U.S. lawmakers seek to protect human rights on the Internet

The Epoch Times March 1 U.S. Internet companies will be restricted from aiding repressive regimes in violating human rights through the Internet, if a bill introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) becomes law. Failure to comply could result in a stiff fine of up to $2 million or criminal penalty of up to 5 years in prison. The bill, called the "Global Online Freedom Act of 2006", was released by members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 21. The bill follows a House Committee hearing on Feb. 15 where Google, Yahoo!, Cisco, and Microsoft were grilled by U.S. lawmakers for their roles in aiding the Chinese communist regime's secret police and propaganda on the Internet. China has the most advanced Internet filtering system in the world with an estimated 30,000 Internet police that monitor websites, chat rooms, and e-mails. "Standing for human rights has never been easy or without cost. It seems that companies have always resisted having to abide by ethical standards,… I believe our government also has a major role to play in this critical area, and that a more comprehensive framework is needed to protect and promote human rights," said Rep. Chris Smith in his opening speech at the Feb. 15 hearing, making the case for introducing the bill to promote freedom of expression on the Internet. "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… Technology companies in the United States that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian foreign governments have a responsibility to comply with principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," according to the bill. China, Iran, North Korea, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Burma and Tunisia will be considered as "Internet-restricting" countries under the bill. This list is just an initial round-up and may change from year to year. Minimum Corporate Standards for Online Freedom U.S. companies will be forbidden to locate Internet services in such "Internet-restricting" countries. This has obvious ramifications for Google, which decided to host Google.cn in China to improve the performance of its searches from inside China in order to capture more of China's market. U.S. companies also "may not alter the operation of such search engine with respect to protected filter terms either at the request of… Internet-restricting country; or in a manner intended or likely to produce different search engine results…", according to the bill. U.S. companies will also be required to provide data, to the U.S. government, regarding search engine filtering and Internet censorship requested by "Internet-restricting" countries. Should a U.S. company provide information that personally identifies users to the governments of these "Internet-restricting" countries, the bill allows victims to sue the company in a U.S. court of law, regardless of their citizenships. This could have made a difference for Shi Tao, a freelance journalist who is now serving a 10-year sentence in China. If the bill were already enacted into law before his arrest, he would have been able to sue Yahoo! in the U.S. or at least make Yahoo! think twice before disclosing his email account to the Chinese authorities. The bill also introduces new export controls that would restrict exporting technology "to an end user in an Internet-restricting country for the purpose, in whole or in part, of facilitating Internet censorship." This could have devastating consequences for Cisco's sale of technology to China. "[Cisco's] revenue from China, according to Derek Bambauer of Legal Affairs, is estimated to be $500 million annually," said Rep. Chris Smith. Spokespersons for Google, Yahoo!, and Cisco told The Epoch Times that they are still in the process of reviewing the bill and have not yet formulated an official response. Microsoft did not return our call. Cautious Optimism Some human rights NGOs have expressed cautious optimism for the bill, applauding it as a step forward in protecting Internet freedom. "I think it will pressure companies in China to act more responsibly," said Robert Dietz, Asia Program Coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists. "But journalists have to look out for their own safety." "We saw at least 22 countries where journalists have been jailed for Internet reasons, so it's not unique to China. Other countries are waiting and watching to see how it plays out in China," said Dietz. Some observers, while supporting the spirit of the legislation, questioned its effectiveness in the dynamic environment of cyberspace. "I think the bill makes a strong statement and provides some backbone regulations on how U.S. Internet companies should operate in China, but it will be difficult to enforce," said Glenn Reynolds, a well-known news blogger and law professor at the University of Tennessee. Others Are More Critical "My fear is that this bill, by attempting to do something strong, will end up not accomplishing. Congress felt that these companies are smugly complacent about what they did in China, and I don't think that's really the case", said Danny O'Brien, Activism Coordinator of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a non-profit organization that defends free speech, privacy, and consumer rights. On the other hand, O'Brien said that the U.S. Internet companies are undercutting their biggest advantage over their competitors in China in providing uncensored information if they give into censorship too easily. "Free Internet companies like Yahoo and Google can do an enormous amount of good to promote free speech. It's a business advantage for them," O'Brien said.