Recent political upheaval in Tunisia, Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries has once again brought into sharp focus the role the Internet plays as a means of communication. Whether as a tool to report events to the outside world or as a weapon of government-sponsored propaganda, the Internet is now a critical element of any political action. Yet while some commentators are quick to claim the success of so-called ‘Twitter revolutions’ others are starting to question the Internet’s independence.

When Egypt’s President Mubarak decided to sever Internet connections during the height of January’s protests, it called into question access to a service many of us simply accept as a basic human right. Between January 28 and February 2, Internet-based communication with Egypt was impossible. Posts to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other online platforms stopped. While Google and other service providers found creative workarounds, including innovative ways to tweet from analogue phone connections, the Internet blackout highlighted the power of governments to effectively kill the Internet.

In an act of unfortunate coincidence, the US government re-introduced plans to drive its Internet ‘kill switch’ bill through the senate the same day President Mubarak was busy cutting Egypt’s Internet cord. This has since led to a media furore that stretches far beyond US’ shores. One commentator stated that the US would inflict enormous damage on the entire world if it was ever to flick the switch, possibly taking other countries offline at the same time. Setting aside freedom of speech concerns, this is perhaps what worries most people when the US talks of the Internet kill switch.

Adrian Wooster in a recent blog post notes how the Internet is now heavily intertwined with US infrastructure. If the US was to close its Internet access, how would it impact upon the rest of the world, especially in regards to websites and online services that are channelled through the US? This is especially true for communication services; consider life without access to Skype, Twitter, Facebook and other such platforms. For many, these tools are part of everyday life; it’s how we communicate both professionally and personally.

However, many are quick to defend the US government’s plans and note that the kill-switch bill will have far more safeguards and restrictions than those seen in Egypt. Still, the question remains as to how, or even if, the Internet can be structured to ensure open access, one that cannot be controlled by any foreign powers.

What do you think? Is the Internet kill switch a critical asset in a new age of cyber warfare? Can a truly independent Internet ever exist? I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.