Can the president shut down the internet?

A revision to the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, the proposed Rockefeller-Snowe legislation in Congress, has drawn criticism because of concerns that it would give the president power to shut down the internet.

The proposed law, introduced in April by Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, originally contained a controversial clause that said: “The president may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of internet traffic to and from any compromised federal government or critical infrastructure information system or network.”

The bill recently was revised, and the new language now reads: “The president may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the president finds it necessary for the national defense and security…direct the national response to the cyberthreat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.”

Who owns and/or controls the communications airspace in CONUS?

Who owns and/or controls the various networks of copper wire and fiber cable over which telephony and data and communications travel?

To what extent do broadcasters, telephony providers, and data service providers operate under license from or with permission from the executive branch of the federal government?

To what extent is the exective branch empowered to open/close data pathways as it can physical interstate highways?

Then there are people in the industry who doubt whether the government should have any final word on security.
“If you're not doing a particularly good job of securing the networks you own, then maybe you should focus on doing that before trying to impose more regulation on private networks,” Lee Tien, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told SCMagazineUS.com Monday. “I think [the Rockefeller-Snowe bill] is much more of a political document than a thoroughly vetted policy prescription."

“And this is not a White House bill,” he added. “This is a congressional bill. The White House position is not yet clear, but I think it's fair to say that the White House has a more cautious approach than that outlined in this bill.”

TYPICAL left-coast left-wing cyber-geek. He was making sense there for awhile, but then he JUST CAN'T BELIEVE the President he likely voted for could have ANYTHING to do with this, YET ANOTHER, government takeover of something that SHOULD remain in the competitive, MUCH more knowledgeable and COMPETENT private sector.

NAIVE at best, STUPID (when it comes to the REAL WORLD of cut-throat left-wing politics and B. Hussein Obama) at worst.

I think, and it is something no one has brought up yet I don’t believe, that this was made for another purpose.

Its the “Critical System or Infrastructure” wording in the bill. That could mean almost anything - from net access from your home, to company networks that can be reached from outside or only operate as closed access from inside the company proper. Its still a “Network” however it can be accessed so long as it fits the definition they make up. Might also be applicable to ISPs if they could be defined as a “Network” so that access limitations could be targeted to individuals or areas.

But really, Whats more Critical to the Infrastructure then banking in all its forms?

What happens if there is an “Emergency Crisis” and it prompts a run on the banks or similar monetary confidence collapse?

The way I read it, according to this - they could limit or shut down your account access. No phone access, no PC access, no ATM access, possibly - no access at all being as the people at the window inside also are operating electronically on a “network” almost everywhere nowadays.

Then what is a person going to do?

Almost all banking or movement of money is starting to be controlled by electronic network use. Think about this - theres almost never long lines at the actual bank anymore. Everyone is at home moving money around, paying bills - withdrawing etc at the ATM (which is a “network” per say as well) and your transactions inside are quick as well due to the electronic records limiting paper use.

So Imagine, what happens, if a “Crisis” occurs and ALL access is suspended?

That is what I think this is for, for the most part.
To stop massive numbers of withdrawals during a systematic crash of the monetary system.

Along with all the other nefarious ideas they can come up with for it of course.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.