c-span2. >> you are watching public affairs prograing ookoming up next the communicats examines internet issues including the ability of the u.s. government to shut down internet comeke event of a cybersecurity attack and state of the state address by utah governor gary herbert. live coverage of a forum examining immigration policy to attract highly skilled workers. ..

glses the national asset act. it would enhance the homeland security act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states. this bill died when the 111th congress ended. however, there have been reports that it will be reintroduced in the 112th congress. karen evans is a former administrator for e-government of the office of management and budget. ms. evans, what would this bill do, how would it change the laws? >> guest: it's really a look at taking a comprehensive approach of trying to update many of the statutes that are already on the books to reflect the environment that we're in right now and the dependence on telecommunications services, cybersecurity types of activities and bring clarity and alignment to roles and responsibilities within the federal sector.

>> host: would it enhance what the president can do now when it comes to communications? >> guest: so i know there's a lot of interpretations that are going around about this, especially the piece that talks about national cyber emergencies. and in my view as a former policy official, this was my area, that the president currently under many of the provisions already has authorities to do certain things under a national emergency. what this act is doing is clarifying those and bringing those up-to-date. under the communications act of 1934, there's certain things the president can already do if there's a state of emergency. this is trying to clarify and update that role and responsibility and recognize how we use things that we call cyber and what that environment of cyber really includes. >> host: so where did the term kill switch come from? >> guest: well, when they start reading this in the one particular section it says the

president can declare a national cyber emergency to cover critical infrastructure which is all private industry. you know, if you really get into the, for example, the department of homeland security, this really takes all of that into consideration and really clarifies their role going forward. because they're not very old, and they came about from september 11th. and so when you, you look at this, this is really clarifying what would happen under the critical infrastructure. so it's saying that if there's a national emergency, he can cover, they can cover this over to the critical infrastructure, and they can take appropriate actions to disrupt or address what is happening as a cyber incident. so i believe what people are really taking a look at and they're calling it quote-unquote the internet kill switch, but if you go on and you read more details within the statute, the president just can't do that in isolation without taking into

consideration other roles of law that already exist. but i would like to give you one example, though, to show that the president really does this authority whether this bill were to pass or not. so if you think back to september 11th and think of the air traffic that was happening, the president grounded all airplanes coming into the united states' space. and he did that to protect the american people. that's taking that kind of scenario in the cyber world and giving the president, bringing clarity to that on that type of infrastructure so that people would know what would happen in case of an emergency. >> host: well, given what's happened in egypt over the last week and a half or so, senators lieberman, collins and carper issued statements talking about their proposed legislation. here's part of what they had to say. we would never sign on to legislation that authorized the president or anyone else to shut down the internet:

>> host: what are some of the ambiguities in the current law, karen evans? >> guest: so in my opinion from working on this in the past is that you're using statutes and interpretations that were based before the pervasiveness of the internet. so they do go back. the telecommunications act and those types of activities go back, and you have that updated. furthermore, when those acts were passed, there was not a department of homeland security that could broker a lot of these types of things of what type of action you would take with private industry. that's what one of the challenges are here. i don't think anybody here in

the united states would sign on or enforce legislation -- endorse legislation that would violate privacy or civil liberties. and be so, and that's what i think to their point is, that this legislation is attempting to clarify some of those areas going forward. and you saw this play out again in the previous administration when they went through a lot of the fisa reform and what happens on wiretaps and what constitutes electronic surveillance and what are those records. you need to bring clarity to that situation, and that's what this act is attempting to do is bring clarity to that, too, so that people know exactly what will happen when. >> host: o.k.. the senators also talked about their legislation, here's a little bit more of what they had to say: >> host: who gets to define

national emergency as such? >> guest: well, the legislation also goes on to say that you have to define that, and so there's a structure that's being put in place that talks about a center being established at the department of homeland security and that there would be a directer, and they're very specific about what the authorities of that directer at homeland security would have in the cyber arena. and that they would have to put together what the rules are in conjunction with the secretary of defense, the office of management and budget, the attorney general which then would take into consideration all the other types of rules of law that we have, and they would have to define what those actions are and what constitutes that a catastrophic event. so when you really look at the timing when this came up, what was happening in the world then as well and what's happening now, for example, everyone knows what was happening then was a

lot of things were happening. do you remember estonia where there was a whole huge denial of service attacks against infrastructure there in estonia? and what ended up happening was that happened, and then there was a physical move that came in from russia. what this is saying is, okay, that's possible that you could have these types of situations happening, and we should have the authorities and have plans in place so the people know what happens should that, should those types of actions occur. >> host: karen evans, going back to egypt and the seeming ease with which the government shut down mobile and internet traffic there, do you understand people's concerns about this, about the potential of shutting down the internet, and do you think that the legislation could be altered in any way to reassure people? >> guest: so, yes, i can see where people would be concerned. but you would also have to look at how our country -- our country works a little bit

differently because there's really no technical way, you just don't go in and there's one switch, and you turn it off. we have multiple service providers here in the united states. what would have to happen for something like that to happen here is our service of providers would have to agree to shut off the services, and given the rule of law and everything that we have here, i would find it incredibly hard to believe unless they were convinced and they knew what the rules were which is what this legislation is attempting to bring to the table and have that discussion that they would actually say, okay, we're going to shut everything down just because you asked us to because you don't like what somebody's saying. they -- our service providers would have to agree to do that, and the government would have to ask them to do it. they can't just go in and say, okay, we're going to take it all off. now, i do see the concern where people would read this and say, well, the president could declare a national cyber emergency and, therefore, take

everything off. that's what's being debated. but you have to work through and define what that's going to be and be very clear what constitutes a cyber emergency. >> host: as a former e-government official at the office of management and budget, in your view is this legislation vital? >> guest: so i'm of the ilk that, you know, the less legislation and the more policies that are in place for clarification for the executive branch is a lot easier to implement. but i do understand in this particular case, and this is why i am supportive of this, there was not a department of homeland security when a lot of these things came through. and so if you're going to add the department of homeland security to do certain things, then you need to be clear and make sure they have the statutory authorities to do that. >> host: karen evans is the former administrator for e-tboft at the office of management and budget from 2003 to 2009 under the bush administration. thank you, ms. evans, for joining us on "the

communicators." >> guest: thank you for joining joining -- inviting me. >> host: now joining us is tim karr, what are your thoughts about this legislation that we've been discussing? >> guest: i glee with karen -- agree with karen's fundamental point, and that is, yes, we do need to bring clarity to these issues. we live in a new era where cyber threats a real, cyber attacks have happened, and i agree that we need to get a better understanding of that and bring clarity to the issue. the problem is that this bill as it was written in 2010 doesn't do that. it's both vague and broad which is really the problem. and the way we at free press interpret it is it's creating this sort of open-ended authority for a cybersecurity directer to take control over what i'm sure is a substantial portion of our nation's internet infrastructure.

and the language itself doesn't permit an actual internet kill switch or doesn't create an actual internet kill switch, but it permits an executive branch authority to mandate the private sector internet service providers to respond to an order to turn things down, to shut things off. >> host: mr. karr, could you give an example of what you mean by vague and broad, and how would you change it? >> guest: sure. i'd be happy to do that. the, i mean, if you look -- there are sections of the bill that concern us the most, and one of the sections, 248 and 249 where it doesn't give a clear definition, again, of what a proper threat is. it's a definition of what critical infrastructure is not well provided. in addition, it doesn't give clear recourse for the private sector internet service

providers to appeal an order o. it seems to house far too much authority in the executive branch without the sort of proper checks and balances we would expect in any action that fundamentally threatens our right to free speech. and you have to remember here that the internet in the 21st century is the most important engine of free speech that we have, that the people have, the american people have. and it's not simply a question of grounding airplanes as was the case in 2001, but a question of shutting down the most important engine for free speech. and so the comparison there that ms. evans made i would disagree with. i think we have to look at the first amendment implications in this bill and make sure that in whatever rewritten version that's put forth has real

clarity about, you know, about protecting our basic civil rights. >> host: well, mr. karr, i want to go back to what senators lieberman, collins and carper said this week in a statement, and this is regarding the first amendment: >> guest: well, the -- i think their statement earlier this week was a step forward. i would like to see the specific language in whatever new version of the bill they're looking, they're looking to propose before, before passing judgment. i can say that the legislation which was introduced in 2010 doesn't clarify that protection. in fact, their statement seems

to be the strongest clarification of that that i have seen. we need to see it in the language of the proposed bill as well before we can, we can take comfort that they are, indeed, moving in the right direction. it's interesting, also, to note that on friday, the day that egypt chose to shut down its internet, white house press secretary gibbs said that he believed -- and i guess he was speaking on behalf of the white house -- that internet access and the right to social networking is a basic individual right. and i'd like to see the white house make good on that pledge and make sure that, make good on that pledge in policy and make sure that we don't see bills that lack clarity about that basic right, the basic right to connect and to access the internet which i believe and free press believes is fundamental. >> host: mr. karr, could you see yourself supporting legislation along the lines that the senators have introducedsome. >> guest: i i would have to see

the language of the legislation. i'm appreciative of their concern about the first amendment implications here. if they are planning, indeed, to introduce something in the new congress, we would have to take a look at the bill before passing judgment. >> host: timothy karr is with the free press action fund, thank you for being on "the communicators" as well. the bill is the national asset act of 2010. again, it died in the 111th congress, but it's been proposed to to be reintroduced in the 112th congress, it's online at c-span.org, just follow the link to "the communicators." up next on "the communicators" is deborah wheeler. she's a professor at the united states naval academy, and we'll be talking about the internet and the middle east. we're now joined by deborah wheeler who is a professor at the u.s. naval academy and the author of this book, "the internet in the middle east. "and we invited her to be on

"the communicators" to talk about what's happened in egypt and how it's happened. deborah wheeler, how was the country of egypt, the government of egypt able to shut down mobile and internet traffic for six days? >> guest: well, thank you so much for having me, and before i get started i just want to say that my views today will be my own and not respective of the naval academy or the united states government. [laughter] so -- but back to your fundamental question. yeah, shutting down the internet, right? our worst nightmare. actually, most egyptians' worst nightmare as well. as you saw when they shut it down, not only did the government lose $90 million during that two days, but the protests grew rather than declining, and some have argued that's because all of the bored teenagers who don't have jobs and are educated and computer savvy had nothing to do, so they may as well go join the protest,

so it backfired. >> host: how kid they do it? >> guest: well, a lot of the countries that i study have very, very careful connections to the internet meaning that traffic is managed through administrative communication or information or through a number of loyal corporate entities so that if you get a problem like what's going down in egypt, they can call a few ceos on the phone and tell them to stop service. >> host: and how do they stop the service, literally? i mean, is there such a thing as a kill switch? is there a way to stop traffic at the border or via satellite? >> guest: from what i've been told, it's basically a matter of removing the isp addresses from the roster of applicable traffic, and then they can just close it down. it's like shutting down a pipe. but i'm not a specialist on the i. side of things, i tend to focus on the social and political and economic impact of these more technical relationships. >> host: and we'll get to that.

you said at the beginning, though, that $90 million was lost in, what, government revenue, in taxes, that type of thing? >> guest: commerce, revenue, a number of banks have shut down operation in egypt, the bank of abu dhabi pulled its 12 branches, the moody rating, standard & poor's ratings have been downgraded, so this spells economic crisis for egypt, and egypt was already in a form of economic crisis with the rising costs of food, gas, etc. >> host: in a country like egypt, how do most people access the internet? >> guest: good question. the government, i started writing about this back in 2000 when i spent time in egypt. in those early days really what this was all about was getting information technology into people's hands, training them for the knowledge economy and trying to bring in direct foreign investment. not just for the whole country,

but for those select few who would be part of the e-commerce wave. as part of that process, the government of egypt built telecenters, small community access points in core areas and tried to train people for telecenter jobs, etc. once that happened, things were starting to grow in terms of internet access, but the thing that really changed things the most was that the government established these 777 numbers so that you could use your home phone and your laptop or your computer and just dial in to a 777 number, and your internet access would be free at that point. so that rose the number of internet users from 250,000 to three million in a matter of four or five months. in egypt alone. -- >> host: in egypt alone? is. >> guest: in egypt alone. >> host: okay. so are people accessing the internet at home or at internet

cafés? >> guest: i've given you the picture of people who have a laptop and a home phone which is going to be a relatively small community of people, but there are internet cafés on every corner. >> host: and the majority of people access, get information from the internet. >> guest: yes. a colleague of mine that works for the united nations development program in egypt said 80 or 90% of all egyptians get their access through a public access point, an internet café or a telecenter. that was in 2004, so things might have changed since then. >> host: now, in the middle east what's the percentage of people using the internet? >> guest: yeah, very good question. and i've been trying to do case study analysis to try and find that out. and the reason is because if 80% of the public is going online at a public access point, that gives you an ip address, you know, maybe five for the computers in that café, but maybe 100 or 200 people are using that ip address per week. so i spent a lot of time with

research assistants in internet cafés interviewing people who are using it, asking them how many hours do you spend online, where do you go, do you have access at home or school at work, and what we found is the majority of people we interviewed in egypt and jordan were going online at a public access point, spending on average 12 hours a week in an internet café. so definitely part of their everyday life. and then you add mobile phones and twitter and blogs and everything else. >> host: now, what kind of sites are they accessing for the most part? is. >> guest: what we found, we were interested in what they were using it for. 98-99% are using it for e-mail, about 80 or 90% using it for chatting, so that was an important be point, and they were saying we're chatting with people in the international community, locally, we're sharing our opinions, we're learning to participate in world

affairs. and that was 2004, so that was my first sense that something was up, that the presence of these technologies was constructing a kind of civic culture and preparing the ground for democratic participation. and where do they go now? i mean, we've been doing some surveying. many people -- i know you have this article here -- many people have a facebook payment or are blog -- page or are blogging, so the activities online have exploded with developing content. >> host: have you found in your research, deborah wheeler, that political participation has increased in the middle east because of internet and mobile phone services? >> guest: i was in kuwait in 2009 teaching at american university in kuwait, and the students did some surveying trying to find out the impact of the internet on the kuwaiti society, and for the first time in if history we were able to

document that more than 80% of the people surveyed said the technology was having an impact on local politics, and they would give explanations. you know, the state can't hide anymore, we can voice our opinions freely, a new era is dawning, etc. that was 2009. again, i'm sitting here as a political scientist saying, okay, show me the money. where's the change in institutionalized power? so i was writing a book called "information without revolution?" and been working on that for the last four years, and lo and behold, you know, tunisia shows that there is going to be significant political change. >> host: now, currently in the middle east besides the shutdown in egypt is there censorship on the internet? >> guest: yes. now, for example, i just got back from abu dhabi. they have about 80% of the population in -- >> host: relatively wealthy country. >> guest: exactly, exactly.

but they do have one of the heaviest, heavy-handed firewalls in the region. and you're saying, okay, that doesn't make sense, so many people have access, firewall, why are you censoring the internet? what the government tell you is if they don't censor it, people there won't allow it into their homes because they don't want their children having access to things -- >> host: so are we talking things like pornography and things like that? >> guest: exactly. it's not about politics, it's about pornography and blasphemous materials. >> host: okay. so could people or can people access things like u.s. government sites, radio-free america, "the new york times"? >> guest: yes, and, in fact, they do. most of the people that we have surveyed read a daily newspaper and are using the internet to get access to news and information. thatst one of the big -- that's one of the big draws to the technology. >> host: how effective was the egyptian shutdown? do you know? i mean, i've seen graphs where the traffic went from here all

the way down to here, but there seemed to be some traffic still going through. >> guest: some people are going to have those g4 mobile units and accessing the technology that way. of. >> host: and why does that make a difference? >> guest: because you're linking with a gps satellite system. but it's very expensive, so it's going to be the elite that are doing that. >> host: so egypt was not able to shut that down? is. >> guest: not competely. and the other thing is what i'm trying to write about and to study is a shift in culture and identity. and if you're looking at the technology is reshaping the the way people live and what their expectations are and how they interact with their government and their society, you can't shut that down. it's like learning to eat with a fork, and then you go camping and you forget your fork, and yo go and -- you go and find a stick to try to feed yourself. in the same way when the egyptian authorities shut the internet down, they just started faxing things or printing things and distributing them word of

mouth. you can't, you cannot put that back in a bottle, the genie's out, so to speak. of. >> host: in egypt i noticed some statistics, i believe through your research, that even though it's got the largest population of about 69, 70-some million people, a very small percentage of people were online. in fact, a higher percentage of people in iran were online than they are in egypt. >> guest: yes. exactly. and that's, it's a statistic that we don't really know what to do with because in 2009 the iranians had their own attempt to change institutionalized power, and they failed, basically. >> host: was there an internet shutdown in iran? is. >> guest: there was not. there was not a complete shutdown. certain sites were jammed or blocked, but they didn't completely shut the internet down in iran. in tunisia they didn't completely shut the internet down. they had certain facebook sites blocked and things like that but, again, not a complete

shutdown. so why, why did tunisia succeed so quickly? why did benally leave? and that's a big question that we're all going to be asking until we can talk with him directly and figure out what happened. >> host: well, what's your conclusion at this point? is. >> guest: i think he was worried about the safety of his family, and he was convinced by people in the military that this wasn't going away and that he should pack and leave with grace. and in mubarak's case i don't know what's delaying the process. we're in a stalemate situation now. the economy's come to a screeching halt. they're losing money daily in large amounts. the investor confidence in the country is going down significantly, tourism is not going to return immediately. so there needs to be some kind of movement in this process. >> host: from "the washington post" in the last couple days facebook's egypt conundrum is the name of the article, and i just want to read something and tibet your response to this.

>> guest: okay. >> host: facebook is also looking at whether it should allow activists to have a measure of anonymity on the facebook site. has facebook, google, twitter, youtube, have they become de facto political forces? >> guest: yes, and that article's interesting because as you know, google tried to reengineer with a company called say it. they got together so that egyptians could tweet through their phone. so they could call, leave a message. it was a free phone number because they wanted to support activism whereas facebook is like, well, we're not in the business for activist purposes. so we're going to have to -- they are in the business for activism whether they want to be or not. [laughter] >> host: so what role did facebook and twitter play in what's happened in egypt in the last week or sosome is. >> guest: yes, and you could give two different answers. you could say it made all the difference, loo