UPDATEWhy Internet Legislation Is (Sadly) Necessary

The blog Email Battles, a work of love by computer security geeks, takes down the puny excuses of the U.S. hi-tech giants for collaboration in China’s and MidEast repression of freedom:

Rather than bravely standing by those who have lost jobs, been jailed and/or died to defend freedom of information for centuries, the New Age search community seems to have chosen another well-worn path: Collaboration.

After all, this is a money deal. Supporters of this psuedo-Realpolitik view say it's not the tech firms' fault they do Bad Things. It's the Bush administration's. They need to make more laws.

Interestingly, after decades of somnambulance, the State Department is stirring under the selfsame Bush administration's prodding. And the House of Representatives is right behind them….

Google's right about one thing... "Don't be evil" isn't "arrogant, or naive, or both." It's self-serving and hypocritical.

While the Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft comments weren't as disgusting on paper, they can be summed up with, "We want the US government to yammer this thing to death. The longer they talk, the more we make. Just don't pass any laws that keep us from collaborating with jackboots to keep their citizens in bondage."

Or at least, that's what it sounds like to us.

More evidence was produced today.

The other day the State Department rushed to announce a new task force to first study the freedom aspects of the Internet, awoken from their fog by the rising protests at U.S. companies eagerly selling the means to enslave minds that U.S. foreign policy needs to be free. The State spokeswoman spoke in words that I called a “word salad” of obfuscation. After, I was informed that the word salad maker was formerly an editor at the Washington Times. Apparently, foggyitis is contagious.

Today, Hiawatha Bray, technology reporter for the Boston Globe, exposes the real nonagenda behind the word salad. Ambassador Gross, the State Department’s coordinator for international communications and information policy, says:

“The task force will not attempt to set policy for US internet firms in China. ‘We allow, as we always do, American companies to make their own best choices.,’ Gross said.”

That leaves the ball in Congress’ court, the perpetrators and the State Department copping out of self-responsibility for decency or U.S. foreign policy.

Congressman Chris Smith’s draft legislation is summarized below by former CNN correspondent Rebecca MacKinnon (including a link to the pdf file of the full text).

Highlights of the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006:

1. Promotion of Global Internet Freedom
The Act states that it is the policy of the United States to promote glogal free speech on the internet and global free flow of information, which includes “to prohibit any United States businesses from cooperating with officials of Internet-restricting countries in effecting the political censorship of online content.” The following measures would be taken:
· Commissioning of Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
· Establishment of the Office of Global Internet Freedom
· An annual report designating Internet-restricting countries
2. Minimum Corporate Standards for Online Freedom
· Protection of search engines and content services: search engines should not be located in “internet restricting” countries, and search engines can’t alter or filter the results of their searches at the behest of governments and officials from an “internet restricting country”
· Integrity of search engines: search engine companies would have to inform the Office of Global Internet Freedom of all the “terms and parameters” provided to them by internet-restricting governments.
· Transparency regarding search engine filtering: Companies must provide the OGIF with block lists given to them by internet-restricting governments.
· Protection of U.S.-supported online content: U.S. businesses can’t block US-government supported websites and content.
· Transparency regarding Internet censorship: Any U.S. business with content-hosting services must report to the OGIF with all copies of data and content that they’ve removed, blocked or restricted from their services at the behest of an internet-restricting government
· Integrity of user identifying information: U.S. businesses with internet content hosting services can’t provide personally identifying user information to officials in internet-restricting countries “except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes as determined by the Department of Justice.” What’s more, “Any person aggreived by a violation of this section” can sue a U.S. company in U.S. court “without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
· Penalties. Fines for violations.
The final third section is very short, calling for export controls and a report describing actions taken.

UPDATE: INSIDE BELTWAY SHENANIGAN

South Florida Republican Congresswoman Illena Ros-Lehtinen is introducing similar legislation, but watered down for ideologic "free-traders" and for those whose bread is buttered by hi-tech. She is a member of the House International Relations committee, who is vying with Congressman Smith for the future Chair of the Committee, by -- in effect -- trying to steal his thunder that Smith has worked so hard to accomplish for the spread of democracy abroad and international human rights. If conservative Republicans line up behind Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, they will be deserting the rest of the Party and weakening its principles and appeal. Republicans should not be doing Bill Gates favors. Republican House leaders, hear this, please.