      If you're worried about losing Internet access during a power outage, do what I do. Put your cable modem, router, and WiFi access point on a UPS. Mine will power those devices for upwards of eight hours. Then use a tablet or phone or laptop computer to connect. My UPS has a USB charging port as well, so if your phone or tablet is low on battery you can plug it in. If you have a good data plan, you can use your phone to connect directly to the Internet as well without the need for WiFi.

      • And of course, all the access points and routers your Internet Provider and the Internet backbone must keep running in order for you to connect will still have power...

        • You might be ignoring the fact that landlines virtually never go down during a blackout since they are not powered by the electric grid. And the telecom companies have massive power backup systems. And I haven't heard of any decent data centre without their own massive electrical backup systems. Even the smaller ones have pretty much the same engines that are in diesel electric train engines to power generators. It's why a landline is still one of the most reliable backup communication device you can have

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            OTOH, there's a lot of equipment out in the field that also has to stay up and running, and fiber doesn't carry power.

            I've never seen a POTS line go down due to power failure, but real POTS lines are getting scarce in a lot of places.

          • Er, "telephone lines"? Are you telling me you're on dial-up? For those of us who are not, our upstream connection is unlikely to be that bulletproof, although I will grant that it's likely to be protected to some extent.

      • If you're worried about losing Internet access during a power outage, do what I do. Put your cable modem, router, and WiFi access point on a UPS.

        Sadly Comcast's booster at the end of my road didn't get a battery backup until earlier this year. And it only lasts for a few hours in my experience.

    • There should be a bill that goes along with this to encourage energy supply redundancy for ISPs and solar powered mesh networks. It should promote services like Starlink and Project Kuiper as well.

    • Then do what California does and shut the power off every time it is too hot or too windy or whole rates are too high.

      There's a plan for keeping the Internet running without power: IP over Avian Carriers [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      So we Californians are adjusting to the "fake" global warming wrongly?

      • Global warming is real and that's not up for debate. Global warming is probably man-made but that is up for debate. How we (badly) handle our infrastructure and energy markets is a purely man-made problem.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          How we (badly) handle our infrastructure and energy markets is a purely man-made

          Keep in mind managing those better requires a bigger gov't, including more checks and balances to keep graft down.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          Global warming is probably man-made but that is up for debate.

          The carbon increase and carbon isotope ratio changing recently is very strong evidence it's man-made, and no other theory for the change is even remotely competitive.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Global warming is probably man-made but that is up for debate.

            The carbon increase and carbon isotope ratio changing recently is very strong evidence it's man-made, and no other theory for the change is even remotely competitive.

            It is worse: There is absolutely no scientifically sound doubt that it is man made. Anything else is just propaganda by big-petro and their lackeys that want to earn tons of money a bit longer, and fuck the future. Oh, and a lot of useful idiots cheering for them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by stikves ( 127823 )

      CA is becoming even worse.

      During previous blackouts, the cable Internet service continued to work. Having UPS setup at home meant at least for a while, the work would not be interrupted.

      This last time the modem just stopped responding. Granted it would be just local ISP devices not being UPS'ed. But that also means there is no actual plan to keep the Internet running in these events.

      Just today, the teachers at our school lost Internet. So even if we were spared at home, it does not mean much.

      This is not bod

    • And with this device [etherkiller.org], you can shut down internet forever just a moment before they shut the power off.
    • They are forced to do that, because if a line goes down due to bad weather and starts a wildfire, they get sued off their ass for it. They probably can't afford that risk anymore, so its easier to just shut it down.

  • This is fine but what about Section 230 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:31PM (#60537690)
    It's under assault [arstechnica.com] and nobody is stepping up to save it.

    People don't seem to understand why it's so important. They think if you strike it down they'll be able to say anything they want without moderation and it'll be some sort of free speech heaven. It won't. It'll mean lawsuits will be used to constrict speech online and most small sites will stop allowing comments rather than risk those lawsuits. It'll turn the Internet into Cable TV: The domain of a few big publishers who control the narrative and nothing else.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dstwins ( 167742 )

      You realize, for the big publishers (like facebook), that is EXACTLY what they want.

      They don't want competition.. and have war chests to survive the battle..vs .. many of the smaller ones.. don't and so will either fold, or become part of a larger one simply to avoid the legal risk.

  • The 10th Ammendment should already cover this (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Seems a bit disingenuous to me. Prevents the president from killing the internet, but not some other part of the federal government? Congress? Rather than just picking at the edges I'd rather the reform the interstate commerce clause and dial back the federal govenment's powers to only what the constitution allows.

  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:41PM (#60537752)

    [quote]Yesterday, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) [...] which would help protect Americans' First and Fourth Amendment rights by preventing a president from using emergency powers to unilaterally take control over or deny access to the internet and other telecommunications capabilities. [/quote]

    Good. Very good. Let's hope it passes all the way through.

    I don't see how shutting down the ENTIRE country's Internet and phone network needs to be an "emergency power" by any president under any condition. It is something that should be decided by Congress, even if that takes a bit of time.

    I *do* see how they could give the President the power to cut the Internet (not phone network) to Federal agencies and military in certain emergencies. MAYBE even certain critical infrastructure (nuclear power plants, stuff like that). But never everywhere, and not State government agencies.

    • Just because you 'can not imagine a situation' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The reason for extreme 'emergency powers' is that congress acts too slowly normally and in a crisis. I can think of multiple scenarios that any reasonable President would be thanked for temporarily cutting off the internet. Temporary is what emergency powers are supposed to be for. Congress could override any Presidential action if needed if enough of them agreed.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @05:08PM (#60537854)

        reasonable President

        That's the problem.
        These powers were put in place under the assumption that Presidents would be reasonable.
        We have no demonstrated that we can't actually assume that, and even the Republicans in the Senate know that, even if they don't dare say it.
        You're going to see a massive reduction in Presidental emergency powers after he's out of office.

        • >>reasonable President

          I know you have an agenda here, but it is very bad practice to attribute a quote that is FALSE. You replied TO ME and quoted something I DID NOT WRITE.

          That said- I don't trust *ANY* president or politician to be completely "reasonable." That is exactly why we have checks and balances.

        • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

          by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @05:34PM (#60537964)

          Sorry, it is actually my own fault. You did NOT quote or misquote me- I had the wrong settings in my viewing (you were replying to and quoting someone else replying to me). Please accept my apologies. I do wish I could strike the posting and just have:

          "I don't trust *ANY* president or politician to be completely "reasonable." That is exactly why we have checks and balances."

          • "I don't trust *ANY* president or politician to be completely "reasonable." That is exactly why we have checks and balances."

            Whether or not we should is another question as to whether *we* do.
            Congress has granted the executive many of its powers to execute without appreciable oversight. This was done under the assumption that the wielder of said power wouldn't, for example, declare an emergency to divert funds to a border wall.
            Our checks and balances are broken by party politics. They no longer work as designed.
            You must have congress critters that are above party politics to keep the executive in check. We do not. And we haven

        • Specifically, the entire reason we have a senate and separation of powers is because the president will at some time be unreasonable.

          • Specifically, the entire reason we have a senate and separation of powers is because the president will at some time be unreasonable.

            That's null and void.
            During the constitutional convention, it was conjectured that the checks and balance would never work, because a majority of Congress would never be behind the President.

            This is because it was assumed that everyone would be independent. Political parties weren't a thing in US politics yet.
            If the Senate will go with the President for party politics instead of principle, then that particular check and balance is broken, in reference to its original design.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cederic ( 9623 )

          You're going to see a massive reduction in Presidental emergency powers after he's out of office.

          Nonsense. The next President will demand the same powers and more.

          The one after that will look to protect Presidential power and maybe expand it.

          Maybe after that there'll be a chance to slow down and look at whether the President is powerful enough, or if more powers are required.

      • >"Just because you 'can not imagine a situation' doesn't mean that it doesn't exist."

        I would need someone to give me some good examples of such a situation for me to change my position about having a total "kill" switch that could be used by the decision of just one person.

        Remember, I support OTHER possible emergency actions like cutting off access to a single country or group of countries, cutting to Federal agencies, even possibly certain infrastructure, maybe certain types of packets. My objection is

        • Simple, Some seriously bad zero day exploit comes out and a foreign power uses it to start attacking infrastructure on a large scale - hospitals / power grids / emergency services / etc - wiping out systems or locking them down (some type of ransomware variation). Just because *YOU* can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one. However unlikely a scenario may be - it could happen, and that is the reason for emergency powers.

          • It isn't that simple. This hypothetical zero-day exploit will not affect all systems, and filters can be used instead. It is, however, probably the best example. And one I already thought of, it but still don't think that raises to the level of needing a total kill switch, in the hands of one person that suspends the Constitution and essentially stops the entire country and economy.

            Rest assured, "stopping" the Internet completely has dire repercussions, including to those hospitals, emergency services, e

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      He's been watching how other despots do, attacking the free press, using law enforcement as good personal thugs, filling every job with loyal cronies and worst of all preparing to lose the election by making out it's rigged in advance.

      So when he decides he's not stepping down and will instead start some bullshit investigation into how he was cheated out if a second term they don't want him shutting down the internet, another classic despot move. People will need it to organise, to exercise their 2nd Amendme

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        attacking the free press

        Given the way the free press has been attacking him I don't think it's unreasonable that he responds.

        If they don't want to be called liars and anti-democratic troublemakers they should stop lying and stirring up anti-democratic sentiment.

        using law enforcement as good personal thugs

        Who has Trump had beaten up through extra-judicial violence?

        filling every job with loyal cronies

        That's not true. Only many of them.

        worst of all preparing to lose the election by making out it's rigged in advance

        Given his political opposition have already acted corruptly on numerous occasions to prevent his election success there's a legitimate case to be made that the election is rigged

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      the power to cut the Internet (not phone network)

      They are pretty much inseparable by now. I'd like to see how they plan on accomplishing such a cut.

    • He can point to this and say "No-one should shut down my lies, either". Except he won't actually say " lies".

      • >"He can point to this and say "No-one should shut down my lies, either". Except he won't actually say " lies".

        From my observations, almost all politicians lie in one way or another. And the media twists things that aren't lies to appear to be lies, and lies to be the truth- whatever is more sensational or inline with their objectives. This is woefully apparent in the last several years.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by davecb ( 6526 )

          From my observations, almost all politicians lie in one way or another. And the media twists things that aren't lies to appear to be lies, and lies to be the truth- whatever is more sensational or inline with their objectives. This is woefully apparent in the last several years.

          That depends on the Country and State/Province you're in. Lots of people in politics are honest.

          However, the dishonest ones loudly preach "all politicians are crooks", in part because they hope they can therefor get away with stuff.

          Good examples? Martha Hall Findlay. Bad? Mike Duffy.

  • This is why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:58PM (#60537808) Journal
    This is why it's better to have a Republican president.....than dissent is patriotic instead of heretical.

  • Good, Now We Need the President off the EBS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:58PM (#60537810) Homepage
    Perhaps it's good to prevent a losing president from using the EBS to initiate a civil war.

  • TikTok (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @04:59PM (#60537812)
    A President can simply kick a company off the internet with no legal process and pretty much nobody objected.

    This is how it works. A President is not going to say, "I know you all want the Internet but I don't care and I'm going to take it away." No. A President is going to say, "We are almighty America and we are under attack from savages from all sides and we are going to defend our selves by disconnecting everybody else from OUR Internet!!!" And many, many people will cheer wildly and the rest will stand by and say, 'can he do this?' as he does it.

    • While I don't think anyone should be able to kill the Internet, I do eventually see the Internet become a bunch of walled gardens much like China. For the most part, this wouldn't even be that disruptive to the typical American.

      The only international site I even use is BBC news. Everything else is a US company that would be on USA Internet regardless of any firewall put in place.

      Also, we would just use a vpn service to get around any firewall anyway.

      Hopefully they can at least get this bill through Congress

    • Re:TikTok (Score:4, Interesting)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @09:35PM (#60538792) Journal

      A President can simply kick a company off the internet with no legal process and pretty much nobody objected.

      You didn't notice for some reason, but there has been legal process and people have objected.

  • Is it sad that it took Donald Trump to make us finally respect 1st and 4th Amendment rights regarding the internet?
  • This will only go into effect after the election and only if Trump wins.
    • you think he would willingly give away that power? Anyway America is working hard on making it self irrelevant to the rest of the world

  • Maybe do this for voting as well (Score:3)

    by trawg ( 308495 ) on Thursday September 24, 2020 @03:40AM (#60539440) Homepage

    Seems like the US might need that a little more than the Internet

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close