- Related Stories
-
House panel OKs global rules for U.S. Net firms
June 22, 2006 -
The Ten Commandments of fighting software pirates
June 21, 2006 -
Time to crack down on tech at work?
June 14, 2006 -
The Internet--all grown up
June 7, 2006 -
Getting nailed by e-mail
May 31, 2006 -
High-tech whistle-blowing, U.K. style
May 10, 2006
A bill that seeks to foster global online freedom was recently passed in a unanimous voice vote by a congressional subcommittee that addresses international human rights. Time will tell whether the bill, H.R. 4780, which proposes the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, will become law and, if so, whether it is the best means to accomplish its goals. Its attempt to punish U.S. online businesses in other countries could actually lead to less online freedom, if those companies decide to stop doing business in those countries.
The bill states that its purpose is "to promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States business from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes."
As part of the bill, Congress would make various findings, including:
• "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, which guarantees freedom 'to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers'";
• "The Internet has been a success because it quickly provides information to its more than 972 million users globally";
• "The growth of the Internet and other information technologies can be a force for democratic change if the information is not subject to political censorship"; and
• "Political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad."
The bill provides the following statement of policy for the United States to:
• "Promote the ability of all to access and contribute information, ideas and knowledge via the Internet, and to advance the right to receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers as a fundamental component of United States foreign policy";
• "Use all instruments of United States influence, including diplomacy, trade policy and export control, to support, promote and strengthen principles, practices and values that promote the free flow of information"; and
• "Prohibit any United States business from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting political censorship of online content."
The bill proposes a process whereby the president would designate certain foreign countries as "Internet-restricting" regions that are "directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom during the preceding one-year period."
The bill then goes on to provide restrictions on United States businesses with respect to Internet-restricting countries. For example, under certain circumstances, U.S. businesses that host Internet search engines or maintain Internet content hosting services could not locate computer hardware in Internet-restricting countries.
As another example, U.S. businesses that provide Internet search engines could not alter the operation of search engines with respect to protected filter terms at the request of Internet-restricting country. Nor could they provide these in a manner that could produce different search engine results for Web users accessing the search engine from within the Internet-restricting country, as compared with users elsewhere.
The bill contemplates potentially serious civil and criminal penalties for violations.
In the United States, Internet service providers generally are not responsible for third-party online content, based on immunity afforded to them under the Communications Decency Act. They are considered to provide a value-neutral service.
Freedom for online users in other countries is a laudable goal. There are various ways to seek that freedom, including diplomatic pressure brought to bear government to government.
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.
Is it realistic to think that Internet-restricting countries will change their restricting policies because U.S. businesses might be penalized because of the restrictions put in place in those countries? The restrictions are established at the government level, and are not directed or controlled by the U.S. businesses.
There might be a better way to seek to achieve global online freedom, notwithstanding the lofty goals of H.R. 4780.
Biography
See more CNET content tagged:
freedom,
bill,
censorship,
Internet search engine,
U.S.
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.
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.
"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.
- Compliance with censorship laws does create internet freedom
-
by cathleen_44
July 13, 2006 9:07 PM PDT
- I can't help but disagree with the following statement:
-
Reply to this comment
-
(4 Comments)"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.