Most scholars who have tackled the internet “kill switch” subject come to a rather hasty conclusion that the President has the authority to shut down the internet under his emergency powers by invoking section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 606).
Over the years, this supposition has been debated on the fringes. Laura B. West’s article adds to that debate, brings it front and center, and argues that the current legal authorities are wholly inadequate to address the possible need to quarantine, isolate, or shutdown computers or portions of the internet or networks within the United States in a time of emergency caused by a massive cyber-attack.
Even if current domestic authorities can withstand the policy and legal scrutiny, the uncertainty and potency surrounding such authorities is surely enough to warrant new legislation that can provide “clear guidance and an enhanced ability to rapidly execute national level decisions for response options to sophisticated attack.” Accordingly, the time is now to rethink executive cyber emergency powers before there is a true need to build cyber walls.
As the United States and China hurl toward a potential Thucydides Trap, the Chinese government has steadily laid groundwork as a global leader in emerging technologies. Maj. Bret White’s article examines Chinese thought as to that country’s place in the world: a leader in some respects; an outcast in others – but always an innovator.
Next, the article applies this thinking to the interests of China in two critical domains, outer space and cyberspace. By probing China’s vision to reshape the international legal landscape as the world becomes increasingly bipolar, space becomes fuller, and cyberwarfare expands, the article serves as a roadmap for national security practitioners and attorneys working with China.
Although acts of cybercrime and cyberwar are different, the lines between the two have been become blurred over time. The nature of cyberspace has complicated the pre-existing doctrine for armed attacks, yet they are still being applied. Furthermore, the United States historically has responded to malicious cyber activity through a militarized lens.
This tendency to lean towards and emphasize a militarized approach has displaced the domestic law enforcement approach and left it inadequately trained, inadequately resourced, and inadequately supported to identify, deter, and punish offenders. Discussions currently neglect other existing frameworks and the development of new ones to address malicious cyber activity
Without a comprehensive international legal framework governing malicious cyber activity, Mieke Eoyang and Chimène Keitner seek to encourage greater awareness of the consequences of viewing malicious cyber activity through only an armed conflict lens.