Internet, Law & Politics 2007 - User contributions [en]

Main Page

2007-04-19T04:49:14Z

Arthur: /* Internet, Law, & Politics in the News */

<div style="float:right">
__TOC__
</div>
<center><big>'''Internet, Law, & Politics'''</big>

Spring Semester 2007, Prof. John Palfrey</center>

'''[[Official Syllabus]]'''

News & Updates:
* The '''final essay''' will be due on May 11, 2007 (the last day of exams).
* Post Von Hippel questions (4/17) [[Von Hippel questions | here]]

== Group Projects ==

{| width=100% cellpadding=3 cellspacing=5
|valign=top width="50%"|
[[Debate 1]]: "Resolved: The Internet enables citizens to have a greater voice in politics and is, on balance, already a tremendous force for strengthening participatory democracies around the world."

[[Debate 2]]: "Resolved: E-Government is a lot like Al Goreâs âreinventing governmentâ initiative when he was Vice-President: sounds like something that governments should obviously do, but no one much cares and the impact on society, after lots of effort, is negligible. Thereâs no special magic to governing in a digital age."
|valign=top|
[[Debate 3]]: "Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

[[Debate 4]]: "Resolved: The outcome of the digital intellectual property crisis is crucial to whether or not the use of the Internet ultimately has a positive impact in terms of strengthening democracies."
|}

== Class Notes ==
* [[Politics and Network Effects]] (Feb. 13, 2007)
* [[Municipal WiFi]] (Mar. 13, 2007)
* [[Politics and Digital Business]]: A Conversation on Regulation and Self-regulation (Apr. 10, 2007)

== Internet, Law, & Politics in the News ==

* Hello class. In response to the Zittrain article's discussion about how pornography helped fuel the internet boom, I refer you all to this article from Macworld[http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/02/pornhd/index.php?lsrc=mwrss] discussing how pornography played a role in VHS winning out over Beta and how pornography may contribute to Blu-ray winning out over HD-DVD. Notice that the article states that the pornography industry is a $57 billion industry. - Scott Lesowitz
* [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=16&articleId=9011204&intsrc=hm_topic Embattled Edwards Blogger Quits Campaign], ''Computerworld,'' Feb. 13, 2007.
* [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b46f5a58-aa2e-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html On free copies, Benkler, and open books]: "Yochai Benkler is a prominent academic. His widely praised book about the network economy, The Wealth of Networks, was published by Yale Press â a publisher not known for its radicalism. Yet with his publisherâs approval Benklerâs book is available for free online under a Creative Commons license. Instead of paying $40 one can simply download the book. Its sales are reportedly in the top rank of academic books. Benkler is delighted with the additional 20,000 readers who have downloaded it."
* In case there's anybody that has not seen it, this is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE a cool video] that explains the power of Web 2.0.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900934.html Blogger as Lobbyist?] "if you're not for net neutrality, then the blogs will kick your" rear. The grass-roots groups that strongly favor it are relatively small but very noisy, she said, "and you just don't want to have to deal with that."
* [http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,69234-0.html Wi-Fi Cloud Covers Rural Oregon] "While cities around the country are battling over plans to offer free or cheap internet access, this lonely terrain is served by what is billed as the world's largest hotspot, a wireless cloud that stretches over 700 square miles of landscape so dry and desolate it could have been lifted from a cowboy tune."
* [http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_03.php#005176 Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of âColbert Reportâ]: MoveOn and Brave New Films reacted by filing suit against Viacom for illegal takedown of YouTube Video. Here is the link to watch [http://falsiness.org/ "Stop the Falsiness"] video
*[http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6154930.html 'Web Giants' seek US Government resolution to Debate 3] - includes lots of good links relevant to today's debate.
*[http://www.lefigaro.fr/presidentielle-web/20070321.FIG000000371_o_est_l_e_egalite_.html OÃ¹ est l'e-Ã©galitÃ©? (Where is e-equality?)], ''Le Figaro'', 21 March 2007: French election laws mandate that equal air time must be given to all presidential candidates (twelve at last count) by traditional television and radio outlets. This very short article raises the question as to where such campaign equality can be found on the Internet. ''See also'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6525083.stm this BBC article]: the rules for Internet debates are more lax than those for TV debates under French election law, but Sarkozy refused to take advantage of this and declined an invitation to participate in an online debate that would include only four out of twelve candidates.
*Here comes another piece of news about Google in China. It's not directly related to human rights or civil liberties, but might be an interesting issue in terms of is Google really keeping it's "don't be evil" promise in China. Go back to the topic of third debate, if international corporations like Google practice the princile "be responsive to local situation" in this way, they may sacrifice more than Chinese citizen's civil liberties. Also, this event also intrigues nationalism attitude toward foreign Internet companies, which may in a long run affect their credibilities - "Are they coming to China really to help improve our liberties as they claimed, or just to steal our moeny?" http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11178/53/. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-04-09-google-sogou_N.htm
*Will American candidates take a cue from their French counterparts in devising web campaigns?[http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL1240935420070412?feedType=RSS U.S. Experts Eye French Election's Web Campaigning], April 12, 2007. American campaign strategists note that" 'In some ways, the Sarkozy site is more advanced than most of the typical American political sites, particularly in the use of video" and that Segolene Royal's site was "inspiring" in its use as a network/grassroots campaign. ''See also'' [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/paris.php?page=1 French Election Strategies Leave Americans Scratching Their Heads] April 13, 2007. [http://www.sarkozy.fr/home/ Official Site of Nicolas Sarkozy] [http://www.desirsdavenir.org/index_s.html Official Site of Segolene Royal]
*Yahoo got sued for helping identify Chinese dissidents under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act. Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19yahoo.html?ex=1334635200&en=ab9e062372ade430&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

== Other Interesting Topics ==

*I just found out that there will be a discussion on "Can the internet save democracy?" at Berkman Center on Feb 14, 2007, at 6 PM which subject might be in line with our course. More information can be found on http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/

* Beyond Broadcast 2007: From Participatory Culture to Participatory Democracy, will be held on Saturday, February 24 at MIT. Info: http://www.beyondbroadcast.net/blog/

* Reuters: pronounced ''Royters'' - love, [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sg2118.doc.htm ''Bahn Gi-moon'']

* The Internet is a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8 Series of Tubes]...awesome video. You can listen to Senator Stevens unaccompanied [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE&mode=related&search= here].

== Related Events ==

* [[Steve Schultze on the Convergence of Pop Culture and Political Action as it Creates a New, Networked Form of Participatory Democracy]]
* [[Beyond Broadcast 2007]]: From Participatory Culture to Participatory Democracy
* [[APALSA event]]
* [[Targeting the Youth Vote]]

==Event Responses==

Scott's Response to the Institute of Politics Event: http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=138638&forum_id=4

Main Page

2007-04-19T04:46:27Z

Arthur: /* Internet, Law, & Politics in the News */

<div style="float:right">
__TOC__
</div>
<center><big>'''Internet, Law, & Politics'''</big>

Spring Semester 2007, Prof. John Palfrey</center>

'''[[Official Syllabus]]'''

News & Updates:
* The '''final essay''' will be due on May 11, 2007 (the last day of exams).
* Post Von Hippel questions (4/17) [[Von Hippel questions | here]]

== Group Projects ==

{| width=100% cellpadding=3 cellspacing=5
|valign=top width="50%"|
[[Debate 1]]: "Resolved: The Internet enables citizens to have a greater voice in politics and is, on balance, already a tremendous force for strengthening participatory democracies around the world."

[[Debate 2]]: "Resolved: E-Government is a lot like Al Goreâs âreinventing governmentâ initiative when he was Vice-President: sounds like something that governments should obviously do, but no one much cares and the impact on society, after lots of effort, is negligible. Thereâs no special magic to governing in a digital age."
|valign=top|
[[Debate 3]]: "Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

[[Debate 4]]: "Resolved: The outcome of the digital intellectual property crisis is crucial to whether or not the use of the Internet ultimately has a positive impact in terms of strengthening democracies."
|}

== Class Notes ==
* [[Politics and Network Effects]] (Feb. 13, 2007)
* [[Municipal WiFi]] (Mar. 13, 2007)
* [[Politics and Digital Business]]: A Conversation on Regulation and Self-regulation (Apr. 10, 2007)

== Internet, Law, & Politics in the News ==

* Hello class. In response to the Zittrain article's discussion about how pornography helped fuel the internet boom, I refer you all to this article from Macworld[http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05/02/pornhd/index.php?lsrc=mwrss] discussing how pornography played a role in VHS winning out over Beta and how pornography may contribute to Blu-ray winning out over HD-DVD. Notice that the article states that the pornography industry is a $57 billion industry. - Scott Lesowitz
* [http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=16&articleId=9011204&intsrc=hm_topic Embattled Edwards Blogger Quits Campaign], ''Computerworld,'' Feb. 13, 2007.
* [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b46f5a58-aa2e-11db-83b0-0000779e2340.html On free copies, Benkler, and open books]: "Yochai Benkler is a prominent academic. His widely praised book about the network economy, The Wealth of Networks, was published by Yale Press â a publisher not known for its radicalism. Yet with his publisherâs approval Benklerâs book is available for free online under a Creative Commons license. Instead of paying $40 one can simply download the book. Its sales are reportedly in the top rank of academic books. Benkler is delighted with the additional 20,000 readers who have downloaded it."
* In case there's anybody that has not seen it, this is [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE a cool video] that explains the power of Web 2.0.
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/19/AR2007021900934.html Blogger as Lobbyist?] "if you're not for net neutrality, then the blogs will kick your" rear. The grass-roots groups that strongly favor it are relatively small but very noisy, she said, "and you just don't want to have to deal with that."
* [http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,69234-0.html Wi-Fi Cloud Covers Rural Oregon] "While cities around the country are battling over plans to offer free or cheap internet access, this lonely terrain is served by what is billed as the world's largest hotspot, a wireless cloud that stretches over 700 square miles of landscape so dry and desolate it could have been lifted from a cowboy tune."
* [http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_03.php#005176 Free Speech Battle Over Online Parody of âColbert Reportâ]: MoveOn and Brave New Films reacted by filing suit against Viacom for illegal takedown of YouTube Video. Here is the link to watch [http://falsiness.org/ "Stop the Falsiness"] video
*[http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6154930.html 'Web Giants' seek US Government resolution to Debate 3] - includes lots of good links relevant to today's debate.
*[http://www.lefigaro.fr/presidentielle-web/20070321.FIG000000371_o_est_l_e_egalite_.html OÃ¹ est l'e-Ã©galitÃ©? (Where is e-equality?)], ''Le Figaro'', 21 March 2007: French election laws mandate that equal air time must be given to all presidential candidates (twelve at last count) by traditional television and radio outlets. This very short article raises the question as to where such campaign equality can be found on the Internet. ''See also'' [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6525083.stm this BBC article]: the rules for Internet debates are more lax than those for TV debates under French election law, but Sarkozy refused to take advantage of this and declined an invitation to participate in an online debate that would include only four out of twelve candidates.
*Here comes another piece of news about Google in China. It's not directly related to human rights or civil liberties, but might be an interesting issue in terms of is Google really keeping it's "don't be evil" promise in China. Go back to the topic of third debate, if international corporations like Google practice the princile "be responsive to local situation" in this way, they may sacrifice more than Chinese citizen's civil liberties. Also, this event also intrigues nationalism attitude toward foreign Internet companies, which may in a long run affect their credibilities - "Are they coming to China really to help improve our liberties as they claimed, or just to steal our moeny?" http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/11178/53/. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-04-09-google-sogou_N.htm
*Will American candidates take a cue from their French counterparts in devising web campaigns?[http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSL1240935420070412?feedType=RSS U.S. Experts Eye French Election's Web Campaigning], April 12, 2007. American campaign strategists note that" 'In some ways, the Sarkozy site is more advanced than most of the typical American political sites, particularly in the use of video" and that Segolene Royal's site was "inspiring" in its use as a network/grassroots campaign. ''See also'' [http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/13/news/paris.php?page=1 French Election Strategies Leave Americans Scratching Their Heads] April 13, 2007. [http://www.sarkozy.fr/home/ Official Site of Nicolas Sarkozy] [http://www.desirsdavenir.org/index_s.html Official Site of Segolene Royal]
*Yahoo got sued for helping identify Chinese dissidents under the Alien Tort Claims Act. Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19yahoo.html?ex=1334635200&en=ab9e062372ade430&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

== Other Interesting Topics ==

*I just found out that there will be a discussion on "Can the internet save democracy?" at Berkman Center on Feb 14, 2007, at 6 PM which subject might be in line with our course. More information can be found on http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/home/

* Beyond Broadcast 2007: From Participatory Culture to Participatory Democracy, will be held on Saturday, February 24 at MIT. Info: http://www.beyondbroadcast.net/blog/

* Reuters: pronounced ''Royters'' - love, [http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sg2118.doc.htm ''Bahn Gi-moon'']

* The Internet is a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtOoQFa5ug8 Series of Tubes]...awesome video. You can listen to Senator Stevens unaccompanied [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE&mode=related&search= here].

== Related Events ==

* [[Steve Schultze on the Convergence of Pop Culture and Political Action as it Creates a New, Networked Form of Participatory Democracy]]
* [[Beyond Broadcast 2007]]: From Participatory Culture to Participatory Democracy
* [[APALSA event]]
* [[Targeting the Youth Vote]]

==Event Responses==

Scott's Response to the Institute of Politics Event: http://perspectives.com/forums/view_topic.php?id=138638&forum_id=4

Von Hippel questions

2007-04-17T22:02:35Z

Arthur:

Questions for Prof. von Hippel, Apr. 17 class:

*In some instances, manufacturers produce a product with the expectation a user will modify parts of it. For example, Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) software packages such as UG NX and TeamCenter Engineering are built with a suite of tools available that all (or almost all) users find necessary. These programs also allow a high degree of user customization to tailor the product to the particular application. Individual users can re-work sections of code to customize the application. While this is similar in some aspects to open source development, it differs in that the UG kernel is still proprietary and a particular userâs innovations are not generally shared with others (partially because they are so user specific). Additionally, the manufacturer provides some level of support to aid users in customizing portions of the code.
**To what extent are the positive aspects of user innovation realized in this model and to what extent are they limited?
**Are there other (existing or potential) applications of user/manufacturer cooperation on innovation?
*** Microsoft's [http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx Shared Source Initiative] is essentially a hybrid (or, more accurately, a trio of hybrids) of proprietary and open-source licensing and intellectual property models. It is clearly an attempt to enable and leverage user-driven innovation without completely relinquishing IP and related rights. Is this the best of both worlds? Or do the limitations in the Shared Source weaken some of the incentives for user innovation, both market and non-market?

*Prof. von Hippel discusses the tendency of some users to reveal their innovations freely to the public. Although there are numerous examples of free revealing, I wonder how significant, on average, these innovations are. It seems that some of the innovations that are most significant to the market at large are often created and protected by large companies--I'm thinking here about medications, major software applications, etc. There seems to be a big difference between marginal modifications of library software and the new Windows platform. Chapter 6 offers some possible motivations to reveal innovations, but to what extent can we really expect innovators to reveal fundamental innovations that might enjoy large market share? As an empirical matter, how often does a freely revealed user innovation actually capture a larger market share than more protected innovations? Aren't user innovations more significant at making improvements at the margins?

* The IP law is generally used, inter alia, to foster innovation in a system where the manufacturere is the center of the innovation development (by assuring that the cost e.g. R&D of those manufacturers will be recovered). Thus, the idea of user-centered innovation from his book means a different IP system - less restrictive but more flexible and more freely?

*Prof. von Hippel: In chapter 8 you address a number of policy concerns that constrain user innovation. Your general recommendation is that user innovation needs to be considered as a part of social welfare. You dedicate a paragraph to "Control over Distribution Channels" that is basically speaking to the policy issue of 'net neutrality.' You argue that ownership of content and infrastructure should be separated (I assume through legislation?) but those who would argue the other side would likewise claim that social welfare is at stake and that innovation of infrastructure would be harmed by such separation. Why is the chilling effect on user innovation of applications at the ends more significant than the effect on innovation of the infrastructure? Is there a balance to be struck and would mandating a separation of ownership really achieve it

* Can we characterize manufacturers as "users" of end-user input and innovation? How can we encourage manufacturers to distribute their own innovations in taking advantage of the user community? Do they lack the incentives typically associated with users, especially lead users? Does IP law threaten to inhibit the spread of these innovations?

*Do you think your theory also applies to those low-tech or brand-driven products, such as makeups, etc., as technology is not the only value embedded in products.

Von Hippel questions

2007-04-17T21:47:46Z

Arthur:

2007-04-03T14:49:21Z

Arthur:

[[Debate_3-Argument_Against_the_Resolution]]

==The Question==
"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

==General Ideas==

*Participation in filtering of political speech is wrong.
*Collaborating with oppressive regimes reinforces the status quo.
**Citizens within a regime are more likely to call for change if the U.S. companies are totally absent rather than giving the impression they are available.
**If Google is working in concert with an oppressive regime Google engineers are not attempting to circumvent oppressive controls.
***"Google can build the technology the Chinese need to make Chinaâs regulation more perfectly enabled, and China can extract that talent from Google by mandating it as a condition of being in Chinaâs market." Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, pp. 80.
***Participation in content filtering not only supports the practice directly by making it possible, it neutralizes the ability of U.S. companies to be a real force for change in oppressive regimes.
**The Chinese government relies on self censorship to further their goals. Self censorship is more effective than centralized censorship; they need cooperation from U.S. companies to keep doing what they are doing.
*Turning information over to oppressive regimes contradicts basic values that companies espouse (or should espouse).
**Google refused to turn over 1,000,000 random searches from a specified time period to the U.S. government to aid the government with an effort to discover trends in searches for pornography in order to better regulate pornography. (January 2006, Lawrence Lessig, Code 2.0, pp. 204). This seems to reflect some level of discomfort with what the government was doing. Whether it was because Google felt that the privacy of users may be compromised or whether it was because Google felt this was and indirect violation of the First Amendment is not important, what is important is that they were willing to stand for a certain principle in defiance of the U.S. government based on principle. The request itself was likely legal as both Microsoft and Yahoo! complied to similar requests from the government. The obvious difference here and with requests from repressive regimes is that the request from the U.S. government was not backed by threat of legal sanction, it was a request for voluntary help. However, it seems to be a somewhat inconsistent position to argue that a company will not comply with such requests based on some principle while complying with requests that would violate the U.S. Constitution if made by the U.S. government.
*U.S. technology companies are at the forefront of web development and will play a significant role in shaping the future structure of the Net. (The "Code" to use Lessig's terminology.) This carries a heavy burden to make good faith efforts to see that the resulting architecture is in harmony with basic concepts of human rights.
*There are already limits on freedom to contract to the extent that we do not allow contracts that violate the constitution. For example, contracts for indentured servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment cannot be made. That is, they will not be enforced by U.S. courts. While contract to do business overseas would be under the jurisdiction of other governments, it is somewhat analogous to suggest that U.S. companies should not be able to enter into these types of contracts to do business (if the contract violates the U.S. constitution).

==Case Study: China==
*The Net is not the same Net if you are in China.
*China employs a variety of tools to further its goals of censorship.
**Selective filtering--connections from universities are more heavily filtered. Impressionable university students are thus one of the most highly restricted classes of people when it comes to access to foriegn sites.
**The government agency in charge of censorship recognizes companies that excel in self censorship; trying to create a culture that reinforces their goals.
**Random filtering. Sometimes it is difficult to know what is filtered and why--this pushes users to local options such as Baidu where the results are more consistent.
**The Chinese government intentionally slows down access to U.S. search engines on occasion in order to push users to Baidu.
**The blocking of Google.com in 2002 for two weeks was likely prompted by action from Baidu. See [http://http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5090&en=972002761056363f&ex=1303444800 Google's China Problem (and China's Google Problem), pp. 3]
*The Chinese are using the structure of the internet (the "code" to use Lessig's terminology) to reinforce and the political culture they have created. It is inaccurate to say that they (or any other repressive regime) are just giving the people what they want. The very architecture of what is accessible becomes part of what dictates what people "want."

==Why U.S. Technology Companies Should Just "Stay Out"==

*The choice by U.S. technology firms to enter into these markets necessarily represents a political statement.
**United States policy should be internally consistent. If the United States opposes the use of oppressive forms of government, it is hypocritical to allow United States companies to provide goods and services that facilitate oppressive censorship and surveillance by foreign governments.
**The technology companies in question are just thatâtechnology companiesâand as such are not structured to accommodate or resolve the ethical problems that accompany entry into these markets.
***Googleâs corporate philosophy espouses faith in democracy on the web and international information flow, but doesnât attempt to reconcile them with disparate statesâ requirements for operation. See http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/tenthings.html
***Cisco acknowledges human rights concerns, see http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac227/about_cisco_corp_citi_human_rights.html, but their code of business conduct includes no relevant provisions. See http://investor.cisco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=81192&p=irol-govConduct
***Microsoft sticks to generalities and focuses on straight business policy in its corporate citizenship statement. See http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/default.mspx
***Nortel has a very general statement on corporate citizenship and code of business conduct. See http://www.nortel.com/corporate/community/ethics/guide.html
**The âMove to the Middleâ in internet regulatory strategy means that censorship and surveillance are becoming more effective, so the need to oppose them is becoming even more urgent.
*No acceptable means of regulating business in oppressive regimes is currently available.
**Industry self-regulation has a great deal of conceptual defects.
***Incentives: Unless social awareness of these problems is dramatically raised and consumers have the opportunity to make choices through which substantial market pressure is applied to these companies, they have little incentive to self-regulate. Moreover, the lack of transparency as to the details of their foreign dealings makes it unlikely that any such companies will develop a negative domestic reputation, let alone have that reputation translated into monetary incentives.
***Enforcement and Monitoring: The possibility of a common industry code has been proposed, but without any legal or market pressures to publicly adhere to the code, individual companies competition with one another lack the incentive to join it. Even those who do claim to adhere will have incentives not do so completely or rigorously, and monitoring compliance would be costly. Also, the very conception of such an industry code is itself problematic, as any set of proscriptions detailed enough to achieve the desired effect would be eschewed by the industry.
**Legal regulation in the form of second-order statutory enactments is problematic as well.
***Second-order regulation may actually result in a worsening of the oppressive policies of foreign regimes. Proposed regulations have been framed in terms of limiting corporate cooperation with foreign censorship and surveillance to explicit requests made by official authority. Such policies do nothing about civil liberties violations that are backed by official authority and actually would put pressure on softer, more informal regimes to institute more substantial official and procedural methods of oppression.
***No matter how you slice it, itâs hard to define statutorily what kind of activities should be prohibited. Internet regulation is complex; according to Lessig, it takes place through law, code, markets, and norms, and itâs often difficult to understand exactly how the products provided by various types of technology intersect with those modes of regulation in foreign markets.
****Censorship and Surveillance each can be used in both oppressive and beneficial ways, so attempting to legislate based on these broad types of internet regulation is futile.
****The âOppenheimerâ problem of dual technology makes it difficult to tailor legislation to the type of technology in question or the use to which it is to be put.
****The type of regulation practiced by foreign regimes is often difficult to ascertain, so legislation based on the type of involvement undertaken by a technology company is also infeasible.
****Because the nature of the products and services provided by this industry changes so rapidly, virtually any legislative categorization is likely to rapidly become obsolete.
*The modified technology products that U.S. companies offer in order to comply with the requirements of foreign oppressive regimes cause more harm than good in these emerging markets.
**The sudden entry of U.S. technology firms in developing foreign markets curtails the opportunity for these markets to develop their own technologies. Staying out would spur technological innovation as well as economic development in these countries, and it would also allow at least some segments of the market or population to develop a first-hand appreciation for the democratizing potential of the internet.
**The provision of modified services is not necessarily better than the provision of no services at all. While staying out of these markets preserves their potential for internal development and innovation, products such as google.cn simultaneously promulgate a distorted impression of the cyberworld and eliminate the apparent need to explore such technologies.
*The economic gains of entering into business in oppressive regimes are not worth the cost of the civil liberty sacrifices they require. Even one incident like the Chinese journalist jailed after Yahoo! complied with government surveilance requests is one incident too many.

==Methods of Enforcement==

*Ideally, U.S. companies would voluntarily agree to stay out of oppressive regimes. This would be facilitated if government and NGO actors promote dialogue between U.S. companies that could then use their collective wieght to influence authoritarian regimes.

==Some Response==

*The argument that US can't complain other nations since its own civil liberty history is disgraceful doesn't make any sense.
**âcivil libertiesâ have become (if not have been) a generally accepted concpetion and was widely defined in constitutions of most countries (even in China) as well as in international conventions. The real questions is not whether or not to honor them or how to interpret them, instead, is how to ensure the promise was kepted.
**The States may be not on the moral high ground on several issues as it contested, but it is on this one. Even countries practicing filtering and surveillance are either trying to legitimating their acts by fooling around with the definitions or by claiming a greater value. But the value of "civil liberties" itself is almost unchallengable.
**The restatement of American history by our counterpart at least loosely touched the point that our history is evolutive.

and who defines them? What makes the United States the authority on these matters?

==Outside Resources==
*There is a good article on Google in China published in The New York Times Magazine on April 26, 2006. [http://http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html?ex=1303444800&en=972002761056363f&ei=5090 Google's China Problem (and China's Google Problem)]

Debate 3

2007-02-13T15:51:48Z

Arthur:

Date: Class 8, April 3, 2007

Students presenting: (4-6 people)

Gwen Hochman

Arthur Chen

==The Question==
"Resolved: United States technology companies should stay out of regimes that force them to sacrifice the civil liberties of citizens as the cost of doing business in those states."

Russell Franklin