Skip to comments.Should Obama Control the Internet?
Posted on 04/27/2009 6:03:56 AM PDT by cbkaty
Should Obama Control the Internet?
A new bill would give the President emergency authority to halt web traffic and access private data.
Should President Obama have the power to shut down domestic Internet traffic during a state of emergency?
Senators John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) think so. On Wednesday they introduced a bill to establish the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisoran arm of the executive branch that would have vast power to monitor and control Internet traffic to protect against threats to critical cyber infrastructure. That broad power is rattling some civil libertarians.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) gives the president the ability to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of national security." The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president.
The bill does not only add to the power of the president. It also grants the Secretary of Commerce "access to all relevant data concerning [critical] networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access." This means he or she can monitor or access any data on private or public networks without regard to privacy laws.
Rockefeller made cybersecurity one of his key issues as a member of the Senate intelligence committee, which he chaired until last year. He now heads the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will take up this bill.
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costsfrom our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health recordsthe list goes on," Rockefeller said in a statement. Snowe echoed her colleague, saying, "if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."
But the wide powers outlined in the Rockefeller-Snowe legislation has at least one Internet advocacy group worried. "The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, head of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), "but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy."
The bill could undermine the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), says CDT senior counsel Greg Nojeim. That law, enacted in the mid '80s, requires law enforcement seek a warrant before tapping in to data transmissions between computers.
"It's an incredibly broad authority," Nojeim says, pointing out that existing privacy laws "could fall to this authority."
Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says that granting such power to the Commerce secretary could actually cause networks to be less safe. When one person can access all information on a network, "it makes it more vulnerable to intruders," Granick says. "You've basically established a path for the bad guys to skip down."
The bill's scope, she says, is "contrary to what the Constitution promises us." That's because of the impact it could have on Internet users' privacy rights: If the Commerce Department uncovers evidence of illegal activity when accessing "critical" networks, that information could be used against a potential defendant, even if the department never had the intent to find incriminating evidence. And this might violate the Constitutional protection against searches without cause.
"Once information is accessed, it can be used for whatever purpose, no matter the original reason for accessing something," Granick says. "Who's interested in this [bill]? Law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them."
Nojeim, though, thinks it's possible the bill's powers could be trimmed as it moves through Congress. "We will be working with them to clarify just what is needed and how to accomplish that," he says. "We're hopeful that some of the very broad powers that the bill would confer won't be included."
What be a flux capacitor?
“Back to the Future” 1, 2 and 3. See it!
That is a stupid question if I ever heard one.
>Hmmmm....more power....add a flux capacitor and bam!
Back in time to communist Amerika!
Answered this once a few days ago...absolutely NOT.
yes... control the internet, newspapers, tv, radio— nothing wrong with that
Snowe, read my lips, NO F..KING WAY! I am convinced this bitch is crazy!
Well, he has a Blackberry. That makes him pretty qualified to control every ounce of information and $ that utilize an IP address.
Quickest way to send the internet community underground.
This would be a bill that allows Obama to put Free Republic directly in his sights.
“Should Obama Control the Internet?”
Hell, no — but don’t think for a nanosecond he wouldn’t want to, though.
The only thing Obama should be allowed to control is his flatulence valve.
I don’t think Mother Jones would be so accomodating and treading so lightly if this proposal came from Bush.
WHo does he think we are? China......
No single person should “control” it esp not a politician
I, too, wonder what is her probbblem???!!!
The President is supposed to be a LEADER, not a DICTATOR.
No kidding....they are so tentative as to appear like they don’t think he’d really do it. Of course, he will.
But a dictator is what we now have
I’m convinced there’s no other way.
Please tell me Snowe is up for election this year?
Also for the record I would be oppose to this bill if it came from Bush..
Where is the ACLU on this??
A more accurate description of security threat would probably be any website like this critical to the Dems.
The government has no right to control the internet. But, like all other rights that it gave itself, it just takes the rights.
Come, lets all take off our tinfoil. Bambi would never shut down the int
BUT the spirit of the Antichrist I feel, is in him. Since Obama was elected things seem to be moving way too fast not to see that something BIG, and terrifying has been set in motion. Something apocalyptic set loose, something foreseen by the prophet Daniel.
Agreed. Bush could have shut down the internet after 9/11 by EO if he wanted to, but he didn’t, because he isn’t a wannabe dicator.
The govt has all the power it needs.
Our chickens are coming home to roost. We supported the lessor of 2 evils right up to the end. All the radio talk show hosts bit their tongues and supported Bush. In 2000 Tom Delay was called down for being excited about taking over all three branches of government. McCain wanted two chairmen on his committee. Bush sucked up to democrats. And we just kept voting for them. By the way, Delay is now a big time lobbyist.
And I’m just as guilty.
While I do not favor giving government this power, a more insidious means of controlling the Internet is being instituted in Australia. Under the guise of blocking child pornography the government will stop access to certain Internet sites. A leak of the list of sites to be blocked showed the usual government bungling as a web site for a dental practice in Sydney was on the list as well as porn sites. The danger however is that sites critical of the government could quickly be blocked as “hate” sites.
Gun Control is life insurance for those Government Officials scheming to steal the rest of your Bill of Rights.
INTERNET CONTROL is life insurance for those Government Officials scheming to steal your guns AND the rest of your Bill o’ Rights.
In BRRRRRRACKS pocket.
Obummer would have trouble controlling his bowels.
She’s up for re-election in 2012.
And she WILL be re-elected, I’m sorry to say.
I’m in Maine, and the democrats always run someone to the left of Ted Kennedy against her, and Susan Collins. Therefore, the lesser of two evils agrument kicks in at the voting booth.
information transfer across the net doesn’t require word doc or even html pages. just multi-player games with the ability to move around in a virtual world would be enough. the characters position in a pre-arranged in-game area could easily transfer code without a problem.
good luck spotting that information being passed... let alone deciphering it
so once again, another libtard program that won’t impact its ‘specified’ target but will hinder everyday Americans while increasing the power of the federal govt
Go to the head of the class Canedawg...you sniffed out the reason for the post!
He says she is crazy.
?SHE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED IN A PRIMARY!
FIND THE MOST CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN YOU CAN FIND!
YOUR VOTE IS WITH 1000 TIMES AS MUCH IN A PRIMARY BECAUSE SO FEW PEOPLE VOTE IN PRIMARIES!
The Sheeple need to be aware that EOs actually apply ONLY to operations inside the executice branch. EOs are not law, since the Constitution only authorizes the Congress to make laws.
The Sheeple need to push back on this crap!!!