Internet Freedom

Supporters of increased anti-piracy efforts, including the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, are the "greatest threat" to Internet freedom in the United States, a former Federal Trade Commission official said on Tuesday.

Two years after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out U.S. support for global Internet freedom, efforts to crack down on online theft, increase surveillance, or block protests have proved those words to be empty promises, said Christopher Soghoian, a research fellow at George Soros' Open Society Foundations and a former technologist at the FTC's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection.

"It's really time to stop quoting Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet freedom," he said at a Media Access Project forum on Internet freedom. "The last two years have shown those were hollow, shallow words."

While the copyright lobby is pushing for stricter Internet piracy laws, thousands of Internet companies have mobilized to protest proposed anti-piracy bills, which were eventually abandoned.

Soghoian called such proposals "truly heinous" and said they undermine the free flow of information online. "There are many bad things on the horizon and Hollywood is pushing them," he said. "In an attempt to protect their own failing and sinking business model, they are willing to take the Internet down with them."

Supporters of the House's Stop Online Piracy Act and the Senate's Protect IP Act said online theft of intellectual property is out of control and is hurting the economy as a whole. Fears of censorship and control are overblown by Internet companies that profit off the flow of illegal content, supporters like the Motion Picture Association of America have said.

But not all threats to global Internet freedom are homegrown.

While the gap between countries with relatively free Internet access and those that censor and control the Web has increased in recent years, Google's Bob Boorstin said he will be watching countries that haven't fully gone one way or another. "Are they going to go the right way? Or the wrong way and try to clamp down on information," he said.

The controversial advocacy group Demand Progress can't get enough of Lamar Smith.

After working to torpedo the Texas Republican's Stop Online Piracy Act, Demand Progress is taking aim at another of Smith's bills.

The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act (HR 1981), which cleared Smith's House Judiciary Committee 19-10 last year after a hotly contested markup, would require Internet service providers to keep some user information on file to help track pedophiles and child pornographers. The bill's supporters say it does not require the collection of content and most ISPs already retain the data.

Still, the measure drew attention from critics who see a potential to undermine privacy and civil liberties.

House aides say the bill is effectively dead for now, but that hasn't stopped opponents from reigniting the debate after SOPA and its Senate companion bill were shelved. The issue also resurfaced on the link-sharing website Reddit, where users organized opposition to SOPA.

Demand Progress, which claims a following of more than one million, is asking supporters to send letters to Congress opposing the bill.

"We taught Congress a lesson last month: We need to do to HR 1981 what we did to SOPA, and make it clear to Lamar Smith and the rest of Congress that they can't run roughshod over Internet freedom," the group's executive director, David Segal, said in a statement.

Smith's spokeswoman, Kim Hicks, said child pornography is one of the fastest growing crimes in the U.S. "The Internet can be a force for good or bad," she said. "But it should not be used to facilitate crimes against our children."

During the fight over anti-piracy legislation the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Demand Progress of using scare tactics to distort the issue.

A group of House and Senate lawmakers want the State Department to investigate whether some telecom companies,including the Chinese tech firm Huawei, may have violated a U.S. law barring companies that export sensitive telecommunications technology to Iran from doing business with the U.S. government.

They wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pointing to an October story from the Wall Street Journal that identifies Huawei's dealings with Iran given that the State Department has yet to identify any companies that might be violating the 2010 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act. The article claims that Huawei has supplied to Iranian mobile phone companies sensitive technology covered by the law that allows Iranian police to track users.

The letter, dated Dec. 22 and signed by Reps. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., and Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., also notes that the Journal article and other news stories have identified other companies that may have supplied sensitive telecom technology to Iran.

"We ask you to expeditiously investigate whether Huawei and other telecommunications
firms have violated section 106 of CISADA by providing sensitive technology to the Iranian government that is or has been used to restrict the speech of the Iranian people and the free flow of unbiased information in Iran, and that you ensure taxpayer funds are not being used to support companies engaged in such activity," they wrote.

Top human rights officials from four international organizations called on governments Wednesday to do more to respect freedom of expression on the Internet.

The declaration was issued by rapporteurs who deal with human rights and freedom of expression issues from the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, and the African Commission on Human Rights and Peoples' Rights.

"Freedom of expression applies to the Internet, as it does to all means of communication. Restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are only acceptable if they comply with established international standards, including that they are provided for by law, and that they are necessary to protect an interest which is recognized under international law," according to the declaration released at a news conference in Budapest, Hungary.

The document outlined other principles including protection from liability for Internet service providers and other intermediaries for content they have no control over; support for network neutrality; and opposition to the blocking or filtering of Internet content or websites.

Last week at the eG8 forum just before the G8 summit in France, French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for greater government regulation of the Internet and protection of intellectual property.

Sarkozy's comments were criticized by Internet freedom groups and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google Executive Eric Schmidt, who were among several tech executives who attended the eG8 forum.

"Freedom of expression on the Internet must be fully protected," Agnes Callamard, executive director of ARTICLE 19, a London-based human rights and free expression group that helped draft the declaration, said in a statement. "These principles provide important guidance for national governments to meet their obligations."

The group was one of many critical of Sarkozy's comments and of the Internet document issued by the G8, which ARTICLE 19 said did not go far enough to recognize the obligation countries have to protect freedom of expression on the Internet.

The congressional assault on network neutrality regulations adopted by the Democratic-led Federal Communications Commission in December continues Wednesday, when the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee votes on a "resolution of disapproval" designed to derail the requirements, which prohibit the blocking or degrading of online competitors.

The panel is headed by Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who successfully added an amendment to the Continuing Resolution that would bar the agency from using its funding to implement the rules. Net neutrality advocates insist the regs are necessary to prevent broadband providers, especially major players such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, from dominating the Internet. But critics argue that the rules leave the Internet vulnerable to government intervention while imposing burdensome restrictions on communications companies.

The vote is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on March 2. To see the resolution, click here

After being mistreated by a policewoman and ignored by municipal officials, Mohamed Bouazizi, 26, doused himself with gasoline and set himself on fire Dec. 17, 2010, in the Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. He died Jan. 4.

Bouazizi's act, which was videotaped and posted on Facebook, sparked the revolution that overthrew Tunisian President Zine el Abidine Ben Alithe on Jan. 14, Nextgov.com reported.

"The revolution would have been impossible without Facebook," said Mohamed Al-Yahyai. The video of Bouazizi's suicide ignited rage among Tunisia's unemployed, oppressed and impoverished.

Bouazizi's friends then used Facebook to call for protests, and 10 protesters turned into 100 and then 1,000, said Al-Yahyai, a reporter for the Middle East Broadcasting Network's Alhurra Television.

A similar suicide shortly before Bouazizi's received no Internet coverage and provoked no reaction, Al-Yahyai recalled during a Feb. 15 discussion of new media and U.S. government efforts to use it to spread democracy.

Social networks also are being credited for rallying hundreds of thousands of Egyptian protesters who drove President Hosni Mubarak from power Feb. 11. Click here to read more.

Former Federal Communications Commission Chief Counsel Bruce Gottlieb (now National Journal's general counsel) discussed in National Journal Tuesday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speech on Internet freedom. Part of his commentary appears below:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has delivered a bold and -- given the context -- important speech Tuesday about freedom on the Web

It connects the dots between an open Internet, on the one hand, and political liberty, economic prosperity, and the crisis in Egypt and the Middle East, on the other.

Her major premise is that political liberty begets economic prosperity. Her minor premise is that, in the 21st century, protecting Internet openness is essential to maintaining a free society -- and thus is crucial to achieving economic well-being, as well.

For decades, the major premise was up for debate. The dilemma was posed most sharply by the (apparent) flourishing of the Soviet Empire. Was freedom a luxury we could not afford? (Just ask Senator McCarthy.) Even after the Wall fell, there was still great hand-wringing over the rise of Asian city-states like Singapore, which married eye-popping export growth with canings for spitting gum on the street. To read more, click here.

Egypt's shut down of the Internet in response to the pro-democracy riots taking place there was not only costly to its citizens when it comes to having access to key communications, it also proved costly to the nation's economy.

Preliminary figures released Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed that Egypt's decision to block Internet services for five days cost the country an estimated $90 million. The OECD said the blocked telecommunications and Internet services accounted for about 3 percent to 4 percent of the country's gross domestic product, which accounted for about $18 million a day.

"The long-term impact could be greater ... as it has cut off domestic and international high-tech firms who provide services globally and will make it much more difficult in the future to attract foreign companies and assure them that the networks will remain reliable. To date, attracting such firms has been a key strategy of the government," the OECD said in an e-mail to reporters Thursday.

Internet penetration in Egypt is still low compared to other OECD countries. Fixed and wireless broadband penetration was still under 10 percent as of December 2009, the OECD said. The average for OECD countries was about 23.3 percent as of December 2009.

In the United States, Egypt's move to cut off Internet access has prompted new debate over cybersecurity legislation that some critics say includes an emergency power provision that could be used by the U.S. president to shut down U.S. access to the Internet.

In response to such concerns, Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., issued a statement Tuesday insisting that the bill they offered in the last Congress, and are expected to reintroduce, would not allow the president to shut down the Internet.

Still, Free Press said late Wednesday that the last version of the bill included "broad, ambiguous language" that does not provide adequate safeguards.

"It's good to see the senators have heard the outcry from Americans troubled by this bill, but their promises that the bill won't give the president 'kill-switch' powers aren't very reassuring," Timothy Karr of Free Press said in a statement. "The devil is always in the details, and here the details suggest that this is a dangerous bill that threatens our free speech rights."

Even as street protests took a turn for the worse Wednesday, analysts and observers on the ground are reporting that Internet access seems to have returned in Egypt.

After a five-day blackout, analysts noticed a spike in Internet traffic at about 11:30 a.m. in Egypt, according to James Cowie of the Internet intelligence firm Renesys.

U.S. Internet companies also reported the surge. "Good news: Internet access being restored in Egypt," Google wrote in a Tweet Wednesday morning as the company's
"Transparency Report" recorded a spike in traffic.

Egypt's tight control of communications networks earned condemnation but also sparked concerns about Internet freedom in the United States.

"Those in Congress who have proposed an 'Internet Kill Switch' for the U.S. should realize the danger of their proposal now that Egyptian President Mubarak has flipped such a switch to stifle dissent in Egypt," said TechFreedom President Berin Szoka on Saturday. "This incident also demonstrates a more subtle point: Maintaining the rule of law in times of crisis demands judicial review for the president's decision to designate something a "critical asset" subject to government diktat in the name of protecting 'cybersecurity.'"

The authors of the legislation Szoka referenced, however, denied that their measure would allow the president to shut down U.S. access to the Internet.

In a statement Tuesday, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said their "cybersecurity legislation is intended to protect the U.S. from external cyber attacks. Yet, some have suggested that our legislation would empower the president to deny U.S. citizens' access to the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth."

They added, "We would never sign on to legislation that authorized the President, or anyone else, to shut down the Internet. Emergency or no, the exercise of such broad authority would be an affront to our Constitution."

They argued that the legislation they introduced in the last Congress includes provisions to protect Americans' First amendment rights and ability to access the Internet, while giving the president "ample authority to ensure that those most critical services that rely on the Internet are protected."

A recent internal test by a federally-funded broadcaster shows that the U.S. government has the power to bypass foreign Internet censors by feeding news over a special e-mail system. How that capability might affect events in Egypt, where leaders have cut off Internet services despite appeals by the Obama administration to restore them, remains unclear, Nextgov.com reported.

Between March and June 2010, the Broadcasting Board of Governors successfully used the tool in China to transmit news feeds from broadcasters Voice of America, CKXX and China Weekly, according to a report the nonprofit website GovernmentAttic.org obtained this month through a Freedom of Information Act request. The experiment offers a glimpse into the secret measures the State Department and U.S. broadcasters have taken -- and may currently be taking -- to enable the free flow of information when oppressive regimes cut off Internet access. Click here to read more.

Meanwhile, Google announced Monday that it has worked with Twitter to post messages on Twitter from those cut off from the Internet in Egypt. Those who want to Tweet a message can call three phone numbers and leave a message that will be tweeted using the hashtag #egypt. Those without Internet access can dial the same numbers (+16504194196 or +390662207294 or +97316199855) to listen to Tweets from Egypt.