In the aftermath of Egypt and Tunisia's government-imposed Internet shut-downs, there has been a lot of talk this week about the U.S. Senate's Internet "Kill Switch" bill. No one argues that our networks are vulnerable to attack. Senators say they have committed to this power only to protect against "external cyber attacks". This raises several questions and deserves serious debate:
- In a global network, is there really a distinction between internal and external threats?
- Under what circumstances would the President use this power, and with what oversight?
- Could the financial damage of isolating U.S. commerce from foreign customers outweigh the potential damage from attack?
- Does the risk of an "Egyptian-style" shut-down really exist in Western Democracies, and if it does, is it a fair trade-off for national security?
That leads to today's poll question:
Of course, there are few perfect Yes/No answers in this world. Please feel free to share your comments below, and we encourage you to use the "Like" and "Share" buttons to elicit more opinions from others.
Similar Blog & News Articles
- Internet Kill Switch Seen As Good Idea By US Government? :: The Blog Herald
- Internet 'kill switch'--help or hindrance? (poll) :: CNET News.com
- Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill Hits Congress Again :: SlashGear
- What could go wrong with an Internet kill switch? :: Cave Views
- Senators decry link between Egypt, 'kill switch' bill :: CNET News.com
- Egypt's 'Internet Kill Switch', Democracy via WikiLeaks & Terror 'Made in the U.S.A.' :: The BRAD BLOG
- U.S. Senators Say Cyber-Security Bill Different From Egypt`s Web A'Kill Switch` :: eWeek - RSS Feed