On Thursday Jan 27th at 22:34 UTC the Egyptian Government effectively removed Egypt from the internet. Nearly all inbound and outbound connections to the web were shut down. The internet intelligence authority Renesys explains it here and confirms that "virtually all of Egypt's Internet addresses are now unreachable, worldwide." This has never happened before in the entire history of the internet, with a nation of this size. A block of this scale is completely unheard of, and Senator Joe Lieberman wants to be able to do the same thing in the US.

This isn't a new move, last year Senators Lieberman and Collins introduced a fairly far-reaching bill that would allow the US Government to shut down civilian access to the internet should a "Cybersecurity Emergency" arise, and keep it offline indefinitely. That version of the bill received some criticism though Lieberman continued to insist it was important. The bill, now referred to as the 'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act' (PCNAA) has been revised a bit and most notably now removes all judicial oversight. This bill is still currently circulating and will be voted on later this year. Lieberman has said it should be a top priority.

It's worth noting that the US sends $1.3 billion in annual military aid to Egypt. That makes the US the primary benefactor of the current Egyptian government. Vice President Joe Biden stated in an interview with Jim Lehrer on Thursday that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who has held that office since 1981, should not be considered a dictator. His opinion is not shared universally.

Mother Jones has a fantastic play-by-play explaining the situation right now in Egypt, and there are reports that some people using Tor are able to skirt around the governmental blocks.

This is something Americans should be paying very close attention to. Think about your daily life and how big a role the internet plays in it. Now think about what it would be like if one person had the authority to turn that off completely. If you can't imagine what that would be like you aren't alone. A week ago this was a hypothetical scenario. Now, you can just ask an Egyptian citizen what that feels like. Pay close attention to what happens with this bill.

The Internet Kill Switch Bill is worrisome, but honestly I'm pretty sure if the government wanted to shutdown Internet access today they easily could.  This bill is more a formality to make it technically "legal".  The fact is that government still don't know how to deal with the freedom the Internet brings but they also recognize that it represents a potential threat to allow enemies to use the Net to organize resistance or issue information the government doesn't want shared.  In a sense it is a National Security issue and one that they really don't know how to handle.  They just want to shut it all down like they did in Egypt if push comes to shove.  The issue of net neutrality is another related concept that has gotten a lot of attention lately too. 

Let's also not forgot that there is a lot of hype and misunderstanding about what this bill would allow.  They are saying that it wouldn't shut down ALL of the Internet in the US, but would allow the President and the National Security forces to shut out threats to critical computer systems and infrastructure that is connected via the Net.  This would be needed to shield critical systems from cyberattack...for instance what has happened to Iran's computer systems recently.  We don't want the same kind of thing to happen here.  So it is a matter of how you interpret what they are trying to do with this bill.  See the article below for more info. 

The Internet 'Kill Switch' Bill: What It Is, and Why It Won't Die

by Amar Toor on February 1, 2011 at 03:00 PM

On the very day that the Egyptian government shut down an overwhelming majority of the country's Internet servers, Republican Senator Susan Collins began floating a piece of legislation which, if passed, would grant the President the power to do essentially the same thing in the U.S.

The so-called 'kill switch' bill was approved by the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee back in December, but expired once the new Congress assumed power a few weeks later. Collins, who serves as the Republican ranking member of the Committee, says the legislation wouldn't allow the President to actually "kill" the Internet, but would simply give him the ability to shut down "critical infrastructure" in the event of a serious cyberattack on the country.

"My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency," Collins wrote in an e-mail to Wired. "It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat." An aide to the Senate Committee provided Wired with the following example: if the U.S. detected a serious cyberthreat, Collins' legislation would enable the President to instantly shut down any infrastructure connected to "the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam"

Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, who co-sponsored the bill, hailed the kill switch as a necessary defense against "cyber warriors, cyber spies, cyber terrorists and cyber criminals." "For all its allure," Lieberman continued, "the Internet can be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets."

Not everyone, however, is so enthusiastic about the idea. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology and several other groups wrote an open letter to Congress, expressing their collective concerns about the proposed legislation. If passed, they argue, the measure could easily allow the government to censor the Web. "It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights," they wrote in the letter (PDF).

A congressional white paper (PDF) countered that the legislation clearly prohibits the government from censoring websites "based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment." But it's not just free speech advocates who are concerned. "This has implications not just for free speech," Business Insider's Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes, "but also for free markets, as zillions of businesses (including this one!) depend on the internet directly or indirectly." Steve DelBianco echoed Gobry's market-related concerns, pointing out that the legislation expressly prohibits targeted websites from contesting the shutdown in court.

"Judicial review is our main concern," said DelBianco, director of the NetChoice coalition, which includes eBay, Oracle and Yahoo!. "A designation of critical information infrastructure brings with it huge obligations for upgrades and compliance." Speaking to the Daily Mail, DelBianco added that any company should be able to settle a "good-faith disagreement" with the government in court, and that no law should deny businesses that right. "The country we're seeking to protect is a country that respects the right of any individual to have their day in court," he continued. "Yet this bill would deny that day in court to the owner of infrastructure."

PC Magazine's John C. Dvorak thinks the entire premise of the bill is misguided, and founded upon what he calls a "weird tautology." "The country can't function without the Net, so we need to secure [it], which includes having the ability to shut it down," he explains. "But with the Net down, how can the country function? You tell me."

The timing of the bill's resurgence is also curious, as the Obama administration continues to urge Egypt to open up the Web and online social networks. National Post's Matt Gurney acknowledges that Congress isn't "wrong" to take strong measures against cyberattacks, but argues that "the irony of the U.S. debating how to kill the Internet while we all rely on the very same technology to keep us up to date about how other people are using social media to change the world is inescapable, and groan-inducing."

Then, of course, there's always the concern that the 'kill switch' could just make it easier for the U.S. government to do exactly what Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak did. Pragmatic as the measure may be in combating cyber-terrorists, Dvorak argues that Collins' bill speaks to a reactionary mentality from another era. "There's a banana republic mentality at work here with this Internet kill switch nonsense," Dvorak writes. "Nobody is taking it over to deliver a victory message any time soon. But the idea is clear. Control the Internet, and you control the masses."

http://www.switched.com/2011/02/01/internet-kill-switch-bill-what-it-is-wont-die