The U.S. Senate is considering a bill aimed at giving the president authority to take over private networks in the event of a cyber attack; a move that has raise concerns about private property rights.

Thanks to Senate Commerce Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), Senate Bill 773, the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (full text), could very well give the president authority to disconnect private networks by declaring an emergency. The bill would also require technicians trained in cybersecurity to be licensed. The bill is co-sponsored by Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and was introduced April 1, 2009.

The stated goal of the Cybersecurity Act reads as follows: “To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications...to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.”

The part of the bill causing controversy involves new powers for the president, giving the president authority to take over any private internet network in the interests of national security. CNET recently reported on the revised language to the bill:

“In the event of an immediate threat to strategic national interests...(the President) may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network.”

According to Rockefeller spokesperson Jessica Tice, the Cybersecurity Act gives the president authority he already has in other industries. U.S. code currently gives the president power to take control of all airplanes, ships, and factories in the event of war.

“The President of the United States has always had the Constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States,” said Tice. “The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks.”

Despite past precedents, the president hasn't always had complete authority. When Pres. Harry Truman nationalized the striking steel factories in 1952 during the Korean War, the U.S. Supreme Court two months later said the move was unconstitutional.

Shelly Roche is the CTO of BreakTheMatrix, the founder of Plenticulture, a frequent contributor to Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano on FoxNews.com, and writes for her own blog at ByteStyle. In an email, Roche said that S.773 puts private companies at great risk.

“It is true that they couldn't actually shut down the internet in its entirety - all they can do is block traffic to/from certain networks. But the issue here is that they shouldn't have the authority to shut down ANY private internet traffic,” said Roche. “Private companies have every incentive to keep their network security tight. If they don't, they'll go out of business. Government interference will only reduce security and add unwarranted burdens to businesses during a recession.”

Tice said that anyone saying the bill gives the president power to pull the plug on private internet access is wrong.

“To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a government shut down or takeover of the internet and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false,” stated Tice. “The purpose of this language is to clarify how the President directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government’s response.”

Roche's concerns center around the unclear language in the bill. Currently the government has no plans in regards to cybersecurity, and the position of cybersecurity coordinator is empty.

“From an IT perspective, the more decentralized the control is, the more difficult it is to hack,” explains Roche. “If common practices are forced on private companies via a federal certification program, hackers will have a road map that, once deconstructed, could unlock every compliant network. Since there are no specifics provided in the bill regarding these certifications, it's difficult to comment on the likely outcome, but passing ambiguously-worded legislation only opens the door for misinterpretation, rushed "solutions" that would decrease security, or abuse in the future.”

The certification program called for in the Cybersecurity Act is also a problem for Roche, who believes that the free market should be able to determine who is and who is not qualified to handle cybersecurity issues.

“Some of the brightest minds and best innovations within the tech industry have come from people without college degrees or certifications,” states Roche. “Will the next generation of such individuals be forced out of the cybersecurity industry if they don't fit the government's definition of who is qualified to manage a secure network? Security in the private sector is arguably far more advanced and robust than in the government sector. Why would we force private networks to adhere to what would likely be one-size-fits-all standards that would be cumbersome, inappropriate and ineffective?”

The bill is currently still in committee awaiting approval to be sent on to the full senate for a vote.