Decius has been following this situation for awhile now. He is extremely knowledgeable about export restrictions, so I strongly suggest posing any questions you have about these bills in this thread.

Tonight, I thought I'd check up on the bill's status. Apparently its still a live issue as its being discussed in the press. Much to my suprise, I also learned that another bill, called the Global Internet Freedom Act, was proposed at the same time as the Global Online Freedom Act, and it does exactly what I was thinking we ought to do. This bill funds research on content filtering and filtering subversion to the tune of $100 million over two years! For some reason the bill appears twice on Thomas, once as HR2216 and once as HR4741. I think the texts are the same but I haven't checked line for line. I like this quote:

It is the sense of Congress that the United States should... deploy, at the earliest practicable date, technologies aimed at defeating state-sponsored and state-directed Internet jamming by repressive foreign governments and the intimidation and persecution by such governments of their citizens who use the Internet.

Here, Here! Kathryn Cramer, who I link above calling for censorware to be added to the USML, also calls HR4741 "lame." I could not disagree more. HR4741 has a much better chance of impacting the real situation on the ground in these countries then HR4780, for the aformentioned reason. The pricetag is expensive, much more then I would have asked for, but I'll bet the impact of that expenditure on the U.S. economy would be dwarfed by the impact of HR4780, which makes it illegal to host Internet connected computers inside of any country designated as a censoring state.

So, in sum, if you're talking to your representative, I say No on HR4780 (without serious revision), but Yes on HR2216/HR4741.

No to Global Online Freedom Act, Yes to Global Internet Freedom Act!

The explosive idea of forcing Internet providers to record their customers' online activities for future police access is gaining ground in state capitols and in Washington, D.C.

Top Bush administration officials have endorsed the concept, and some members of the U.S. Congress have said federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography. A bill is already pending in the Colorado State Senate.

Youch! I think the sheep are primed and ready for this step.

This follows the line we have been singing for awhile now. When the draconian shit starts happening, its going to be done in the name of "protecting the children".

ISP snooping gaining support | CNET News.com

Peter J. Biondi, NJ Assemblyman for District 16, has introduced A1327, a bill to force every ISP and website with comments/forums to demand user identification from every single poster (called an "information content provider" in the bill). The bill also forces all ISP and websites to turn over that information upon demand to anyone who claims to have been defamed, without any legal process or protections:

Well, it appears Seigenthaler's stupid campaign to remove due process protecting the identity of Internet posters, based on the inane assumption that claimants are always good guys who always have a legitimate claim, has gotten traction in the New Jersey legislature. MemeStreams users in New Jersey ought to contact their local representatives and calmly and respectfully explain that for every human problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.

Talking points:
1. Anonymous and pseudononymous speech has a long history of political significance in our country.
2. People seeking to identify Internet users do not always have a legitimate claim. Sometimes they are stalkers or other criminals.
3. Having a court decide whether Internet Services are required to turn over personal information about their customers creates a process which validates the legitimacy of a claim before personal information is forcibly disclosed.
4. Internet message boards are often informal things run by hobbyists. Information collection and reporting requirements create barriers to entry for those seeking to operate message boards, which has a deleterious effect on the free flow of discourse critical to our democracy.

Update: Biondi can be message on the web here. Office phone number: (908) 252-0800. Office address: 1 East High Street, Somerville, NJ 08876

LawGeek: New Jersey Assemblyman introduced bill to force online identification

The Global Online Freedom Act is sponsored by Smith and five of his colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans. It would make the free exchange of ideas on the Internet a central concern of US foreign policy.

For example, no US firm could locate its Internet server computers inside one of these countries. Smith said that China or other repressive countries would still be able to subpoena an American Internet provider. But the subpoena would pass through the US legal system.

In addition, the bill would make it illegal for any US company to censor Internet information hosted on a US government website. Thus, Google Inc., which offers censored Internet searches inside China, would be barred from blocking access to the website of the Voice of America or Radio Free Asia.

The bill could mean trouble for US firms like Cisco Systems Inc., which sell Internet switching hardware. It calls on the Commerce Department to set up export controls on such equipment.

Bill aims to fight Net censorship - The Boston Globe

The post points to broadcast flag draft legislation sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) that contains provisions which appear to limit digital broadcast media reception devices to "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks."

It is being widely alleged that Gordon Smith has been influenced by the $250,000 the National Association of Broadcasters gave to his party last year.

It is imperative that the Senate not pass laws that halt innovation. Just because these things can be nocked down in the courts does not mean they do not pose a serious risk. This is exactly the type of thing that stops innovation by making investors unwilling to take risk in companies and individuals working on new ideas. We have not reached the place we need to be yet in the digital content space. Legislation such as this will not help our progress, it will stop it dead in its tracks.

Oddly, I was not able to find any information about this bill in Thomas.

Big Content would like to outlaw things no one has even thought of yet

In fairness to Yahoo, which handed over information -- and MSN which likely did the same -- it is important to note that it is not just spin that no privacy issues were involved with this particular data. As I explained in the story, the information is completely divorced from any personally identifiable data.

Lots of good information in here about the Google FBI thing. Apparently they don't want IP addresses...

Bush Administration Demands Search Data; Google Says No; AOL, MSN & Yahoo Said Yes

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

Here we go... Many of us, Decius in particular, were predicting this. Only difference, is we didn't think Google would take a stand.

Bush wants Google search data

The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities.

Your ISP as Net watchdog | CNET News.com

] We find that evidence of appellant's Internet use and the
] existence of an encryption program on his computer was at
] least somewhat relevant to the state's case against him,"
] Judge R.A. Randall wrote in an opinion dated May 3.

The fact that PGP was present on a persons computer was considered relevent in this case. The mere fact that PGP was there makes it more likely that this person was involved in crime.

Minnesota court takes dim view of encryption | CNET News.com

] China's Internet filtering regime is the most
] sophisticated effort of its kind in the world. Compared
] to similar efforts in other states, China's
] filtering regime is pervasive, sophisticated, and
] effective. It comprises multiple levels of legal
] regulation and technical control.

Interesting details on China's internet filtering, with links to information about other countries...

Internet Filtering in China in 2004-2005: A Country Study