Well, it seems there is no Internet kill switch in the bill. Apparently, we have one already.
In an e-mail directed to his media contacts on Friday, Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, wrote:
There is no kill switch in the Lieberman-Collins Bill (formally known as Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, S. 3480). But there is one already on the books in the Communications Act of 1934.
The Lieberman-Collins bill just authorizes standard filtering like that done by ISPs every day, but in a nationally-coordinated fashion. The only kill switch appears to be in Sec. 706(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, that already gives the President the power in a time of national security emergency to shut down or disrupt internet traffic. The Lieberman Collins Bill is much more measured and effective.
The relevant sections of both bills are provided below. Read them yourself. The press has been totally fooled by IT and telephone company lobbyists, and by an incorrect article from a CNET reporter (I wonder who gave him the incorrect data). That false press report got repeated over and over.
If you are a journalist, next time you hear one of the lobbyists talk about "unintended consequences" and "kill switches" remember how the car companies tried to block mandatory seat belts by saying "your wives and children will die in car fires because the seat belts will keep them from getting out of their cars in time." And you might consider recalling the immortal words of Garrison Keillor, "Liar, liar, pants on fire."
That's not to say there's no reason to be concerned about the bill. In a letter backed by some 23 other civil liberties groups, the Center for Democracy & Technology on Wednesday, laid out a list of concerns about the specifics of the proposed law.
Among other things, the letter says, "the bill should also be amended to require an independent assessment of the effect on free speech, privacy and other civil liberties of the measures undertaken to respond to each emergency the President declares. It is imperative that cybersecurity legislation not erode our rights."
Frankly, it's hard to know how to talk about possible emergencies and what might be appropriate. Sure, it's nice to think that Twitter will be available in a crisis. But what kind of crisis are we talking about? If it's like The Road, where the main concern is not being eaten by soul-dead cannibals, who'd notice an Internet shutdown?