Obama eyes control of the Internet. Comment, by Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA.

Posted by Bobby Eberle

We have all witnessed quite a show since Barack Obama became president. Because the country was facing "crisis" after "crisis," Obama and his team were more than happy to inject government into the private operations of banks, the auto industry, and energy sector.But, of course, that's not enough. Now with the latest cybersecurity bill making its way through Congress, Obama not only will have control over General Motors but could also have control over the Internet. With the power to "shut down online traffic by seizing private networks," Obama would take one more piece of freedom and add it to his growing list of industries and activities which fall under government "supervision."As noted in the report on FOXNews.com, "A Senate bill would offer President Obama emergency control of the Internet and may give him a 'kill switch' to shut down online traffic by seizing private networks -- a move cybersecurity experts worry will choke off industry and civil liberties."New details of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 were released on Thursday "months after an initial version authored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., was blasted in Silicon Valley as dangerous government intrusion."Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, told FOXNews.com that the original bill gave Obama the power to turn off the Internet in the case of a cyber-emergency. (Sounds like another potential "crisis" to me.) Of course, as Clinton comments, the bill does not define what a cyber-emergency is.In an excerpt of the bill obtained by CNET News, the legislation "still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency."The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.CNET's translation? --> "If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network."Here's the kicker... not only would this bill put more private industry under the supervision of the government, but once again, the government is showing that it has no grasp of what actually goes on in private industry.The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.At the risk of stating the obvious, the government should stick to those specific functions outlined by the Constitution and stay out of private industry. Obama and his team continue to seize more control over our private lives, but with each passing day, they also show that they are ill-equipped to handle the situation. The last thing we need is more government control over the Internet and Obama telling cyber-professionals how to do their jobs.I don't want Obama patrolling my inbox with "professionals" licensed by his administration. Do you?