H.R.275
January 17, 2008 10:01 PM (10 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 1

There is a lot to like in this bill *except* its punishment of US businesses. The "sense of Congress" that free expression online is a high priority - that would be very useful in a number of fora. The encouragement of negotiations/relationships that further this openness is positive too (although likely impossible to enforce). Country reports on Internet openness would be useful. We get this from OpenNet.net, but more standardized information would be helpful. But the limitations on businesses are silly. SEC. 203. TRANSPARENCY REGARDING SEARCH ENGINE FILTERING. Any United States business that creates, provides, or hosts an Internet search engine shall provide the Office of Global Internet Freedom, in a format and with a frequency to be specified by the Office, with all terms and parameters used to filter, limit, or otherwise affect the results provided by the search engine that are implemented-- (1) at the request of, or by reason of any other direct or indirect communication by, any foreign official of an Internet-restricting country; or (2) to comply with a policy or practice of restrictions on Internet freedom in an Internet-restricting country. That's a tech mandate if there ever was one. And, for goodness sake, companies limit searches all the time for all kinds of reasons. So although I'd like to see encouragement of the free flow of information around the world, and there are some helpful things in this bill, it also seems quite unworkable - and unnecessarily punitive.

H.R.4279
January 17, 2008 10:01 PM (10 months ago) | Overall Score: 5.0 | Replies: 0

EFF's coverage is very helpful. It's hard to imagine this one-way ratchet being turned the other direction, however. We've got a strong alliance in this country between law enforcement, content owners, and network providers - all of whom, for different reasons, want to support strong/stronger IP protection.