The Egyptian government’s recent efforts to tamp down massive protests by shutting off Internet access has reignited debate in this country over a proposal to give the president emergency powers over the Internet.
We are wary of the legislation and remain unconvinced it’s needed.
We do not quibble with its intent, which is to protect the country from the very real threat of a catastrophic cyber attack. However, a measure that was debated in the last Congress and is set to be reintroduced, and which would give the president authority over privately owned computer systems during a “national cyber emergency,” makes us nervous.
The president could order crucial networks, computers and websites to be severed from Internet access. Even more troubling, one provision says that if the government designates certain systems as “critical,” the move would not be subject to judicial review. That’s not a good idea at all.
Though the executive and judicial branches have had their disagreements over the years, it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the courts failed to defer to the president’s judgment in a true national emergency. Governmental checks and balances are an integral part of our constitutional system.
Some critics have decried the measure as one that would give the president an “Internet kill switch,” a characterization that supporters vehemently deny. Proponents of the bill, which include Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, contend their measure would make it far less likely the president would use the broad authority already vested in the office. That authority stems from the Communications Act of 1934, which says the president may close or control any “facility or station for wire communication” if the country is in a state of war or faces such a threat.
The way we see it, if the president already has such expansive power, why is it necessary to further elaborate on it? And if he doesn’t, he’s probably going to assume such authority in a true doomsday emergency anyway, when second-guessers will be few and far between.
Even if he decided not to risk such a power grab, there’s little doubt he could still have his way. In a true emergency, private cyber companies would inevitably (and rightly) cooperate with any reasonable government request that they shut down or isolate certain networks. Remember back in 2001 when the National Security Agency asked for permission to tap private phones? Most phone companies rolled over without a second thought.
Civil libertarians and electronic privacy groups are right to be concerned that the measure, as originally proposed, does not clearly define what is to be considered critical infrastructure. Colorado’s senators have approached the issue cautiously, and wisely so.
We hope the situation in Egypt will at least give federal lawmakers the perspective to ensure appropriate safeguards are included in the new version of what previously had been called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
The Internet is increasingly becoming the backbone of American commerce and communication. Efforts to cede control of it to the government ought to be carefully scrutinized if not completely rebuffed.
