Online Censorship: Obama urged to fine firms for aiding censors - 3 views

started by qiyi liao on 02 Sep 09

#1 qiyi liao on 02 Sep 09

Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet.
-The Guardian, 1 July 2009, 900 words, Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco and Daniel Nasaw, Washington, (English)

(Retrieved this article from Factiva. Full text below.)

Ethical question:
Beyond being good corporate citizens, do international firms have a moral right to advance democracy and human rights (in this sense, freedom of information/speech)?

Ethical problem:
What happens when this 'right' infringes on the opposing political ideology(s) of a nation? Isn't it rather western-centric and somewhat neo-liberalist to impose such a restriction? Shouldn't we respect the culture and political ideology of every nation even though we may not agree? (But then, consider the situation in Myanmar). Who should be the judge then? - And what gives him/her the right to?

--- -- ---
Guardian International Pages
International: Special report: Online censorship: The United States: Obama urged to fine firms for aiding censors
Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco and Daniel Nasaw, Washington
900 words
1 July 2009
The Guardian
GRDN
14
English
© Copyright 2009. The Guardian. All rights reserved.

Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet.

Leading companies earn hundreds of millions of pounds every year through their relationship with governments in repressive countries. Campaigners are agitating for the US president to put his weight behind the Global Online Freedom Act (Gofa), a law that would see US companies fined if they profit from involvement in online censorship.

The issue has taken on added resonance after recent events in Iran, where questions about western complicity have been raised after a post-election crackdown by the government that has included throttling internet access and blocking websites.

The bill, which would see fines of up to $2m (pounds 1.2m) levied on companies that provide information or technology that aids the restriction of internet services, has failed to make it on to the statute books in the past, but campaigners are now pleading with legislators to act.

"The events in Iran have been a reminder of the importance of alternative sources of media in closed societies," Lucie Morillon, Washington director of Reporters Without Borders, told a congressional committee last week. "Congress should pass the act as soon as possible."

The law would potentially target the activities of a number of high-profile corporations, including:

* Google, which launched a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market in 2006. The service at google.cn does not return all results for terms such as "Tiananmen Square" and "Falun Gong". The company earns an estimated $200m a year from its activities.

* Microsoft, which has censored and shut down blogs run on its Windows Live Spaces system. More recently the company's new search engine, Bing, has also censored its results in China.

* Yahoo, which has collaborated with the Chinese authorities in the past, including handing over the personal information of dissidents that led to the imprisonment of journalist Shi Tao and others.

* Cisco Systems, which has provided hardware used by China to monitor and filter the internet for millions of web users.

* Juniper Networks, another California technology company, also made millions from contracts related to CN2, the internet infrastructure upgrade that enabled China's so-called Great Firewall.

It is not just US companies that have been accused of aiding censorship, however. It emerged recently that Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between the Finnish and German communications giants, had assisted the Iranian authorities by building "lawful intercept capability". The company said it only provided the same technologies used in other countries - including some in Europe - but such activities are precisely the sort of dealings that could be targeted by the Gofa.

Success would be a remarkable turnaround for the bill, which has had a troubled life so far. Its progress was stymied by the Bush administration when it was first proposed in 2006, with the former president's advisers arguing that laws governing corporate ethics were not beneficial to US prosperity. Another attempt to push the law through in the runup to the Beijing Olympics last year also foundered.

Reaction from technology companies has so far been muted. Although Cisco insists it has never modified its technology to aid censorship, documents leaked last year showed that the firm pitched for business by touting how its systems could help the Chinese government achieve its aim of suppressing free speech and dissent.

A spokesman for Cisco said the company was familiar with the previous attempts to get the legislation through Congress, but had yet to reach a position on the latest attempt to regulate relationships between technology companies and repressive regimes. "Cisco believes that the US government is in the best position to influence these issues," the company said in a statement, adding that it would "continue to monitor the dialogue and examine the final language" of the bill.

A Google spokesman refused to comment.

Even if it does succeed, however, Rob Faris, research director at the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard, suggested that the bill could have less influence than campaigners imagine. Repressive governments have recently sought to lessen their reliance on western technology and instead have started building their own systems to monitor and filter internet use.

"There are alternatives to western companies now," he said. "Iran has made it a priority to develop domestic alternatives for filtering the internet, and they seem to have implemented those over the past several years. As far as we can tell, they're not using western technologies for filtering any longer."

Instead, western governments may decide to hit back not through prohibition but through the web itself. Jim Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at Washington thinktank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the Iran unrest had encouraged US policymakers to explore ways to use the internet to promote democracy and free speech. "The Iran thing has triggered it for people," he said. "You have technologies that let you assert control, you have other technologies that erode that control, and you have a battle on where the deciding point is that each government has."

$2m

Potential fines that US companies could face for aiding the restriction of internet services if Congress passes the Gofa bill

Document GRDN000020090701e57100023

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet. -The Guardian, 1 July 2009, 900 words, Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco and Daniel Nasaw, Washington, (English) (Retrieved this article from Factiva. Full text below.) Ethical question: Beyond being good corporate citizens, do international firms have a moral right to advance democracy and human rights (in this sense, freedom of information/speech)? Ethical problem: What happens when this 'right' infringes on the opposing political ideology(s) of a nation? Isn't it rather western-centric and somewhat neo-liberalist to impose such a restriction? Shouldn't we respect the culture and political ideology of every nation even though we may not agree? (But then, consider the situation in Myanmar). Who should be the judge then? - And what gives him/her the right to? --- -- --- Guardian International Pages International: Special report: Online censorship: The United States: Obama urged to fine firms for aiding censors Bobbie Johnson, San Francisco and Daniel Nasaw, Washington 900 words 1 July 2009 The Guardian GRDN 14 English © Copyright 2009. The Guardian. All rights reserved. Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet. Leading companies earn hundreds of millions of pounds every year through their relationship with governments in repressive countries. Campaigners are agitating for the US president to put his weight behind the Global Online Freedom Act (Gofa), a law that would see US companies fined if they profit from involvement in online censorship. The issue has taken on added resonance after recent events in Iran, where questions about western complicity have been raised after a post-election crackdown by the government that has included throttling internet access and blocking websites. The bill, which would see fines of up to $2m (pounds 1.2m) levied on companies that provide information or technology that aids the restriction of internet services, has failed to make it on to the statute books in the past, but campaigners are now pleading with legislators to act. "The events in Iran have been a reminder of the importance of alternative sources of media in closed societies," Lucie Morillon, Washington director of Reporters Without Borders, told a congressional committee last week. "Congress should pass the act as soon as possible." The law would potentially target the activities of a number of high-profile corporations, including: * Google, which launched a censored version of its search engine for the Chinese market in 2006. The service at google.cn does not return all results for terms such as "Tiananmen Square" and "Falun Gong". The company earns an estimated $200m a year from its activities. * Microsoft, which has censored and shut down blogs run on its Windows Live Spaces system. More recently the company's new search engine, Bing, has also censored its results in China. * Yahoo, which has collaborated with the Chinese authorities in the past, including handing over the personal information of dissidents that led to the imprisonment of journalist Shi Tao and others. * Cisco Systems, which has provided hardware used by China to monitor and filter the internet for millions of web users. * Juniper Networks, another California technology company, also made millions from contracts related to CN2, the internet infrastructure upgrade that enabled China's so-called Great Firewall. It is not just US companies that have been accused of aiding censorship, however. It emerged recently that Nokia Siemens Networks, a joint venture between the Finnish and German communications giants, had assisted the Iranian authorities by building "lawful intercept capability". The company said it only provided the same technologies used in other countries - including some in Europe - but such activities are precisely the sort of dealings that could be targeted by the Gofa. Success would be a remarkable turnaround for the bill, which has had a troubled life so far. Its progress was stymied by the Bush administration when it was first proposed in 2006, with the former president's advisers arguing that laws governing corporate ethics were not beneficial to US prosperity. Another attempt to push the law through in the runup to the Beijing Olympics last year also foundered. Reaction from technology companies has so far been muted. Although Cisco insists it has never modified its technology to aid censorship, documents leaked last year showed that the firm pitched for business by touting how its systems could help the Chinese government achieve its aim of suppressing free speech and dissent. A spokesman for Cisco said the company was familiar with the previous attempts to get the legislation through Congress, but had yet to reach a position on the latest attempt to regulate relationships between technology companies and repressive regimes. "Cisco believes that the US government is in the best position to influence these issues," the company said in a statement, adding that it would "continue to monitor the dialogue and examine the final language" of the bill. A Google spokesman refused to comment. Even if it does succeed, however, Rob Faris, research director at the Berkman Centre for Internet & Society at Harvard, suggested that the bill could have less influence than campaigners imagine. Repressive governments have recently sought to lessen their reliance on western technology and instead have started building their own systems to monitor and filter internet use. "There are alternatives to western companies now," he said. "Iran has made it a priority to develop domestic alternatives for filtering the internet, and they seem to have implemented those over the past several years. As far as we can tell, they're not using western technologies for filtering any longer." Instead, western governments may decide to hit back not through prohibition but through the web itself. Jim Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at Washington thinktank the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said the Iran unrest had encouraged US policymakers to explore ways to use the internet to promote democracy and free speech. "The Iran thing has triggered it for people," he said. "You have technologies that let you assert control, you have other technologies that erode that control, and you have a battle on where the deciding point is that each government has." $2m Potential fines that US companies could face for aiding the restriction of internet services if Congress passes the Gofa bill Document GRDN000020090701e57100023</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group

Start a New Topic