Two Sides of the Same Coin:

Two Sides of the Same Coin:
America's Involvement in Both Sides of the Global Internet Censorship Problem

2007

Executive Summary

How can America’s leading the world in free speech and unencumbered access to information coincide with the inherent freedoms of American technology companies to sell their products to foreign governments which inhibit free speech? The free flow of information is a fundamental precept in America as is the relatively unrestricted liberty of a business firm to produce and sell products. New technologies force the clash of ideological and legal dogmas.

Background

Information Technology in the 21st century brings with it an avalanche of advances and possibilities in nearly every human endeavor. The access and sharing of information worldwide promises to bring civilizations into realms unimagined in past centuries. Democratic ideals involve freedom of information for all people worldwide. Internet technology enables an explosion of business, personal, educational, health, and entertainment retrievable across the globe. Nations of all persuasions recognize the advantages of the instantaneous flow of information and for the most part have embraced the new technologies. The economies of countless nations benefit from the massive amounts of information at their immediate disposal.

Along with the free access of administrative information is the recognition by totalitarian regimes that the flip side of the ease of data access is the ability of their citizens to access ideas they, the regime, have historically tightly controlled to maintain their power. This is the crux of the problem: many nations world-wide are limiting the people's use of the internet and its unfettered access to information in efforts to maintain control over the people. This form of censorship, as are all forms of suppression, anathema to the very precepts of Democracy.

Information Technology censorship, specifically internet filtering or blocking has many forms and purposes ranging from corporate internet firewalls that restrict access to private data (nominal), to monitoring of websites, including child predator sites (watchlist) to the blocking of information on websites that Americans would consider commonplace (substantial/pervasive).

Figure 1 illustrates the variants of internet blocking by nations.
Figure 1

Three nations, in particular, practice censorship of internet information by blocking, filtering or controlling Internet Service Providers, ISPs; search engine results; and websites to such egregious levels that special attention must be made to address their practices.

These nations are China, Myanmar and Iran. While all three nations practice censorship in ways that differ, their ultimate premise, that of denying unfettered information to the people is equal and methods for filtering are similar.

The United States’ goal of challenging information censorship and fostering democratic ideals is bolstered by the president's recent comments on global and economic freedoms in China: "As China reforms its economy, its leaders are finding that once the door to freedom is opened even a crack, it cannot be closed. As the people of China grow in prosperity, their demands for political freedom will grow as well." 1

Contrasting the president's pronouncement, the following statement from the Tiananmen Papers illustrates the gulf that still exists in global ideologies.

"The party believes it has learned from Tiananmen that democracy is not an irresistible force. Contrary to views in the West that globalization and modernization brings on fundamental changes in a party-state system, leading to some form of democracy. For the Chinese leaders, the lesson of Tiananmen is that at its core, politics is about force."2

American ideology refutes the opinion stated in the Tiananmen papers as does the United Nations. UNESCO’s Position Statement on Internet Governance states:

“Modifications must not result in the global internet governance system becoming subjected to governmental control, nor should they facilitate or permit censorship.
Any global Internet management system or mechanism must be technically competent, transparent and non-partisan.”3

China
Internet Usage

Use of the Internet is continuing to spread in China. According to the China Internet Network Information Centre (CNNIC), “the number of Internet users reached 162 million, or 12.3 per cent of the population, on 1 July. A total of 1.3 million Chinese websites have been listed. And 19 percent of China’s Internet users have their own blog.”4

“China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated, and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world.”5

“Chinese will be the second language of the internet and may even become dominant. This provides propagandists in Beijing with untold new opportunities to try to shape a Chinese political culture that stretches well beyond its physical boundaries.”6

“The "Government On-line" initiative, launched in 1998, aimed to ensure that 80 percent of all government agencies - local and national - had web sites by the end of 2000. Has put 3000 government departments online.”7

“In 1978 Deng Xiaopeng replaced ideology with economic growth as the cornerstone of future party legitimacy.”7

“China's IT sector has been growing at three times the rate of the overall economy.”7

Internet Restrictions

The Golden Shield Project, also known pejoratively as “the Great Firewall of China is a censorship and surveillance project. Content is blocked by preventing IP addresses from being routed to the user's computer.” 8

Restrictions to internet use include “the online transmission of "state secrets" a useful catchall for limiting content, sites publishing news may not generate their own content, but may only republish stories from official sources. Some sites hosting chat rooms employ human monitors known as "big mamas" to delete content.“9

“Internet Service Providers, ISPs, are required to keep records of all subscriber's names, account numbers and phone numbers they dial in from.”9

“30,000 to 50,000 people are employed in the internet control system. The government blocked 19,000 sites in a six month period and may have blocked as many as 50,000.”10

Blocked websites11

“China has blocked Wikipedia on two occasions. June 2004 and October 2005.”12
“Media: BBC News, Radio Free Asia, United Nations News, Voice of America, Yahoo! Hong Kong, YouTube
Government and Political Parties sites
NGOs: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Students for a Free Tibet

Personal Blogs; Online Games”13

“Most American media sites (CNN, MSNBC, ABC are generally available, although the BBC remains blocked.)”14

Methods

“Chinese search engines filter content by keyword and remove search results from their lists.

Cybercafés are required to track internet usage and retain information for 60 days.

Limits to China's content control includes it's abandonment of a massive firewall because it hobbled the whole system, including valuable business global market and capital information.

Self-censoring. Because of highly publicized arrests.”15

Myanmar
Internet Usage

“By end of 2005, Myanmar had 63,000 internet users. Still the least compared with other Southeast Asian countries. The Myanmar government plans to add internet service centers to facilitate communications especially in business and education.”17
“The government has launched e-government systems - e-visa, e-passport, e-procurement.

There are 2 ISPs in Burma

15000 subscribers, serving 5-10 people, at most 0.6% of population
Dial-up, slow, too expensive for the average Burmese
Broadband is very expensive
Computers are very expensive
Most people use Cyber Cafés”18

“At the height of the protests against the military junta, Irrawaddy non-profit news magazine which focuses on developments in Burma, magazine online portal had 31 million hits. Many of the magazines images were supplied by those inside Burma who had joined the protest marches.”19

Internet Restrictions

“Burma's media controls are considered among the world’s strictest.”20

"Anonymous internet use at cybercafés is impossible – users must register to gain access.

Cybercafés are required to take screenshots of user activity every five minutes. Causes users to self-censor.”21

“The 1996 Computer Science Development Law requires that all network-ready computers, as well as fax machines, be registered with the Ministry of Communications, Posts and Telegraphs (MPT). Failure to register carries a prison term of 7-15 years and a possible fine. “22

“The government monitors all emails.”23

“Blocked websites
Pornography
Human Rights
Pro-democracy
Free email sites (Yahoo! Mail, Hotmail)” 21

Methods

“Myanmar uses "just in time" filtering, internet access is closed off, but designed to appear to be technical difficulties. “24

“The 1996 Computer Science Development Law requires that all network-ready computers, as well as fax machines, be registered with the Ministry of Communications, Posts and Telegraphs (MPT) failure to register carries a prison term of 7-15 years and a possible fine. “25

IRAN
Internet Usage

“Approximately 5 million users, expected to be 25 million by 2009

Tehran has 1500 cybercafés

Polls show that people trust the Internet more than any other media outlet, including domestic television and radio broadcasts.”27

“Farsi is the third-most-popular language for Internet Web sites (many of these were written from outside the country).”28

Internet Restrictions

“Individuals who subscribe to ISPs must promise in writing not to access "non-Islamic" sites.

Iranians began to create blogs to circumvent the state's control over traditional media.” 29

“Blocked websites
Farsi language websites
Pornography
Gay and lesbian content
Politically sensitive sites
Foreign sites” 30

Methods

“Iran has adopted one of the world's most substantial internet censorship regimes.

Inspectors monitor cybercafés by visiting onsite.

Relies on US company’s software to carry out its filtering. Smart Filter - Secure Computing, Inc. denies the sale or authorization of its product to Iran.” 31

US Involvement
The United States government and private American firms are inextricably linked to both sides of the censorship issue. Briefly,

on the side of opposing censorship:

The State Department has formed the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, GIFT which monitors internet usage and provides funding to individuals and companies who build censorship defeating proxy applications.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors, the umbrella organization of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, et al., has a special unit devoted to connecting proxy links to users across the globe.

on the side supporting censorship:

U.S. based firms which own and operate some of the leading search engines are accused of abiding by Chinese requirements to make their search results regime-acceptable, excluding results that would show up in the US for example.

U.S. based firms which produce the hardware and server software that runs the internet are accused of baking in web blocking mechanisms.

Figure 2 illustrates the source and destination of some of the alleged ties to internet blocking provided by U.S. companies. 33

Figure 2

The Strategic Plan of The Broadcasting Board of Governors, the umbrella organization of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, includes in its goals to accelerate internet into its mix of outreach programs. One of its initiatives involves funding a private company, Anonymizer Inc to maintain a special version of its proxy software for allowing anonymous connections in Iran.35 The BBG email campaign sends millions of emails each week listing 2 to 6 proxy servers, whose URLs are changed almost daily to keep ahead of the censors. The proxy websites default to a VOA or RFA page, but includes jump bars that will allow connecting to any other site.36

The US State Department announced the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, GIFT, in 2006, with a primary focus on monitoring internet freedom in countries around the world.37 GIFT's mission is to maximize freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas, to minimize the success of repressive regimes in censoring and silencing legitimate debate, and to promote access to information and ideas over the internet.38

American Companies, including Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft are under fire for collaborating in censorship by withholding search engine results. Yahoo and Cisco reportedly turned over information to Chinese authorities about an internet writer resulting in his imprisonment.39

The filtering software and server hardware and configurations used in these countries are developed and sold by US private firms.

Software maker Fortinet, a California-based firm is accused of selling its internet blocking software FortiGuard to Myanmar. The company denies the sale, but concedes it may have been sold by a reseller. 40

Cisco Systems, a San Jose company, denies helping the Chinese government implement its internet censoring tool, The Golden Shield Project, also known as the Great Firewall of China.41

Cisco and Microsoft respond by stating that they simply sell the technology to China and they cannot control how it is used. 42

Proposal

There exists a desire to both inhibit censorship allowing for the full freedom of information to people worldwide while allowing American technology firms to enjoy the freedoms and profits of selling their products to a global market. In an effort to develop the proper legal parameters to enable both to occur, the 110th Congress of the United States has put forth a Bill, H.R. 275: Global Online Freedom Act of 2007 “To promote freedom of expression on the internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments, and for other purposes. The bill passed a voice vote by Congress on October 23, 2007. 43

The Bill proposes:

Establishment in the Department of State the Office of Global Internet Freedom (OGIF).

Directing the President to annually designate Internet-restricting countries. Prohibiting U.S. businesses from locating, within such countries, any electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information.

Prohibiting U.S. businesses that collect or obtain personally identifiable information through the Internet from providing that information to Internet-restricting countries, except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes.

Requiring U.S. businesses to report certain Internet censorship information involving Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF.
Prohibiting U.S. businesses that maintain Internet content hosting services from jamming of U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported content in Internet-restricting countries.

Requiring a feasibility study regarding the development of controls on exporting items facilitating Internet freedom reductions to Internet-restricting countries. 44

In the coming weeks the house Committee on Foreign Affairs will hear executives from Yahoo regarding its disclosure of information that led to the arrest of a Chinese journalist. 45

In the case where H.R. 275 passes the congress, the President’s options are:

Sign it into law without changes

Sign it into law with the following changes:

Requiring involvement of the American judicial system in such cases where a foreign government claims a legitimate law enforcement situation when requesting personally identifiable information.

Removal of the provision: Requires U.S. businesses to report certain Internet censorship information involving Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF. as it imposes a burden on private firms for information that is already obtainable through NGOs.

Refuse to sign the bill

Repercussions
Some fear that American companies will be placed in an untenable position between US law and Chinese law. 46

The targeting of internet service providers to enforce a country’s free speech restrictions has concerns 42 including sovereignty issues.47

Some in the investment community fear that American businesses will be stymied from continued business in any nation where the US laws be viewed as impediments to their objectives. Further that foreign technology companies, particularly in the robust growing Chinese economy may be inhibited from tapping US equity markets, scaring them off to Shanghai or Hong Kong exchanges rather than NASDAQ for fear of penalties and fines.48

Progress Check

If the Bill passes the Congress, with or without significant medication, the U.S. government, through the Department of State, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Foreign Trade Office, the Commerce Department and other agencies will need to periodically monitor the outcomes of the Bill. It is likely that Amendments to the Bill will be needed as the technology changes and circumventions to the law are discovered.

If the Bill fails to pass the manufacturers and sellers of the products to foreign governments will need to be monitored by means of other foreign trade laws.

Bibliography

Illustration Figure 1. OpenNet Initiative, http://map.opennet.net/index1.html

1 Linsey Hilsum, "Why Burma was Crushed," New Statesman, October 8, 2007, p.27
2 Zhang Liang, pseudonym, "The Tiananmen Papers," Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2001 p. 9.

3 UNESCO and Internet Governance - Position Statement 25-26 March, 2004, New York, NY
4 "CHINA, Journey to the heart of Internet," Reporters without Borders, October 2007, p.1.
5 Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005: A Country Study April 14, 2005, OpenNet Initiative, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/, p.4

6 Governance in a Globalizing World Joseph Nye Jr. and John D. Donahue "Visions of Governance for the 21st Century Cambridge, Mass. Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C. p. 223-24.

7 Nina Hachigian "China's Cyber Strategy," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2001, p. 119.

8 Wikipedia, "Golden Shield Project," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Shield_Project

9 Nina Hachigian "China's Cyber Strategy," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2001, p. 123-124, 126.
10 US Dept of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2005. March 8. 2006
11 Reporters without Borders for Press Freedom http://www.rsf.org
12 Wikipedia, "Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_of_Wikipedia_in_mainland_China
13 Wikipedia, "List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_websites_blocked_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China.
14 Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005: A Country Study April 14, 2005, OpenNet Initiative, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/
15 Nina Hachigian "China's Cyber Strategy," Foreign Affairs, March/April 2001, p. 119.

16 US State Dept Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005, Myanmar,
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor March 8, 2006, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61603.htm, p.

17 People's Daily Online http://english.people.com.cn
18 "Country Study Internet Filtering in Burma 2005," OpenNet Initiative, p. 5, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/burma

19 Marcus Brogden, "We are Winning the Propaganda War" New Statesman, October 8, 2007, p.29

20 "Country Study Internet Filtering in Burma 2005," OpenNet Initiative, p.8, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/burma

21 "Country Study Internet Filtering in Burma 2005," OpenNet Initiative, p. 11, 12, 15, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/burma

22 "Country Study Internet Filtering in Burma 2005," OpenNet Initiative, p.9-10, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/burma

23 US State Dept Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005, Myanmar,
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor March 8, 2006, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61603.htm, p.13

24 Seth Mydans, Mike Nizza, "Monks are Silenced, and for Now, the Web is Too," The New York Times, Oct 4, 2007.

25 "Country Study Internet Filtering in Burma 2005," OpenNet Initiative, p.9-10, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/burma

26 US Dept of State, "Iran: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005”
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, March 8, 2006
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm, p.11

27 OpenNet Initiative, "Country Study: Internet FIltering in Iran 2004-2205, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/Iran, p.4-5

28 US Dept of State, "Iran: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005”
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, March 8, 2006
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm, p. 13

29 OpenNet Initiative, "Country Study: Internet FIltering in Iran 2004-2205, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/Iran, p.4.

30 OpenNet Initiative, "Country Study: Internet FIltering in Iran 2004-2205, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/Iran, p.10.

31 OpenNet Initiative, "Country Study: Internet FIltering in Iran 2004-2205, http://www.opennetinitiative.net/Iran, p.23.

32 US Dept of State, "Iran: Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005”
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, March 8, 2006
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61688.htm: p.6, p.9.

33 Illustration Figure 2. OpenNet Initiative, http://map.opennet.net/index2.html

34 Broadcasting Board of Governors., “Marrying the Mission to the Market Strategic Plan 2002-2007"

35 Kevin Poulson, "US Sponsors Anonymiser," The Register, August 29, 2003, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/29/us_sponsors_anonymiser_if_you/print.html.

36 - Broadcasting Board of Governors, "SARS in China: Implications for Media Control and the Economy," testimony of Kenneth Berman, June 5, 2003. Washington, DC: p. 4. http://www.bbg.gov/printerfr.cfm?articleID=76.

37 US State Dept. "State Summary of Global Internet Freedom Task Force," December 20, 2006, Washington DC, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=texttrans-english&y=2006&m=December&x=20061220173640xjsnommis0.708233

38 ibid.

39 Carol Walker, "State Department Official Says Internet Aids Spread of Democracy" U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, April 11, 2006 http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=April&x=20060411170434bcreklaw3.014773e-02

40 TOM ZELLER Jr., "Study Says Software Makers Supply Tools to Censor Web" New York TImes, October 12, 2005

41 John Earnhardt, "Cisco/China "Ruckus"," August 25, 2005, http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2005/08/ciscochina_ruckus.html

42 “Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005: A Country Study," April 14, 2005, OpenNet Initiative, p.7 http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/

43 H.R. 275: Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, GovTrack.us: Tracking the 110th United States Congress, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-275&tab=sum...

44 Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, 110th Congress, H.R. 275

45 Anne Broache, "Politicos OK limits for U.S. firms in Net-censoring
countries," October 23, 2007, CNET News, http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9802616-7.html.

46 Anne Broache, "Politicos OK limits for U.S. firms in Net-censoring
countries," October 23, 2007, CNET News, http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9802616-7.html.

47 Carol Walker, "State Department Official Says Internet Aids Spread of Democracy" U.S. Department of State, Washington DC, April 11, 2006 http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=April&x=20060411170434bcreklaw3.014773e-02

48 Chris Myrick, “FOCUS - Proposed 'online freedom act' may hurt US and US-listed China firms," AFX News Limited, February 16, 2006,
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/02/16/afx2531410.html