The document discusses a proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009 that would give the President broad authority to declare a "cyber emergency" and disconnect private sector computers or examine internet data packets. While requiring federal agencies to improve cybersecurity is non-controversial, the bill is too vague by not defining what would constitute a grave enough threat to declare an emergency. Michael Fertik expresses concern as a civil libertarian about the President having sole and unreviewed authority to declare a cyber emergency under the proposed bill.

1. Michael Fertik on KTRH Houston<br />Oct 26, 2009<br />The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives the President the power to declare a “cyber emergency” and to shut down servers in the private sector to prevent “cyber attacks.” ReputationDefender CEO Michael Fertik discusses why the 55-page bill is too vague and what additions could improve it.<br />KTRH Houston: A bill that spells out the President’s authority to act decisively in the event of a cyber attack is stirring up controversy. The bill gives the President authority to seize control over the Internet and disconnect private sector computers from the World Wide Web during an emergency that involves cyber attacks. Internet entrepreneur and CEO of ReputationDefender, Michael Fertik, is joining us now live to talk more about this. Does this strike you as something the President needs to have in his quiver of, I guess you would say, national defense arrows?<br />Michael Fertik: Well, you know it does seem reasonable to have protection against and a device to fight against cyber attacks, which are a real threat, but this bill is too vague as to what constitutes a cyber threat, and that’s the controversial part of the bill. <br />Let me begin by describing the non-controversial part of the bill. So, the bill encourages and requires the federal agencies, for example, to improve their cyber security. We all want that to happen, the Veterans Administration and other federal agencies have had problems with data loss and identity theft in the recent past, and we’re a little bit behind the ball and out to lunch on our national cyber security for the federal agencies. That’s the part, among others, that is not controversial in this legislation. The part that is worrisome is that the bill gives very broad power to the President to declare a cyber emergency and then to direct Internet traffic, to unplug certain parts of private access to the Internet, and otherwise to examine data packets that are travelling through the web almost without review, and to do so when the President considers there to be a cyber emergency. The bill does not define what constitutes a threat grave enough to declare an emergency. <br />So there’s a big omission here. There have been, in the past, times when Congress has declared emergencies that have allowed the President to take very extraordinary action to protect vital assets to the military or to the economy. For example, in World War I and World War II certain assets like railroads and coal mines were declared to be vital and therefore subject to certain public control during the course of the war, and therefore the President’s control. This bill, by contrast, gives the President sole and unreviewed authority to declare a cyber emergency, and that makes the civil libertarian in me uncomfortable.<br />KTRH Houston: So it needs some more thought. Thanks for talking with us about this. This is an Internet entrepreneur and CEO of ReputationDefender, Michael Fertik.<br />