• More Blogs
• Observations »
• Bering in Mind »
• Cross-check »
• Extinction Countdown »
• Solar at Home »
• Expeditions »
• Guest Blog »
• Anecdotes from the Archive »

Could President Obama, in the event of a massive cyber attack against government computers, be given the power to bring Internet traffic to a stop?

That's the big question being asked in cyber security circles today. The answer is no, at least not based on the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 that Sen. Jay Rockefeller first (D–W.V.) proposed in April nor on an excerpt of the revised bill that's been floating around the Web since late last week.

The confusion arises from some of the language in the bill's original version, which proposes to give the president authority to declare a cyber security emergency and "order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network." By critical infrastructure, we're talking about the computers that run utilities, banks, hospitals and government agencies—the institutions that society relies on to function normally. The first draft of the bill also seeks to give the president the ability to "order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security."

An excerpt of the revised bill, obtained by CNET, would still give the president authority to declare a cyber security emergency, but it makes no mention of tinkering with Internet traffic or disconnecting government computers from networks they might share with critical infrastructure systems.

It's important to note that the proposed legislation (both the original and the revised copies) would give the U.S. federal government the ability to protect its computers from attack by closing off areas of vulnerability—which could include connections to the Internet or any other network—something it presumably already does when under attack.

In reality, the government controls very little of the country's critical infrastructure, more than 85 percent of which is in the hands of private industry. Much effort has gone into getting private companies to voluntarily share information with the government—in particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—but these plans are still being worked out.

Whether the U.S. government even could control the Internet is another issue. As Govinfosecurity.com notes in a blog today, "There is no on-off switch for the Internet." Given that it is a network of networks without any true central control point, "any attempt to redesign that architecture to give the president that on-off switch, though theoretically possible, would be costly and realistically impractical," Govinfosecurity.com says.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/ Sean Locke

5 Comments

1. 1. notslic 05:32 PM 8/31/09

   I can promise that the previous administration would have found a way to control the internet if possible and if they thought it would benefit their agenda. Republicans are easily scared into giving up individual rights for the benefit of the homeland (such a Nazi term). And information is not nearly as important as Cowboys football, for instance.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. bantab 08:58 PM 8/31/09

   Godwin's law in under two hours on a Scientific American article's discussion board, a record I am sure.
   
   As for the article, even with the original language, it would be interesting to see if internet-critical infrastructure itself would be considered critical infrastructure.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. sleekmason 11:13 PM 8/31/09

   Control information and control everything. Why bother controlling the net when controlling the information is so much easier?
   It doesn't have to be complete, it just has to offset through implication, any controversial subject. Generally, the best way is to make you feel like an idiot for not already knowing the tidbit made up just hours before. A few well placed comments right after the article can drive the point home. The most common agreeable comment used stars off with some sort of reminicence about said subject as though they remember it yesterday. These get checked first now.
   
   A quick library visit will confirm or deny any info you may believe to be questionable. I have found several discrepancies in a very short amount of time using this method. Try it sometime.
   
   It is no secret that people tend to behave as sheep. Follow the leader plays out in our society way more than it should. True perspective can be very difficult to achieve with the amount of dis-information flying around.
   
   Try asking your friends and relatives if they have heard of whatever you may find controversial on the web. You might be surprised at what you will percieve if you allow yourself the freedom to do so. This does not have to be a negative thing either. Make your own assumptions as to cause.
   
   So, as far as there being a form of control over our information? You would be naive indeed to think otherwise. This is common practice. Guiding the direction is enough. But don't believe me. Find something you think is fishy and search for yourself. Two ways are listed above.
   
   don't bother responding with a rebuttle if you havent tried searching in other ways yourself. I can tell you that there is mis-information,dis-information, and outright lies flying around on supposedly reputable science and general news sites way more than you will want to believe.
   
   Contempt prior to investigation doesn't serve.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. nogod in reply to notslic 10:43 PM 9/1/09

   wow you seem to be a conspiracy theorist. while your at it. do believe we landed on the moon? how about the tooth fairy?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. whatsup in reply to sleekmason 01:30 PM 9/5/09

   This not about information thats open to the public most of that's already backed up and a reboot will restore from off line sources. This is about comunication shut down at critcal times (like in the middle of an attack)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this