While Congress may not always have the best timing when it comes to debating legislation, the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act couldn’t come at a worse time.
As Egypt was shutting down its Internet in response to ongoing protests, the bill was brought back up in Congress. Some allege this bill allows for a similar “Internet kill switch,” like the one in Egypt.
According to The Huffington Post, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., originally introduced the legislation in June 2010. The bill allows for the creation of a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications within the Department of Homeland Security.
This agency would be in charge of defending the nation's cyberspace from potential attacks from terrorists or other nations.
Plans would be made on how to protect portions of infrastructure that are deemed critical. Whenever he or she feels the need arises, the president may declare a national cyber-emergency, one that necessitates the implementation of these plans.
The owners of that infrastructure are then required to follow those plans until the state of cyber-emergency has ended — with one catch.
According to CBS News, companies owning infrastructure classified as “covered critical infrastructure” are allowed to appeal to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
However, if he or she maintains the classification, the decision is final and exempt from any form of judicial review.
Critics have charged that this bill creates an “Internet kill switch” that would allow the President to shut off the Internet, or at least parts of it. Many point to the situation in Egypt as a perfect reason to ensure this bill doesn’t pass; they see this legislation as a play by the government to gain more control over another avenue of communication.
Lieberman contends that the bill does not authorize any sort of an “Internet kill switch.” However, while the text of the bill does prohibit “restrict[ing] or prohibit[ing] communications carried by… critical infrastructure,” it does allow for this if the “Director [of Cyberspace Policy] determines that no other emergency measure or action will preserve the reliable operation… of the… critical infrastructure.”
Furthermore, in a PC Magazine article, Lieberman noted that “right now, China... can disconnect parts of its Internet in a case of war.” He said, “We need to have that here, too.”
Whether the bill actually contains a “kill switch,” the legislation still seems like a gross overreaction to an unknown, potential threat in the future.
The conditions under which a cyber-emergency would be declared seem awfully arbitrary. It's hard to tell what would keep these powers from being abused by any administration, present or future, particularly the lack of judicial review portion, which is deeply troubling.
The legislation seems to focus more on dealing with a potential cyber-attack than with preventing an attack of this nature.
So, while the bill may not be the Orwellian doom-bringer some paint it as, it is certainly an egregious expansion of executive power.
Luckily, even in this age of polarized politics, this seems to be legislation that conservatives and liberals can both oppose.
Even more startling, it's the perfect issue to involve the politically apathetic youth. After all, who wants to find themselves separated from their Twitter account?
Tanner can be contacted at tjgreene@asu.edu
