Comments on: Let global online freedom ring?

Attorney Eric J. Sinrod cautions about the effect of a bill that ostensibly seeks to foster global online freedom.

[argotechnica]

Lofty is fine by me.

Anyone else think of Google.cn? Or that thing with Yahoo? I think that the Chinese people have shown a strong will to free their information with the use of proxies/proxy-enabled browsers and--I can't find a link, does anyone remember this one?--World of Warcraft as a gramophone for grassroots awareness campaigns. What's to stop them from doing what they're already doing if censored search engines (that they don't really use) are removed?

Chinese (and other internet-restrictive countries') regulation of the internet is already failing as far as censorship is concerned; information just has a way of freeing itself. So it may be lofty, but I for one was happy to read about the bill: it's about time that government pressure follow what people everywhere already want.

Or perhaps restrictive countries will take the disappearance of Google/Yahoo/MSN Search/etc. as an opportunity to R&D their own search tools and further insulate themselves. Time will tell.

[argotechnica]

Lofty is fine by me.

Anyone else think of Google.cn? Or that thing with Yahoo? I think that the Chinese people have shown a strong will to free their information with the use of proxies/proxy-enabled browsers and--I can't find a link, does anyone remember this one?--World of Warcraft as a gramophone for grassroots awareness campaigns. What's to stop them from doing what they're already doing if censored search engines (that they don't really use) are removed?

Chinese (and other internet-restrictive countries') regulation of the internet is already failing as far as censorship is concerned; information just has a way of freeing itself. So it may be lofty, but I for one was happy to read about the bill: it's about time that government pressure follow what people everywhere already want.

Or perhaps restrictive countries will take the disappearance of Google/Yahoo/MSN Search/etc. as an opportunity to R&D their own search tools and further insulate themselves. Time will tell.

[cathleen_44]

Compliance with censorship laws does create internet freedom

I can't help but disagree with the following statement:

"U.S. businesses provide an online service to people in other countries within the given frameworks of those countries. One must think that their presence in these countries and the service they provide is a positive development, even if not perfect, based on any constraints put in place.

To the extent significant penalties are put in place, it is possible that U.S. businesses will retreat from the online services they are providing in other countries. And then, Netizens in those countries might have less, not more, freedom."

When companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo comply with the "censorship standards" of oppressive countries like China, they are only feeding the beast. It's ludicrous to say that they are contributing to net freedom.
And I doubt anyone would be so bold as to say that when Yahoo turned over search records that directly resulted in the imprisonment of several Chinese citizens, Yahoo was helping protect the Chinese "netizens'" freedom!

Bottom line is this: the reason US companies comply with the censorship laws is because they want to make money. They value their profits more than the basic human right of privacy.

And..China's great firewall isn't that great afterall. Their quest censor the entire world wide web has proven to be almost too much of an endeavor. It has become impossible when companies like Anonymizer are offering the citizens of China tools to circumvent the censors and surf the net "privately and safely." I applaud the people at Anonymizer and similar companies. Lance Cottrell, President of Anonymizer, has been fighting for people's basic human rights and at his own expense. Chinese citizens can go to www.zidanchun.com. and obtain Anonymizer's anti-censorship solution for free!

You don't censorship with censorship.

[cathleen_44]

Compliance with censorship laws does create internet freedom

I can't help but disagree with the following statement:

"U.S. businesses provide an online service to people in other countries within the given frameworks of those countries. One must think that their presence in these countries and the service they provide is a positive development, even if not perfect, based on any constraints put in place.

To the extent significant penalties are put in place, it is possible that U.S. businesses will retreat from the online services they are providing in other countries. And then, Netizens in those countries might have less, not more, freedom."

When companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo comply with the "censorship standards" of oppressive countries like China, they are only feeding the beast. It's ludicrous to say that they are contributing to net freedom.
And I doubt anyone would be so bold as to say that when Yahoo turned over search records that directly resulted in the imprisonment of several Chinese citizens, Yahoo was helping protect the Chinese "netizens'" freedom!

Bottom line is this: the reason US companies comply with the censorship laws is because they want to make money. They value their profits more than the basic human right of privacy.

And..China's great firewall isn't that great afterall. Their quest censor the entire world wide web has proven to be almost too much of an endeavor. It has become impossible when companies like Anonymizer are offering the citizens of China tools to circumvent the censors and surf the net "privately and safely." I applaud the people at Anonymizer and similar companies. Lance Cottrell, President of Anonymizer, has been fighting for people's basic human rights and at his own expense. Chinese citizens can go to www.zidanchun.com. and obtain Anonymizer's anti-censorship solution for free!

You don't censorship with censorship.