Sen. Durbin To Introduce Bill Sanctioning Companies That Don't Protect Human Rights Abroad; But What About At Home?

from the the-two-step-shuffle dept

Wed, Mar 3rd 2010 5:30pm — Mike Masnick

Senator Dick Durbin is introducing legislation to sanction companies that don't take "reasonable steps" to protect the human rights of people abroad. This is obviously targeted at companies doing business in places like China, where famously, government officials have used US technologies as well as worked with US-based companies to censor the internet and spy on citizens.

While I can understand the reasoning behind such a bill, my question is why is this limited to abroad? Here in the US, AT&T eagerly helped the administration in spying on users with no warrant and no official process (even allowing private info to be passed on with just a post-it note request). And what about efforts by US lawmakers to put in place third party liability -- similar to that which is used in China to censor the internet -- on copyright issues? Shouldn't there be sanctions for that as well?

Sanctioning companies that help regimes violate human and civil rights is perfectly reasonable -- but Durbin is kidding himself if he thinks this sort of thing only happens outside of the US. Let's clean things up at home first.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: human rights, sanctions, tech companies

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

NAMELESS.ONE, 3 Mar 2010 @ 5:42pm

HAHAHAHA
ya know honestly i think the USa needs to take a serious step back and look at itself and how the rest of the world is beginning to see it.....as a fraking joke.

YA know they really must think the world is a bunch a retards yet they do stuff like this which affirms my belief that evolution doesn't always work out for a species.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 3 Mar 2010 @ 6:32pm

Picking his battle
I am guessing he is picking his battle, one that might have a chance. It's a start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bigles, 3 Mar 2010 @ 7:25pm

> my question is why is this limited to abroad?

I see you are still under the illusion that anyone in any law making capacity in your country actually cares about regular people. That train left the station a long time ago, and ain't comin' back. In fact, once the Republicans get back into power, look for it to get even worse (as if that even seems possible).

You guys are on the decline, and the sad thing, is you voted for all this. Sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 3 Mar 2010 @ 7:32pm

ERA Memories
This reminds me of back in the '70's when people were trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified. Someone in the legislature proposed a bill that would have prohibited travel to any state that had not ratified the ERA. Another Senator felt this was entirely too limiting, and proposed an amendment that would prohibit travel to any COUNTRY that had not ratified the ERA. Of course, since the ERA was an amendment to the US constitution, no other country would have any reason to ratify it. To add to the idiocy, the original law was proposed because the US itself had not ratified the ERA.

As a budget cutting measure it would have been great because it would have shut down all junkets to anywhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2010 @ 7:38pm

dumbest post ever?
This might be the dumbest post i've ever read on this site. I generally find this site highly informative, but every now and then something like this shows up and makes me wonder whether I'm reading the Onion. Are you really comparing human rights abuses to proposals for secondary liability? Lolz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse, 3 Mar 2010 @ 8:20pm

Re: HAHAHAHA
That's US politicians, asshat. Besides, what makes you think your country's politicians are any better? Feeling all high and mighty over there? Like your stereotypical US citizen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2010 @ 9:35pm

Re: dumbest post ever?
Did you even bother reading the linked article? Either way, you're an absolute idiot. Here's the first paragraph for you, enjoy:

"Internet companies that fail to take "reasonable steps" to safeguard human rights in foreign countries could face sanctions under a forthcoming bill by Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.)."

Yes, God forbid that Mike dare to compare international internet policies with domestic internet policies. Shame on him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Mar 2010 @ 9:51pm

But, but, but...
That's different!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Mar 2010 @ 10:04pm

Re: dumbest post ever?
Are you really comparing human rights abuses to proposals for secondary liability? Lolz

Secondary liability is how China stifles civil rights online. Are you claiming otherwise? Because that would be news...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RT Cunningham (profile), 4 Mar 2010 @ 12:21am

Sanctioning Who?
I'm a US citizen living abroad in a country where human rights seem to be violated daily, but human rights is like everything else. It's in the eye of the beholder.

US politicians like to try telling other countries how to behave, even though the the other countries' behavior is perfectly acceptable by their own standards.

Once again, Mike nails it on the head - clean up you own back yard before you try to clean up someone else's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 4 Mar 2010 @ 12:32am

Re:
So says Bigles the Fool, prophet and arbiter of all that is of the United States.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 4 Mar 2010 @ 12:38am

Unfortunately, "reasonable steps" can be interpreted in so many different ways. IOW, this is useless, grandstanding legislation. It won't go anywhere and he can claim to have "taken a stand" for human rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BraveAnonymousPerson, 4 Mar 2010 @ 1:06am

Fix things at home first?
Hell no. Fix things wherever possible. Approve this bill now, extend later to the homeland.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2010 @ 5:13am

There really is no point to this legislation. They might as well ban domestic companies from doing any business abroad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 4 Mar 2010 @ 5:50am

oldthinkers unnewspeak
The headline really caught my eye, until I realized that "sanction" meant "not sanction".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 4 Mar 2010 @ 9:03am

Re: oldthinkers unnewspeak
"Sanction" is its own antonym.

–verb (used with object)
6.
to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage.
7.
to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law.
8.
to impose a sanction on; penalize, esp. by way of discipline.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta, 4 Mar 2010 @ 10:43am

Re: oldthinkers unnewspeak
The original meaning of the noun was either permission or punishment (I admit I just learned about the punishment part). The noun was verbed in the 18th century to mean permission, blessing. Then in the twentieth century, when certain nations were trying to find forms of agression milder and more selective than blockades, they started witholding sanction for various things. So "sanctions" became associated with harsh international imposition, and with just a little carelessness we got this mess, where the only way to keep the opposite meanings straight is by tiny cues: "sanctions" (plural noun) are punishments, "sanction" (uncountable noun) is permission or blessing, "a sanction" is ambiguous, "sanction" (verb) means permit or bless, and using it to mean "impose sanctions" throws grammar fiends like me into fits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2010 @ 3:16pm

In a nutshell: USA has double standards.

In other news: Sun rises in the east.

*yawn*
[ link to this | view in thread ]