Eric Lausten's weblog

Introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (NJ-4th) - a strident human rights advocate, the bill opens with the usual legislative justifying platitudes (aka “Findings”): free speech is good, the Internet helps, online censorship is bad, some US companies help nations censor, and they shouldn’t. US policy, it states, shall promote free speech regardless of media, medium or locale, shall use its (non-military) power to achieve that end, and will deter domestic corporate cooperation in said efforts with “officials of Internet-restricting countries”.

OK, sounds good. This leaves one expecting a comprehensive bill addresing the many ways US firms have abetted Internet censorship. Maybe it would regulate services such as filtering or blocking, control the export of servers and routers, restrict training or other support to censorship or user-tracking programs, right?

Nope. Instead, it takes a much more measured, and perhaps incremental, approach. The only statutory control the bill puts in place is a prohibition on maintaining (or “locating”) the electronic collection of “personally identifiable information” in any “designated Internet-restricting nation”. Release of any such information to such nations, with the exception of “legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes as determined by the Department of Justice”. Notably, the bill is devoid of any definition or process for such DOJ determination, and such a hole leaves the provision subject to interpretation, and arguably ineffective. A private cause of action is permitted for the release of personally-identifiable information to any listed nation, a response to Yahoo’s release to the Chinese government of a local jounalist Shi Tao’s information, and his subsequent imprisonment.

Otherwise, US service providers are prohibited from blocking any US government websites, and ISPs and search engine providers must report on the circumstances of their online filtering, blocking and removal actions. Penalties are instituted for businesses or their officers who violate these provisions (which the President is authorized to waive).

An Office of Global Internet Freedom is established within the State Department (why the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor can’t absorb this function, and why a new office is needed, is not apparent). This office supports the annual Presidential designation of the aforementioned “Internet-restricting countries” (though the bills listsan initial 9 nations). Finally, the bill requires a few reports, including the consideration of online free speech in the annual State Department reports on human rights, economic assistance and security assistance, and another on the feasibility of using export controls to control transfers of Internet-censoring items.

The bill doesn’t have quite the teeth one would expect from its bold name. Nonetheless, the meat of the bill may be the information and designations listed above. As this data is collected, a better picture of how US firms support Internet censorship in undemocratic nations is developed. And with this, for good or bad, using this information incrementally may allow Congress may bare its sharp teeth in the future.