Could the U.S. ever get a "Kill Switch" for the Internet?

All of the recent turmoil in Egypt caused the government to demand that all of the Internet Service Providers(ISP's) to shut off all Internet services in the country. Many of the anti- govenrment demonstrations taking place were organized on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter prompting the shut down. Now as Americans watch the events unfold in Egypt many ask the question, could the U.S end up with a "Kill Switch" for the Internet.?

 The Protecting Cyperspace as a National Asset Act was introduced by Sen. Joe Liberman in 2011 that would allow the president to provide "emergency measures" to protect our infrastructure if there is a vunerable part of our Internet that is or is about to be exploited. Some interpreted the "emergency measures" to mean that the president could turn off the Internet at random, but that was later denied by Sen. Joe Liberman as not true. Section 706 of the Communications Act gives the president the authority to take over networks if there is a threat of war without the authorization of Congress. The Internet bill that will be reintroduced this year by Sen. Liberman, will require Congress approval and is intended to protect U.S. web infrastructures from cyber attacks in order to protect our economy and way of life.

Even though the lawmakers insist that none of the new Internet protection legislation being proposed  will violate the First Amendment, it still has many free speech advocates worried. The president doesn't have a physical switch that could turn off the Internet, nor is it likely that he or any other president could ever get the major ISP's- Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner to shut down service if requested. The president relies heavily on social networking sites to communicate, and the goverment relies on the Internet  to function, so it is doubtful that the government would want to shut off Internet service. However, if serious cyber attacks did occur that could threaten the safety of our goverment, communication services, and other critical parts of our life should we have a way to tighten our Internet security to try to prevent or lessen these attacks?

Should GSP trackers be used without a warrant?

A recent college student in California discovered a GPS tracker that was secretly attached to his car by the FBI. Once it was removed he posted it on the Internet to find out what it was and got a surprise visit from the FBI requesting that it be returned. Now the question to eventually be answered by the Supreme Court is was is legal for the FBI to attach a GPS tracker to his car without a search warrant. His case has gone through several Federal and state courts, all with varying conclusions. Some judges view that using the tracking device for over a month to track his movements as an invasion of privacy because it is unlikely that all of the movements that were recorded over the month's surveillance wouldn't have been observed without the use of the tracking device. Courts in Washington, New York and Oregon have come to the same conclusion. Law enforcement agencies advocate using the devices because they save time, money and help build cases without the use of long stakeouts and valuable resource. Some believe that GPS trackers aren't included under the 4Th Amendment against illegal search and seizure as long as the search takes place in a public places. Roads are public places but what if the suspect or targeted person goes home? Whatever the eventual ruling by the Supreme Court it will have long term effects on how criminals, and even those perceived as criminals are tracked, and how that information is used in cases against them in court, if they do committ a crime. Do you think using the GPS trackers are a violation of privacy? Could it be used as way to unfairly target a person or a certain group?