An amalgamated cybersecurity bill that lawmakers hope to pass before the end of the year includes new powers which would allow the Federal Government to shut down not only entire areas of the Internet, but also businesses and industries that fail to comply with government orders following the declaration of a national emergency – increasing fears that the legislation will be abused as a political tool.
The draft bill is a combination of two pieces of legislation originally crafted by Senators Lieberman and Rockefeller. One of the differences between the new bill and the original Lieberman version is that the Internet “kill switch” power has been limited to 90 days without congressional oversight, rather than the original period of four months contained in the Lieberman bill.
In other words, the White House can issue an emergency declaration that lasts 30 days which can be renewed for an additional 60 days before congress can step in to oversee the powers.
The new powers would give the Executive Branch a free hand to not only shut down entire areas of the Internet and block all Internet traffic from certain countries, but under the amalgamated bill he would also have the power to completely shut down industries that don’t follow government orders, according to a Reuters summary of the new bill.
“Industries, companies or portions of companies could be temporarily shut down, or be required to take other steps to address threats,” states the report, citing concerns about an “imminent threat to the U.S. electrical grid or other critical infrastructure such as the water supply or financial network.”
The only protection afforded to companies under the new laws is that they would have to be defined as “critical” in order to come under government regulation, but since the government itself would decide to what companies this label applies, it’s hardly a comforting layer of security.
“Even in the absence of an imminent threat, companies could face government scrutiny. Company employees working in cybersecurity would need appropriate skills. It also would require companies to report cyber threats to the government, and to have plans for responding to a cyber attack,” states the report.
As we have highlighted, the threat from cyber-terrorists to the U.S. power grid or water supply is minimal. The perpetrators of an attack on such infrastructure would have to have direct physical access to the systems that operate these plants to cause any damage. The recent Stuxnet malware attack, for example, was introduced and spread through a physical USB device, not via the public Internet.
Any perceived threat from the public Internet to these systems is therefore completely contrived and strips bare what many fear is the real agenda behind cybersecurity – to enable the government to regulate free speech on the Internet.
Handing the White House the power to shut down certain companies or businesses is likely to heighten already existing fears that the new cybersecurity federal bureaucracy could be used as a political tool.
Senator Joe Lieberman appeared to admit that the legislation had more to do with simply protecting US infrastructure when he told CNN’s Candy Crowley that the bill was intended to mimic the Communist Chinese system of Internet policing.
“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said Lieberman.
As we have documented, the Chinese government does not disconnect parts of the Internet because of genuine security concerns, it habitually does so only to oppress and silence victims of government abuse and atrocities, and to strangle dissent against the state, a practice many fear is the ultimate intention of cybersecurity in the United States.
The implementation of the cybersecurity apparatus would represent another huge expansion of the federal government, creating an Office of Cyber Policy within the executive branch and also “A new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) within the Department of Homeland Security, led by a separate director who would enforce cybersecurity policies throughout the government and the private sector.”
Lawmakers have indicated that they intend to push through the bill before the end of the year, though with Congress set to leave Friday amidst deadlock on a number of issues, cybersecurity looks like it will have to wait until mid-November, providing its opponents with extra time to point out the inherent threats the legislation poses to free speech and free enterprise.
22 comments:
This is a frightening proposition. The President himself having the power to shut down whatever part of the Internet for whatever reason for 90 days should not be allowed. When it comes down to it, it's an invasion of privacy and a violation of the First Amendment. That's too much of a cost for stopping threats that are minimal at best. It seems a lot like Big Brother just wants to keep a closer eye on us.
The United States is constantly criticizing countries that regulate the internet (especially China). It seems odd that after this, we would suddenly want to give this huge power to the federal government. Not to mention this obvious infringement on our guarantee of free speech. What an obvious way to abuse power.
This new "kill Switch" is gonna kill those big companies that rely on the internet because I think that even one second is enough to change the result of a decision. With this being said the bottom line is the giving the government this kind of power is a bad idea.
Well, my gut response is no way. It does violate the first amendment in more ways than one, and the fact that we want to do something that modern-day China does is honestly cring-worthy. But if you look at it realistically, the internet has surpassed our wildest dreams. It has created something that could very well be noted as the "Technological Age" in future history books. Something the Founding Fathers probably never saw coming, exactly. However, they did write the Constitution in a way so that their "Prosperity" could prosper and grown in the future. A situation could, hypothetically, arise in which the Internet and Co. could be harmful to national security. In that case you kinda want to go with them on this, but as, the saying goes, with great power, comes great responsibility. If the government abuses this, then we could possibly be no better than "let's suppress our people" China in this case.
How wonderful that our government is using China as a model for a measure that deals with the internet. Prior to the invention of the internet and the spread of mass media, the government had much more control of the information that reaches the public. This legislation is an attempt to regain the censorship power that was lost. The whole idea of congress giving the president such a huge power is not entirely in line with Constitutional intentions in the first place.
This is obviously a violation of the First Amendment. The government should not be allowed to censor in any way. While they argue that it would protect the United States, i feel that the threat would be very insignificant. I'm very surprised that this would ever be considered in a country that prides itself on the freedom its citizens enjoy.
My opinion about this whole idea is that its gonna bite someone itn the butt. Mainly i think it'll affect big businesses, which is more than likely going to cause a lot of problems in the long run. It's just not a good idea to give that much power to the federal government.
Internet is almost the only place we aren't censored. If you take that away from us we'll go insane a most like begin to revolt! We are already monitored on the internet; down to the click! Please leave the web ALONE!
I'm just so very glad that the government is using China for a model on a censorship issue. I understand that this could be a safety concern, but with the exponentially growing integration of business and the internet, this is not a power the president should have. With just the president in charge, the choice to shut down a part of the internet becomes very subjective and open for misuse. (if this show up as a second comment it's because I'm not sure the other one went through since it was from another computer)
What a strange idea considering that we Americans pride ourselves on our freedom of expression. How can this even be constitutional? This is exactly like the case that we debated about in class the other day. The powers of the government should be limited and checked. Giving this power to the President allows him to control an aspect of the political system without being checked. Big Brother really is always watching.
Thumbs up Dale. This proposition is obviously a violation of the first amendment. The internet has been integrated into our daily lives and its a essential tool for every business. Shutting down the internet would mean a total quarantine. Its way too much power for one branch. I don't know what they're trying to accomplish with this, I think during a time of emergency shutting down the internet would only mean more fear.
This is a terrible idea. Giving that kind of authority and power over to the government can result in uprisings all over the U.S. Like they said about these so called cyber terriorists it is very unlikley that they could even hack into the power grid or water supply so why is it even a big problem to the government to have a killswitch. Not only is this going to cause political uprisings but also uprisings involving free speech and free enterprise. The scary thing is that China has this killswitch and they are communist so what does that say about our government?
I believe this is the first step in how the government is going keep taking control of every part of our lives. The president should not be allowed to shut down the internet whenever he feels like it, its not right and is going to hurt companies who rely heavily on the internet.
The idea of the new "kill switch" plan is overreacting. Killing the internet would ultimately punish many people even if they had nothing to do with terrorism. Businesses would suffer and peoples right to privacy would be violated. The government does not even have a clear definition of what would cause them to shut down the internet so it would be a terrible surprise to the rest of us.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
It's terrifying to think that the government could have the power to delve even more into our personal lives than they already do. The "kill switch" is a reaction to a "minimal threat" that violates our privacy rights. Sounds almost 1984-esque to me.
Looks like the government found another way to keep us in the dark. Im not sure it really is a invasion of privacy but more like a vision of communism. Yeah!! I remember how well that worked!!
"Idiots" I say. Seriously. Okay, suppose some super-virus decided to attack the government's internet. If you shut down all the computers, even in time to prevent them from reaching D.C. mainframes, when you boot them all back up, the virus will continue to flow. Unless the virus was manually removed from each and every internet device afterwards, this has no use other than unnecessary, unconstitutional control.
Post a Comment