The US doesn't want an Internet kill switch for nothing.
Quite OT, but this sentence makes me cringe. There's a common misconception that the proposed "Internet kill switch" would allow the executive to order ISPs to turn off access in exceptional circumstances. This is false. What is proposed is an authority given to the executive to preemptively pardon any ISP (or other service) that chooses to disable service, and excuse them from liability for whatever damages. This would allow ISPs to react more forcefully to major cyberattacks.
The idea is still of arguable merit, but the proposed mechanism doesn't do the government any good unless ISPs have their own reasons for wanting to turn off service. The idea is to remove unwanted disincentives for them to do so, not to force them to do so.
I honestly didn't realize that, so thank you for clarifying.
My skeptical side wonders if that really changes much, though. Sure, some ISPs would stay up but many of the largest backbones and retail ISPs are deep in bed with the government already, and would have a lot to lose if they fell out of favor. Congress already had to give the telcos retroactive immunity once to cover them for the illegal warrant less wiretaps that they ran for years. I'm not sure if they feel compelled or are just looking to find favor, but either way it's hard to not imagine them going along for the ride if the president was calling.
And while I think some kind of cyberwar is a serious threat, that defense scenario doesn't make much sense when gamed. That kind of response implies a decapitation attack: either looking to disable our networks/economy or attacking infrastructure and critical systems and making things go boom.
A kill switch doesn't help anything if they just wanted us offline in the first place. You may need to drop off for a while to get back in control but I'd be surprised if the big SLA's didn't cover acts of war the same as earthquakes. In the case of major ongoing infrastructure attacks you have to believe that'd be setup well in advance and just triggered - with boots on the ground and satellite gear to handle the glitches, all while coordination and response was that much more difficult.
Looking for examples of internet controls around the world it's hard to not conclude that social control is the primary motivation, really only China has any real defensive posture. Maybe we are the exception to the rule.
I do think it's rather far fetched that it'd actually ever get used in that way though. I think it's just the product of paranoid minds that have been high on the patriot act for ten years now.
Most of these companies have already demonstrated a willingness to sell you down the river if the government so much as looks that direction, so there's not really much of an effective difference.
Quite OT, but this sentence makes me cringe. There's a common misconception that the proposed "Internet kill switch" would allow the executive to order ISPs to turn off access in exceptional circumstances. This is false. What is proposed is an authority given to the executive to preemptively pardon any ISP (or other service) that chooses to disable service, and excuse them from liability for whatever damages. This would allow ISPs to react more forcefully to major cyberattacks.
The idea is still of arguable merit, but the proposed mechanism doesn't do the government any good unless ISPs have their own reasons for wanting to turn off service. The idea is to remove unwanted disincentives for them to do so, not to force them to do so.
(Everything else you said is quite true.)