Lieberman defends emergency Net authority plan | Politics and Law – CNET News

Lieberman defends emergency Net authority plan | Politics and Law – CNET News.

The article linked above from CNET.com contains not only information about Senator Lieberman's defense of the legislation he introduced last week, but also information suggesting a position by the Obama Administration.  The article quotes Philip Reitinger of the Department of Homeland Security – a frequent speaker at symposia and other public events — as stating that "'we believe it is preferable' to have a single organization–that is, an arm of the DHS–handle physical and Internet infrastructure rather than create a new office."  The report suggests that Reitinger was speaking for the Administration, rather than just for DHS.  If so, then this may mean by implication that the Administartion opposes all the other proposals circulating to create an agency dedicated to cyber secuirty and also the Rockefeller/Snowe bill (that would assign cyber security to the Department of Commerce) and the oft-quoted view of many officials that NSA must be the lead agency.  Indeed, the White House's own Cyber Policy Review from 2009 seems inconsistent with Mr. Reitinger's statement.  It calls for a new leadership agency within the National Security Council, with many departments and agencies maintaining operational components — but no lead agency status for DHS, just for NSC.  Is this just imprecise reporting by CNET?  Is this actually a new position emerging from the Administration?  Does the statement simply mean that assigning the lead to DHS is preferred by the Administration to creating a new, large operational agency, but it still prefers NSC leadership (or NSA, etc.)?  Or did Reitinger speak out of turn?  Stay tuned.

Also, Reitinger's call to "identify any needed adjustments to the [1934 Communications Act], as opposed to developing overlapping legislation" does not strike me as a position known to be endorsed by the White House.  That suggests a large role for the FCC, as well as a general approach that the Internet is subject to extensive federal regulation.  The original justification for such regulation of the airwaves in 1934 was that the available spectrum is limited and thus must be viewed as a "commons." The result was that all radio transmitters are subject to licensing by the government.  If the Internet is to be governed by the framework of the 1934 Act with some amendments, the deduction follows that the federal government will have the authority to license anyone within its jurisdiction who sends data over it.  Academia is examining that approach.  But, it would be a remarkable development if the Administartion has already adopted that policy option as its goal.