digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Bill would penalize companies for aiding Internet censorship

arstechnica.com — The Global Online Freedom Act aims to hold US-based companies liable for aiding Internet censorship in countries such as China, and for turning over personally-identifiable information except for "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes." The catch: the president has the discretion to waive the law's requirements in the name of national securit

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Andy.D, on 05/03/2008, -6/+41I applaud this. I think it's wrong for American companies to go after profits in countries where to get them, they have to do things that would run afoul of the US Constitution's BOR.
    • haiduz, on 05/03/2008, -4/+7I think its a pretty ridiculous bill.

      Look at google for example, they decided to do business in china. This bill would either restrict the company from doing business in china, which in my opinion is a terrible thing for the government to do. On the other hand, should google decide that it is indeed profitable for it to do business in china, despite the fines that would be levied by this bill this results in an american company being punished for the government decision of doing business of another country. Its not like google has any control whatsoever over censorship laws in the chinese government.

      This is like a reverse domestic tarrif - the government puts a tarrif on domestic business when it does business with foreign countries that our government does not approve of.
      • nstanosheck, on 05/03/2008, -1/+8Or said American companies will simply move out of America, hurting the economy even further. This is the Internet, they can set up shop anywhere.
    • troye, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Anyway, I agree that this [potential] bill is a start in making the internet a neutral place for all equal human beings.
    • dancingdeer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7and at the same time the US government could still do whatever it wants. they simply call people "possible" terrorists and everything done to them is legal then.
    • LingNoi, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1So Google employees in China could be put in prison for not handing over the data and Google Employees in America could be put in prison for handing over the data. Brilliant law there..
  • 3tcp, on 05/03/2008, -3/+8"a bill proposed by House Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ)"
    That's right, (R-NJ) Pretty shocking

    Granted, it does allow for exceptions for the US but this would be mandatory for it to have a chance at being passed. It would be great if we could get some non neo-con republicans in on this free & open internet thing, there'd be little to prevent something like this from getting passed if we did. This would be the one of the few pieces of legislation since 9/11 specifically meant to protect civil liberties. Even though it doesn't apply to the US, it is a good sign that congress is still interested in this issue and willing to do something about it.
    • wisefool9, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4If I were a right winger I'd call Chris a RINO. He's pro SCHIP, pro climate control. I don't live in Jersey but I've got a wingnut associate who lives there and he can't stand him.
    • Urzeitlich, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4It's New Jersey. Even the Republicans are Liberal. Chris Smith is certainly very popular among people here who are technically democrats.
    • nstanosheck, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Would the USA be banned by this bill since government entities (I am thinking public libraries, public schools, and government workers' Internet) censor the Internet? (Not that I object to such places blocking porn and such.)
      • execute85, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Public libraries in the US are not allowed to filter or censor the internet.
      • redxxx, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I think the whole thing where our court system tried to strike down Wikileaks might be more relevant.
        I don't think there is anything in the bill that would prevent it, but there isn't much chance that a US Attorney would consider prosecuting the case.
    • troye, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2It doesn't matter if your a Liberal or Conservative. This could benefit all of us. I'm tired of hearing about the left, and the right. Politics should be on the midline anyway.

      Independent = using your own brain to make decisions. Not other people's.
  • jonamerica, on 05/03/2008, -3/+4This bill will never get passed. It would hinder American business, if China wants to block the internet, won't they simply buy their equipment from another country?
    • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -11/+4what liberals don't understand is that the private sector has no POWER over our lives, but government does. we should be taking "privileges" away from the government, not giving in to more government regulation. 50 years ago there was no Internet in our daily lives and people got along just fine, and now all of a sudden if a private company "censors" the Internet our "rights" are suddenly being taken away? it does not make any sense. do we have a "right" to a house? do we have a "right" to mercedes? if you don't like the Internet you are getting, go to another ISP. the market regulates better than the government, which is bureaucratic, inefficient, corrupt and most importantly has POWER over our lives
      • goffy59, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5I don't know. All parties seem to participate in this ridiculous game of power grabbing.
      • Ephemeralnode, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5fallacious logic: Unlike a car or a house the internet is a medium of communication, which unlike the airwaves (which is regulatable because of broadcast range) is an INTERNATIONAL medium. therefore cyberspace should be an international issue much like trade, this is no different than a trade sanction...
        • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2airwaves should obviously not be regulated
      • Urzeitlich, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Read the constitution.

        Internet = Communication = Speech = Free
    • asskey, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5I'm pretty sure China makes the equipment, they don't need to buy it from us ;)
    • Cerin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1I completely agree. First, too many Republicans aren't going to care enough to get this passed. Secondly, in the remote chance it does get passed, it won't have any effect, especially in China, since Chinese censorship is a "legitimate foreign law enforcement purpose", or so China/Yahoo/Google would argue.
  • mehungryman, on 05/03/2008, -9/+23I'm all for the end of Internet Censorship, but the government should not be the one to do it. This is just another example of the US government grabbing more power.
    • taradisiac, on 05/03/2008, -1/+14Then who should do it?
      • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -14/+5what liberals don't understand is that the private sector has no POWER over our lives, but government does. we should be taking "privileges" away from the government, not giving in to more government regulation. 50 years ago there was no Internet in our daily lives and people got along just fine, and now all of a sudden if a private ISP "censors" the Internet that we voluntarily purchase access too (and sign a waiver form) our "rights" are suddenly being taken away? it does not make any sense. do we have a "right" to a house? do we have a "right" to mercedes? if you don't like the Internet you are getting, go to another ISP. the market regulates better than the government, which is bureaucratic, inefficient, corrupt and most importantly has POWER over our lives. in fact, it is government that is the only entity that censors (television and radio), now with government interference with the internet we can expect more encroachment into it's affairs which is bad for everyone
        • SaperKain, on 05/03/2008, -5/+9“Private sector has no power over our lives” That is probably the dumbest thing I read on digg. GO ***** YOURSELF YOU GODDAMN FASCIST.
          • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -4/+7fascist? i am a libertarian and against totalitarianism of the democrats and republicans. the private sector has no power over our lives, it is because of government laws of eminent domain that people's personal property rights are not respected (and our houses can be taken away if, for example, someone wants to build a highway), not because of private contractors, who would not be allowed to bulldoze your house if they wanted to build a freeway if it weren't for the eminent domain laws that government grants.
          • Corrosionx, on 05/03/2008, -2/+6At least the private sector can't pass laws and threaten violence against you if you don't pay them their extortion money (oh sorry, taxes)
          • pintomp3, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Karna. yes fascist:
            "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
          • andrew1193, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1"Karna. yes fascist:"

            Only the stupid use that quote; those too stupid to do even rudimentary research and discover that Mussolini never said such a thing.
          • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2corporatism is when corporations have control of government and libertarians are jsut as opposed to that as well. i encourage you to not be closed minded and judgemental about philosophies you don't know about. i oppose subsidies or government mandated monopolies, it's the democrats and republicans that don't. please read up on libertarian beliefs
          • Corrosionx, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1andrew1193: who cares if he did say it or not, it's 100% true. Today, the UNITED STATES itself is a corporation that pretends to be the lawful government (that's not conjecture, that's fact, draw your own conclusions).
          • andrew1193, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Corporatism is a form of guild socialism meant to eliminate competition. It means dividing the economy up into government assemblies representing economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. It has nothing to do with business corporations.
        • ShootTheCore, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2We heard you the first time...
      • blast_flame, on 05/03/2008, -4/+3Ideally private individuals and organizations acting voluntarily. If the government does want to put pressure on these countries to stop censorship then they should do it themselves instead of forcing the companies to act as a middle man.
      • zeromancer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2No one should do it. It doesn't need it.
    • pintomp3, on 05/03/2008, -4/+12that's like saying "i'm all for the end of slavery, but the government should not be the one to do it". then who?
      • HotBaconSauce, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Yes because that's exactly what the Civil War was about.
    • Alix7, on 05/03/2008, -20/+11What the ***** are you Ron Paul retards doing Digging him up.

      THE WHOLE POINT OF A ***** GOVERNMENT IS TO ENSURE LAWS AND REGULATIONS ARE PASSED, IF YOU DON'T LIKE GOVERNMENT MAINTAINING CONTROL YOU CAN GO LIVE IN THE FOREST AND ENJOY YOUR SOCIETY OF ANARCHISM.
      • blast_flame, on 05/03/2008, -2/+14Fail. The correct role of government is to protect the life, liberty and property of those within its territory. If the correct role of government was to just pass whatever laws it wanted regardless of whether they protect these then every government action in history from nazi germany to soviet russia and north korea would be legitimate. Secondly I love civilization. Most libertarians do. Technology is at the center of human liberty after all.
        http://reason.com/news/show/125469.html?NotTheHome ...
        • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4blast flame, some people just don't get it.
        • pintomp3, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2this is not about legislating companies in other countries, it's about legislating US companies. just because a US multinational corporation dumps toxic waste in other country doesn't mean it can't be regulated here.
          • blast_flame, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1But this isn't even like stopping a us company from dumping waste in america, it's like stopping companies from dumping waste in other countries.
      • Viend, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3They have power in the forest too...
    • Mohdoo, on 05/03/2008, -3/+10I'm sorry, but that is just stupid. The government needs to be used for SOMETHING. What, you think companies are just gonna be sweet little angels on their own? Government has a place. It needs limits, controlled by the voters. If the voters agree, it is fine. It only becomes a problem when the government does not represent the people.
      • Corrosionx, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4It never does.
      • blast_flame, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Firstly companies probably would still be fairly good on their own in order to get business. Second if you get 100% of voters to agree on something then I have no problem with the government doing it. If it's only 51% however what you have is a majority enforcing its views on a minority so you still have to be careful and think rather than just saying to yourself "it was voted on so it's fine..."
    • zman14321, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3The only thing government should really regulate is itself, and in the case of internet censorship, I think this applies.
    • zeromancer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2right on, hungryman. This is a good bill in principle, but it STILL goes against Net Neutrality. If you're regulating the internet so it isn't regulated, guess what? it's still being regulated. And who the ***** is the United States to be the one to do it? The Internet belongs to the people. It's the last frontier, and the last place freedom can reside. Keep the government's dirty fingers out of it.
      • zman14321, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Agreed, I think internet neutrality is unnecessary. The problems with ISPs abusing power should be dealt with when they arrive, and if they pull an AOL stunt they will fail, much like AOL's attempt to sandbox the internet did.
  • Nhmarine, on 05/03/2008, -3/+7Our government should not have the right to interfere with other governments' policies, we should adopt a program of isolationism instead of aiding foriegn nations at our expense.... Oh, wait.... Iraq.... Nvm.
    • taradisiac, on 05/03/2008, -7/+2You forgot the VOTE RON PAUL at the end of that.
      • orxor, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4Well considering Ron Paul wants the opposite of isolationism don't see how that would apply. Ron Paul wants friendship and free commerce with all nations. It's the embargoes and sanctions that the current government establishes that isolate the US more than anything Ron Paul proposes. Just try and visit Cuba and you'll see what I mean.The current government causes the US to be disliked and even hated around the world and isolates us from some countries that we deem undesirable so hell yeah vote Ron Paul.
  • starfisch, on 05/03/2008, -3/+32What gives Bill the right? Who does he think he is?
    • stilesja, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6Gary often tries to pull this ***** as well.
  • Daedalus17, on 05/03/2008, -8/+5Great....so now China will have no Google instead of Google-lite. I'm sure that will be great for human rights! Go government!
  • darkhand, on 05/03/2008, -1/+21What about a bill that does exactly this, but for our own citizens and on our own soil? Lets legislate for ourselves, not for other countries.
  • funchords, on 05/03/2008, -4/+17This is a terrible idea. What is better:
    1. A [poorly] censored Internet?
    2. No internet?

    Censorship NEVER works. I talk daily with people behind Arab and Chinese firewalls who easily bypass their devices.

    This law would deny them access to a limited "Google" or "Yahoo" and only censors the net further.

    • Cerin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0I know Google and Yahoo are popular sites, but they alone don't comprise "the internet". Removing them, which wouldn't necessarily happen under this bill, would not remove all Internet from all non-U.S. countries. Besides, if they're smart enough to bypass their government's firewall, then wouldn't they be smart enough to access a proxy that would give them access to the *full* version sites?
  • Carlix, on 05/03/2008, -2/+9Go Bill, Gates!
  • taradisiac, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2Yay! I realize this probably isn't retroactive, but the idea of treasonous scumbags like the Yahoo! CEO being considered criminals is good enough for me.
  • h3smith, on 05/03/2008, -3/+16America: Our laws are the laws of the world. Do what we say or we will bomb the ***** out of you.
    • Cerin, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0fyi, this bill penalizes U.S. companies, not foreign companies.
  • Smeed, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6I thought it was talking about Bill Gates
  • azarmi, on 05/03/2008, -4/+3Great Act!
    I hope Googlers change their policies soon...
  • jessenoob, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3Bill? What's he got to do with it?
    mmh, Bill...
  • Peko, on 05/03/2008, -1/+6That's what we need, US Executive with more power!
  • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -8/+5what liberals don't understand is that the private sector has no POWER over our lives, but government does. we should be taking "privileges" away from the government, not giving in to more government regulation. 50 years ago there was no Internet in our daily lives and people got along just fine, and now all of a sudden if a private ISP "censors" access to certain websites on the Internet that we voluntarily purchase access too (and sign a waiver form) our "rights" are suddenly being taken away? it does not make any sense. do we have a "right" to a house? do we have a "right" to mercedes? if you don't like the Internet you are getting, go to another ISP. the market regulates better than the government, which is bureaucratic, inefficient, corrupt and most importantly has POWER over our lives. in fact, it is government that is the only entity that censors (television and radio), now with government interference with the internet we can expect more encroachment into it's affairs which is bad for everyone
    • UltraDavid, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4Whoa, a post from 1980! How did you get here, guy who thinks liberals are the ones who want to give government more power? Welcome to the future, where the left wing is for less governmental intervention in private lives and the right wing is all about a strong centralized federal government that intrudes on individual private decisionmaking!
      • Karna101, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1i'm not right wing, i'm libertarian. i share a lot of stances with liberals (but for different reasons of course) like ending the war on drugs, immigration, pro-choice, etc...
  • wpyh, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Quote from the article: "... the US has done its own share of requesting data for questionable purposes..." Just look at the double standards. So much for a "human rights group".
    Well, they say that "legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes" are excepted though, which means that Yahoo providing data to the Chinese government is a "legitimate law enforcement purpose". Legitimate as in according to Chinese Law. Don't tell me the U.S. wants to define what is legitimate and what is not.
    I expect people will be burying my comment, but my point stands: double standards suck.
    • pighead77, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0On the countrary, double standards rock! Why? Tell me which government isn't?
  • Observer001, on 05/03/2008, -4/+2I don't care who does it, but information must be free if the human race is to survive the infinite calamities that await it with naught but cold, unfeeling likelihood to kill it. If a government wishes to help information flow freely, then that government is my ally. If it does not, it is not.
    • pighead77, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2I'm so sorry but in reality you're gonna be having no allies at all.
      • Observer001, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1Sucks if it happens, but at least I'll be just, you know?
  • cfuse, on 05/03/2008, -2/+4Erm, net neutrality first before pointing fingers perhaps?
  • BlackSpartacus, on 05/03/2008, -7/+1YES WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE....WE NEED FREEDOM, WE NEED FREEDOM GOD DAMN IT....WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS WORLD? IS IT GOING TO BE A 'ONE WORLD' DICTATORSHIP?...WAKE UP AMERICA,,,, WE NEED A REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY,,,, LET S FIRE CONGRESS AND SEND GOVERNOR (not president to me because he NEVER really won the 2000 election) BUSH TO JAIL.
    • lotsa1s, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1I'd say something about turning off caps lock to avoid sounding like a moron but your post is drowning in sheer idiocy and douchebaggery regardless of case.
  • exomni, on 05/03/2008, -2/+5Lame. Exceptions for censorship of US citizens, and the president executive power to censor to "defend for national security"?

    This is just puppet legislation to give the executive power of internet censorship.
  • JackSchittt, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3Dont ya love the way the US consistently wants to make sure the law applies to everybody but them?

    • anixmander, on 05/03/2008, -0/+0Name one government that doesn't think that way. The USG is no different than any other nation on the planet.
  • pighead77, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Hope the first batch of convicted firms include those aiding US government on eavesdropping and bypassing FISA.
  • dxgg, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Neil: Who's Bill?
  • JakeyG14, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2China. Will. Kill. Bill.

    * "Battle Without Honour or Humanity" plays *
  • genuchelu, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Who is Bill?
  • Geekiest, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2"It wouldn't be surprising to see the US waive the Act in the name of national security at the drop of the hat, so it seems dubious that our government would be take on the responsibility of holding others to these standards."
    It's true. Pathetic hypocrites.
  • Agent_Orange, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0Helping Communists to catch and imprison freedom fighters used to have a simple name: treason.
    I wonder what happened. When did treason become okay, and just business as usual?
    • wpyh, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.
  • UltraDavid, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2"Hey companies, here's a new law you'll have to follow. Or, you know, not. I forget, is our branch the one that makes laws?"
  • wackazz, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3Good old US of A...
  • randumbusername, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0years down the road this will be another blowback failure of the "do gooders". i bet if this was proposed by bush the supporters of the bill would be saying "we need to stay out of other countries affairs"

    people and politicians must love running companies out the US. many of these businesses do over half of their business outside the us and these emerging economies would be happy to pick up our scraps. i bet if this was directed towards iran the same supporters would have a fit.
  • mrdiggdude, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2If Hillary is president then Bill can do things like that as well?
  • fearmymullet, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3who the F*ck is this Bill guy anyways?
  • Wacer, on 05/03/2008, -2/+2I see comments that are for it and against it getting dugg up. That is pretty good evidence that most people don't know what the hell to think of it.
    • Suricou, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2I think the most common view is along the lines of 'Good idea, too many loopholes.'
  • liquidmetalband, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Good, but it won't get signed.
  • smotpoker1, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2put Comcast on that list for throttling .
  • genuchelu, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1When will Bill come?

    -borat
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.