With the government shutdown over and the NSA chief on his way out, the time seems ripe for Washington to reintroduce the next wave of internet regulation proposals. The difference is that this time, you might not hear nearly as much about it.
We’re fatigued. That’s the biggest problem many face when it comes to these bills. The battle against such proposals will eventually face immense challenges, not because there’s universal acceptance of them, but because legislative efforts often benefit from consistent pressure, strategic communication, and public relations tactics. For those concerned about such laws, it often feels less like “if” and more like “when.” This fatigue can be a significant factor.
Last month, we saw the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein discussing the counterpart to CISPA. If you recall, it passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year but “died” in the Senate. What most considered a victory was actually a stalling technique. They didn’t kill the bill. They simply put it on the shelf until the right time came around to reintroduce it with a new name. That time is coming soon.
Recently, we saw the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein discussing the counterpart to earlier internet security proposals. If you recall, it passed in the House of Representatives but “died” in the Senate. What many considered a victory was, in some interpretations, a stalling technique. They didn’t kill the bill; they simply put it on the shelf until the right time came around to reintroduce it with a new name. That time appears to be coming soon.
Just last week, reports came out that the Senate is “very close” to introducing a bill that will pick up the baton and try to carry it over the finish line. This time, they will probably succeed.
There’s a persistent drive within certain government factions to increase oversight of internet activities and regulate online behavior. This isn’t just the view of a few vocal critics; it’s an opinion based on observable legislative efforts. These efforts are often ongoing, and while complete stoppage may be difficult, advocacy groups continue to seek ways to slow down the process and maintain resistance.
Unfortunately, sustained opposition can be challenging. There are often many distractions, and maintaining public pressure for extended periods is difficult. Proponents of increased regulation may ultimately achieve their goals, but understanding their strategy and timing could help those who advocate for internet freedom in the current round.
How They Might Approach It
The timing seems opportune. U.S. citizens often want members of both parties to work together, and recent conflicts between legislative and executive branches have highlighted the desire for compromise.
This is where the next generation of internet security legislation might emerge as a symbol of bipartisan cooperation. Proponents may craft the bill in the Senate to appear as a milder, gentler variation of previous proposals. They might gain support from many companies that previously opposed them by making behind-the-scenes arrangements. Expect some major tech companies to participate, potentially in exchange for specific concessions. Don’t expect GoDaddy to readily go along.
They might also secure the backing of at least one major organization that formerly opposed such bills, by emphasizing how much “better” the new proposals are compared to past versions.
Interestingly, they may not solicit support from Hollywood. In fact, they might instruct entertainment industry groups to remain quiet on the topic. It’s possible that major content industry associations will remain mum per government instructions.
Last but not least, they may find examples to appeal to public sentiment. These examples will likely not focus on helping specific industries. Instead, they might highlight egregious issues like illegal online content involving minors or even human trafficking. They could frame the legislation as the only way to effectively combat these severe problems.
As surprising as this may sound, they may even present this as an alternative to existing surveillance practices. It’s not out of the question that they could spin this as a way to shift power away from broader surveillance agencies and place oversight in the hands of a government body with public and private sector input. That specific aspect of the plan isn’t guaranteed, as public sentiment about surveillance practices is constantly changing. In other words, if they believe they can frame it effectively at the time, they will; if they think that association would only hurt the cause, they’ll avoid it.
This isn’t just a theory; it’s a potential blueprint for how these legislative efforts could advance. Proponents are often persistent, and their desire for new regulations is strong. Continued vigilance is essential. Allowing any significant legislative inroads could have far-reaching implications.
Whatever form this legislation takes, it could represent the next major step in the evolving landscape of internet governance.
