Internet Interrupted

| 4 Comments
We have been attacked. You don't know how to find your loved ones. You try to log on to the internet to send email. Your access is denied. The President of the United States has disconnected you in the name national security in the middle of a worldwide crisis. In your hour of need, you have been cut off from the web with no immediate expectation for getting back online.

Does that scenario frighten you?

It's about to become your very real nightmare if President Obama has his way with us in the name of "national security."

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. 

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773, which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
Intrepid CBS reporter Declan McCullagh presses four important questions that the Senate must answer before this awful bill is made into law:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Query from CBS News re: revised Rockefeller/Cybersecurity Act / S.773
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:20:11 -0700
From: Declan McCullagh
Reply-To: declan@cbsnews.com
Organization: CBSNews.com
To: charles_stewart@commerce.senate.gov

Charles,

Thanks for talking a minute ago. I'm reading a revised draft of the Cybersecurity Act/S.773 dated this month and had a few questions:

* The original version of the legislation allowed the National Cybersecurity Advisor to disconnect "critical" networks from the Internet. The revised version says the president can "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" networks and "direct the national response to the cyber threat." That seems vague: does it mean the executive branch does or does *not* have the power to disconnect private networks?

* The revised version gives the executive branch 180 days to "implement" a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" and 90 days to develop a plan to implement a "dashboard pilot project." But the mandated legal review won't be done until 1 year. Why not wait until the legal review is done before implementing a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy?"

* In Silicon Valley and the tech industry in general, lots of employees do not have formal training in computer security (they may studied math or physics, for instance) but nevertheless work in that area. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, don't have college degrees. Will the cybersecurity certification program be open to non-degreed people? And does the "certified service provider" extend to services like Gmail and Hotmail?

* One section says that private sector crit. infrastructure firms "shall share" certain information with the federal government. Is this open-ended, or are there limits to this requirement?

Thanks for your help!

Best,
Declan
If the Cybersecurity Act/S.773 had been the law of our land on 9/11, would it have been pushed into effect?

Certainly.

Would we have been able to get online and connect with each other?

Not likely.

Now -- with the rise of Twitter and Facebook and other social networks since the fall of the Twin Towers -- the first place we turn our eye in desperation is into the virtual company of others.

If the president takes us offline during the next terrorist attack -- does that cripple our ability to communicate in the ways we currently demand and expect because being online is now a part of us and that freedom to speak with each other at will is considered a coveted and sacrosanct right?

Or will we accept being disconnected -- because of a terrorist threat or a perceived or sensed attack that might be coming or might not -- all in the name of being good citizens in a world that will likely become more, not less, disconnected in the future? 

Related Entries

4 Comments

Frightening thought, David. I wonder if there is such thing as this kind of law being used responsibly?

I don't think it would used responsibly, Gordon. Imagine if Bush and Cheney had this power! I seriously doubt we'd even have something like Twitter today, and we'd all be licensed -- not a bad thing, really -- and we'd have metered time on the internet that would be logged and analyzed and blogs like this one would no longer be in publication.

We need a Constitutional amendment making it clear that internet access is protected free speech and that the government cannot remove the web from us in the same way they can't touch our guns.

I can't think of not being connected with the rest of the world virtually - I would feel like a fish out of water.

And not being connected in the name of security??? I think staying connected helps while an entire nation is in distress...

I agree, Katha, but if you want to "fight terrorism" while also silencing your critics -- turning off "the pipe" makes it that much harder to unite against the power. Scary stuff.

Leave a comment

BolesBlues.com Logo
UnitedStage.com Logo
Panopticonic.com Logo
CarceralNation.com Logo
Memeingful.com Logo
DramaticMedicine.com Logo
ScientificAesthetic.com Logo
UrbanSemiotic.com Logo
RelationShaping.com Logo
David W. Boles' WordPunk Logo Small
Boles University Logo Small
David W. Boles' Celebrity Semiotic Logo Small
10txt.com Logo
Search BolesBlogs.com Logo
Boles Books Writing and Publishing Logo Small
Hardcore ASL Logo Small
David W. Boles
Script Professor Logo Small

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David W. Boles published on September 2, 2009 9:20 AM.

Fifty Percent Infected and Ninety Thousand Dead was the previous entry in this blog.

The Fish Wrangler Review is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Recent Comments

  • David W. Boles: I agree, Katha, but if you want to "fight terrorism" read more
  • Kathakali Chatterjee: I can't think of not being connected with the rest read more
  • David W. Boles: I don't think it would used responsibly, Gordon. Imagine if read more
  • Gordon Davidescu: Frightening thought, David. I wonder if there is such thing read more