Politics and Digital Business - Revision history

Rkent: /* Principles on Free Expression and Privacy */

2007-04-10T22:48:35Z

Principles on Free Expression and Privacy

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 10 April 2007
Line 36:		Line 36:

	=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=		=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=
	As the Principles are currently engaged in a confidential drafting process, we will not be posting notes on the public wiki at this time. An introduction to the project is available on [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2007/01/18/companies-ngos-academics-step-up-on-censorship-surveillance-issues/ Professor Palfrey's blog].		As the Principles are currently engaged in a confidential drafting process, we will not be posting notes on the public wiki at this time (For now, see the "Draft Principles - 2007-04-10.txt" file on our MyHLS site). An introduction to the project is available on [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2007/01/18/companies-ngos-academics-step-up-on-censorship-surveillance-issues/ Professor Palfrey's blog].

Rkent: /* Privacy */

2007-04-10T22:40:31Z

Privacy

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 10 April 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:

	==Privacy==		==Privacy==

			* Good points
			** There are actually laws and punishments for violating them.
			** Companies that wish to stand up for democratic principles have a big stronger leg to stand on - the threat of government sanction - than companies would under the Principles, who are only "bound" by a voluntary agreement.
			*** And companies that don't care so much can be coerced into compliance.
			* Bad points
			** Section 206 - "legitimate law enforcement purposes." Again this is a really broad category; see the definitions in-statute.
			** Even the caveat that "repression of speech is not OK" is a bit narrow and can probably be defined away by local law enforcement.

	=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=		=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=

Rkent: /* Freedom of Speech */

2007-04-10T22:19:27Z

Freedom of Speech

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 10 April 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	*** Especially given solutions like the Principles, it seems like it might be better to have companies stay involved in the local governments, and open the societies however slightly, which is at least a net benefit.		*** Especially given solutions like the Principles, it seems like it might be better to have companies stay involved in the local governments, and open the societies however slightly, which is at least a net benefit.
	** Anyway, all the Act really seems to require is that ''if'' a company gets something in writing (e.g. a list of URLs to block), it must be turned over to the US State Department.		** Anyway, all the Act really seems to require is that ''if'' a company gets something in writing (e.g. a list of URLs to block), it must be turned over to the US State Department.
	*** In fact, the very passage of this law would discourage governments from making written requests.		*** In fact, the very passage of this law would discourage governments from making written requests - MNCs might be treated as spies for the US Government.
	* GOFA sends a strong message / is a positive moral step		* GOFA sends a strong message / is a positive moral step
	** Some actions are so morally repulsive that we just don't want corporations involved in them (like turning in a Chinese journalist who will certainly be jailed for his reporting)		** Some actions are so morally repulsive that we just don't want corporations involved in them (like turning in a Chinese journalist who will certainly be jailed for his reporting)
			* Drafting practicalities
			** The drafters are not ignorant of the issues raised above; they start with a strong requirement, corporations push back by saying it would put them out of business, etc, and new versions are hammered out.

	==Privacy==		==Privacy==

Rkent: /* Freedom of Speech */

2007-04-10T22:14:58Z

Freedom of Speech

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 10 April 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	==Freedom of Speech==		==Freedom of Speech==

			* Two factions
			** It's toothless
			** It would send a strong message to the world
			* Why one might consider GOFA to be toothless/useless w/r/t freedom of speech
			** If enforced to the outside bounds of its language, it would seem to require companies to stop operations in repressive regimes like China.
			** Furthermore, the censorship we're trying to avoid is not impossible without corporate participation, so it would be the worst of both worlds
			** There may be better alternatives
			*** Especially given solutions like the Principles, it seems like it might be better to have companies stay involved in the local governments, and open the societies however slightly, which is at least a net benefit.
			** Anyway, all the Act really seems to require is that ''if'' a company gets something in writing (e.g. a list of URLs to block), it must be turned over to the US State Department.
			*** In fact, the very passage of this law would discourage governments from making written requests.
			* GOFA sends a strong message / is a positive moral step
			** Some actions are so morally repulsive that we just don't want corporations involved in them (like turning in a Chinese journalist who will certainly be jailed for his reporting)

	==Privacy==		==Privacy==

Rkent: /* Global Online Freedom Act */

2007-04-10T21:40:18Z

Global Online Freedom Act

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 10 April 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (GOFA), whose purpose is "To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments," can be found online at [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=h109-4780 GovTrack.us]. We discussed GOFA's potential impact on freedom of speech and privacy.		The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (GOFA), whose purpose is "To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments," can be found online at [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=h109-4780 GovTrack.us]. We discussed GOFA's potential impact on freedom of speech and privacy.


			More GOFA Commentary from RMack: an [http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2006/02/global_online_f.html introduction] and a [http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2006/03/global_online_f.html detailed critique].

	==Freedom of Speech==		==Freedom of Speech==

Rkent: /* Principles on Free Expression and Privacy */

2007-04-10T21:34:36Z

Principles on Free Expression and Privacy

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 10 April 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:

	=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=		=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=
			As the Principles are currently engaged in a confidential drafting process, we will not be posting notes on the public wiki at this time. An introduction to the project is available on [http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/2007/01/18/companies-ngos-academics-step-up-on-censorship-surveillance-issues/ Professor Palfrey's blog].


	==Freedom of Speech==		==Freedom of Speech==

Rkent: /* Global Online Freedom Act */

2007-04-10T21:31:15Z

Global Online Freedom Act

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 10 April 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	=Global Online Freedom Act=		=Global Online Freedom Act=

			The Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 (GOFA), whose purpose is "To promote freedom of expression on the Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign governments," can be found online at [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=h109-4780 GovTrack.us]. We discussed GOFA's potential impact on freedom of speech and privacy.

	==Freedom of Speech==		==Freedom of Speech==
Line 7:		Line 9:

	==Privacy==		==Privacy==


	=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=		=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=

Rkent at 21:29, 10 April 2007

2007-04-10T21:29:03Z

New page

Class 9 focuses on an extension of the[[Official_Syllabus#Class_8_.2F_Debate_.233_.28Apr._3.2C_2007.29 | Class 8]] debate: what are the responsibilities of multi-national corporations that operate (in part) in the world's less democratic nations? Is government regulation appropriate? Would corporate self-regulation suffice? Two case studies were featured: The Global Online Freedom Act (H.R. 4780, 109th Congress), and the current draft of the Principles on Free Expression and Privacy

=Global Online Freedom Act=

==Freedom of Speech==

==Privacy==

=Principles on Free Expression and Privacy=

==Freedom of Speech==
''Forthcoming''

==Privacy==
''Forthcoming''