On its public policy blog, the IAB proclaims its opposition to HR 275, the Global Online Freedom Act. The bill:
[excerpt of summary] “Declares that it is 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; and (3) deter U.S. businesses from cooperating with Internet-restricting countries in effecting online censorship. Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the President should seek international agreements to protect Internet freedom; and (2) some U.S. businesses, in assisting foreign governments to restrict online access to U.S.-supported websites and government reports, are working contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests… Directs the President to annually designate Internet-restricting countries. Prohibits U.S. businesses from locating, within such countries, any electronic communication that contains any personally identifiable information. Prohibits U.S. businesses that collect or obtain personally identifiable information through the Internet from providing that information to Internet-restricting countries, except for legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes. Requires U.S. businesses to report certain Internet censorship information involving Internet-restricting countries to the OGIF. Prohibits U.S. businesses that maintain Internet content hosting services from jamming of U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported content in Internet-restricting countries.”
Here’s what the IAB–the online ad industry trade group that
includes the New York Times, Washington Post, Google, Yahoo, News Corp., NBC, Yahoo, and many others– said in the letter it sent to Congress (that was signed by other groups as well) [excerpt]:
“Despite the good intentions behind the Global Online Freedom Act, we are very concerned that the legislation would actually undermine the stated goal of the bill by effectively limiting the legitimate business activities of U.S. companies in parts of the world. Such restrictions on U.S. participation in global Internet operations would have the effect of limiting the very means of free speech and communication the legislation intends to protect. One example of the practical problems associated with the bill is that it could prohibit U.S. companies from maintaining certain customer information on a computer in any number of foreign countries. As indicated by the range and number of associations represented as signatories to this letter, we believe that this bill would have a negative impact on a diverse and broad range of United States businesses.”
Call it IAB’s `freedom to promote interactive marketing in
China despite the human rights consequences Act!’
Author: jeff
Jeff Chester is executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. A former journalist and filmmaker, Jeff's book on U.S. electronic media politics, entitled "Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy" was published by The New Press in January 2007. He is now working on a new book about interactive advertising and the public interest.
View all posts by jeff
