Cyber security bill leads to ‘Internet kill switch’

Millions of colored wires and cables coiled like snakes, poking out every which way, all leading into a central hub — a building of epic size, a mess with giant computer chips and hard drives the size of my house. This is how I envision the inner workings of the Internet. While I'm not the most tech savvy, I still can't grasp how the Egyptian government was able to shut down the entire country's Internet access. And an even scarier question — could the U.S. do it too?

In Egypt's case, the government called the five main Internet providers in the country and demanded they stop Internet usage, according to a Feb. 3 article on CNN.com. That sounds so easy. Just dial a few numbers and you've shut down the world wide web. That much power and dominance should never be in the hands of just one corrupt ruler or just one governing body.

It's a little harder in the U.S., according to CNN.com. The Internet is much larger here, and to fully halt Internet traffic the government would have to deal with the country's thousands of Internet providers, which would not be an easy task. The fact is, though, it still is possible. And a new Internet security bill could make this complete cyber isolation more obtainable for our government.

This proposed legislation, titled Cybersecurity and American Cyber Competitiveness Act, "calls for urgent action to safeguard critical infrastructure, including the electric grid, military assets, the financial sector and telecommunications networks," according to govinfosecurity.com on Jan. 27.

This bill essentially is allowing for an "Internet kill switch," like the one used in Egypt to shut the country off from the rest of the world. So if Obama deems we are in the midst of cyber-emergency, he would have the power to flip the switch, symbolically speaking, and goodbye Internet.

While it would suck to not be able to check your Facebook, there is a bigger danger in cutting off Internet access to an entire country. The Internet provides instant communication with the whole world. In a matter of seconds, we can view live feed from the streets of Cairo, see pictures and hear interviews with protestors. With just a few more clicks, we can donate money to charitable organizations or talk with people on the other side of the globe. Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites are important, too. They aren't just meant for entertainment anymore. These sites have grown with the advancements of technology, and now a reporter in Egypt can update her status or tweet about recent happenings by using her phone, allowing people across the world immediate access to the details of important events.

The passage of this bill could end all of that. We've all seen how situations spiral downward when one person has too much power. Case in point: Egypt. How could the U.S. government possibly think this bill could be a good addition, especially after all the protests and riots due to the corrupt reign of a dictator? If our government were smart, they would end this bill before it goes any further. We don't want to be heading down a similar path as Egypt because of a ruler with too much power.

Yes, security is important, but barricading the Internet would not keep our country safer. It would, however, create fear and uncertainty in the country and prove how much power our government has given to itself. Instead of stopping cyber communication in the case of an emergency, we should be focusing on ways to avoid an emergency. Blocking a country from the rest of the world would not solve anything — it would only postpone problems and lead to paranoia due to ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

Molly Skyles is a junior communication major from St. Louis, Mo.