Bill Would Bar US Companies From Net Censorship

Meredith writes "A bill that would penalize companies for assisting repressive regimes in censoring the Internet may finally be headed to a vote. The Global Online Freedom Act 'would not only prevent companies like Yahoo from giving up the goods to totalitarian regimes, but would also prohibit US-based Internet companies from blocking online content from US government or government-financed web sites in other countries.' Unfortunately, there's also a giant loophole: the president would be allowed to waive the provisions of the Act for national security purposes."

Comments

Stop other people from censorship

[Asmor]

So, in other words, the bill would prevent US companies from helping censorship in countries other than the US. Awesome.

National security more important than individuals?

[mozumder]

Why is he allowed to waive a person's rights for national security purposes?

National security is HIS problem, not the individual's problems. The constitution doesn't limit the right to expression, assembly, and so on, on the condition that it be used to protect national security. If he can't protect his country without infringing on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of individuals, then well, sucks to be him. I can has new country, pleeaz.

The individual is more important than the government, not the other way around. The government can die, for all we care - it can be replaced by another piece of paper quite easily.

Great news!

[sm62704]

A bill that would penalize companies for assisting repressive regimes in censoring the Internet may finally be headed to a vote.

Does that mean the "child porn" laws and DMCA are repealed?

Re:Great news!

[TubeSteak]

Does that mean the "child porn" laws and DMCA are repealed? FTFA:

When it comes to non-government sites, the Act would require companies to disclose to the newly-created Office of Global Internet Freedom the terms that they do filter, and for the Office to continually monitor these filtered terms. Would this make the US Gov't a direct party to overseas filtering, since they know what's being filtered and have a veto over its filtering?

oh, that is rich

[museumpeace]

the US is hardly the one to penalize anyone for supporting repressive regimes. How recently was Saddam Husein a client of our state department and defense organizations? Or Pinochet or...you know it is a long list.

Re:oh, that is rich

[Robert1]

So you would rather they continue to support oppressive regimes than try to be progressive and move away from those policies and do so through passage of laws explicitly prohibiting support?

You clearly don't like what they did before so why the hell are you whining about them trying to rectify that and ensure it happens less in the future? It's like your'e bitching for the sake of bitching.

Does that include ours?

[portnux]

Would that list of "repressive regimes" include the good old USofA?

Re:So....

[calebt3]

And the President can't claim ignorance when it happens.

*Table thumping* In the name of National Security!

[Bananatree3]

Miy Fellow Americans!

Today, I present to you a bill to help spread freedom around the world. To stop companies doing evil and censoring global citizens from accessing the Freedom of Press here in America. (*sniff*, *sniff*, I love America...)

(Fist thumping the desk) But in the name of NATIONAL SECURITY, I'll reserve the right for the President of this (sniff) great land to, as he sees fit, step in and block access to any site he deems a threat to this great land.

Thank you all, and God bless ya'll.

Re:National security more important than individua

[Moofie]

"The Constitution doesn't apply to the world at large. It is by and for US citizens."

Read it again. It is a list of things that the United States Federal Government is allowed to do, and enjoined from doing. It doesn't give anybody any rights...it enumerates specific rights (and an incomplete list of those rights) that the US Government is particularly not allowed to infringe.

Not "citizens".
Not "non-terrorists".

Everybody.

(well, that's the way it was designed, anyhow...)

Re:So....

[MBGMorden]

Well, national security can be important, believe it or not. If somebody posted the floor plan and guard rotations for a large water processing plant, would you really want a law that said nobody could tell them to take down the information? Actually, I would. What you're defending is the real-world version of security through obscurity. If knowing the floor plan and guard rotations of a water plant is sufficient for a person with ill intent to gain access, then the security situation at this water plant is insufficient. Physical security must be designed just like computer security: it works even against someone who knows exactly HOW the system works.

Re:What about hardware?

[techpawn]

You can't pass a law illegalizing a previously committed action

Or passing a law saying that your warrantless wiretapping program wasn't illegal and all parties involved get immunity because it's for the good of the nation and the failing economy, besides they wheren't doing anything illegal anyway.

Yes, you can not do that.

Re:So....

[piojo]

Security by obscurity is bad, but there are two large holes in what you said:

1) Good security can be effectively supplemented by obscurity. No security system is perfect, and it's perfectly reasonable to make the system harder for an outsider to understand. (Please don't bring up the Open Source argument. A water purification plant isn't a fun software project, and people don't augment that type of security system for fun.)

2) You just advocated allowing somebody to broadcast, "Come poison this well! Here's most of the information you need to kill thousands/millions of people." This should be allowed because their security isn't good enough? Are you crazy?

Re:So....

[MBGMorden]

Ok, so suppose somebody posts the encryption key used by the VPN into the water supply system?

Or the 10-digit code used to unlock the front door? What's more sensible:

a. telling them to pull that information down,

or

b. CHANGING THE CODES IF THEY'VE BEEN PUBLISHED.

Trying to stifle information is not wise. Correcting the problem itself rather than trying to hide it always works better. In your example, it's already been proven that somebody you trust is willing to publish that information. Pulling it from the net doesn't meant they can't tell friends, or that anyone who saw it before being pulled will magically forget it. Work to eliminate the source of the leak, change the codes in the meantime, and forget about trying to put the genie back in the bottle.