Slashdot Mirror
US Lawmakers to Keep Google Out of China?
caese writes "USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China. From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
When have embargos worked? VEry rarely I presume. There's no point in this. Also why target high tech .. what about walmart?
No I am not in favor of cutting off trade in any case.. people should have the right to buy goods from wherever they like.
I wonder why the US government doesn't ban all US based companies from dealing with China, if they want to be pro human rights for a change. Its so hypocritical for them to ensure that US information isn't housed in China and use human rights as a cover. IF human rights were a truly important issue companies like WALMART wouldn't be allowed to trade with them. That would make an actual difference
A few observations:
> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that
> would keep Google and others out of China.
Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.
Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.
> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that
> would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft
> to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State
> Department deems repressive to human rights.
The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."
It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.
I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:
http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/laws.htm
Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?
Article 2 specifically grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Why does this conflict with the 9th or 10th amendments? This is not a rhetorical question, you must have some reason to believe that Congress isn't granted this power. So what is it?
Emperor Cheney and the Figurehead Buffoon
Isn't that going a little to far. It is not like Cheney ever shot someone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
May I add that in the US you may get shot by the vice president himself. That my friends is opression!
I sense a new Slashdot meme coming on... next thing you know, we'll have t-shirts that say "Cheney shot first!"
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs