Does The U.S. Net Kill Switch Mean We Could Have An Egyptian Blackout?

What does it take to focus America's attention on whether a "kill switch" option for the Internet could happen in the U.S.? How about a real-life Internet blackout in a protest-torn country on the verge of overthrowing its ruler? Or an outline of U.S. legislation with a reported "kill switch" measure to "safeguard" the Internet released less than 24 hours before said blackout? Proposals granting the president emergency authority to disconnect home computers from the Internet have circulated for years, but the reality of the Mubarak regime's actions in Egypt shutting down the Internet to curtail anti-government protesters have focused attention anew on the issue here at home. Is an Egypt-style Internet blackout hitting the U.S. something you should be worried about, or just hype? Current law gives the president broad powers over U.S. telecom services in the event of an emergency. Under the Communications Act of 1934, the president can take over or shut down wire and radio communications providers, specifying that, "in wartime," or if a "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency" exists, the president may "authorize the use or control of any...station or device. Last year, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010," that proposed creating an office of cyberspace policy within the White House and a new cyber-security center within the Homeland Security Department. The provision that drew the most headlines, however, was one that gave the president the power to "authorize emergency measures to protect the nation's most critical infrastructure if a cyber vulnerability is being exploited or is about to be exploited." Some interpreted that to mean that the president would be able to shut down the Internet at anytime, a charge Lieberman vehemently denied. The latest version of legislation, S.3480, was approved by Lieberman's committee in December but was not voted on in the full Senate. It was reintroduced just last month, as the Egypt storm was just a simmer, by Lieberman and Collins, along with Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.). As first reported by CNET, the revised version includes new language saying that the federal government's designation of vital Internet or other computer systems "shall not be subject to judicial review," key words that have drawn, by far, the most attention. The bill, according to a summary prepared by Lieberman's committee, also says that if the president declares a "cyber emergency," the Department of Homeland Security could "issue mandatory emergency measures necessary to preserve the reliable operation of covered critical infrastructure." Notably, the term "kill switch" does not appear in the legislation, but the "mandatory" measures specification could include ordering "critical" computers, networks, or Web sites disconnected from the Internet. Industry experts and civil libertarians remained concerned about the broad powers given to the executive branch, from tech columnist John C. Dvorak warning that such a proposal "gives the president the power to literally kill the Internet," to Investor's Business Daily editorializing that the emergency procedures would be overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, "the same people who think enhanced pat-downs and groping our junk are necessary evils." On the flip side, as Lieberman and Collins been quick to point out tech companies, including Microsoft, Verizon, and EMC Corporation, have said positive things about the bill. For their part, the three senators behind the bill, Collins, Lieberman and Carper, were quick to protest against comparisons of their legislation to"kill switch" highlighted by the situation in Egypt. "We would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet," they said in a joint statement. "Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution." They went further to explain their intent was to allow the president "to protect the U.S. from external cyber attacks," not to shut down the Internet. In a sign, perhaps, of what the legislation originally, truly allowed, however, they also announced that they would revise their legislation so that it, "contains explicit language prohibiting the president from doing what President [Hosni] Mubarak did in Egypt." "Some have suggested that our legislation would empower the president to deny U.S. citizens access to the Internet," the statement went on to say. "Nothing could be further from the truth." What are your thoughts on granting the government such power? Is it a reality in the U.S.? A strategic, and necessary, tool in the case of an attack, or a case of government overreach?

Social Pro Daily

Does The U.S. Net Kill Switch Mean We Could Have An Egyptian Blackout?

Katie Kindelan

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Katie Kindelan