Ex-CIA Chief Says US Gov't Should Be Able To Shut Down The Internet

from the um,-no dept

We've talked about all the hype over a supposed "kill switch" for the internet in recent cybersecurity legislation was misleading. There simply was no such thing in the proposed law -- but apparently some government spymasters would like it to be true. Michael Hayden, who was the head of the CIA until recently, is out claiming that the President really should have the ability to shut down the internet because "cyberterrorism" is such a big threat. While he does say that the bar should be "really high" before such a kill switch could be used, he still doesn't justify why it would ever make sense. Of course, this is the same guy who once denied that the 4th Amendment said "probable cause," so he has a history of stretching things.

Separately, since FUDing up "cyberwar" claims seems to have become quite profitable for former gov't spooks (now often working for private sector "security" companies looking to create moral panics and fears to drum up business), I wondered what Hayden is up to these days. And... what do you know... it appears that Hayden is now working for the Chertoff Group, the "security firm" founded by former head of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. It seems like that sort of conflict of interest would be rather pertinent to any press coverage of what Hayden has to say, but for whatever reason, Reuters chose to leave that out of its story....


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:31am

    if the ultimate goal of terrists is to take away our freedoms/disrupt our way of life.. how is shutting down the tubes not terrism?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:34am

    Re:

    Because it isn't being done by Arabs, of course. How are you not getting this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:44am

    Re: Re:

    i was just preaching to the choir a little bit

    this really is the land of the free and home of the brave, uhhuh

    i'd rather be watching my back for would-be terrorists than always looking back for big brother

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:48am

    Re:

    Terrorists would love this. Hell, 4chan (outside of the US) would love this!

    Fake a internet security attack every hour, on the hour, and watch the entire US (and many other 1st world nations) suffer massive economic damage as industries start collapsing from a removal of their network.

    Even better - DDoS the White House website, and watch as they overreact by shutting down the internet. Best DDoS ever? I think so.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:49am

    Re: Succinctly...

    Terrorism: the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of coercion.

    By definition, the US Government and all of the media outlets are terrorists, as they seek to control the actions of the public through fear.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:52am

    Oh great

    I can't wait to see all the corporations lining up to declare their competitors 'cyberwarriors.'

    No, I mean I can wait, actually.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    R. Miles (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:56am

    Eh?

    Well I say the internet should shut down the ex-CIA chief.

    Oh 4chan...

    We seriously have issues in this country that make [insert pop star name here] seem like a saint.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 10:57am

    Re: Re: Succinctly...

    I expect either SkyNet or Eagle Eye to take them out any day now. Unless they've turned on each other....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 11:00am

    Here it is

    I had this posted but the copyright police removed it...from me. Thank god for redundancy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 11:39am

    There is no ration reason to shut down the entire internet.

    Each 'portion' should be responsible for it's own security. Including government.

    Having a "kill switch" for GOVERNMENT to use for it's own sites, is a great idea.

    Past that - it's stupid and with the way the internet is designed, it probably wouldn't work anyway.

    They can shut down a million bridges - but if one or two are open... traffic can flow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Craig (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 11:53am

    Internet is shut down and the Neo-neolithic Age begins

    It would be the end of civilization if this happened. I don't think that is an exaggeration, either? Thoughts?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Darren, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    Main hub will move

    If this kind of law gets passed, how long until the main hub that is currently in the states gets moved somewhere more friendly and rebooted?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    icon
    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 12:28pm

    I hated that movie

    Why is it that I'm having flashbacks to the new die hard movie? The movie was so technically inaccurate that I could not enjoy it.

    The Internet was designed with the express intent of keeping communications up in the event of a nuclear war. Where a large portion of the connections could be destroyed, yet the rest still worked. How the hell do they expect to shut it down? There are thousands of nodes controlled by hundreds of different people with hundreds of different ways of doing things. These people have problems agreeing on new technologies to make their lives easier, how is the government going to convince them to take down a system that's making them so much money?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    to the CIA

    stick to your own fucking country you assholes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    harbingerofdoom (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 1:33pm

    Re: to the CIA

    not too keen on the exact role of the CIA are you...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    Dean Landolt (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 1:37pm

    NSA

    Just to small correction: the source article at fair.org actually says he was the NSA chief. Too late to change a headline?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    Re: NSA

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    Re: I hated that movie

    These people have problems agreeing on new technologies to make their lives easier, how is the government going to convince them to take down a system that's making them so much money?


    Putting aside the technical complexities involved with making an effective "Internetz kill switch for terrorist attacks, parental uprisings and escaped truths" which you have put in a nutshell pretty well, I think I know the answer to that last question...

    Bailouts!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 2:23pm

    Re: NSA

    Just to small correction: the source article at fair.org actually says he was the NSA chief. Too late to change a headline?

    He was both actually. More recently CIA boss. The FAIR story was from before he was CIA boss.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Josef, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 2:27pm

    Re: Re: Succinctly...

    Exactly correct. It seems that in order to pass any shady legislation now, all you have to do is suggest it protects from the terrorists.

    The US has suffered the longest period of terrorism in its history. The Bush administration thrived on terrorizing the US. Now the broken remains of that administration are in the private sector continuing their work.

    The IP Industry has been talking about how copyright infringement and patent infringement help "the terrorists" and put American's at risk. Any politician buying that argument doesn't deserve to be in office.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 2:53pm

    Why politicians and public servants don't have a kill switch?

    Seriously though, the latest worm suspected to be from a hostile nation and apparently targeting Iran's facilities is not even dependent on the internet it spreads via USB, what does the internet have to do with that?

    Have the government lost control over their own servers and can't control them anymore, have they suddenly put all their vital infra-structure on the same public network?

    Of course there is a reason why someone want that power, but I don't believe is for security reasons.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    abc gum, Sep 29th, 2010 @ 6:28pm

    If it's critical infrastructure, why would you allow an internet connection?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    ltlw0lf (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 11:02pm

    Re: Here it is

    IANAL, however, I have spent some time studying the law when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, and technically he is right (though what follows from him gets really hard to follow.) Probable cause only is required when it is unreasonable search and seizure (keep reading before you jump at me, and yes, that is very close to what he said, even though he did a really bad job of explaining it, which I'll try to do below.)

    Reasonable is defined so narrowly by the courts that just about all searches are unreasonable and thus require probable cause and a search warrant. An example of a legal and reasonable search and seizure which wouldn't require probable cause/search warrant is if a police officer can see, in plain sight and where he/she is lawfully allowed to be, either a prohibited item or evidence of a crime.

    Thus, if a police officer is walking down the street, and a small vial of cocaine (a prohibited item) pops out of someone's pocket and lands on the street, the police officer has every right to seize that vial once determining that it is cocaine. The search and seizure was entirely lawful because it was reasonable.

    Same is true if the cop pulls you over and there is a bloody baseball bat or bloody knife in the passenger seat of your car, and it is visible to all who look into the passenger compartment (under a blanket or other object doesn't count.) A police officer can most certainly seize the evidence at that point, and detain and question you about who's blood is on the bat or knife. Sure, there may be a perfectly good explanation for it (such as you hit or cut yourself,) and they may choose to let you go, but the seizure, even if temporary, was perfectly legal without probable cause. However, if the police finds a bloody knife in the car, that doesn't automatically give them the right to open the trunk or go to your house and break in looking for a body, as they'd need probable cause and a search warrant to do that (which likely wouldn't be hard to obtain fairly quickly given that there is evidence of a crime.)

    However, if it is not visible, it would be unreasonable for a cop to see it, and thus they better have probable cause and a search warrant to search for it.

    (Won't get into exigent circumstances, search incident to arrest, or Terry-Patdowns, as those were gifts to law enforcement by the Supreme Court, but they are extremely narrow in their application and we could go on for hours discussing them.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    mike allen (profile), Sep 29th, 2010 @ 11:44pm

    just dont tell the entertaiment industry it is possible to even think of suxh a switch.
    seriously it should not be in the hands of any government to shut down any part of the web let alone all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This