IP: CDA -- The International Perspective

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

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.