FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There are growing signs that the government wants more control over the internet.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/21/art.computer.jpg caption=""]
For starters - a bipartisan Senate bill would give the president a so-called internet "kill switch." The measure would allow the president to control or even shut down the internet in emergency situations.
Sen. Joe Lieberman - a co-sponsor of the bill - says that America's economic security, national security and public safety are all at risk from new kinds of enemies... like cyber-terrorists. He says that's why the government needs more control over the internet in "times of war."
Critics worry about the level of control the bill would give to the president... and they claim it could have "unintended consequences."
Speaking of terrorism - the Homeland Security department says the U.S. must do more to monitor terrorist groups that use the internet to recruit and train.
DHS secretary Janet Napolitano says the government needs to find the right balance between protecting individuals' right to privacy and keeping the country safe.
This comes on the heels of several domestic terror attacks in which the internet played a key role. it's believed that the alleged terrorists in both the Fort Hood shooting and attempted bombing of Times Square were inspired by online postings of Islamic extremists.
Finally, the Federal Communications Commission is getting in the game too - taking steps toward more internet regulation.
Just last week - the FCC voted to formally consider tighter control over high-speed internet companies. Until now - these companies have operated with virtually no government oversight.
Here’s my question to you: How much power should the government have when it comes to the internet?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Kathy writes:
A "kill switch" is totally dangerous regarding freedom of speech. The internet gives us all access to the outside world immediately. Open, outside communication keeps nations and governments somewhat honest. Our media is already compromised with biased accounts of stories, our history books are being rewritten by conservative, short-sighted idiots and now we are going to allow a politician the right to control our internet. What crisis could be so bad to shut down our access to news and communication?
Steve in Clifton, Virginia writes:
The government should have sufficient involvement in the internet to ascertain security threats, address security threats, eliminate security threats to the American people. The internet moves our U.S. borders within the homes of every American citizen with a computer.
Thomas writes:
So now that China is overtaking us as the manufacturing leader, we're going to try to be more like them with greater government restrictions on the internet? I find it funny that the govt. is trying to exert more control over our citizens and shying away from controlling the illegal immigration "issue".
Greg in Minneapolis writes:
Jack, Had this been George W. Bush proposing a government "kill switch" on the internet, the impeachment proceedings would be well under way. We do not need "Big Brother" having anything to do with the internet… The only reason that there is to put in a "kill switch" is to deal with dissenting opinion in the only way they can, rather than counter with their own arguments.
Mark in Houston writes:
Jack, The outcry coming from those who use freedom of speech as an excuse to abuse our rights will be sounding off louder than those horns at the World Cup. We live in an age of fast-changing and advancing threats to this country. If shutting down the net serves a justified purpose in any one of those situations then, go for it. However, I can't think of too many people in elected office whom I would trust with that control.
Jack in Niceville, Florida writes:
The government gets to control the flow of information? Have you ever read "1984", Jack? No president, Democrat or Republican, should ever have that power.