Thanks for the human-readable link to the interesting article.
When I taught civics, one of the things I tried to get students to pay attention to was the names of bills. Adding "Internet Freedom" to the title is a classic bit of congressional spin control. Another good civics tip is to raise your level of concern when 'opposing' interest groups agree about a bill having problems. This one is riling up the ACLU, the EFF, and the Cato Institute; hardly bosom buddies, those crews...
So to re-answer the question in the thread title, I still think very poorly of those new 'emergency powers' being suggested. The bulk of the bill seems to make sense--we do need to invest more in infrastructure protection, including hiring more people to do the ongoing work of identifying and eliminating new hacking problems. What we don't need is yet another layer of executive branch authority that's largely insulated from judicial review.
Whenever you see Congress trying to grant new powers to the presidency, you need to think about the institution more than the current office holder--always consider how you'd think about those powers if the White House was held by someone you believe is likely to abuse them. I voted for Mr. Obama, but his kow-towing to the national security crowd has undermined my regard for him substantially. If I don't want him to have those 'targeted off switch' powers, I certainly don't want them in the hands of a true fan of the imperial presidency.
