DailyTech - Online Censorship and Firewalls Are Trade Barriers Says EU

Submit News

Internet Online Censorship and Firewalls Are Trade Barriers Says EU
Jason Mick (Blog) - February 28, 2008 1:17 PM

32 comment(s) - last by Voitku.. on Mar 2 at 2:45 PM

The European Union fights for freedom online, declaring censorship a trade barrier

A proposal was passed today by the European Union, which should have serious ramifications on world trade. The proposal, submitted by Jules Maaten of the rightist Dutch VVD party, proposed that internet censorship via firewalls or other means be treated as a trade barrier. The European Parliament, the European Union's legislative body passed the proposal, 571-38.

Maaten describes his proposal as an "unusual, but effective way" to promote online freedom. The proposal will now go before the European Council, which can either adopt the proposal or amend it and send it back to the European Parliament. If the proposal is adopted, any countries found in violation will have issue raised in trade negotiations, with the likely effect of blocking, limiting, or otherwise financially penalizing trade with these nations.

The country most effect will be China as it is one of the most well known and vocal censors of the internet. For example, the country encourages bloggers to register with the government, and although it has dropped mandatory registration, many fear retribution for not doing so.

China uses its "great firewall" to filter out any offensive content. The firewall blocks pornography of all kinds, certain phrases, and certain websites, including sites containing anti-government material. The country also monitors traffic and uses information it demands from service providers to jail and prosecute dissidents.

Yahoo was recently scolded by the U.S. Congress for providing such help to China.

Maaten spoke to the media and was particularly critical of China's policies. He stated, "The 'Great Chinese Firewall' should be seen as an international trade barrier. In addition to American companies like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, European Internet companies like Wanadoo, Telecom Italia, and France Telecom have to unwillingly censor their services in authoritarian states."

The proposal could also potentially affect other nations including Turkey, Pakistan, and even Australia, which has passed strict censorship laws requiring proof of age for internet use. In the past the U.S. and Europe have at times used trade sanctions or restrictions to try to force totalitarian regimes to lift censorship, but there has been virtually no legislation equating censorship as an official trade barrier.

Google recently initiated a campaign to eliminate censorship worldwide, much to China's chagrin. Google agrees with the European Union, stating that online censorship is "the single greatest trade barrier" to international business. It acknowledges the need to sensor some illegal materials such as child pornography, but states that the supression of online video or free speech due to possible religious or political concerns is unacceptable.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Company Firewalls Illegal?

By TomZ on 2/28/08, Rating: 0

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By Oregonian2 on 2/28/2008 3:19:19 PM , Rating: 2

Yes, I agree with your interpretations but it could go even further. Enforcement of copyright laws are also effectively firewalls against free trade. In fact very literally works against FREE trade.

In that respect China may actually be ahead of other countries such as those in the EU in its support of free trade.

Parent

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By Kenenniah on 2/28/2008 3:26:16 PM , Rating: 4

Personal and corporate firewalls are there to stop internet users and hackers from accessing completely private information. There's no censorship involved, just normal privacy.

The firewalls the law is referring, are there to stop internet users in their respective countries from accessing free public information, and is therefore censorship. Completely different situations.

Parent

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By TomZ on 2/28/2008 3:34:53 PM , Rating: 1

Firewalls are also used by companies to prevent their employees from accessing certain web sites, e.g., censorship. Would that be within the scope of or outside this EU ruling?

In other words, I don't quite see how censorship performed by governments is "always bad" compared with censorship by companies which is "always ok."

Also, I personally think that some government censorship is good, e.g., filtering illegal web content like child pornography. I'm not saying that economically or politically I'd like to see the US government getting into content filtering like that, but on the other hand, I'd be hard pressed to make an argument against it.

Parent

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By dever on 2/28/2008 3:44:32 PM , Rating: 2

Again, self-censorship is freedom. Government censorship... not so much.

Parent

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By Kenenniah on 2/28/2008 4:03:19 PM , Rating: 4

quote:
Firewalls are also used by companies to prevent their employees from accessing certain web sites, e.g., censorship. Would that be within the scope of or outside this EU ruling?

Again still different. My company pays me to do a job, not browse websites. It also pays for the internet connection and the hardware I use. Therefore it has every right to choose what I can access while I'm on it's clock.

That's completely different than telling me what I can do with my own internet connection at home that I pay for, on my own personal computer, using my own time.

It's really no different than rules not allowing drinking on the job, or expecting you to be working rather than reading Playboy.

quote:
In other words, I don't quite see how censorship performed by governments is "always bad" compared with censorship by companies which is "always ok."

Company based is ok, because it is only restricting what happens on it own network. It owns the network and hardware, it has the right to decide what it's used for.
Government based "censorship" chooses what I can do with the hardware etc. that I own. I'm not oppresed by my company, because if I want to view something it restricts, I can do so on my own computer with my own time. When the government censors, I have no choice at any time whatsoever.

That said, I am not necessarily opposed to some government censorship. Illegal is illegal. The only thing that makes it gray for me, is whether or not I believe the government will always draw the lines in the right places. If they were to only filter along the lines of child pornography etc., I'd be okay with it.

I am also not defending the EU proposal. I may not like or agree with China's policies for example, but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about influencing change. Also I don't know where the EU would draw the lines in what's acceptable and what's not.

Parent

RE: Company Firewalls Illegal?

By dever on 2/28/2008 3:42:44 PM , Rating: 3

Censorship by a government is entirely different than self-censorship by an individual (or group of individuals, i.e. a company). The latter is freedom, the former is oppression.

[I have to think about this one for a while. I may actually agree with the EU on this... maybe.]

Parent

The EU now has my support

By ShadowZERO on 2/28/2008 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 2

As will any organization or individual that promotes internet freedom by encouraging the reduction of censorship online.

RE: The EU now has my support

By eye smite on 2/28/2008 2:32:35 PM , Rating: 4

I'm for freedom of speech and expression as much as anyone reading and commenting on this article. I'm pretty sure though that other countries and not just their gov'ts, don't agree with or care for our open way of living. I'm also pretty sure they won't relent in their beliefs and convictions on the issues that we obviously see differently on. I could be wrong though....

Parent

RE: The EU now has my support

By brian26 on 2/28/2008 3:47:49 PM , Rating: 2

funny they are all for freedom one week and not the next. What about a couple of weeks ago when they told amazon.com giving free shiping was ilegal. Yeh Freedom at its best /sarcasm. Funny how these supposed violations succeed in only feeding their greedy pockets.

Parent

RE: The EU now has my support

By bodar on 2/28/2008 5:46:37 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
What about a couple of weeks ago when they told amazon.com giving free shiping was ilegal. Yeh Freedom at its best /sarcasm.

I think they just misinterpreted the slogan, "Freedom isn't free." Language barrier, and all that. ;)

Parent

Isn't it ironic

By Voitku on 2/28/2008 4:38:52 PM , Rating: 2

http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistot...

Basicly EU is doing all the same but using Child pornography as excuse. EU is just a bunch of hypocrites thinking they are better than rest of the world. Germany is also banning all Nazi symbols and materials, proving that goverment mind have changed but habits don't.

RE: Isn't it ironic

By TomZ on 2/28/2008 5:43:48 PM , Rating: 2

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Maybe if he/she didn't want the web site to be blacklisted, it shouldn't have been named the equivalent of "child pornography.info" in the local language.

Parent

RE: Isn't it ironic

By Voitku on 3/2/2008 2:45:11 PM , Rating: 2

So in your mind it's okey to block sites with wrong names? So for you it was okey that Nazis burned books in 40's, modern EU does it to website?. The site was mainly was critizing police actions and showing links to blacklisted sites which were clearly not childpornography.

Parent

by extension

By dever on 2/28/2008 3:50:16 PM , Rating: 2

By extension, wouldn't the excessive social taxation and wealth redistribution by governments also constitue trade barriers by increasing the cost of goods coming from those countries?

RE: by extension

By Spivonious on 2/28/2008 4:45:43 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, I'd agree that tariffs are trade barriers.

Parent

EU Money Hungry?

By SecTech767 on 2/29/2008 9:50:41 AM , Rating: 2

It seems lately that the EU has been jumping around the industry looking for its share. Not to long ago, The EU sued Microsoft for billions. Once Microsoft settled, they came back and wanted more money for the period that MS had not complied. Now the EU is claiming that firewalls and censorship are trade barriers? Even the so freely exposed internet, there are things that need to be filtered. Not to mention that other countrys , such as china, should have to comply with this movement. the artical states this

"If the proposal is adopted, any countries found in violation will have issue raised in trade negotiations, with the likely effect of blocking, limiting, or otherwise financially penalizing trade with these nations."

The question is, who gets the money? It wouldn't be suprising if the EU had their hands in this. They are being greedy and need to get out of the mindset that they have rights to do what they please.

(Not to mention, anything that needs to be censored probaly isn't the greatest part of the trade industry anyway)

RE: EU Money Hungry?

By SecTech767 on 2/29/2008 9:53:46 AM , Rating: 2

Sorry for the mistake.

"other countrys , such as china, should not have to comply with this movement."

Parent

Please see my other comments...

By JonnyDough on 2/28/2008 7:10:53 PM , Rating: 2

Please see my other comments here:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10901
and here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=10906...

Freedom of speech is thanx.

Censorship

By whirabomber on 2/29/2008 6:33:10 AM , Rating: 2

It is only censorship if someone else is doing it.

Things to consider:

1) child porn isn't illegal in every country
2) the US has blocked access to foreign gambling sites
3) terrorist hate firewalls

Just a few things off the top of my head that eliminating firewalls would affect.

Censorship? Hah

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 2/28/08, Rating: -1

RE: Censorship? Hah

By leonowski on 2/28/2008 1:54:11 PM , Rating: 2

The difference in the number of hits may be a reflection of the index's current state. The .FR or .CN servers may not be pulling data from the same index as the USA site.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 2/28/2008 2:05:22 PM , Rating: 2

Perhaps, but would that significantly alter the top 20? They are not the same between servers.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By masher2

(blog) on 2/28/2008 2:13:35 PM , Rating: 3

The French page contains the verbiage:

quote:
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

I'll personally be interested in seeing if by "censorship", the EU includes cases such as the draconian French and German hate speech laws.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By Le Québécois on 2/28/2008 2:46:56 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
as the draconian French and German hate speech laws.

Sorry for asking but what do you mean by that (excuse me ignorance)?

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By masher2

(blog) on 2/28/2008 5:00:29 PM , Rating: 2

Denying the Holocaust, which includes merely disputing the official number killed, is a crime in several European nations.

In Germany, possession of books or literature considered to "induce hate" is illegal, and the crime of Volksverhetzung can be stretched to cover such acts as making a Nazi salute or singing a Nazi song.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By Strunf on 2/29/2008 7:57:02 AM , Rating: 1

Merely?... what a vague word.

You have to make way more than merely...

Why books that induce hate shouldn't be illegal?

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By borowki on 2/28/2008 7:04:30 PM , Rating: 3

Yes, but since Nazi memorabilia isn't a large component of world trade, it's hardly irrelevant here.

What's hypocritical is Europeans' resistance to extending free trade to cultural goods. When a American films or books are banned in China, the economic damage is real. If WTO rules cover such goods as well, then we really can reduce the level of censorship in repressive countries.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By Strunf on 2/29/2008 8:01:44 AM , Rating: 2

The WTO does cover such goods... but the WTO has no enforcement power against "big" countries.

Besides both the EU and the US violate many of the WTO rules, so why should the Chinese follow it?...

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By christojojo on 2/28/2008 2:15:13 PM , Rating: 2

Out of curiosity, what were your preferences for the search? When I changed from moderate to do not filter my results both FR. ans Us climbed by nearly 200,000. I also attempted to do the same with Google Cn going by the lower choice in the second to last setting ("Google" is hypertexted).

That choice allowed google.cn to leap to over 1 million results.

My results were as follows.

Google.cn
??1,290,000???holocaust denial?????,????1-100? (???? 0.35 ?)

Google.fr
Results 1 - 100 of about 673,000 for holocaust denial. (0.35 seconds)

Google.com
Results 1 - 100 of about 890,000 for holocaust denial. (0.14 seconds)

Results numbers are different from yours even though I clicked you links.

I am browing from an Time-Warner conquered Adelphia IP in Buffalo, NY, using McAfee av.

Parent

RE: Censorship? Hah

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 2/28/2008 2:18:37 PM , Rating: 2

I had my safe moderation filter off. As pointed out my Michael earlier, Google acknowledges that they're filtering based on local laws.

quote:
In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org.

So how long before someone uses the EU's new law against themselves?

Parent