A "cyber-security" bill sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has failed to achieve the 60 votes it needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate on Thursday. The failure, by a vote of 52 to 46, came despite the Obama administration's arguments that the legislation was needed to defend the Internet against attacks.

The bill was one of four proposals that had received serious consideration during this Congress. Indeed, that may have been part of the problem. Disagreements between Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) over which agency should lead online security efforts—Lieberman favored the Department of Homeland Security, McCain favored the military—slowed the progress of both bills.

The Hill, which predicted the measure's defeat yesterday evening, argued that the defeat would end "any hope of passing a measure by the end of the year to protect America’s networks."

Of course, not everyone viewed the measure as essential for online security. The Tea Party-linked lobbying group FreedomWorks called for its defeat, saying the bill was "deeply flawed and would stifle innovation on the Internet." The Electronic Frontier Foundation praised an amendment sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) that would strengthen support for online privacy but wrote that they "continue to oppose the bill as a whole."

And some observers questioned whether legislation to shore up online security was needed at all. In an April interview with Ars Technica, Jerry Brito of the libertarian Mercatus Center argued that private parties already have ample incentives and capabilities to lock down their own networks. And he argued that government and the private sector already had all the authority they needed to share information that would help them respond to security threats.