Congress and Technological Freedom
Last year Questional reported on the
controversial COICA legislation, which would have given the US government broader powers in the policing of copyright infringement on the Internet. Perhaps the bill was too controversial as the 111th Congress declined to vote on it and the
current 112th Congress has not reintroduced the legislation. While the COICA legislation garnered unique attention, Congress actually introduces many bills that don't get the same attention. In part one of this ongoing series, Questional takes a look at the language of bills both past and present relating to the Internet.
"Freedom" is just another word...
Marsha Blackburn
, introduced by
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).
Marsha Blackburn is described by
GovTrack, an organization which promotes government transparency by providing a free and comprehensive account of Congressional activities, as a “far-right republican”. The Internet Freedom Act makes good on the 2010 GOP Campaign rhetoric about “smaller government” by permanently barring the FCC from regulating the Internet. While for those opposed to legislation such as COICA, this might sound like a win, the actual legislation is not as far-reaching as the title implies.
From the Library of Congress summary of H.R. 96:
Internet Freedom Act - Prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from proposing, promulgating, or issuing any regulations with regard to the Internet or IP-enabled services. Makes such prohibition non-applicable to regulations that are determined necessary to: (1) prevent damage to U.S. national security; (2) ensure public safety; or (3) assist or facilitate any actions taken by federal and state law enforcement agencies.
...for nothing left to choose.
If HR 96 ever makes it out of Committee, the open-ended language leaves room for
H.R. 1389 introduced by
NJ Democrat Christopher Smith. Again, the Library of Congress summarizes:
Chris Smith
Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 - Makes it U.S. policy to: (1) promote the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media; (2) use all appropriate instruments of U.S. influence to support the free flow of information without interference or discrimination; and (3) deter U.S. businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countries in effecting online censorship[...]
Currently, both of these bills are stuck in committee. One wonders how two bills promoting Internet and global freedom would clash with
S. 372, the Democrat-sponsored Cybersecurity and Internet Safety Standards Act. GovTrack describes S. 372 as, “A bill to reduce the ability of terrorists, spies, criminals, and other malicious actors to compromise, disrupt, damage, and destroy computer networks, critical infrastructure, and key resources, and for other purposes.”
So the Internet Freedom Act keeps the FCC off our cyberspace, unless it’s to protect intellectual property or national security. The Global Online Freedom Act allows the FCC and Congress to police the internet to protect intellectual properties and the Cybersecurity and Internet Safety Standards Act does the same for matters of national security and general crime.
Joe Lieberman
But can we maintain Internet freedom while also doing our due diligence to protect national and economic security?
Maybe
Senator Joseph Lieberman's Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act of 2011 will help the situation? Well, with the exception of one notable limitation, Lieberman’s bill is simply an amendment to the 2001
Patriot Act, which creates a new government office, the Office of Cybersecurity, and extends broad powers to that office. The one limitation? That the US government may not “shut down” the Internet.
It’s unknown if any of these bills will ever be voted on, let alone passed. The question we should be asking is: do these bills really protect our Internet freedom, or do they expand government power by sneaking in broad, far-reaching terms of national security and criminal activity?
