In light of the Egypt Internet shut down, controversy surrounding government Internet surveillance has resurfaced, provoking three United States senators to reframe a piece of U.S. legislation that would provide the president with greater authority over electronic communication.
In the aftermath of the Egypt Internet shut down, Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Tom Carper, D-Del, defended the “kill switch” bill, formally known as The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which was introduced in June.
“All authoritarian regimes that confront the challenge of an open media world must look at it (the unrest in Egypt),” said Jason Kirk, professor of political science.
The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act grants the president authority to shut down particular systems or assets in the event of a cyber attack, states a press release from the United States Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released June 23, 2010.
The senators explained that the bill does not have the same intentions as the censorship in Egypt. According to a statement released by the three Senators, the objectives are not to protect the government from the people, but rather to protect the U.S. people from a cyber attack.
“If the United States were to implement the kind of media controls that Egypt has tried to induce in a clumsy way, it wouldn’t be recognizable as the U.S. anymore,” Kirk said.
Is the bill technologically possible?
A CNN article, “Could the U.S. shut down the Internet” said that while the U.S. could enact the same censorship Mubarak had, the number of Internet service providers would make it difficult.
Laura Roselle, professor of political science, attributes the ineffectiveness to the number of Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, and public’s ability to overcome many blockages.
Even with the small number of ISPs in Egypt, Kirk said he did not believe the attempt to control the Internet benefited the authoritative government. He points to the continued protests in Egypt and Google’s mobile access development as evidence for the futility of Internet censorship.
“Really, in the case of the Mubarak government in Egypt, it’s really out of touch with today’s media environment and what the media allows people to do,” Kirk said.
The balance between liberty and security
Although the authors of the bill do not call for a total “kill switch,” they do advocate for presidential authority over elements of the Internet.
In order to appease the people, the U.S. government is going to claim the bill benefits security, Roselle said.
“And that’s an ongoing conversation about democracy,” she said. “To what degree are all your freedoms preserved in the midst of a potential crisis or during crisis and conflict.”
Given the infancy of the Internet, present legislation sets the boundaries for the relationship among the governed, governing and Internet.
While the Communications Act of 1934 provides the president with unchecked power over wire communications platforms, the current Internet controversy revolves around the extent to which the public associates the Internet with freedom.
“The Internet provides multiple channels of information so that people can share information and people can express their views,” Roselle said. “And that goes to notions and rights associated with free speech.”
According to Kirk, the access to smart phones and the Internet provides another check on the government.
“Somebody’s camera phone somewhere is going to take a picture of the innocent Egyptian who gets hurt if the state uses violence to repress the protests,” he said.
In this way, technology provides the public with as much control of the image of the government as the authority figures have.
Elon University’s Internet Policy
Chris Fulkerson, assistant vice president for technology, describes the Internet as an equalizing tool.
“It brings everyone more to the same level,” he said.
According to Fulkerson, Elon University uses this idea to combat electronically published information that counters the administration’s agenda. Rather than imposing censorship on negative material, the administration posts information compliant with the university image
using the same platforms that contain negative content, he said.
Roselle said she questions how and whose voice gains notice.
“Individuals need to be concerned with how we are going to get attention in the midst of all this noise,” she said.
Despite any negative content with respect to the university the administration values the free exchange of ideas, and would not censor the Internet, Fulkerson said.
“We do not censor websites, but we hold students accountable,” he said.
The bill’s ambiguous language
Returning to the issue of Internet censorship beyond the Elon “bubble,” the “kill switch” bill does not speak to the regulation of people’s use of the Internet, but rather the fear of abuse by an outside force.
Despite the senators’ clarification of the bill’s intention, the language of the bill does not specify the president’s authority, Roselle said.
“It’s too vague right now, so we don’t know what the government could claim to do with the current terminology,” Roselle said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association, as well as various other national organizations, expressed concern regarding the bill in a letter addressed to the three senators.
“The Internet is vital to free speech and free inquiry,” the letter said. “Americans rely on it everyday to access and to convey information.”
Roselle said she expected the bill to be challenged if it is formally introduced.
“I think it just creates a sense of mistrust of the people in power when they try to censor information,” Fulkersonsaid.
Roselle said she encourages the public to stay educated on the language of the bill in order to understand to what extent the bill will disrupt the balance of security and liberty.
“We need more time living with this technology in order to understand really the ins and outs of what’s going on,” she said.