The U.S. government, like a parent trying to stay hip, has hired younger staffers and put them in charge of using technology to build diplomacy and democracy. For example, Hilary Clinton in the State Department hired Alec Ross to head up technology and innovation in diplomacy. Terms invented include Gov 2.0, Web 2.0, Statecraft 2.0 and Civil Society 2.0. (Anyone starting to see a pattern?) Despite the apparent inability to think up clever monikers, the concept behind these efforts is clear. The new goal is to make diplomacy more grassroots and citizen-centered, and to spread freedom of communication.
At the same time, the U.S. government struggles with their role in internet regulation and security. Should they have a kill switch in case of an emergency, such as a rampantly destructive bug or virus? Should the government be able to step and take control of critical infrastructure if it is compromised? These questions are brought up by a bill in the Senate (S3480), sponsored by Senators Susan Collins, of Maine, and Joseph Lieberman, of Connecticut. In addition to setting up several new government offices, the bill allows the President to issue mandatory directives to critical infrastructure companies in the event of a “cyber emergency.” Johnathan Zittrain of Harvard’s Belfer Institute explains the pros/cons/existential questions relating to this bill in a recent MIT Tech Review article.
It highlights the tricky position that the government finds itself in. On one hand, the private sector resists regulation and would like to be in charge of its own information security. On the other hand, if there is a doomsday scenario – the power goes out in the northeast in the dead of winter and there are casualties, or thousands of Americans lose their life savings due to a massive data breach – the population will almost certainly look to the federal government and ask: Why didn’t you stop this?
The U.S. is also different than other countries whose governments have interrupted internet service. Burma, Iran, and Egypt, have much lower internet penetration and many fewer ISPs. The Chinese government controls most of their internet traffic to start with. The State Department’s strategy of promoting diversity of opinions and internet penetration in foreign countries is a great way to make it harder for governments to control, censor, and manipulate internet access.
In the meanwhile, we’ll continue to struggle with how exactly a government should be involved in the business of securing our nations networks and infrastructure. The new bill is a test; it allows the President to tap an ISP on the shoulder and say “Er…if you wouldn’t mind disrupting your service for a while, maybe we could contain this virus? Please?” If the bill passes, we’ll see how exactly that works in practice.
