Too important to fail

Writing quite recently about demand in the US for ‘gigabit networks’, I reported one very credible view that the phenomenon reflects recognition of our growing reliance on the internet for all manner of infrastructure and services.  The proponent in question went on to explain: “that reliance is only going to increase and people will continue to want faster and faster broadband speeds for peace of mind.”  That begins to sound like an unhealthy spiral of addiction but is our growing dependence on communication networks (perversely) a ‘good thing’?  Well, it might be…

Earlier this month, a US court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security must make a plan to shut off the internet and mobile communications available to the American public. While President Obama quickly condemned former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for turning off the internet in his country to quell widespread civil disobedience in 2011, the US government apparently has the authority to do much the same thing - under a plan devised during the Bush administration. Details of the controversial "kill switch" authority have been classified but thanks to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), DHS is obliged to reveal these within the next few months. 

Even assuming President Obama (or David Cameron) wanted to invoke such a measure, would it actually work?  Happily, the expert view seems to be that activating any kind of kill switch would do more harm than good.  According to Harold Feld, Vice President at Public Knowledge, a US lobby group focused on communications and technology policy, "I find it hard to imagine why an internet kill switch would ever be a good idea, short of some science fiction scenario wherein the network comes alive à la Terminator/Skynet.  At this point, so much of our critical infrastructure runs on the internet that a 'kill switch' would do more harm than anything short of a nuclear strike.  It would be like cutting off our own head to escape someone pulling our hair”.  A very similar argument is thought to apply to disabling mobile phones. The benefit of people being able to communicate on their cellphones in times of crisis is enormous, and cutting that off would potentially be very dangerous.  

At a time of growing concern about government security and surveillance issues, it’s heartening to find that the ubiquity of modern communications networks might actually be proof against ‘big brother’ measures.