We take no position in the ongoing Taylor Swift versus Kanye West divide.  But as perhaps surprisingly…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Taylor Swift: Intellectual Property and Anti-Counterfeiting Champion

We take no position in the ongoing Taylor Swift versus Kanye West divide.  But as perhaps surprisingly featured in a Wall Street Journal opinion this week, we do applaud her strong stance in defense of intellectual property (IP) and against the scourge of counterfeiting:

Pop star Taylor Swift has been feuding in recent days with rapper Kanye West and his wife, Kim Kardashian.  The details of the drama are lurid and complicated, but young aficionados of Snapchat and Instagram have been following it all intently.  If only the same were true for other Taylor Swift feuds that have received less attention.  Namely, those the 26-year-old songstress has fought in defense of a principle often scorned by fellow celebrities and the social-media generation generally:  the value of intellectual…[more]

July 22, 2016 • 01:09 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Congress Considering America’s Version of Egypt’s Internet 'Kill Switch' Print
By Ashton Ellis
Tuesday, February 01 2011
A president will be able to control access to the Internet whenever he deems it necessary.

With the Egyptian government repeatedly jamming its citizens’ access to the Internet during the country’s ongoing protests, one bill making its way through the U.S. Congress is getting heightened scrutiny.  Originally titled the “Cyberspace as a National Security Asset Act of 2010,” the bill has been dubbed by critics as the “Internet kill switch bill.”  If passed, it would give President Barack Obama the power to order private companies to shut down their online activities. 

Technically, the bill must be reintroduced since it failed to pass both houses of Congress before the lame duck session ended.  In a recent announcement, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) plans to do just that.

Supporters of the bill’s 2010 version, including co-sponsoring Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Tom Carper (D-DE), along with Collins, claim the president’s ability to turn off Internet access would only apply during national emergencies.  If a private company maintains a system or asset the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) considers part of the government’s “critical infrastructure,” the president would have plenary power to order a shutdown. 

Amendments accepted in Lieberman’s Senate Homeland Security Committee last December lowered the threshold for being considered critical infrastructure.  The legislation gave three requirements.  First, disruption of the company’s computer system could cause “severe economic consequences.”  Second, the company’s computer system “is a component of the national information infrastructure.”  Third, the “national information infrastructure is essential to the reliable operation of the (private company’s computer) system.” 

Collins’ reintroduced version would likely include those amendments as part of her base bill. 

One of those amendments expressly eliminated judicial review, meaning that any decisions made pursuant to a cyber threat national emergency would be unreviewable by a federal court.  This includes giving sole discretion to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano for deciding which private companies are part of the nation’s critical infrastructure.  Appeals of her decisions go to…her.  Score one for Orwellian oversight. 

But wait; there’s more.  In order to entice technology industry members into supporting (or at least not opposing) the bill, the Senate Homeland Security Committee also inserted language immunizing private companies from lawsuits by customers injured from disruptions in service due to a shutdown order.  Moreover, the U.S. Treasury would be responsible for reimbursing for economic damages due to a shutdown, making U.S. taxpayers, once again, the backstop for government meddling. 

The bill is also dense in its discussion of creating new layers of bureaucracy.  The centerpiece of the new regulatory apparatus is the creation of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) inside DHS.  The NCCC would be headed by a Senate-confirmed director reporting directly to DHS Secretary Napolitano.  The idea is to house the department’s cyber security coordination in one place, but the turf staked out for the NCCC director is arguably already patrolled by other high level DHS officials.  Nonetheless, the bill authorizes the NCCC director to have “no less” than two deputy directors with whom to extend his reach. 

But for all its focus on personnel, Collins’ forthcoming bill is vague in outlining which kinds of circumstances would merit being called national emergencies.  The approach is to give the president the widest latitude possible.  In practice, that will leave an almost limitless field of action open to the president to define and exercise his powers.  With the same authority granted by Collins’ bill, a president will be able to control access to the Internet whenever he deems it necessary. 

That kind of expansive executive discretion should trouble every American.  Egypt’s government stymied protesters’ attempts to coordinate activities via Internet-based social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.  When Secretary Napolitano released reports warning about the dangers to national security posed by Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, pro-life organizations and limited government advocates, it did not take much to envision targeted shutdowns of those groups’ activities, including Internet access.  It’s time for the liberals in Congress and the Obama Administration to remember that American civil liberties apply to Americans too. 

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was Secret Service protection afforded to major candidates for President and Vice President of the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Disruptive. That's a good word to describe Donald Trump's presidential candidacy, and to describe the sometimes ramshackle Republican National Convention his campaign more or less superintended in Cleveland this past week. ...Over history America has mostly been built by disruption. ... Maybe some disruption from a candidate who says he has 'no tolerance for government incompetence' is in order."…[more]
 
 
—Michael Barone, Principal Co-Author, The Almanac of American Politics and Washington Examiner Senior Political Analyst
— Michael Barone, Principal Co-Author, The Almanac of American Politics and Washington Examiner Senior Political Analyst
 
Liberty Poll   

Following the Republican National Convention, how do you now rate Donald Trump’s chances of winning the presidency?