http://www.azcongresswatch.com/?p=1197
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0223mccain-kyl.html
Censoring cyberspace
U.S. technology firms must stop selling out democracy to sell to regressive regimes
Jon
Kyl
My Turn
Feb. 23, 2006 12:00 AM
During Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the Pora youth movement mobilized thousands of demonstrators to protest fraudulent elections. In the revolution's aftermath, Pora's leaders were asked what single element was central to the movement's role in Ukraine's democratic transition. Was it money? International assistance? Trained organizers?
No, the youths of Pora used the Internet.
Google's decision to launch a censored version of its search engine for China has made headlines in recent weeks, and rightly so. By Google's own admission, Google.cn omits content objectionable to the Chinese government, including Web pages that discuss democracy, human rights, religion and political dissent: the very speech that we cherish as a basic human right.
But questions of freedom on the Internet extend far beyond Google's new cooperation with Beijing. The free flow of information has always threatened repressive regimes, and dictators have always sought to restrict it. The Internet is a new challenge for these regimes because it empowers with information and speech any person who can access the network. Corporations have made billions in profits leveraging this power.
But as valuable as the network is for commerce, it is even more critical for people to learn the truth about what is happening in their countries. By enabling discussion, debate and criticism of our governments, the Internet allows us to practice in cyberspace the essence of democracy.
That's precisely why governments that rule without their people's consent fear this power and are fighting the flow of information online. Call them the "Axis of (Censored)." The Axis employs many methods, and regrettably its members are not acting alone. American companies are complicit in the effort to neuter the Internet's democratic promise.
First, some companies have helped governments build filtering systems that block online content. China's "Great Firewall" is well known, but Syria, Iran, Burma and other members of the Axis also block access to sites that contain political or religious views deemed objectionable by the government. Cisco Systems has provided China with routers that are capable of blocking access to Web sites deemed unacceptable to the Chinese government.
Second, some companies have acquiesced to demands that they develop wholly new Web destinations that exclude information offensive to the regimes. Google.cn is today's best-known example, but Microsoft has also engaged in similar censorship by excluding the words "freedom" and "democracy" from postings and titles on its Chinese MSN Spaces blog service.
Most perniciously, some companies have helped repressive regimes identify individuals sending private e-mails and posting content online. Again, American companies have played along. Yahoo has turned over identifying information to Chinese authorities, allowing them to arrest and imprison at least one cyber-dissident.
The end result of these trends is that American companies are helping to build an alternative to the open Internet that has no place for dissidents and no news that dictatorships deem sensitive. Instead, it provides a warped view of the world. This is anathema to the principles of democracy, and to the Internet's promise of bringing the world together in a seamless Web of free communication.
We believe that American companies must develop and agree to abide by a code of conduct governing their interactions with repressive regimes, and we applaud the suggestion by some companies that they will consider such a step.
The code should adhere to the basic principles of openness and free expression that helped make the Internet the powerful tool of expression that it is today.
As a starting point, the code should require U.S. companies to avoid providing products or services that will be used to block political or religious speech, refrain from ever turning cyber-dissidents over to governments, and disclose dealings with governments that wish to use a company's products or services for censorship.
There is every hope in Congress that U.S. companies will take action on their own. But however this problem is solved, it's clear that something must change. Americans stand with those who oppose tyranny, not those who promote it. And that means all of us.
John McCain and Jon Kyl are Republican U.S. senators from Arizona. This column was published Tuesday in USA Today.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0223mccain-kyl.html
Censoring cyberspace
U.S. technology firms must stop selling out democracy to sell to regressive regimes
Jon
Kyl
My Turn
Feb. 23, 2006 12:00 AM
During Ukraine's Orange Revolution, the Pora youth movement mobilized thousands of demonstrators to protest fraudulent elections. In the revolution's aftermath, Pora's leaders were asked what single element was central to the movement's role in Ukraine's democratic transition. Was it money? International assistance? Trained organizers?
No, the youths of Pora used the Internet.
Google's decision to launch a censored version of its search engine for China has made headlines in recent weeks, and rightly so. By Google's own admission, Google.cn omits content objectionable to the Chinese government, including Web pages that discuss democracy, human rights, religion and political dissent: the very speech that we cherish as a basic human right.
But questions of freedom on the Internet extend far beyond Google's new cooperation with Beijing. The free flow of information has always threatened repressive regimes, and dictators have always sought to restrict it. The Internet is a new challenge for these regimes because it empowers with information and speech any person who can access the network. Corporations have made billions in profits leveraging this power.
But as valuable as the network is for commerce, it is even more critical for people to learn the truth about what is happening in their countries. By enabling discussion, debate and criticism of our governments, the Internet allows us to practice in cyberspace the essence of democracy.
That's precisely why governments that rule without their people's consent fear this power and are fighting the flow of information online. Call them the "Axis of (Censored)." The Axis employs many methods, and regrettably its members are not acting alone. American companies are complicit in the effort to neuter the Internet's democratic promise.
First, some companies have helped governments build filtering systems that block online content. China's "Great Firewall" is well known, but Syria, Iran, Burma and other members of the Axis also block access to sites that contain political or religious views deemed objectionable by the government. Cisco Systems has provided China with routers that are capable of blocking access to Web sites deemed unacceptable to the Chinese government.
Second, some companies have acquiesced to demands that they develop wholly new Web destinations that exclude information offensive to the regimes. Google.cn is today's best-known example, but Microsoft has also engaged in similar censorship by excluding the words "freedom" and "democracy" from postings and titles on its Chinese MSN Spaces blog service.
Most perniciously, some companies have helped repressive regimes identify individuals sending private e-mails and posting content online. Again, American companies have played along. Yahoo has turned over identifying information to Chinese authorities, allowing them to arrest and imprison at least one cyber-dissident.
The end result of these trends is that American companies are helping to build an alternative to the open Internet that has no place for dissidents and no news that dictatorships deem sensitive. Instead, it provides a warped view of the world. This is anathema to the principles of democracy, and to the Internet's promise of bringing the world together in a seamless Web of free communication.
We believe that American companies must develop and agree to abide by a code of conduct governing their interactions with repressive regimes, and we applaud the suggestion by some companies that they will consider such a step.
The code should adhere to the basic principles of openness and free expression that helped make the Internet the powerful tool of expression that it is today.
As a starting point, the code should require U.S. companies to avoid providing products or services that will be used to block political or religious speech, refrain from ever turning cyber-dissidents over to governments, and disclose dealings with governments that wish to use a company's products or services for censorship.
There is every hope in Congress that U.S. companies will take action on their own. But however this problem is solved, it's clear that something must change. Americans stand with those who oppose tyranny, not those who promote it. And that means all of us.
John McCain and Jon Kyl are Republican U.S. senators from Arizona. This column was published Tuesday in USA Today.
