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

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.

So .... let me get this straight ....

[gstoddart]

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

Re:So....

[calebt3]

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

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.

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: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?

RTFB before commenting, please

[Guy Harris]

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:

• the word "totalitarian" doesn't appear in the bill, just "authoritarian";
• the President of the US determines what countries are "Internet-restricting countries" (fat chance that this would include the US or any of the US's friends);
• the forms of censorship, etc. it affects are providing personally identifiable information to "Internet-restricting countries", filtering search results at the request of "Internet-restricting countries", and "jamming" "United States-supporting content" (government sites and the like) in "Internet-restricting countries";
• the bill doesn't affect whether you can help any country other than an "Internet-restricting country" to censor the Intarweb,