Slashdot Mirror
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."
$150,000 per violation.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
So, in other words, the bill would prevent US companies from helping censorship in countries other than the US. Awesome.
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.
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Does that mean the "child porn" laws and DMCA are repealed?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Are they passing a law which would make it unlawful to comply with the laws of the country in which you do business?
Because, that would leave Yahoo et al with the choice of having no presence in places like China -- or, in the front of a lawful subpoena in that country having to say "no, it would be illegal for me to obey the law".
Am I getting this right? I fail to see how this law wouldn't leave these companies between a rock and a hard place.
This sounds like a law which was ill thought out in terms of how you enforce it. Then again, that shouldn't exactly surprise me.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Would that list of "repressive regimes" include the good old USofA?
And the President can't claim ignorance when it happens.
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.
why bother with the "provision"? i thought we already established that "if the president does it, it's not illegal".
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Those aren't illegal in the US, much to the chagrin of the "think of the children" crowd.
"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...)
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Yes, you can not do that.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
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?
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
Here's The Fine Bill, as can be found if you follow enough links, and here's the entry for it on the THOMAS web site at the Library of Congress. Please read before commenting on the bill. In particular, note that:
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain