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 a

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 respons

ms. kelly evans from the aclu. although she did not endorse a request, we would like to read a short excerpt from her letter dated march 4, 2010. >we strongly believe that sfpd should begin with a trial basis. this would allow the department and commission to evaluate each deployment closely, and make decisions based on actual use of the weapon. participating officers in any pilot project should have strong positive relationships with the community and a demonstrated history of good judgment and judicious use of force. that data should be made available to the community and closely addressed. should any turning our policy changes be made? there should be imminent physical harm to the officer, a subject, or third party. it should never be used by passive resisters were there is not an imminent risk. if at any point that are authorized, they should come with stringent training and strict limitations. the should be agreed upon and established. the department concurs with these recommendations from the aclu. >> i want