Details of current Internet "kill switch" rules, and also Obama's role?

December 8, 2016 12:18 PM

Having recently become aware of SOP 303, I'm trying to understand its origin and to what extent the Obama administration actively wanted it.

I know fairly well how the Internet works, and that a true Internet-wide kill switch is not technologically possible, though disruption and partial shutdowns are possible. However, this question is not about that; it's about the government's rights and procedures in this area.

Articles from Mother Jones, Cnet and others explain roughly what SOP 303 is, and that it (may have?) started in the Bush administration. A story in CBS News from 2011 states that senators introduced a (different?) bill regarding the matter. I'm looking for a clearer explanation of the current status of this SOP 303, or whatever has replaced it, as well as its history and the Obama administration's support for it.

What drives this question is a claim I saw somewhere that Obama "asked for an internet kill switch". I suspect this may not be a fair characterization, particularly if this governmental rule predated Obama's term in office. But right now, I don't know enough either way. In any case, this topic has become even more relevant given the election results.

posted by StrawberryPie to Law & Government (4 answers total)

the freedom of information act case that was brought by epic is described here. since the supreme court has held that dhs don't need to disclose details, we don't have details.
posted by andrewcooke at 1:25 PM on December 8, 2016

According to EPIC's timeline, SOP 303 was approved in 2006; if this is an "internet kill switch," it's not something that Obama requested.
posted by compartment at 7:20 PM on December 8, 2016

Best answer: A short summary of the history of SOP 303 can be found here. This is from a publication National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC). NSTAC used to publish annual "issue reviews" but no longer do so (or no longer make them public). The linked document is taken from their 2006-2007 issue review. According to NSTAC:

As a direct result of the bombings that took place in the London transportation system in July 2005, U.S. authorities initiated the shut down of cellular network services in the Lincoln, Holland, Queens, and Brooklyn Battery Tunnels. The Federal Government based this precautionary measure on the suspicion that similar attacks might also be perpetrated in the tunnels leading to and from New York City. Though the decision was rooted in vital security concerns, the resulting situation, undertaken without prior notice to wireless carriers or the public, created disorder for both Government and the private sector at a time when use of the communications infrastructure was most needed ... Consequently, on August 18, 2005, the NSTAC established a Principal level task force to formulate, on an expedited basis, recommendations to effect efficient coordinated action between industry and Government in times of national emergency.

Before SOP 303, some arm of the federal government (presumably DHS) believed that it had legal authority to request telcos to kill service. They used that authority in New York in 2005 after the London terror attacks gave them cause for concern. It did not go well, so NSTAC created a standard operating procedure.

SOP 303 is just a how-to manual. It is not the law that provides legal authority to cut off service. I'm not sure what law grants that authority.

Not knowing the details of what SOP 303 says, I think I would prefer a world with SOP 303 over a world without it. Presumably it lays out at least some kind of restrictions to prevent reactionary shutdowns like that seen in New York in 2005. The really bad thing isn't SOP 303, it's whatever law provides legal authority for unfounded ISP shutdowns.
posted by compartment at 8:11 PM on December 8, 2016 [2 favorites]

Best answer: Okay, sorry for the serial commenting. A little more info. The "Obama wanted a kill switch" thing perhaps comes from the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (Obama wanted it, Republicans filibustered it). There was also the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010, which (not sure about this) may not have made it to the floor for a vote. The right-wing group Judicial Watch complained about the bill, so this may be where the "Obama wanted a kill switch" thing comes from. There was also the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act of 2011.

The legal authority for SOP 303 may be the Communications Act of 1934. According to the Congressional Research Service,

Some controversy exists about whether the Section 706 authorities described above permit the President to shut down Internet communications during a war or national emergency, a power that has sometimes been referred to as the 'Internet kill switch.' However, there does not appear to be a consensus about whether in fact such additional authority is needed, or, if it is not, whether additional legislation is needed to clarify and delimit it.

The CRS report adds that the 2011 bill would contained "a provision that would expressly deny the federal government of any authority to 'shut down the Internet.'"

So, the short answer to your original question "about the government's rights and procedures" is that Section 706 of the 1934 Communications Act may or may not provide legal authority, and SOP 303 explains some procedures that may or may not relate to a "kill switch," depending on what you mean by that phrase. SOP 303 may be concerned more with localized, specific actions than a widespread "turn off everything for everyone" type action.
posted by compartment at 8:39 PM on December 8, 2016 [1 favorite]