The Senate Bill 773 may be only part of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, but it has been stirring up controversy all on its own.
The bill, introduced in April 2009, is only in its first step in the legislative process. Its intent is to ensure the free flow of commerce within the U.S. and with its global trading partners by increasing security for cyber communications.
However, some people fear the current wording of the bill will give the president a dangerous level of control over the Internet.
"I think it's very likely to pass because I really think there is a need for what this committee has suggested for the president," said Phylissa Mitchell, a press law and ethics professor.
Mitchell also said she believes it will pass during this term of Obama's presidency because of the urgency with which this commission has written it.
"If you read this thing, it's frightening," Mitchell said. "They're saying that most of the threats (to the U.S.'s Internet) are coming from foreign countries."
As of right now, the bill provides the president with the authority to shut down or limit the Internet traffic for all systems in the national, state, local and non-governmental information systems in times where he or she has declared a "cyber-emergency."
Many people fear the potential meaning of terms like "non-governmental systems" and "cyber-emergency" because they are not clearly defined in the bill.
"Non-governmental entities are utilities," Mitchell said. "For instance, banks and things that this commission has considered particularly vulnerable. So yeah, if there is some planned attack, which apparently we have experienced before this, this cyber-security net would in some way protect us."
Johnny Blankenship, a sophomore in political science, said he believes cyber-security is a vital aspect of our nation's safety.
"I do believe that certain checks and balances must be in place before we can grant the power to shut down the Internet to the president," Blankenship said.
Many people also fear that giving the president such a high level of control over the Internet would allow for infringement of First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
"With regards to our First Amendment rights, that's the second thing that this commission looked at," Mitchell said. "How do you do it and protect First Amendment rights? You got me. The Internet is like the 'Wild, Wild West.'"
Caitlin Myles, a junior in journalism, experienced what it was like to have her First Amendment right to the freedom of speech monitored while she was in China this summer.
E-mails to their family and friends in the U.S. were monitored to the point where they could not write about the specifics of what the group was doing since prosthelytizing is illegal in China.
"Being back makes you appreciate the fact that we have those First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and the free flow of information and why it's so important to have those rights protected," Myles said.
The bill currently states that a "cyber-emergency" would be "any threat by a terrorist or any other person that disrupts the operation of programmable electronic devices and communication networks essential to the reliable operation of critical electric infrastructure."
"This thing calls for a lot of judicial and legal oversight," Mitchell said. "So, it really wouldn't give the president the power to shut down private Web sites."
The bill is being reviewed by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which will decide the bill's future.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
