Openness, Decency Critical to Internet Use, Say Some Officials, Tech Experts
The government and technology industry must ensure the openness of the Internet as a tool to help foster and enable free speech and other human rights, said Michael Posner, democracy, human rights and labor assistant secretary of state. “We must protect the free flow of information and the integrity of the network,” which includes the interoperability of the network, he said Tuesday in Washington at the State of the Net conference. Some governments are trying to impose national and international restrictions that would cripple the exercise of human rights online, he said. Repressive regimes tried to crack down on the use of the Internet by jailing bloggers, hijacking Facebook pages and “in the case of Iran, requiring cybercafes to install surveillance cameras,” he said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
International law applies to online behavior, Posner said. “We do not need to reinvent international human rights law or our enduring principles to account for the Internet.” The smarter companies argue that the way to adopt “24-7 scrutiny” is to address the underlying issues “before they find themselves in the cross hairs of controversy,” he added. Nearly every company relies on the Internet, he said. Therefore, “all have a special stake in protecting the freedom and integrity of the Net as well as the key rights of their customers."
The U.S. government will continue to work with international partners to look at ways of making sanctions smarter, Posner said. But sanctions aren’t a perfect solution, he said: “No regulatory regime can substitute for thoughtful or active practices by corporations and they must be mindful of the ways their products are likely to be used or abused in the real world."
There is no market for privacy, said Christine Varney, who served as FTC commissioner under President Bill Clinton and Justice Department antitrust chief in the Obama administration. It’s government’s obligation “to come up with solutions that protect most of the people most of the time,” she said. Government intervention will always “lag behind technology,” she said. “But the context of keeping the market free for competition” should be the focus going forward.
There is concern that broadband competition “is becoming increasingly concentrated in virtually every market in the U.S.,” Varney said. “We're very concerned that Comcast has both the ability and incentive to discriminate against other potential broadband providers in any market."
With robust use of the Internet, discussion is building about the role of ISPs in controversial content or speech, some panelists said later. The courts applied a broad interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, said John Morris, director of Internet Policy at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The statute prevents ISPs or site operators from being sued for content posted on their site. “It’s been a factor in an explosion of user-generated sites,” Morris said.
ISPs, payment services and other intermediaries serve different roles and responsibilities, said Brian Cute, CEO of Public Interest Registry, which operates the .org registry. It’s important to understand those roles, he said. “We don’t get into content or maintain websites,” he said. Intermediaries should take a self-regulatory approach, said Christopher Wolf of the Future of Privacy Forum. They have an obligation “to maintain a civil environment.” They also should establish an industry code of conduct, he added.