Conspiracy theory: Could the president take over the Internet?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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

Larry Greenemeier is the associate editor of technology for Scientific American, covering a variety of tech-related topics, including biotech, computers, military tech, nanotech and robots.

More by Larry Greenemeier

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe