The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PCNAA), a cyber-security bill, sponsored by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Tom Carper (D-DE).
The bill would lead to the creation of a brand new government agency, the National Center for Cyber-security and Communications (NCCC), within the Department of Homeland Security. The bill will face opposition for the fact that there are very few restrictions to the emergency powers granted to the president.
The intuitively offensive part of the bill, for the true libertarian at least, is the power granted to the president to shut down private sector internet use. One can accept that the government areas of the internet presumably should be under governmental control, and subject to operate however the government sees fit (as long as such operations are lawful). There is, however, no clear reason why the government should have control over private sections of the internet and therefore control over content owned and operated by private citizens.
As usual, the government says the justification for the extraordinary powers granted to the president is a threat to our national security. According to Senator Lieberman, due to the imminent threat to our national security that could come in the form of some kind of digital online attack, it is reasonable to give the president the power to seize control or shut down portions of the internet (this is what the bill allows, according to CNET).
There are several ethical issues involved in such granting the executive such a huge power. The emergency powers given to the president in the bill are a de facto means to shut down free speech should the president choose to do so. Senator Lieberman, talking on CNN about the bill, implicitly acknowledges the danger of the power handed to the president by giving us the fickle assurance that “it’s not like the president would do this [shut down the internet] every day.”
What must be balanced here is the nature of the threat, the ways to contain the threat, and the size of governmental response. We must also look at the powers given to the president and frame them as the actual power that the Obama administration would have over the internet and not simply accept the administration’s stated intentions behind the expansion in governmental power as a means to combat cyber terrorism. Government stated intentions behind an incremental increase in state power rarely hold true once the government is actually given the power it originally sought.
Senator Lieberman went on, rather alarmingly, to suggest that the Chinese government has the kind of power that will be granted to Obama from this bill, and that such state power is desirable here in the United States. The other states that have the kind of state power akin to the Chinese government are Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia and others. These countries have autocratic or semi-autocratic governments in power: do we want to be a part of this select group of countries?
Nobody is arguing that we shouldn’t take cyber-security seriously. The government, however, cannot attempt to slip this by the people, create government agencies as they wish, and give the president extraordinary powers without even making the case for their actions. Furthermore, with regard to the private sector of the internet, there are companies that can effectively perform the task that the government needs done at a fair market price; this would mean the administration need not be given the de facto power to shut down free speech.
The bill would lead to the creation of a brand new government agency, the National Center for Cyber-security and Communications (NCCC), within the Department of Homeland Security. The bill will face opposition for the fact that there are very few restrictions to the emergency powers granted to the president.
The intuitively offensive part of the bill, for the true libertarian at least, is the power granted to the president to shut down private sector internet use. One can accept that the government areas of the internet presumably should be under governmental control, and subject to operate however the government sees fit (as long as such operations are lawful). There is, however, no clear reason why the government should have control over private sections of the internet and therefore control over content owned and operated by private citizens.
As usual, the government says the justification for the extraordinary powers granted to the president is a threat to our national security. According to Senator Lieberman, due to the imminent threat to our national security that could come in the form of some kind of digital online attack, it is reasonable to give the president the power to seize control or shut down portions of the internet (this is what the bill allows, according to CNET).
There are several ethical issues involved in such granting the executive such a huge power. The emergency powers given to the president in the bill are a de facto means to shut down free speech should the president choose to do so. Senator Lieberman, talking on CNN about the bill, implicitly acknowledges the danger of the power handed to the president by giving us the fickle assurance that “it’s not like the president would do this [shut down the internet] every day.”
What must be balanced here is the nature of the threat, the ways to contain the threat, and the size of governmental response. We must also look at the powers given to the president and frame them as the actual power that the Obama administration would have over the internet and not simply accept the administration’s stated intentions behind the expansion in governmental power as a means to combat cyber terrorism. Government stated intentions behind an incremental increase in state power rarely hold true once the government is actually given the power it originally sought.
Senator Lieberman went on, rather alarmingly, to suggest that the Chinese government has the kind of power that will be granted to Obama from this bill, and that such state power is desirable here in the United States. The other states that have the kind of state power akin to the Chinese government are Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Tunisia and others. These countries have autocratic or semi-autocratic governments in power: do we want to be a part of this select group of countries?
Nobody is arguing that we shouldn’t take cyber-security seriously. The government, however, cannot attempt to slip this by the people, create government agencies as they wish, and give the president extraordinary powers without even making the case for their actions. Furthermore, with regard to the private sector of the internet, there are companies that can effectively perform the task that the government needs done at a fair market price; this would mean the administration need not be given the de facto power to shut down free speech.
, Chapter 7)
