House Committee Approves Global Online Freedom Act

from the will-it-do-anything? dept

An updated version of a bill that's been floating around for a few years -- the Global Online Freedom Act -- has passed out of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, and some people think that it might actually get somewhere (I'm still a bit skeptical). The point of the bill is to try to stop US companies from supplying tools of online censorship and oppression to repressive regimes. The version that passed out of committee took out some controversial earlier provisions that had potential criminal penalties for those who failed to report information to the Justice Department. It also included some new safe harbors for companies that join the Global Network Initiative. GNI -- set up, in part, by Techdirt book club participant Rebecca MacKinnon -- is an attempt to get companies and organizations to work together on a set of rules and principles to protect free expression around the globe.

While it is a bit disappointing that companies might need a law to avoid providing tools to censor free speech in these regimes, I am still amazed that US politicians can push for bills that seek to increase free speech abroad, while at the same time considering bills that would limit free speech at home. Either way, this bill is still a long way from actually becoming a law (there isn't even a Senate version yet). However, given the very reasonable interest in free speech issues around here, and the fact that the bill has received little coverage, I figured some more folks would be interested to know about it. CDT has raised some concerns about how you determine just what is "censorship" technology, as that's often in the eye of the beholder, but it appears that the backers of the bill actually are responsive on this issue and want to hear from the tech community.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, free speech, global online freedom act

How Congress Might Accidentally Ban US Companies From Doing Business In The US

from the double-standard? dept

A couple of years ago, we wrote about a proposal to restrict search engine companies from doing business in foreign countries whose Internet policies the United States government deems "repressive." In March, we noted that it was back. Jonathan Zittrain has written up an analysis of the latest version. It would supposedly "prevent US companies from aiding the censorship and surveillance operations of repressive foreign governments." It would target "Internet Restricting Countries," which are countries that are "directly or indirectly responsible for a systematic pattern of substantial restrictions on Internet freedom."

Now, I understand that the intent is to target truly repressive regimes like China and Cuba, but I have to wonder about how this is being defined. After all, you could argue that the United States's gambling ban is a "substantial restriction on Internet freedom." Ditto for the recent FISA bill, which allows warrantless dragnet surveillance of Americans' international calls. Likewise, some European countries restrict Internet freedom with regard to Nazi memorabilia. And of course the Australian government forces its ISPs to censor online pornography. Will American companies be prohibited from doing business in the United States, France, Germany, and Australia? Somehow I doubt it. All of which is to say that putting the US government in charge of drawing up a list of countries with bad Internet policies seems like a bad idea. The list will wind up being a political football rather than an objective assessment of countries' internet policies, and in any event it will hurt American businesses a lot more than it will promote human rights abroad.

Filed Under: censorship, companies, congress, global online freedom act, internet