real, and we wanted to start now. we believe it should include some of the things that we have been discussing here today like opposition figures into the government, like railroad elections, like making sure that they deal with some of the abuses of the past. in terms of what mr. wiesner said i don't think the way he put his words was a full reflection of the u.s. government view and i think that it's been made clear. ..

perspectives on the ability of the united states government to shut down internet communications in the event of a cybersecurity attack. plus a discussion on the use of the internet in the middle east. >> in the last congress, senators lieberman, collins and carper introduced legislation called the projected cyberspace as a national asset act. in this bill, it would enhance of the homeland security act of 2002 and others to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states.

this bill blight when the e111 congress ended. however, they're have been reports it will be reintroduced in the 112 congress. karen evans is a former administrator at the office of management and budget. ms. evans, of what would this bill to? how would it change the law? >> it's taking a look at a comprehensive approach of trying to update many of the statutes that are already on the books, to reflect the environment that we are in right now and the dependence on communications services, cybersecurity types of activities and bring clarity and alignment to the roles and responsibilities within the federal sector. >> would it in hands with the president can do now one comes to communications? >> i know there's a lot of interpretations going on about this especially the peace talks about national cyber emergency, and in my view, as a former

policy official this is my area that the president currently under many of the provisions already has authority to do certain things under the national emergency. with the sec is doing is we're finding, bringing those up to date. so for example of the communications act of 1934 there are certain then-president can already do. there's the state emergency. this is trying to clarify those and update that role and responsibility and recognize how we use things that we call cyber, and with that environment of cyber includes. >> where did the term tools which come from? >> when they start reading it in the one particular section that says the president can declare a national cyber emergency to cover critical infrastructure which is all private industry. if you really get into for example the department of homeland security, this really takes all of that into consideration and clarifies the

rolling forward because they are not very old and they came about from september 11th, and so when you look at this this is clarified and what would happen under the critical infrastructure. so it is saying that if there was a nationally marchant si freakin' covered this to the critical infrastructure and they can take appropriate action to disrupt or address what is happening as a cyber incident. so, i believe what people are really taking a look at that they are calling it quote on quote the internet kill switch, but if you go on and read more details within the statute, the president just can't do that in isolation without taking into consideration other rules of law that already exist. but i would like to give you one example to show you the president really does have the 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 cyberworld and giving the president, bringing clarity to that on that type of infrastructure so that people would know what would happen in the case of an emergency. >> 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 and here's part of what they had to say. we would never sign onto legislation that authorized the president or anyone else to shut down the internet

what are some of the ambiguities in the current law? >> so in my opinion from working on this in the past is that you are using statutes and interpretations that were based before the per use of the internet. sevi to go back, the telecommunications act and those types of activities to go back and even further more, when those acts were passed there was not the department of homeland security that could broker a lot of these types of things and what actions you would take within the private. that is what one of the challenges are. i don't think anybody here in the united states would sign on or endorse legislation that would violate the privacy of civil liberties. so that is what i think to their point is that this legislation is attempting to clarify some of

those areas going forward and use all this play out again in the previous administration when they went through a lot of the reform and what happens on wiretaps and constitutes the surveillance. you need to bring clarity to the situation and that is what this is to do to do is to bring clarity to that, so when people know exactly what will happen. >> the center stock to the legislation here's a little bit more of what they have to say. speed the legislation goes on to say you have to define that and so there is a structure that is being put in place that talks about the center being established at the department of homeland security and that there would be a director, and they

are very specific about what the authorities of the director of homeland security would have in the cyber arena, and that they would have to put together with 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 schools that we have, and they would have to define what those actions are and what constitutes the catastrophic event. so when you look at the timing of when this came up, what was happening in the world then and now, flexible, everyone knows what was happening then was a lot of things were happening. do you remember a sonia where there was a huge denial of service tax infrastructure there in estonia and what ended up happening is that happened and then there was a move that came

in from russia. but it's possible that you could have these types of situations happening and we should have the authorities and have plans in place so people know what happens should those types of actions occur. >> karen evans, going back to egypt and the seeming ease with which the government shuts down mobile and internet traffic, do you understand people's concerns about this, about the potential of shutting down the internet and do you think the legislation could be altered in any way to reassure people. >> i would see where people would be concerned. you also have to look at how our country works a little bit differently because there is no technical way. you don't go in and there's one switch and you turn it off. so we have multiple service providers here in the united states. what would have to happen for something like that is that our

service providers would have to agree to shut off the services, and given the law and everything that we have here i would find it incredibly hard to believe unless they were convinced and they know 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 are going to shut everything down just because you asked us to because you don't like what somebody is saying. 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 we are going to take it all off. now why do see the concern where people what say the president to declare a national cyber emergency and therefore take everything off. that is what is being debated. you really did have to work through and define what it's going to be and be very clear what constitutes a cyber emergency. >> as the former e-government official at the office of management and budget, in your view, is this legislation vital?

>> so, i am of the build lists 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 these things came through. so if you're going to ask the department of homeland security to do certain things you need to be clear and make sure they have the statutory authority to do that. >> karen evans is the former administrator for speed at the office of management and budget from 2003 to 2009 under the bush administration. thank you for joining us on the communicators. >> thank you for inviting me. >> nellis timothy karr, campaign director of the free press action fund. mr. karr, you heard that interview. what are your thoughts about this legislation that we've been discussing? >> well, i mean, i agree with

karen's fundamental point, and that is yes, the we do need to bring clarity to these issues. we live in a new era where cyber threats are real, cyberattack 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 a was written in 2010 doesn't do that. it's both vague and broad which is the problem and the way that at free press we interpret this is creating this open-ended authority for a cybersecurity director to take control over what i am sure is a substantial portion of our patients internet infrastructure. and the language itself doesn't permit an actual internet kill switch, or it 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 in order to turn things down, to shut things off. >> mr. karr, could you give an example by what you mean by vague and broad and how would you change it? >> short, i would be happy to do that. i mean, if you look, there are sections of the bill that concern us the most common and one of the sections, 248 [rollcall] 249 where it doesn't give a clear definition, again, of what a proper spread is, the definition of what the critical infrastructure is is not well provided, in addition it doesn't give the clear hit records for a private sector and turn service provider to repeal an order. it seems to howls far too much authority in the exit is branch without the sort of proper checks and balances we would expect in any action that

fundamentally threatens our right to free speech. you have to remember the internet is a 21st century is the most important engine of free speech that we have, the people have, the american people have, and it's not simply a question of grounding airplanes as was the case in 2001, but the question of shutting down the most important engine for free speech, so the comparison 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 it was her version that is put forth has clarity about how about protecting our basic civil rights. >> well, mr. karr, i want to go back to what senator lieberman, collins and carper said this week in a statement and this is regarding the first amendment.

the legislation expressly forbids any action that would violate the first amendment and also prohibits >> well, 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 are looking to propose before passing judgment. i can say that the legislation which was introduced in 2010 doesn't clarify that protection. in fact the statement seems to be the strongest clarification of that. but i have seen, we need to see it in the language of the proposed bill as well before we can take comfort that they are indeed moving in the right direction. it's interesting also to note that on friday, today that egypt

chose to shut down its internet, white house press secretary gibbs said that he believed -- and i guess he is speaking on behalf of the white house -- the internet access and the right to social networking is a basic individual rights. and i'd like to see the white house make good on that pledge and make sure that -- make good on that pledge and policy and make sure that we don't see bills that lack clarity about that basic right, the basic right to connect and access the internet, which i believe and free press believes is fundamental. >> mr. karr continues years of supporting legislation along the lines that the senators have interest? >> i would have to see the language of the legislation. i am 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. >> timothy karr is with the free press action fund think you for being on the communicators as well. the bill itself, protecting cyberspace is a national asset act of 2010. again it died in the 111th conagra's but it's been proposed to be reintroduced in the 112 congress. he is on line on c-span.org just follow the link to the communicators. up next on the communicators is deborah wheeler, professor of the united states naval academy and will be talking about the internet and the middle east. we are now joined by deborah wheeler, professor of the u.s. naval academy at the author of this book, "the internet and the middle east." 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's egypt, the government of egypt able to shut down mobile and internet traffic for six days?

>> thank you so much for having me. before i get started by want to say that my views today will be my own and not representative of the academy or the united states government giving it back to your fundamental question, yes, shutting down the internet, our worst nightmare. actually most nightmare as well. when news of the shutdown not only did the government lose $90 million during that hiatus of internet traffic but the protests actually grew rather than declining, and some have argued that that's because all of the board teenagers who don't have jobs and are educated and computer savvy have nothing to do so they may as well join the protest so it backfired. >> but how did they do it? >> a lot of the countries that i study have very careful connections to the internet, meaning that traffic is managed either for the ministry of communication or of information or through a number of loyal

corporate entities. so if you get a problem like what is going on in egypt, they can call a few ceos on the phone and tell them to stop surface. >> how do they stop the surface? literally, i mean is there such a thing as a kill switch, is there a way to stop traffic at the board or via satellite? >> 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 the pipe. but i'm not a specialist on the -- i.t. side of things. i focus on the impact of these more technical relationships. >> and we will get to that. you said at the beginning those that $90 million was lost in, what, government revenue and taxes, that type of thing? >> commerce, revenue, a number of banks have shut down operations in egypt. the bank of abu dhabi pulled its

12 branches, the moody's ratings, standard pauling's have now been downgraded, so this spells economic crisis for egypt and egypt was already in the economic crisis before the protest with the rising cost of food, gas, etc.. >> in a country like egypt power to most people access the internet? >> good question. the government -- i started writing about this in 2007 when i spent time in egypt. in those early days with this was about was getting information technology into people's hands, treating them for the knowledge economy and strong yen to bring in foreign direct investment, not just for the whole country but for those select few who would be a part of the e commerce wave. as part of the process, the government of egypt tella centers, small community access points throughout the country including in poor areas, and then trying to train people for

the jobs, etc.. once that happened, things were starting to grow in terms of internet access, but the thing that really changed things the most is that the government established these 777 numbers so you could use your home phone and your laptop or computer and just dillinger a777 number and your access would be free at that point. so that has raised the number of international upi could users from to and 50,000 to 3 million a matter for five months. >> in egypt alone? >> in egypt alone. >> are people accessing the internet through their homes or internet cafe? >> i gave you the picture of the people that actually have a laptop and a home phone, which is going to again, be relatively small communities of people. but there are internet cafes on every corner. >> and is that how the majority of people access, get information from the internet?

>> yes to a colleague of mine that works for the united nations says 80 or 90% of all egyptians get their access through a public access point, internet cafe or telecenter. that was in 2004 since i have changed since then. >> in the middle east what is the percentage of people using the internet? >> yeah, very good question. i've been trying to do a case study analysis to try to figure that out, and the reason is it because 80% of the public is going on at an access point, that gives you an ip address, maybe five computers in that cafe, but maybe 100 people are using that ip address per week. so i spent a lot of time with research assistance in internet cafes interviewing people who are using it, and asking them how many hours you spend online, where do you go, do you have access at home or at school or at work? and what we've found is that the majority of people we interviewed in egypt and jordan

were going on line at a public access point, spending on average 12 hours a week in an internet cafe. so definitely it is part of their everyday life. the new ad mobile phones and twitter and bloggers and everything else. >> now what kind of sites are the access and for the most part? >> what we found is that we were interested in what they were using it for, foreseeable. so 97 to 99% are using it for e-mail. about 80 or 90% or using it for chatting, so there was a very important point. they were saying there were chatting with people in the community locally, sharing opinions, we are learning to participate in world affairs. and that was back in 2004. so that was my first sense that something was up to the presence of these technologies was constructing a kind of civic culture and preparing the ground for space participation.

where do i do now? we have been serving many people and i know you have this article here people have a facebook page or they are blogging so the activities online have exploded with content. >> have you found in your research, deborah, that political participation has increased in the middle east because of internet and mobile phone services? >> yes, in 2019 to get the american university in kuwait and the students did some surveying just to try to find out what impact is the internet having on the kuwaiti society. so in the first time in history we were able to document more than 80% of people surveyed said the technology was having an impact on local politics and they would get six explanations. singing the state can't hide anymore, we all can voice our opinions freely, the new era is dawning, etc..

that was in 2009. again, i am sitting here saying show me the money. where is the claims and the institutionalized power. so i was writing a book called information without revolution . i'd been working on that and the wind behold there is going to be significant political change. >> currently in the middle east besides the shut down in egypt, is their censorship on the internet? >> yes. for the supply just got back from abu dhabi. they have about 80% of the population -- >> a relatively wealthy country. >> exactly, exactly. but they do have one of the heaviest, heavy handed firewalls in the region, and they are saying okay, that doesn't make sense. how many people have access? why your use answering the internet? and what the government will tell you is if they don't

censer, people will allow it into their homes because they don't want their children having access to things -- >> are we talking like pornography and things like that? >> exactly. they will tell you it's not politics, it's pornography and blasphemous material. >> so could or can people access things like the u.s. government sites, radio free america, "the new york times"? >> yes, and in fact they do. most of the people that we have surveyed read a leaders agree and are using the internet to get access to news and information. that's one of the big drives of technology. >> how effective was the egyptian shut down? do you know -- i have seen grass where the traffic went from here ought we don't hear but they're seem to be some traffic still going through. >> some people are going to have those g4 mobile units accessing technology that way. >> and why does that make a difference? >> because your linking with a satellite system, gps.

but it's expensive, it's going to be the elite that are doing that. >> so egypt wasn't able to shut that down? >> not completely. the other thing is like trying to write about and study is the culture and identity and if you're looking at the technology is reshaping the way people live and what their expectations are and how they interact with their government and their society it puts that down. like going to eat with a fork and then you forget your fork and try to find a stick to feed yourself. in the same way that each actions need authority to shut the internet down to just start faxing things or poking things and distributing them word to mouth. cannot put that back in the bottle. the genie is out so to speak. >> i noticed some statistics through your research that even though it's the largest population of about 69, 70 some of million people that very

small percentage of people were online. in fact a higher percentage of people in iran were online than they are in egypt. >> exactly, and it's a statistic that we don't really know what to deal with because in 2009 they had their own attempt to change institutionalized power and the field basically. >> was there an internet shut down? >> there wasn't a complete shutdown. certain sites were jam 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 but again, not a complete shutdown. so, why did users succeed so quickly? why did they leave -- ben ali leave and that is a question we are going to be asking until we can talk to him to figure out what happened. >> what is your conclusion at this point?

>> - 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 what is delaying the process. we are in a stalemate situation now. the economy has come to a screeching halt. they are losing money dealing in large amounts. the investor confidence in the country is going down significantly. tourism isn't going to return immediately so their needs to be some kind of a movement in this process. >> from the "washington post" in the last couple of days, facebook's egypt conundrum is the name of the article and i just want to read something and get your response to this.