There is a significant momentum building for stronger executive control over Internet connectivity to private-sector networks that are designated as "critical infrastructure."

The proposed CyberSecurity Act of 2009 would allow the president to designate a private network (such as a SCADA system) as critical, and in the case of a declared emergency, shut it off from the Internet.

As you can imagine, there is resistance to this from multiple parties, including those industries who fear additional government regulation and also privacy and anti-censorship advocates who fear "scope creep" in the legislation.

How would they send the shut-off signal? Over the internet?

Executive orders to impacted entities would involve a much more formal chain of command and control than a direct kill switch from White House.

There's no reason to think this is lies, or any kind of intentional deception.

As they say, nature abhors a vacuum, and Congresscritters see a piece of important infrastructure that's not under their control. Believing their jobs are important, they believe that this lack of regulation is a danger.

Journalists see the concern of the Congresscritters, and hey, these are community leaders: there must be something to this, so lets do some research and see what we can find -- but we're writing for the public, we've got to present it in a compelling fashion.

So all this takes is a a bunch of people who are acting according to their own world view, following whatever natural incentives they have.

Agreed. I don't think there was any intentional deception either.

However, don't forget the influence of the lobbyists hired by the security industry. Additionally, "non-profit" organizations involved with information security that see a potential cybersecurity boom as beneficial to their membership and influence in the field.

Control.