Internet Kill Switch

[GhettoDogAllStars]

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

Without the dns servers, which handle the routing, the internet does not work, known host or not, if they blank the dns caches then unless you have a point to point connection, you aren't communicating.

I am certain it's oversimplification, but honestly, if the government approves this, and forces every provider to have a procedure in place, much like they do with the Emergency Broadcasting System, then they certainly could enforce an internet shutdown.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

So, what is the purpose of this bill? What do they intend to prevent/control? They can shut down all the bullshit they want, but they can never stop individuals from using existing hardware, software and communication protocols -- regardless of what they do to ISPs, name servers, or anything else. This would not stop people who understand these relatively simple protocols from using them to communicate between known hosts. A truly ignorant bill, IMO.

Umm, I imagine routing will be disabled and your requests will be ignored altogether.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Without the dns servers, which handle the routing, the internet does not work, known host or not, if they blank the dns caches then unless you have a point to point connection, you aren't communicating.

I am certain it's oversimplification, but honestly, if the government approves this, and forces every provider to have a procedure in place, much like they do with the Emergency Broadcasting System, then they certainly could enforce an internet shutdown.

The DNS servers only resolve IP address to names. DNS is a facade to what is really happening, and certainly not necessary for network communication.

Which brings us to P2P -- the "known host" part I was referring to. All that is needed for P2P connections is a medium and the protocols. The protocols are built into millions of devices around the world. So, as long as you have a connection to your peer and some easy-to-make, easy-to-get, mass-produced devices, then you can still communicate. There are really no fundamental differences between P2P and normal Internet communications. They both generally use the same protocols.

Originally Posted by saden1

Umm, I imagine routing will be disabled and your requests will be ignored altogether.

Communication can still occur without the ISP -- all they really provide is a gateway to other unknown networks. However, none of that is necessary if you know your host and maintain a physical connection.

To me the biggest hurdle would be the physical connection part, but there are so many ways to connect that the US government doesn't control, that I don't see it being much of a problem for, say, Terrorists.

So, basically all this means is that normal people won't be able to use the Internet if they shut it down. No YouTube. No Warpath. No news (which sadly will be what most people want the Internet for in a time of emergency). Terrorists will have a minor inconvenience. Only the honest people will suffer really. To me, these kinds of proposals only showcase the ignorance of the people behind it. They're trying to legislate something that is clearly beyond their comprehension.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The DNS servers only resolve IP address to names. DNS is a facade to what is really happening, and certainly not necessary for network communication.

Which brings us to P2P -- the "known host" part I was referring to. All that is needed for P2P connections is a medium and the protocols. The protocols are built into millions of devices around the world. So, as long as you have a connection to your peer and some easy-to-make, easy-to-get, mass-produced devices, then you can still communicate. There are really no fundamental differences between P2P and normal Internet communications. They both generally use the same protocols.



Communication can still occur without the ISP -- all they really provide is a gateway to other unknown networks. However, none of that is necessary if you know your host and maintain a physical connection.

To me the biggest hurdle would be the physical connection part, but there are so many ways to connect that the US government doesn't control, that I don't see it being much of a problem for, say, Terrorists.

So, basically all this means is that normal people won't be able to use the Internet if they shut it down. No YouTube. No Warpath. No news (which sadly will be what most people want the Internet for in a time of emergency). Terrorists will have a minor inconvenience. Only the honest people will suffer really. To me, these kinds of proposals only showcase the ignorance of the people behind it. They're trying to legislate something that is clearly beyond their comprehension.

How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by saden1

How do you anticipate I'll be able to communicate with my friend 10 miles away? The one in Cali? The one in VA? Give me a run down how it will be possible for a determined individual to communicate in a situation where the internet is shutdown.

Well, you won't be able to do anything unless you have a connection. However, somebody like China or Russia -- who have satellites -- wouldn't have any trouble communicating, or selling bandwidth to terrorists so they can communicate.

So, I go back to my original question: what is the purpose? Surely it's not to prevent you from communicating with your friends in Cali and VA in the event of an emergency -- but that's probably the only thing it will achieve.