Distribution Network
Content
Pressure on internet businesses to tackle the human rights implications
of online censorship has intensified with the publication of a Bill in
the US that would allow prosecutions for censorship offences committed
abroad.
The Global Online Freedom Bill, introduced into the House of Representatives by the Republican Chris Smith, who chairs the House international human rights committee, proposes fining US-based businesses up to $2million (£1.15m) for giving foreign country officials any information that identifies a particular user of their internet hosting service.
The measure would apply to companies doing business in ‘internet-restricting’ nations – a designation likely to include China, Iran and Vietnam.
In addition, the measure would make it unlawful to filter search results in such countries at the request of governments, with directors jailed for up to a year if found guilty.
The proposed law would establish an Office of Global Internet Freedom, which, among other things, would work with companies and human rights groups to produce a voluntary code of corporate standards on ‘internet freedom’.
The Bill has been introduced amid a rising clamour for internet companies to formulate clear policies on how they should respond to demands for censorship of web content from repressive governments (EP7, issue 7, p4).
Yahoo! and Google have been criticized recently for censoring the Chinese versions of their search engines at the behest of the authorities. Yahoo! China has also been attacked for handing over information that led to the imprisonment of Chinese ‘cyber-dissidents’ Li Zhi and Shi Tao in 2003 and 2005 respectively. The company was required to do so by Chinese law, which forbids advocating democracy.
It is not yet clear how many supporters Smith, who has been voicing concerns over human rights in China for two decades, will muster. The Bill faces a long, hard road to enactment, with opponents contending that it would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. However, many observers believe the threat of regulation will at least spur internet companies to develop policies on censorship. The press freedom pressure group, Reporters Without Borders, argued that the effect of the proposal, allied to recent media attention on internet censorship, would ‘push the companies to regulate themselves’.
Elliot Schrage, Google’s vice-president, told EP the company supports industry action ‘to define common principles to guide the practices of technology firms in countries that restrict access to information’. He said Google would ‘work with the US executive and legislative branches to encourage a constructive approach’.
The CSR Blokes and
CSR Chicks networks, which are online forums for individuals with an
interest in responsible business practice, have been debating whether
to sever their links with Yahoo!, their email traffic host, in protest
at the company’s conduct in China. However, the debate appears to have
settled in favour of remaining with Yahoo!
The Global Online Freedom Bill, introduced into the House of Representatives by the Republican Chris Smith, who chairs the House international human rights committee, proposes fining US-based businesses up to $2million (£1.15m) for giving foreign country officials any information that identifies a particular user of their internet hosting service.
The measure would apply to companies doing business in ‘internet-restricting’ nations – a designation likely to include China, Iran and Vietnam.
In addition, the measure would make it unlawful to filter search results in such countries at the request of governments, with directors jailed for up to a year if found guilty.
The proposed law would establish an Office of Global Internet Freedom, which, among other things, would work with companies and human rights groups to produce a voluntary code of corporate standards on ‘internet freedom’.
The Bill has been introduced amid a rising clamour for internet companies to formulate clear policies on how they should respond to demands for censorship of web content from repressive governments (EP7, issue 7, p4).
Yahoo! and Google have been criticized recently for censoring the Chinese versions of their search engines at the behest of the authorities. Yahoo! China has also been attacked for handing over information that led to the imprisonment of Chinese ‘cyber-dissidents’ Li Zhi and Shi Tao in 2003 and 2005 respectively. The company was required to do so by Chinese law, which forbids advocating democracy.
It is not yet clear how many supporters Smith, who has been voicing concerns over human rights in China for two decades, will muster. The Bill faces a long, hard road to enactment, with opponents contending that it would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. However, many observers believe the threat of regulation will at least spur internet companies to develop policies on censorship. The press freedom pressure group, Reporters Without Borders, argued that the effect of the proposal, allied to recent media attention on internet censorship, would ‘push the companies to regulate themselves’.
Elliot Schrage, Google’s vice-president, told EP the company supports industry action ‘to define common principles to guide the practices of technology firms in countries that restrict access to information’. He said Google would ‘work with the US executive and legislative branches to encourage a constructive approach’.
The CSR Blokes and
CSR Chicks networks, which are online forums for individuals with an
interest in responsible business practice, have been debating whether
to sever their links with Yahoo!, their email traffic host, in protest
at the company’s conduct in China. However, the debate appears to have
settled in favour of remaining with Yahoo!Super Featured
No
Featured
No