Don't give feds power over Net

The Egyptian government's recent efforts to tamp down massiveprotests by shutting off Internet access has reignited debate inthis country over a proposal to give the president emergency powersover the Internet.

We are wary of the legislation and remain unconvinced it'sneeded.

We do not quibble with its intent, which is to protect thecountry from the very real threat of a catastrophic cyber attack.However, a measure that was debated in the last Congress and is setto be reintroduced, and which would give the president authorityover privately owned computer systems during a "national cyberemergency," makes us nervous.

The president could order crucial networks, computers andwebsites to be severed from Internet access. Even more troubling,one provision says that if the government designates certain systemsas "critical," the move would not be subject to judicial review.That's not a good idea at all.

Though the executive and judicial branches have had theirdisagreements over the years, it's hard to imagine a scenario inwhich the courts failed to defer to the president's judgment in atrue national emergency. Governmental checks and balances are anintegral part of our constitutional system.

Some critics have decried the measure as one that would give thepresident an "Internet kill switch," a characterization thatsupporters vehemently deny. Proponents of the bill, which includeSens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, contendtheir measure would make it far less likely the president would usethe broad authority already vested in the office. That authoritystems from the Communications Act of 1934, which says the presidentmay close or control any "facility or station for wirecommunication" if the country is in a state of war or faces such athreat.

The way we see it, if the president already has such expansivepower, why is it necessary to further elaborate on it? And if hedoesn't, he's probably going to assume such authority in a truedoomsday emergency anyway, when second-guessers will be few and farbetween.

Civil libertarians and electronic privacy groups are right to beconcerned that the measure, as originally proposed, does not clearlydefine what is to be considered critical infrastructure.

We hope the situation in Egypt will at least give federallawmakers the perspective to ensure appropriate safeguards areincluded in the new version of what previously had been called theProtecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.

The Internet is increasingly becoming the backbone of Americancommerce and communication. Efforts to cede control of it to thegovernment ought to be carefully scrutinized if not completelyrebuffed.