Education and knowledge are said to be the great equalizers in a world of disparity. The Internet provides humanity with an opportunity to access nearly limitless information at a generally cheap and affordable cost. As an unregulated, independent forum, the world wide web promotes the public discourse to an extent previously unattainable and has given a voice and identity to millions. This vary entity closely reflects Adam Smith's vision of a free-market ruled by an invisible hand, so why are Republicans fighting for legislation which would censor the Internet? Maybe Washington politicians bow before the puppetering lobbyists who push aside the public's interest in order to make room for their corporate agenda. Or maybe its because conservatives love big government and executive power as long as they fly under the flag of 'defending freedom' or 'fighting terrorism.' The answer is sadly both, and whether the voice of the American people is stripped when net-neutrality legislation fails or the recently proposed power of an Internet 'Kill Switch' (which sounds a wee bit like a BP attempt to plug an oil leak) is passed, America suffers.
The issue of net-neutrality is old news, but to summarize the debate, Democrats want the Internet to fall under the jurisdiction of the FCC, who could then regulate Internet Service Providers (ISP) to ensure that everyone has equal access at equivalent speeds to the Web. This ensures that ISPs do not try and gain a competitive advantage by regulating the speeds of users accessing certain sites. For example, if a whistle-blower from Comcast goes to the Huffington Post and leaks out incriminating evidence which is detrimental to the company, the Huffington Post might not publish that article in fear that Comcast would limit access to their website. Net-neutrality would allow the FCC to protect the Huffington Post from attacks by Comcast and its Oligopoly. This protects the American people's freedom of speech and ensures that ISPs do not dictate an election by allocating endless bandwidth to streams of Glenn Beck, while feeds of the Rachel Maddow Show are constantly buffering. If Tea-partiers are really the Constitutionalists they claim to be, it would be clear that their freedom of speech is in jeopardy, and net neutrality is not promoting government control of the internet, but fighting against private regulation of the Web.
For more on the issue of, check out this critique from The Young Turks of a clip from the 'fair and balanced' news network...
A more recent issue is a Lieberman-backed bill that passed the Senate Homeland Security Committee that would give the President the power to shut down the Internet.
As The Hill explains, the bill, sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins, and Tom Carper, would give the president "emergency authority to shut down private sector or government networks in the event of a cyber attack capable of causing massive damage or loss of life." The original bill granted the president the authority to "indefinitely" shut down networks, but an amendment to the PCNAA, approved yesterday, mandates that the president "get Congressional approval after controlling a network for 120 days."
Hmm, so the after 4 months, then the President has to tell congress what he's doing. We don't want to provide too much of a check against executive power...
the bill would also see the creation of a new agency within the Department of Homeland Security, the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC). Any private company reliant on "the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. 'information infrastructure'" would be "subject to command" by the NCCC, and some would be required to engage in "information sharing" with the agency.
Now that's what I call big government! Tea-partiers unite!!! Time to fight an infringement on civil liberties that makes the Patriot Act seem tame. Oh wait, since George W. passed the Patriot Act under the guise of protecting Americans from terrorists, you're cool with it?
Anyways, this is giving some the President some seriously powerful executive privilege. Knowing that the democrats aren't privy to using War as a means of self-interest, this is a great long-term Republican strategy to strengthen their War efforts and their profits from the Defense industry. But hey, lets hear out both sides and give Old Joe the right to defend his bill...
"Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too... We need this capacity in a time of war. We need the capacity for the president to say, 'Internet service provider, we've got to disconnect the American Internet from all traffic coming in from another foreign country, or we have to put a patch on this part of it'."
Huh... an interesting defense from Traitor Joe. I guess we should emulate China with our Internet Policies. I think it's safe to say that Joe Lieberman is not fighting for the campaign finance dollars of Google.
But seriously, why is this such a big issue? Let's say that this law passes and is not brutally abused and is only used in times of war. As America occupies Afghanistan, it would not take a difficult argument to say that Taliban hackers might try and infiltrate the American network, so we should shut off all access from the Middle East since its the primary location of the threat.
While this does not really protect America from a cyber attack, it does have other serious ramifications. As previously mentioned, the Internet is a forum for public discourse, giving a voice to individuals who may otherwise not get one. It allows oppressed individuals to provide testimonies of their suffering, journalists to report on all the information, and a nation of bloggers to vet all these stories. Through social media, youtube, etc., stories are fleshed out and given a personal touch. Even if news organizations were able to provide objective information free of propaganda, these additional accounts broaden the scope of information. With more information, better decisions can be made, and ultimately justice can be served, but if the President flips the kill switch, all we have to rely on is the Government's word.
And we all know what happens when watch dogs don't hold the parties in power responsible for their actions. Without transparency, corruption is inevitable since their is a lack of oversight and accountability. It is inexcusable for that the White House Administration has even let the Senate toss around the idea of a Kill Switch. Why hasn't Obama told them to stop wasting their time since he won't sign such an egregious violation of privacy? I fear that hope and change we can believe in may be too idealistic for Washington politics, resulting in concessions that may have compromised the principles of our President.
Let's just hope our right to be critical of the Government and its officials isn't usurped from us. Without the Internet linking various principles and ideals with individuals to represent them, the civic engagement needed to restore the honor of our once proud nation will be lost. Sacrifices will need to be made during this tough economic climate, but the potential precedent set by these pending laws is a slippery slope for the American entitlement of free speech. The opportunity to openly and freely discuss various ideas, theories, and principles sparks the intellectual properties that drive our nations success. The long term consequences of stifling this communication are unacceptable.
Lets make sure that our government respects our most important asset: Human Capital.
