Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: CDA -- The International Perspective
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 18:13:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 11:32:41 -0700 To: telstar () wired com From: telstar () wired com (--Todd Lappin-->) Well, we're in a holding pattern now, doing our best to remain patient while the judges in Philadelphia prepare their decision in the case of the Internet vs. The U.S. Department of Justice. But in the meantime, the mere passage of the Communications Decency Act has done tremendous damage to the cause of free speech in other countries around the globe. As Karen Sorensen, on-line research associate for Human Rights Watch, explains, "The U.S. Congress and the Clinton administration, reacting to recent hysteria over cyberporn, led the way by passing the Communications Decency Act." The following is an excerpt from a recent Human Rights Watch report on international efforts to limit free expression in cyberspace. Entitled, "SILENCING THE NET: The Threat to Freedom of Expression Online," the report details incidents of censorship and access restriction in countries like China, Germany, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and New Zealand. As the report notes: "Proposals to censor the Internet -- wherever they originate -- violate the free speech guarantees enshrined in democratic constitutions and international law. In the attempt to enforce them, open societies will become increasingly repressive, and closed societies will find new opportunity to chill political expression." Read on for more details. Work the network! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ======================================= SILENCING THE NET The Threat to Freedom of Expression On-line HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH For Further Information: Karen Sorensen (212) 972-8400, x 233 (Full text of this 24-page report is available viae-mail at sorensk () hrw org, or from the Human Rights Gopher: URL: gopher://gopher.humanrights.org:5000/11/int/hrw/general) SUMMARY Governments around the world, claiming they want to protect children, thwart terrorists and silence racists and hate mongers, are rushing to eradicate freedom of expression on the Internet, the international "network of networks," touted as the Information Superhighway. Restrictions on Internet access and content are increasing worldwide, under all forms of government. Censorship legislation was recently enacted in the United States, the birthplace of the Bill of Rights as well as of this new communications medium and, for better or worse, a model for other nations' Internet policies. The Clinton administration claims the law will protect minors from "indecent" material and appears unconcerned that it will reduce on-line expression between adults to what may be deemed suitable for a child. Other democratic countries are following suit. The German phone company cut off access to all the sites hosted by an American Internet service provider (ISP) in an effort to bar Germans from gaining access to neo-Nazi propaganda on one of the sites it hosted. The governments of France and Australia have also indicated they may enact legislation to control Internet content. Authoritarian regimes are attempting to reconcile their eagerness to reap the economic benefits of Internet access with maintaining control over the flow of information inside their borders. Censorship efforts in the U.S. and Germany lend support to those in China, Singapore, and Iran, where censors target not only sexually explicit material and hate speech but also pro-democracy discussions and human rights education. Proposals to censor the Internet wherever they originate violate the free speech guarantees enshrined in democratic constitutions and international law. In the attempt to enforce them, open societies will become increasingly repressive and closed societies will find new opportunity to chill political expression. Because the Internet knows no national boundaries, on-line censorship laws, in addition to trampling on the free expression rights of a nation's own citizens, threaten to chill expression globally and to impede the development of the Global Information Infrastructure (GII) before it becomes a truly global phenomenon. Democratic countries, including the U.S. and Germany, that are pushing for the development of the GII will lack legitimacy in criticizing efforts by China to eliminate information that "hinders public order" or by Vietnam, where the "the cultural aspect" is cited as a reason to censor connections to pro-democracy discussions abroad.1 (According to Nghiem Yuan Tinh, deputy director of Vietnam Data Communication Company, "The Internet must be controlled, not only for technical and security reasons but from the cultural aspect." "Plan by Telecom Authority to Exercise Control Over Internet Disturbs Foreign Investors and Agency," Financial Times (London), September 19, 1995.) An issue closely related to censorship is that of access, which is to a large extent determined by the existing telecommunications system. According to a 1995 report by the Panos Institute, a London-based international non-profit organization specializing in development issues, Access requires a telephone line. Forty-nine countries have fewer than one telephone per 100 people, 35 of which are in Africa. India, for example, has 8 million telephone lines for 900 million people. At a global level at least 80% of the world's population still lacks the most basic telecommunications.2 (The Internet and the South: Superhighway or Dirt-Track? (London: Panos Institute, 1995).) Opportunities to promote access have never been greater, however. New communications technologies are providing developing countries with an unprecedented means to leapfrog antiquated communication networks. Limits on access are imposed by governments for a variety of reasons, including economic gain and political control. Some governments, including India and Saudi Arabia, have chosen to control the liberalizing effect of the Internet by denying access to entire segments of their populations, either through exorbitant charges or by confining access to select populations, such as universities. Rather than attempting to extend the Internet to a diverse group of citizens, these governments are striving to reap the economic benefits of Internet access without making it available to economically, socially, and politically disadvantaged groups, for whom it has the greatest potential for positive change. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, individuals who have Internet connections through foreign-owned corporations are able to elude these restrictions. Even at this relatively early stage in the Internet's development, a wide range of restrictions on on-line communication have been put in place in at least twenty countries, including the following: -- China, which requires users and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to register with authorities; -- Vietnam and Saudi Arabia, which permit only a single, government- controlled gateway for Internet service; -- United States, which has enacted new Internet-specific legislation that imposes more restrictive regulations on electronic expression than those currently applied to printed expression; -- India, which charges exorbitant rates for international access through the state-owned phone company; -- Germany, which has cut off access to particular host computers or Internet sites; -- Singapore, which has chosen to regulate the Internet as if it were a broadcast medium, and requires political and religious content providers to register with the state; and -- New Zealand, which classifies computer disks as publications and has seized and restricted them accordingly. Privacy issues are closely related to the regulation of content and access. On-line communications are particularly susceptible to unauthorized scrutiny. Encryption technology is needed to ensure that individuals and groups may communicate without fear of eavesdropping. Lack of information privacy will inhibit on-line speech and unnecessarily limit the diversity of voices on the GII. The Internet has the potential to be a tremendous force for development by providing quick and inexpensive information, by encouraging discussion rather than violence, and by empowering citizens, to cite but a few examples. But this potential can be realized only if it becomes a truly global effort. Policy makers must make every effort to ensure that internationally guaranteed rights to free expression are extended to on-line communication and call for the repeal of censorship legislation. Without such commitments, individuals face the danger of seeing their rights eroded by the very technologies they are embracing. This report recommends principles for international and regional bodies and nations to follow when formulating public policy and laws affecting the Internet, sets forth the international legal principles governing on-line expression, and, finally, examines some of the current attempts around the globe to censor on-line communication. RECOMMENDATIONS The meeting of the G7 countries (Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States) in South Africa in May 1996 to discuss the development of the GII should be used as one platform to emphasize the importance of freedom of expression.3 ( A UNESCO meeting was held in Madrid in March 1996 to discuss copyright protection on the Internet. To our knowledge, that conference represented the only U.N.-sponsored effort to address Internet regulation.) Regional agreements should clearly state that freedom of expression principles apply to electronic communication. These agreements should clarify that the Internet differs significantly from broadcast media in areas such as the level of choice and control afforded to the individual user. Because of such distinctions, it is important that the Internet not be subject to the same restrictions as are often imposed on broadcast media. It is important to promote the universal application of two important free expression principles not yet codified in international law. The first of these is an explicit prohibition against prior censorship, that is, requiring official approval of communication before making it public. Such a practice has been used by repressive governments against the press and could be invoked against electronic communication. The second is an explicit prohibition against restrictions of free expression by indirect methods, such as the abuse of controls over equipment or broadcasting frequencies used in the dissemination of information; or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions. Controls over newsprint have frequently been used to silence critical publications. Governments are already modernizing their techniques to include modem lines and international Internet connections. In its February 1995 letter to U.S. Vice President Al Gore on the eve of the G7 Ministerial Conference on the Information Society, Human Rights Watch joined with a number of other organizations in proposing the following principles regarding content, access, and privacy.4 ( The American Library Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Article 19, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, People for the American Way, Privacy International also signed the letter.) These principles are even more critical today, and we urge policy makers at the G7 conference in South Africa, and the framers of GII policy within other regional bodies and international organizations, to follow them. Content Issues Policy makers should take the initiative to expressly enshrine freedom of expression as a principle in the development of the GII. This should include: -- Prohibiting prior censorship of on-line communication on the GII. -- Demanding that any restrictions of on-line speech content be clearly stated in the law and limited to direct and immediate incitement of acts of violence. -- Requiring that laws restricting the content of on-line speech distinguish between the liability of content providers and the liability of data carriers. -- Insisting that on-line free expression not be restricted by indirect means such as excessively restrictive governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the GII. -- Calling for the promotion of noncommercial public discourse on the GII. -- Promoting the wide dissemination of diverse ideas and viewpoints from a wide variety of information sources on the GII. -- Ensuring that the GII enable individuals to organize and form on-line associations freely and without interference. Access Issues GII policy should emphasize the importance of providing Internet access to everyone, regardless of geographic or other factors. This should encompass: -- Including citizens in the GII development process from countries that are currently unstable economically, have insufficient infrastructure, or lack sophisticated technology. -- Providing nondiscriminatory access to on-line technology. -- Guaranteeing a full range of viewpoints, by providing access to a diversity of information providers, including noncommercial educational, artistic, and other public interest service providers. -- Providing two-way communication and enabling individuals to publish their own information and ideas. -- Protecting diversity of access by establishing technical standards that can be applied easily in a variety of systems. -- Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Privacy Issues Delegates to the G7 meeting and other meetings concerning policy on the GII should guarantee respect for the privacy of communication on the Internet by: -- Ensuring that personal information generated on the GII for one purpose is not used for an unrelated purpose or disclosed without the person's informed consent. -- Enabling individuals to review personal information on the GII and to correct inaccurate information. -- Providing privacy measures for information regarding on-line business transactions as well as content. -- Allowing users of the GII to encrypt their communications and information without restriction. The above recommendations are also pertinent to individual governments in shaping their own policies with respect to on-line communication. In addition, the following recommendations apply to domestic Internet policies: -- To ensure that domestic Internet services are designed to ensure universal access, governments should provide full disclosure of information infrastructure development plans and encourage democratic participation in all aspects of the development process. They should also advocate widespread use of the GII and strive to provide adequate training. In addition, governments should urge citizens to take an active role in public affairs by providing access to government information. -- In order to guarantee the privacy of on-line communication, governments should put in place enforceable legal protections against unauthorized scrutiny and use by private or public entities of personal information on the GII. They should also oppose controls on the export and import of communications technologies, including encryption. In addition, governments should conduct investigations on the GII pursuant only to lawful authority and subject to judicial review.
Current thread:
- IP: CDA -- The International Perspective Dave Farber (May 22)