On Friday, May 29th, 2009 President Barack Obama announced the creation of a Cyber Czar that will report directly to the President. The role of the Cyber Czar has been loosely defined as having a broad authority to manage and protect against security attacks on government and private computer networks. Cyber security is a growing concern for our nation, but the new Cyber Czar must act in a manner that regulates the internet neutrally and responsibly protects the integrity of its users. There are many questions that need to be answered, such as, (1) What are the unforeseen consequences of the new office? (2) Will regulation be enforced equally? And (3) Could this lead to censorship of political speech? Put another way; is this Obama’s Fairness Doctrine for Web 2.0?
In the first four full months that President Obama has been in office, the major bills that he has advocated for have passed, and have resulted in unforeseen consequences to the general public at large. For starters, the stimulus bill is providing most of the money to areas that need it the least. In addition, the bill requires that states fund the new programs after the stimulus money has run out. Next, the Obama Administration’s bank bailout has given the banks hard working taxpayer’s money to pay bonuses to the executives that made the decisions that resulted in the mortgage crisis. Currently there is Dealergate, where evidence has been ascertained pointing to a potential abuse of power; the Obama Administration, in collaboration with the Automotive Task Force, handpicked which dealerships to close based on political ties instead of profitability, long-term sustainability and rate of growth. Either preferential treatment has been given to largely Democratic dealers, or detrimental treatment has been imposed on predominately GOP owned dealerships. The circumstantial evidence of impropriety by the Obama Administration and the Automotive Task Force (not the bankruptcy court) is overwhelmingly unethical at least and borderline criminal at worst. Research conducted by the World Net Daily has discovered that campaign donations by the doomed dealerships in the last presidential cycle contributed $405,000 to GOP candidates and only $450 to President Obama. If President Obama’s short track record has anything to say about the new Cyber Czar it is that the appointment will have a negative result for the public and the Republican Party.
With the implications of Dearlergate, Americans need to be very skeptical of the new Cyber Czar’s broad authority, and the threat to our civil liberties. The Cyber Czar has initially been given unchecked power to patrol the internet. So far the Obama Administration has not lived up to its bipartisan commitment; so what evidence do we have that the Cyber Czar will not abuse his/her authority by regulating Republican/Conservative websites stricter than sites owned by liberal Democrats? Especially after the Department of Homeland Security turned against American citizens by releasing a recent report that identifies right-wing conservatives as potential terrorist threats. It is a fact that the Democrats are ahead of Republicans when it comes to the internet, and with the creation of a Cyber Czar, the Republican’s attempt to catch up in the Web 2.0 era could be greatly hindered.
The reach of the Cyber Czar could affect more than just the Republican Party. To what extent will the Cyber Czar be able to regulate privacy and restrict free speech on the internet? Will the Cyber Czar have unrestricted access to everyone’s viewing habits on the internet or will he/she have to obtain a judge’s warrant to monitor Americans behavior on the internet? One would think that the Cyber Czar will be able to find a loophole to circumvent the process of obtaining a warrant to spy on a user under the guise of a security threat. Do we really want the Federal Government to play a Big Brother role, and monitor what American citizens do on the internet?
Besides privacy, there has to be a concern relating to the protection of free speech. Will the Cyber Czar be able to designate whatever he/she wants as a security threat? The Cyber Czar’s guidelines for what is considered a security threat need to be transparent, so that the general public is aware of them and censorship cannot happen. The Cyber Czar cannot use the appearance of a security threat as a false premise and a means to deliberately censor any form of communication that criticizes political officials, similar to the oppressive restrictions of political free speech in countries like China and Turkey. However this could be yet another threat to any political opposition. If the Cyber Czar is able to designate what is and what is not a security threat, what is stopping the Czar from censoring critics of Obama?
Internet security has become an important necessity as technology advances and more data is stored online. However, cyber security has to be enforced in way that is transparent, and will not affect the freedoms of its users. In addition, the power to manage and protect government and private computer networks from security attacks cannot be abused to hinder the advances of the Right on the internet. Cyber Security is essential, but if the Cyber Czar is managed the same way as the Obama Presidency has been in his first four months in office it will be morally and ethically wrong, let alone unconstitutional on multiple levels. This is not a partisan issue, this is the foundation of American freedom, individual liberties, privacy and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Who knew a Cyber Czar could be able to line-item the Bill of Rights.
