Shocking! – Do We Really Want Obama to Control the Internet?
New reports are coming out this weekend about a new law being worked on behind closed doors that would give unprecedented power to the executive branch in the event of a cyber attack on our country… This power would give President Barack Obama the ability to declare a internet emergency and seize control over ‘private corporations’ internet access.
This essentially means that Obama would have the unchecked ability to shut down business access to the internet in the event of a so-called cyber emergency that would be determined solely by the executive branch.
Not surprisingly, many civil liberties groups are alarmed at such unprecedented power over the private sector. This concern is valid, because it gives the President almost unlimited power to restrict the the ability of a private firm to communicate.
What is additionally disturbing is the language that puts ‘cyber-security professionals’ in charge of private networks, if they are deemed exceedingly important to national security by the government. Cnet reports below…
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.
Although I believe the threat of cyber attack is indeed valid, the unchecked power of the President in this regard is unnerving. Many threats to the private industry and our liberty as citizens go unchecked within this bill…
A number of questions immediately come to my mind, that make this law exceedingly dangerous.
- If Congress is the only branch of Government approved to declare War, why would they not be involved in this decision of so-called cyber emergency?
- What determines a cyber emergency, is it solely initiated at the discretion of the President? (We are attacked daily by North Korea and China in this regard…)
- Would it not be possible for the President to seize control of the internet thus suppressing free speech (and other freedoms)?
The fact is, throughout history leaders have used emergencies to gain unprecedented power over the people, thus elevating themselves to absolute control over the citizens and destroying their freedom. This danger is always present, even in the United States. As citizens we must be vigilant to question our government and prevent any reaching of power by those who wish to circumvent the rule of law as defined by the Constitution, even in the name of safety.
I think we would be wise to remember Benjamin Franklin’s advice in this regard and apply it to any new bill coming out of Congress…
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin
An excerpt from the article in GOPUSA, which makes an excellent point on the role of government…
CNET’s translation? –> “If your company is deemed ‘critical,’ a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.”
Here’s the kicker… not only would this bill put more private industry under the supervision of the government, but once again, the government is showing that it has no grasp of what actually goes on in private industry.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the government should stick to those specific functions outlined by the Constitution and stay out of private industry. Obama and his team continue to seize more control over our private lives, but with each passing day, they also show that they are ill-equipped to handle the situation. The last thing we need is more government control over the Internet and Obama telling cyber-professionals how to do their jobs.
I don’t want Obama patrolling my inbox with “professionals” licensed by his administration. Do you?
An excerpt from the Cnet article is below…
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 (excerpt), 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.
“I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness,” said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. “It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill.”
Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller’s aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.
A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president’s power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.
When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs–from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Rockefeller said.
The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government’s role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is “not as prepared” as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.
The scary part of the bill is that their is no definition for a ‘cyber threat’. Essentially the President decides what a ‘cyber threat’ is, and as you know we are under constant attack every day by other countries wishing to extract sensitive information.
Who’s to say that a president won’t issue a ‘cyber threat’ in order to gain immense power over communication and the media, as a majority of the media is broadcast on the internet already. I wouldn’t put it pass this President – that is for sure.
If you think about it, any individual who is for the ‘fairness doctrine’ would probably support this bill. This is a real threat to liberty. Every Conservative American should know about it.