[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING U.S.
CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE
DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 10, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-85
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-395 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee CONNIE MACK, Florida
GENE GREEN, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
LYNN WOOLSEY, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
VACANTUntil 5/5/10 deg.
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
Jasmeet Ahuja, Professional Staff Member deg.
David Fite, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Jessica Lee, Professional Staff Member deg.
Alan Makovsky, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Pearl Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Peter Quilter, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Edmund Rice, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Daniel Silverberg, Senior Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
Amanda Sloat, Professional Staff Member deg.
Kristin Wells, Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
Shanna Winters, General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor
Brent Woolfork, Professional Staff Member deg.
Robert Marcus, Professional Staff Member deg.
Diana Ohlbaum, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer deg.
Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator
Riley Moore, Deputy Clerk deg.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Nicole Wong, Esq., Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
Google, Inc.................................................... 9
Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon, Visiting Fellow, Center for Information
Technology Policy, Princeton University, Cofounder of Global
Voices Online.................................................. 19
Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and
Security Review Commission..................................... 32
Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II, President and CEO, Business Software
Alliance....................................................... 45
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Nicole Wong, Esq.: Prepared statement............................ 12
Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon: Prepared statement........................ 21
Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D.: Prepared statement...................... 34
Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II: Prepared statement.................. 48
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey: Letter from Google, NGO Joint
Statement in Support of H.R. 2271 and letter from Freedom House 81
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 92
Hearing minutes.................................................. 93
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 95
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement......... 97
The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Missouri: Prepared statement...................... 100
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement................. 101
The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas: Prepared statement............................. 102
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California...... 103
Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 114
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Joseph
Crowley, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
York........................................................... 115
Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 116
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Michael T.
McCaul, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas... 117
THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING U.S. CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE
DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Berman. The committee will come to order. Just for
the three colleagues of mine who are here now, I would like to
just deg.remind you that at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow
morning deg.I will be hosting a meeting of the
Foreign Assistance Reform Working Group in room 2255, and I
encourage my colleagues to come. Next week at 9:30 a.m. we will
have what promises to be a very interesting hearing on the
European security architecture and the transatlantic security
architecture.
And sometime before the spring recess I hope to hold a
markup to consider Mr. Smith's International Megan's Law
legislation and possibly a bill on science diplomacy which Mr.
Fortenberry and I will introduce today.
After Mr. Smith and I make our opening remarks, other
members will have the opportunity to make 1-minute statements
if they wish to do so. Members are also welcome to place
written statements in the record. In fact, for the members who
are here now, I think--and given that the Afghanistan
legislation is not going to be on until later--for the members
who are here at the time of the gavel, I think we will allow 2-
minute opening statements by them.
Today's hearing: In a recent speech on 21st-century
statecraft, Secretary Clinton said the State Department is
realigning its policies and priorities to harness and promote
the power of the latest communication tools. Her remarks
illustrate the fact that new means of electronic communication
have created both opportunities and challenges for those who
formulate our national security and foreign policy.
While many congressional committees have looked at the
issues of human rights, defense, and trade in connection with
the Internet, it is time for us to consider a comprehensive
approach to the increased worldwide use of cyber technology.
This hearing will address what we are calling the ``Google
Predicament'' because Google's experience over the past couple
of months highlights the challenges in developing a cyber-
specific foreign policy. The Internet is a useful tool to
promote freedom and trade, but in some places it also serves as
a means of censorship. It is a boon for U.S. business but also
a source of great vulnerability with respect to U.S. national
security. Reconciling these conflicting policy challenges is a
key mission for the administration and, I believe, for this
Sub deg.committee.
The latest communication technologies are being put to use
to advance democracy and protect human rights. Widespread use
of Twitter overcame the Iranian regime's ban on media coverage
of last summer's election results and their aftermath. And a
graphic video posted on YouTube of a young Iranian woman who
was shot and killed during a protest galvanized world opinion,
as it gave people an unvarnished look at the crackdown.
The administration acknowledged the power of these
communication tools just this past Monday by granting a general
license for the transfer of social networking software to Iran
and other repressive nations. This is an important and good
step that will foster greater freedom of expression. But
paradoxically, cyber technology also serves as a weapon of
choice for repressive regimes. Under our former chairman, Tom
Lantos, this committee examined closely how American companies,
however passively, can and do facilitate censorship. Our
colleague Chris Smith has also been very active in advancing
the discussion of this subject.
The notion that American companies can heedlessly supply
their software, routers, and information to governments that
use them for repressive purposes is untenable. But preventing
companies from engaging in trade with countries ruled by those
repressive governments is equally untenable, for it would deny
billions of people the ability to access the very information
needed to support their resistance.
When it comes to human rights, there must be a way to
balance the benefits of cyber technology with its very real
potential harms. A voluntary organization known as the Global
Network Initiative, made up of human rights organizations and
various companies, works directly on this issue. Regrettably,
many companies have failed to join. As a result, we may
consider legislation to address this issue. Providers of
technology need to step up.
American companies did just that last year when Beijing
mandated installation of the Green Dam-Youth Escort Software on
all computers sold in China. This software program would have
blocked Internet searches on politically sensitive subjects and
made computers more vulnerable to hackers. Companies persuaded
the United States Government to protest the Green Dam
requirement because it violated free trade obligations under
WTO rules. We need to see that kind of public-private
partnership at work across the board on issues involving cyber
security and Internet freedom.
It is also very much in the interest of U.S. business to
make such a partnership work. Brand integrity of U.S. entities
is at stake when someone hacks into and alters or steals the
intellectual property of U.S. companies such as Google. Melissa
Hathaway, author of President Obama's recent ``Cyberspace
Policy Review,'' suggests that the government may need to
retool our intelligence and diplomatic communities to protect
U.S. intellectual property abroad.
Finally, and perhaps most troubling, is the way cyber
technology can be exploited to undermine our own security. Make
no mistake: Not only are sophisticated and network-secure
companies like Google vulnerable to attack from foreign
countries, but the entire U.S. network faces assault on a daily
basis. As recently noted by the deg.Deputy Defense
Secretary Lynn, an adversarial nation could deploy hackers to
take down U.S. financial systems, communications and
infrastructure at a cost far below that of building a trillion-
dollar fleet of jet fighters or an aircraft carrier.
China's alleged hacking of Google and subsequent reports
that Google is partnering with the National Security Agency to
analyze the attack raise some relevant questions for this
committee: Does an unauthorized electronic intrusion constitute
a violation of national sovereignty, equivalent to a physical
trespass onto U.S. territory--and if so, what is the
appropriate response?
We also need to consider the foreign policy implications of
offensive U.S. capabilities. The United States has much to lose
from a lawless cyberspace where countries can attack each other
at will and engage in a perennial low-intensity cyber conflict.
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
simultaneously promote Internet freedom and deprive repressive
regimes of the tools of cyber-repression; and how we can
promote the global diffusion of the Internet while also
protecting ourselves from cyber attack.
But before we hear from our witnesses, first let me turn to
our esteemed colleague, Chris Smith--designated by the ranking
member to serve in her stead today--for any opening remarks
that he may wish to make.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank
you for convening this very timely and very important hearing.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Reporters Without Borders documents
that at least 120 people are currently imprisoned for online
postings, that is the ones we know of, 72 of them in China
alone, but also large numbers in Iran and Vietnam. In 2005, I
had a meeting in a restaurant in Hanoi with Vu Thuy Ha, the
wife of Dr. Pham Hong Son, who had e-mailed an article entitled
``What is Democracy?,'' downloaded from U.S. Embassy in Hanoi's
Web site.
He sent it to his friends. The Vietnamese Internet police
called this espionage and punished him with a very long prison
term. While Vu and I talked, police thugs conspicuously sat at
the next table--there were three of them--scowled at her, took
her picture, I took theirs, and they made a number of
threatening gestures. She was very fearful. Many people in this
room will remember the groundbreaking hearings this committee
held on Internet freedom.
I chaired two of those in 2006, I chaired an 8-hour hearing
on the Internet in China, which we subtitled ``A Tool for
Freedom or Suppression.'' The hearing responded to Yahoo's
cooperation with Chinese Internet police in tracking down
journalist Shi Tao, who is still serving a 10-year prison term
for disclosing state secrets--that is, he e-mailed to the
United States Chinese Government orders on not reporting on the
15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre--he sent that
to an NGO in New York.
In 2007, Tom Lantos followed up with a hearing on Shi Tao
and others in which Yahoo's Jerry Yang testified to the
committee while Shi Tao's mother sat right behind him in the
audience. At the end of the hearing, Jerry Yang met with Shi
Tao's mother, and since then Yahoo has undertaken to do what it
can to compensate some of the families like Shi Tao's and
others imprisoned because of their Internet work. But the
victims of the growing global assault on Internet freedom are
also entire peoples denied their right to free expression,
often self-censoring out of fear, and denied access to
information.
These include the Chinese, Iranian, Belarusian, Cuban,
Burmese, Egyptian, North Korean, Saudi Arabians, Syrian,
Tunisian, Turkmen, and Uzbek peoples, who live under
governments which Reporters Without Borders classifies as the
twelve worst enemies of the Internet. Currently, over three
dozen countries routinely censor the Internet. This number is
growing. And in recent years they have developed increasingly
sophisticated tools for blocking, filtering, and surveilling
the Internet. They exchange technologies and tactics, which are
often modeled on the Chinese Government's Great Firewall of
China.
Yet we have also learned some positive lessons from 2006.
We have seen that many U.S. IT companies really want to do the
right thing. Since 2006, Yahoo has established much stricter
policies governing its interactions with repressive
governments, working to keep personally identifying information
out of their hands. When it went into Vietnam, for example,
Yahoo stored personally identifiable information in Singapore,
out of reach of the government secret police.
Google's transformation has even been more remarkable.
Since 2006, I have been meeting with Google executives and they
have known for some time that the theory that their mere
presence in the Chinese market would somehow liberalize China
or at least justify their willingness to censor searches has
proven mistaken, and that China was growing more repressive.
Google's statement in January that it ``is no longer willing to
continue censoring results on its Chinese search engine'' was
remarkable and it was thrilling. Certainly the hearts of
millions of Chinese human rights activists and political
dissidents were equally happy.
Google deserves to be praised for this decision. It is a
blow against the cynical silence of so many about the Chinese
Government's human rights abuses, a blast of honesty and
courage from which we can all draw inspiration. Mr. Chairman, I
believe Google's making a principled and public commitment to
do the right thing and stop censoring, combined with its
willingness to spend some time in patient dialogue with the
Chinese Government, giving that government every chance to do
the right thing as well, is a model of how IT companies can
deal with repressive regimes.
But I also believe the model can be improved upon. Google's
recent difficulties in China make it even more clear, clearer
than ever, that however well intentioned American IT companies
are, they are not powerful enough to stand up to a repressive
government, particularly the likes of China. Without U.S.
Government support and backing, they are inevitably forced to
play a role in the repressive government censorship and
surveillance.
But the Global Online Freedom Act, legislation I crafted in
'06 and reintroduced this Congress, will give American IT
companies the U.S. Government backup they need to negotiate
with repressive governments. I would remind my colleagues it
was patterned after three major initiatives, the International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000, which I authored, and the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, which in the late '70s, many people said
that it disadvantaged U.S. companies. Yet, it really became the
model--not just for the U.S. but for the world--on not
providing bribes and other such ways of doing business all over
the world.
It is the standard, it is a model, and is a minimum
standard that needs to be followed now on the Internet side.
Because of time, I will not go through all of the various
provisions of the Global Online Freedom Act, but I would ask my
colleagues to take a good hard look at it. I think it is an
idea whose time has come in terms of really setting at least a
minimal standard, a floor if you will, to protect nonviolent
political speech and nonviolent religious speech; and that is
the aim of the legislation.
It does it in two very simple ways: By requiring a full
disclosure of what it is that is being censored, and secondly,
by ensuring that personally identifiable information is put out
of reach of Internet restricting countries, a designation that
would be conferred on those countries after due diligence and
analysis by an office that would be created within the
Department of State. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for again
calling this hearing. We need to move on this and move quickly.
Thank you.
Chairman Berman. Time of the gentleman has expired. Under
the unanimous consent edict or whatever, the members who were
here at the time, if they wish to, can be recognized for up to
2 minutes. Other members who wish to make opening statements
for 1 minute. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, seeks
recognition? The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. American policy is marked by perhaps a very
aggressive military policy and a very passive approach to using
our economic, technological, and diplomatic power. Keeping
Google out of China is not the solution, in fact that may be
what China is trying to achieve. We should instead have
hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to developing the
technology and putting out the contracts to develop the
technology to punch a hole in the Great Wall of China and all
the other barriers to the use of the Internet.
Likewise, we should be aggressive in using our technology
to take down terrorist sites around the world. But this isn't
just an Internet issue, this is an overall economic issue. We
have an enormous trade deficit with China because we open our
markets to them and they figure out ways to close their market
to us. Hacking is just one of many ways they do that. We have
had hearings in our Subcommittee, deg. on Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, deg. and Trade, in which business
after business comes forward and talk about what they face when
they try to export to China. The offsets, the criminality, the
theft, the confiscation and our Government does nothing. As
long as American policy is dominated by Wall Street and Wal-
Mart, neither democracy nor America will be in the ascendancy.
I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman has yielded back. Does the
gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes I do.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher, is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much. And I would like to
identify myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sherman,
who is again getting to the heart of the matter in many ways.
Let us just note, in January of this year when Google announced
its intention to stop censoring its search results in the
People's Republic of China, I was very supportive and I was
very complimentary of Google, and because that was in stark
contrast to some of the other companies that were operating in
China.
Unfortunately, Google has yet to follow through on and to
stop self-censoring. And, you know, our praise shouldn't be for
an intent, our praise should be for accomplishing what has been
set out, and I am very anxious today, Mr. Chairman, to hear the
details about what is deg.Google is planning to do,
and there seems to be a contradictory position here between
what their goal is and what they are actually doing as we
speak. Let us note that the Internet is a powerful force in the
world today, and I would suggest it can be used for positive
things, it can be used to promote freedom and human dignity and
information, the spread of information over a broad area, or it
can be used for just the opposite, it could be used by tyrants
and gangsters to oppress their own people.
It behooves us, as people who believe in freedom and
democracy, to stand with the people of China and to say that in
this very important area of technology transforming our
societies, that we will work with the people of China, not the
Government of China, to see that this technology is used in a
positive way and not a negative way. If, as Mr. Sherman says,
if our corporations hold true to those values, we will work
with those corporations. If the corporations that happen to be
owned by Americans do not, we will be against them.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. Who
else seeks recognition for opening statements? The gentlelady
from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 2 minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick.
China is a very desirable market, and that makes it that much
more difficult for us and the corporations in China to take a
principled stand against, well, our corporations to take a
principled stand against China's cyber action and policies.
That is very clear to us. But of course we must take a stand.
And it would certainly be best, as Congressman Rohrabacher
said, if the corporations and businesses in China and the
United States would work out our differences and make this
work. But if it can't, I support our chairman in saying that we
will need to take action. So I am so anxious to hear today what
our witnesses have to say because I bet you have some good
ideas about this. And I would like to yield the rest of my time
to Congresswoman Lee from California.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady yields 1 minute to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the
gentlelady for yielding and just welcome our panelists and just
say, you know, while these very powerful technologies have
provided many opportunities to improve lives as well as
strengthen international engagement and partnership, they have
also opened doors for misuse or abuse by governments,
businesses, and individuals. Adapting and planning for the
current and anticipated impact of this technological
transformation is really critical for us to ensure that we take
a very proactive approach to fostering the flow of information,
guarding our vital national security interests, and protecting
individual freedoms and civil liberties for ours and for future
generations. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
again the gentlelady for yielding, and welcome, look forward to
your testimony.
Chairman Berman. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Anyone
else seek recognition for an opening statement? The gentleman
from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was practicing
law in about 1999, the assistant IT person at our firm handed
me a piece of paper, he said, ``Google''--he had written it
out--he said, ``Google, that is what you want to go search
on.'' Now, like I suppose most people, I am frustrated by any
other search engine, because they are not as fast and they are
not as good as Google. So the thought of having a real Google
and a fake Google, one that turns up all the results that the
rest of the world can see, and one that turns up just what the
Chinese Communist dictators want you to see, is just an amazing
incongruity, it just doesn't make sense. And so I am so
grateful for Google recognizing that and making the decision to
move toward providing the people of China with the real Google,
the real information that the rest of the world gets. That is
the way it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired. The
gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, seeks recognition. The
gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Crowley. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I also want
to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for organizing this
hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses for their
willingness to share their experiences. It is no secret that
there are different opinions on doing business in China,
especially when it comes to matters relating to freedom of
expression. At the same time, we know that those with differing
views are acting in the spirit as Confucius's famous saying
goes, hold faithfulness and sincerity as first principles.
These issues, the security of the Internet, intellectual
property, and indeed national security, go to the very core of
our national interests. I look forward to hearing more from the
witnesses on these important matters and this timely
discussion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 20 seconds.
Chairman Berman. Yes, that and what gets you a cup of
coffee? The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized
for 1 minute.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Information is power,
and during the Cold War, radio free Europe in its broadcasts
helped to spread untainted information that empowered people
like Lech Walessa and Vaclav Havel. But today the means have
changed, but the ability of information to undermine
totalitarian regimes remains constant. The Internet has
empowered new generations. You have the green movement in Iran
that has utilized new technologies to disseminate information
among dissidents, democracy advocates from China to Vietnam are
blogging about freedom and about democracy. But I will close
with this irony, and it is from the Washington Post. They wrote
recently, ``China aims not just at eliminating the free speech
and virtual free assembly inherent in the Internet, but at
turning it into a weapon that can be used against democrats and
against democratic societies.'' Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady from California, Ambassador
Watson, is recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The Internet
is an invaluable tool for expression of information and ideas.
Not only does this Internet allow for speedy disbursal, but
also reaches scores of people that was previously unimaginable.
That is why I feel that Internet security and freedom are so
important, and we must be able to protect our constituents and
our Government agencies from unwarranted cyber attacks from
international players such as China.
Sites such as Twitter and YouTube have provided us with
information about unjust acts all around the world, such as the
recent videos of election day protests in Iran. These videos
provide a window into the world that has previously been closed
to us. For that reason, I believe that we must do all we can to
protect the freedom of speech on the Internet. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Time of the gentlelady is expired. Who
else seeks recognition? The gentleman from New York, Mr.
McMahon is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join those who
thank you for scheduling this hearing and having these
witnesses come as well. I would just ask that the witnesses, as
they address the issue of Internet freedom in China and report
on what happened with Google and what is going forward, that
they also keep in mind and speak about intellectual property
rights and the fact that as we have freedom of information
flowing we also respect the rights of those who create music,
who create intellectual property, films and the like, because
that has become a very valuable good or manufactured thing or
commodity that America produces and yet our rights seem to be
taken away by those who do that. So I would ask you to focus on
that as well as we go forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. And
now we will--oh, the gentleman from New Jersey seeks
recognition. Mr. Sires is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I read this, you
know, I am very concerned that the China model may become a
model for the rest of the countries that want to stifle free
information, and I think it is very important that the
negotiations that are going on now do not become a model for
all these other countries that want to stifle. I am thinking
specifically of Cuba and North Korea. So, you know, you have
got your hands full. And I just wanted to make that statement,
I know I have a little time, but I will have questions and I
want to thank you for being here and thank the chairman for
holding this meeting. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired, and
now we are going to introduce and hear from our witnesses.
Nicole Wong is deputy general counsel at Google, working
primarily on the company's product and regulatory matters.
Prior to joining Google, she was a partner at the law firm of
Perkins Coie, where she represented traditional media and new
media clients. Ms. Wong also taught media and Internet law
courses as an adjunct professor at the University of California
at Berkeley, Stanford University, and the University of San
Francisco.
Rebecca MacKinnon is a visiting fellow at Princeton
University Center for Information Technology Policy, where she
is working on a book about China, the Internet, and the future
of freedom in the Internet age. She is a cofounder of the
Global Voices Online, an Internet blogger's network, and a
founding member of the Global Network Initiative, a multi-
stakeholder initiative that promotes free expression and
privacy around the world.
Dr. Larry Wortzel, serves as a--am I pronouncing that
right? Okay--commissioner on the congressionally-appointed
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Previously,
Dr. Wortzel served as vice president for foreign policy and
defense studies, and as director of the Asian Studies Center at
the Heritage Foundation.
And Robert Holleyman is president and CEO of the Business
Software Alliance, an association of the world's leading
developers of software, hardware, and Internet technologies.
Prior to joining BSA in 1990, Mr. Holleyman spent 8 years on
Capitol Hill as legislative director to former U.S. Senator
Russell Long, and then as senior counsel for the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. We are
really very pleased that you folks would come. We apologize for
that snow that put this hearing off until now, but all of you
working out your schedules to join us today we are very
grateful for. Ms. Wong, why don't you lead off?
STATEMENT OF NICOLE WONG, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY
GENERAL COUNSEL, GOOGLE, INC.
Ms. Wong. Thank you. Chairman Berman, Congressman Smith,
and members of the committee, thank you for your continued
attention on the issue of Internet freedom. I want to talk to
you today about the importance of an open Internet. An open
Internet is what allowed a national broadcaster in Venezuela to
update daily newscasts on YouTube after Hugo Chavez revoked
their broadcasting license because their opinions ran counter
to his policies. An open Internet is what ensured the
publication of blog reports, photos, and videos of hundreds of
Burmese monks being beaten and killed in 2007 even after the
government shut down the national media and kicked out foreign
journalists.
An open Internet is what brought the protests following the
Presidential elections in Iran last summer to all of our
attention, even after the government banned foreign
journalists, shut down the national media, and disrupted
Internet and cell phone service. But the continued power of
this medium requires a commitment from citizens, companies, and
governments alike. In the last few years, more than 25
countries have blocked Google services, including YouTube and
Blogger. The growing problem is consistent with Secretary
Clinton's recent speech on Internet freedom when she cited
cases from China to Tunisia to Uzbekistan to Vietnam.
For example, our video service YouTube has been blocked in
Turkey for 2 years now because of user videos that allegedly
insulted Turkishness. In 2009, during elections in Pakistan,
the Pakistani Government issued an order to all of its ISPs to
block certain opposition videos on YouTube. And of course there
is our experience in China, where the last year showed a
measurable increase in censorship in every medium including the
Internet.
An open Internet, one that continues to fulfill the
democratic function of giving voice to individuals,
particularly those who speak in dissent, demands that each of
us make the right choices to support a free and strong Internet
and to resist government censorship and other acts to chill
speech even when that decision is hard. As Google's deputy
general counsel, part of my job is handling censorship demands
from around the world guided by three principles: Maximizing
access to information online, notifying users when information
has been removed by government demand, and retaining our users'
trust by protecting privacy and security.
No examples received more attention than China in recent
months. In mid December, we detected a highly sophisticated and
targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure, originating
from China with a primary but unsuccessful goal to access Gmail
accounts. However, it soon became clear that what at first
appeared to be solely a security incident was something quite
different. Other companies from a range of businesses, finance,
technology, media, and chemical, were similarly targeted.
We discovered in our investigation that the accounts of
dozens of Gmail users around the world who advocate for human
rights in China appear to have been accessed by third parties.
Let me be clear that this happened independent of the attack on
Google, likely through fishing or malware placed on those
users' computers. These circumstances, as well as attempts over
the past year to limit free speech online, led us to conclude
that we no longer feel comfortable censoring our search results
in China. We are currently reviewing our business operations
there.
No particular industry, much less any single company, can
tackle Internet censorship on its own. Concerted, collective
action is needed to promote online free expression and reduce
the impact of censorship. We are grateful for law makers, and
in particular this committee's leadership, who have urged more
companies to join the Global Network Initiative. As a platform
for companies, human rights groups, investors, and academics,
GNI members commit to standards that respect and protect user
rights to privacy and freedom of expression. Additional
corporate participation will help the GNI reach its full
potential.
Beyond the GNI, every one of us at the grass roots
corporate and governmental level should make every effort to
maximize access to information online. In particular,
government can take some specific steps. First and foremost,
the U.S. Government should promote Internet openness as a major
plank for our foreign policy. The free flow of information is
an important part of diplomacy, foreign assistance, and
engagement on human rights. Second, Internet censorship should
be part of our trade agenda because it has serious economic
implications. It tilts the playing field toward domestic
companies and reduces consumer choice. It affects not only U.S.
and global Internet companies, but also hurts businesses in
every sector that use the Internet to reach customers.
Third, our Government and governments around the world
should be transparent about demands to censor or request
information about users or when a network comes under attack.
This is a critical part of the democratic process, allowing
citizens to hold their governments accountable. Finally, Google
supports the commitment of Congress and the administration to
provide funds to make sure people who need to access the
Internet safely have the right training and tools. I want to
thank each of you for your continued leadership in this fight
against online censorship. We look forward to working with you
to maximize access to information online and promote online
free expression around the world.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]Wong
statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much.
Ms. MacKinnon?
STATEMENT OF MS. REBECCA MACKINNON, VISITING FELLOW, CENTER FOR
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, COFOUNDER
OF GLOBAL VOICES ONLINE
Ms. Mackinnon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Smith, for
the chance to testify today and for your leadership on this
issue which has already begun to impact the behavior of a
number of companies. After describing how authoritarianism is
adapting to the Internet in ways that often involve companies,
I will offer some policy recommendations. Regimes like China
and Iran, and a growing list of others, usually start with the
blocking of Web sites, but they also use a range of other
tactics outlined in greater detail in my written testimony.
They include cyber attacks against activist Web sites;
deletion of online content by Internet companies at government
request, which entails taking it off the Internet entirely.
Surveillance is used in many countries that don't censor the
Internet much if at all. In Egypt, for example, heavy
surveillance of Internet users is justified as an anti-
terrorism measure, but is also used to harass, identify, and
persecute peaceful critics of the regime. And finally there is
the use of law enforcement demands in countries where the
definition of crime includes political speech, which means that
companies end up assisting in the jailing and tracking of
activists whether or not they had actually intended to do so at
the outset when they entered a market.
So what do we do? At the top of my list of recommendations
is corporate responsibility. In the fall of 2008, Google along
with Yahoo and Microsoft launched the Global Network
Initiative, a code of conduct for free expression and privacy,
in conjunction with human rights groups, investors, and
academic researchers like myself. The GNI recognizes that no
market is without political difficulties or ethical dilemmas.
Every company, every product, and every market is different.
Therefore, we believe in an approach that combines flexibility
with accountability.
Fundamentally, however, it is reasonable to expect that all
companies in this sector should acknowledge and seek to
mitigate the human rights risks associated with their
businesses, just as they and other companies consider
environmental risks and labor concerns. Next comes legislation.
Law may in fact be needed if companies fail to take voluntary
action. However, it is important that any law be sufficiently
flexible and global in scope to avoid becoming quickly
ineffective or even counterproductive due to rapid
technological or geopolitical changes.
Meanwhile, I recommend some immediate steps. First, private
right of action. It should be easier for victims to take action
in a U.S. court of law when companies assist regimes in
violating their rights. Second, we need to incentivize private
sector innovation that helps support Internet freedom. Third,
we need to continue revising sanctions and export controls. We
should make it harder for U.S. companies to sell products and
services to regimes with a clear track record of suppressing
peaceful political and religious speech.
However, our laws should not, on the other hand, bar
companies from serving those who are risking their lives to
peacefully voice dissent. The Treasury Department took an
important step this week in issuing export licenses for free
services and software to people in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Other
activists and places like Zimbabwe and Syria are still out in
the cold, and there remains the issue of paid services and
equipment for individual use that can also help promote freedom
of expression.
Technical support: Congress deserves great praise for
supporting development of tools and technologies that are
helping people get around Internet blocking. But these tools do
not counter other tactics regimes are also increasingly using.
Our support, therefore, should also include tools and training
to help people evade surveillance, detect spyware, and protect
against cyber attacks. We also need to help people develop
mechanisms to preserve and redistribute censored content that
has been taken off the Internet. We should also help with
platforms through which citizens around the world can share
information and tactics to fight for Internet freedom and
empower those individuals.
Finally, Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that
Internet freedom is a core American value and policy priority.
In reviving the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, the
administration can improve coordination so that the U.S.
Government agencies to not inadvertently constrain Internet
freedom in the course of pursuing other policy goals.
In conclusion, it is clear that the Internet has brought
new challenges to all governments, most companies, and most
parents for that matter. Mr. Chairman, I hope this Congress
will work to ensure that our cybersecurity solutions, our child
protection efforts, economic strategies, and business deals at
home and abroad will all be compatible with a free and open
global Internet. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. MacKinnon
follows:]MacKinnon statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman. I am tempted to say easier said than done,
but I hope we can do that.
Dr. Wortzel?
STATEMENT OF LARRY M. WORTZEL, PH.D., COMMISSIONER, U.S.-CHINA
ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION
Mr. Wortzel. Chairman Berman, Mr. Smith, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. The
views I will present are my own. They are a product of my
service on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, decades of service as an Army intelligence officer,
and decades of study of China. China is the origin of extensive
and malicious cyber activities that target the United States.
Our commission, in a contracted report, provided a case study
of a penetration into the computer systems of an American high
technology company.
The study detailed the way the data was acquired and
transferred to an Internet protocol address in China and what
institutional and individual actors in China may have been
involved. Now I am going to discuss three types of malicious
Chinese computer network operations: Those that strengthen
political control in China; those that gather economic,
military, or technology intelligence and information; and those
that reconnoiter, map, and gather targeting information on U.S.
military, government, or civil infrastructure networks for
later exploitation.
The organizations in China most likely to have gathered the
information or attempted to gather information about rights
activists during the Google penetrations are those responsible
for internal security, repression of the Chinese population,
and control over the distribution of information. These are the
Ministry of State Security, the Public Security Bureau, and
subsidiaries of the Chinese Communist Party such as the Party's
Central Propaganda Department.
The second type of malicious activity is intended to gather
information of military, technical, scientific, or economic
value. Gathering this type of information may speed the
development and fielding of weapons, improve technology in
sectors of China's industries, while saving time and money in
research and development, and compromises valuable intellectual
property. The organizations of the Chinese Government with the
mission and capability to conduct such activities span military
and civilian agencies as well as the state owned companies in
China's military industrial complex.
Now, not all cyber-espionage in China is government
controlled. There are plenty of cyber-espionage entrepreneurs
who operate outside the government and who could be working on
behalf of Chinese companies or state run science and technology
parts. But let us be candid, when the Department of Justice is
prosecuting several espionage cases involving the acquisition
by China of defense technologies and military information and
the same type of data is being stolen by cyber penetrations, a
logical person would conclude that the vast majority of this
activity is directed by the Chinese Government.
In the third type of cyber activity, China's intelligence
or military services penetrate computers that control our vital
infrastructure or our military computer networks, reconnoiter
them electronically, and map or target nodes in the system for
future penetration or attack. Malicious code is often left
behind to facilitate future entry. Regarding this third type of
computer network penetration, General James Cartwright
suggested that effects associated with a cyber attack could be
in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction, and former
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell recently made
a similar comparison.
Now, I believe the government should vigorously monitor and
defend our Government computer and critical infrastructure
networks. Congress also should put in place legislation that
facilitates similar programs for industry. Our Government
should work closely with allies and friends to combat malicious
cyber activity, and we should ally with like minded nations to
keep the worldwide web out of the control of some international
body and authoritarian governments such as the one in China
that would stop the free exchange of ideas and virtual freedom
of association. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I
will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wortzel
follows:]Wortzel statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Holleyman. For a second I thought I was in the
Judiciary Committee.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT W. HOLLEYMAN, II, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE
Mr. Holleyman. Exactly, that is a good committee as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, and
Mr. Smith, other members of this committee. This is certainly a
timely and important hearing, and the Business Software
Alliance which represents leading companies in the software,
hardware, and Internet arena welcomes the opportunity to
provide its perspective. A number of the companies and
individuals talking today have provided key aspects to today's
hearing. I would like to talk about some of the challenges that
we face as an industry in ensuring that the Internet is an open
platform for communication.
We are proud of the fact that the tools that companies--
largely American-based companies--have developed and have
deployed that have allowed both the greatest economic
opportunity and for individual and personal communication to
disseminate around the world. The announcement just earlier
this week that you referred to in your opening statement, Mr.
Chairman, by the Treasury Department shows just how important
it is to get communications tools into the hands of
individuals, including in countries with repressive regimes.
And the U.S. has an important role in the area of global
cyber technology leadership and cybersecurity leadership.
President Obama spoke to that issue in the Cyberspace Policy
Review, and the international component of that, and the
international leadership by the U.S. is critical. I would like
to address today three issues: (1) the legal environments that
restrict U.S. technology companies from foreign markets; (2)
the tolerance of industrial theft of U.S. intellectual
property; and (3) the threat of cyber attacks.
First, let me address the market restrictions we are
facing. Some governments are taking steps that would displace
American technology from current and, more importantly, future
and growing markets by implementing restrictive industrial
policies. For example, the Chinese Government is pursuing
indigenous innovation policies that are aimed at shutting
foreign firms out of the market or compelling them to transfer
their intellectual property and relocate their research and
development to China.
I was pleased to have an opportunity to testify late last
year before Ms. Watson in the first subcommittee hearing that
looked at this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, your own letter to the
Chinese ambassador making it clear that this issue of
indigenous innovation policy as a means of shutting American
and other countries' companies out of the market not only in
technology but for green development--for the most innovative
technology--was an issue that demanded high level attention.
Certainly the administration is making it such, but we have not
yet achieved significant progress with China.
Late last year, China attempted to mandate that all
computers sold in the country had Green Dam filtering software.
And again, as you said in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman,
we were one of the industry groups that joined together across
continents to call on China to reverse that policy because of
its impact on security, privacy, and the free flow of
information. Fortunately, the Chinese Government suspended this
mandate, but it could return in the future.
Other witnesses have addressed specific laws and policies
that impose restrictions on the free flow of information, and
some of these policies impede the ability of technology
companies to operate in these countries. Both at home and
abroad, U.S. companies are bound to follow the laws of the
jurisdictions where they do business. In some instances, these
laws confront American companies with a difficult binary
choice: Stay in the market and comply with local law, or leave.
We believe that remaining engaged in those markets is important
wherever possible to do so.
Second is the issue of theft of intellectual property. Mr.
McMahon mentioned this in his opening comment. This is an
important issue in many markets. China is probably the market
where it is of the highest importance. This problem is
restricting the ability of organizations--of companies
operating out of the U.S.--and their workers to access foreign
markets, and it harms the U.S. economy. Most software theft
occurs when an otherwise legitimate business illegally copies
software for its use. When that is repeated millions of times
around the world, this conduct has a staggering cumulative
effect.
But more importantly, software theft distorts competition
and it destroys American jobs. A company that steals
productivity software for its use competes unfairly against a
company that pays for it. Both enjoy productivity benefits from
the software, but only one is bearing the legitimate cost.
Which means, for example, that in a country like China, where
only 20 percent of the productivity software is paid for,
Chinese enterprises are enjoying an unfair advantage over their
U.S. competitors who are paying for the licensed software.
So this issue goes way beyond the IP industry, and in this
case touches every business that is affected by a high-piracy
country. And we believe that the U.S. has to use tough
diplomacy and tough trade measures to attack these issues.
And third is the issue of cyber attacks and cyber
intrusions, one of the three prongs of this hearing. These
intrusions and attacks are preventing the Internet from
reaching its full potential, and unfortunately the cyber
attacks experienced by Google and other companies as talked
about today were not unique.
In this era of increased interconnectedness, having
commercial security practices as well as government attention
to cybersecurity is vital to our economic and national
security. Our companies are also among the leaders in building
and implementing cyber technology. We support the
administration's ambitious international cybersecurity
strategy, and this has to be an international priority. No one
country can do it alone. In my written statement I have listed
seven steps that we would recommend for the U.S. and for any
country to look at as a matter of law and working with the
private sector to enhance cybersecurity.
Let me simply say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Smith, that the Internet is growing and changing. A majority of
Internet users reside outside the U.S., and that majority is
growing rapidly. As leaders in Internet technology, U.S.
companies have a toe-hold in many of these fastest growing
markets. We believe strongly that it is both in U.S. foreign
policy interest and U.S. domestic economic interest for U.S.
technology companies to remain present in overseas markets as
the next generation of the Internet is built out.
And we want to work with this committee, with the Congress
and with the government in ensuring that we have the ability as
American companies to be the platform that provides these
communications and information tools and to fight against the
challenges that we face, and we thank you for holding this
hearing. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holleyman
follows:]Holleyman statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Berman. Well thank you very much, all of you. A
lot of questions here. We may, I know I am going to want to
have at least my shot at a second round and if others want to
as well. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes, and then
I am going to turn the chair over to Mr. Sherman while I have a
meeting, but we will proceed. The Post this morning talks about
Iran blocking foreign domestic Web sites--that is the
Washington Post, not the New York Post--Iran blocking foreign
domestic Web sites to curb antigovernment activists.
It raises an issue that Ms. MacKinnon touches on in her
testimony and that we have been thinking about a lot in terms
of the Iran sanctions bill and export control reform. In
addition to the Treasury license which was granted this week,
what changes are needed to our Iran embargo to help facilitate
protection for the dissenters in Iran? And the flip side of
this is, are there technologies that sometimes U.S.
subsidiaries, sometimes companies located in allied countries,
are exporting to Iran that may aid their ability for the
government to suppress communication? Do any of you just want
to take a crack at that?
Ms. Mackinnon. I am happy to take a crack at beginning, I
am sure there will be other thoughts as well. Speaking to
Iranian bloggers and activists, members of the green movement
in Iran, people raise a number of issues, and they very much
welcome the initial steps by the Treasury Department in making
it legal now for Google and many other companies to provide
access to their free services, but there is concern that
Iranian activists, it is still illegal for American web hosting
companies to provide them paid web hosting service. So if an
Iranian green movement Web site wants to be hosted outside of
Iran, they cannot purchase that space on a web hosting service
directly because it is illegal for that American company to
serve them.
Chairman Berman. Illegal because our codification of our
embargo?
Ms. Mackinnon. Absolutely.
Chairman Berman. So an amendment to that could deal with
that problem?
Ms. Mackinnon. Right. And also because this latest step
only handles free services, for instance another issue that
Iranian activists face is the ability to buy domain names
outside of .IR, which is controlled by the government, they
can't buy domain names very easily directly from international
registrars. So they have to go through third parties, people
exiled, and so on, and so what that leads to is that their
domain names often get stolen by hackers and others, and it
makes them much more vulnerable, it makes it much more
difficult for them to run Web sites outside of Iran that are
accessible.
Chairman Berman. Explain that a second, why would it make
it more usually subject to theft?
Ms. Mackinnon. So if you cannot control your account
directly.
Chairman Berman. I see, all right.
Ms. Mackinnon. You are relying on second or third parties.
Chairman Berman. There are intermediaries getting into this
transaction.
Ms. Mackinnon. It makes it much harder to maintain control
over your domain name. And so there have been some instances
lately of green movement Web sites that got hacked, and then
their domain names were stolen, but they couldn't easily regain
control because they couldn't interact directly with the domain
name registrars and so on because it wasn't legal for the
domain name registrars to do that. So there are a number of
issues like that. Activists also point to the issue of----
Chairman Berman. Tell you what, let me interject here only
because I am going to run out of time. I am actually quite
serious about trying to pursue some specific things we need to
do to change our law because I think we are going to have an
opportunity to in the Iran legislation, and so I will follow up
with you.
Ms. Mackinnon. Right. And so the point is that there are a
lot of paid services that individuals need access to in order
to really speak out in the way they need to.
Chairman Berman. I got it.
Ms. Mackinnon. And also individual equipment, access to
satellite phones that enable people to access the Internet
through satellite and so on, the individual ability to purchase
that.
Chairman Berman. I am going to follow up with you; we are
going to get the specifics and move on that. In my last 20
seconds, Mr. Holleyman, how come more of your members haven't
joined the Global Network Initiative?
Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question.
Certainly we have discussed this with a number of our members.
The Global Network Initiative, as I understand it, was
initially created to deal with companies who were functioning
mostly as Internet service providers. And so the three largest
American companies working in that area, Google, Microsoft, and
Yahoo----
Chairman Berman. Mr. Holleyman, I hate to do this to
myself, but my time is expired, so we will follow up on it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would ask unanimous consent that the
chairman be given an extra 30 seconds so we can hear the answer
to that question.
Chairman Berman. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Holleyman. It was an issue that the GNI was initially
started to deal with companies who were working as Internet
service providers. There are discussions underway with the
executive secretariate and others at the GNI about potentially
expanding it to deal with companies in a broader group of
technology functions. And many of our companies are part of
discussing that, but those who are the ISPs, for whom it was
created, are part of that effort. Other companies certainly are
working actively today with the U.N. Compact as well, so they
are looking at it in a variety of ways.
Chairman Berman. My time is expired. I recognize the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a
few questions of the panelists, and thank you for your
testimony and for your work following the White House decision
to support Google's action to no longer censor searches,
Microsoft made it very clear that it will stay in China, and it
was quoted in Forbes, ``' deg.We've been quite clear
that we are going to operate in China,'' said Microsoft CEO
Steve Ballmer. On January 22nd Forbes reports that Ballmer
suggested in his speech to oil company executives that
``Google's decision to no longer filter out Internet searches
objectionable to the Chinese Government was an irrational
business decision.'' deg. ``' deg.The U.S. is
the most extreme when it comes to free speech.'' said
Balmer.'' deg.
Frankly, I find that outrageous. I am not sure how the
panel feels about that. When I asked the four top Internet
companies, more than just Internet, Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo,
and Google, to testify back in 2006 and it took us months to
get them to come voluntarily, which they did, we had that kind
of statement from each of those representatives. It was
disheartening, both to myself as chair and to Tom Lantos, who
was the ranking member. We left no stone unturned in trying to
point out the disservice that that did to the human rights
activists. And now Mr. Ballmer, with that kind of statement,
shows that there has been no learning curve or very little, and
I would appreciate any thoughts that any of you might have on
that statement which I find unconscionable.
Secondly, Harry Wu had testified that Cisco said that the
Chinese Secret Police were sold by Cisco Police Net, which
substantially enabled the detection, arrest, torture, and
incarceration of political dissidents, labor leaders, and
religious people as well. As a matter of fact, Ms. MacKinnon,
he quoted your Web site in his testimony. Obviously, much
damage has been done. As we all know, with any high tech there
always needs to be upgrades, there always need to be
technological enhancements, as new products come online.
And the issue, as awful as it exists today, the cyber
police are combing the Internet looking for anybody who puts in
the word Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, underground Christians,
Uighurs, you name it. On the security side as well there are
all kinds of mischief being done searching for anybody who has
a contrary view to Beijing. What would you suggest we do vis-a-
vis a Cisco in order to mitigate even more harm being done? At
the end title of our Global Online Freedom Act, we originally
had a dual-use effort, to try to stop dual-use products, I
should say, that could be abused by police. It is now a
feasibility study because several members objected to it, but I
just want to ask you if you could, I don't have much time,
comment on those two issues first, Ballmer and Cisco.
Ms. Wong. So as a member of the Global Network Initiative
with Rebecca and both Yahoo and Microsoft, we were frankly very
puzzled by the comments that were reported from Mr. Ballmer,
because they are not consistent with the conversations we have
been having at the GNI for the last 3 years, and certainly we
would never minimize the human rights impact of censorship in
China or any other country. We do think that the forum for GNI
provides a really important role for companies to talk about,
what they are seeing on the ground in all of these countries,
and hopefully it continues to have that role.
Mr. Smith. Ms. MacKinnon?
Ms. Mackinnon. I was very puzzled as well by Mr. Ballmer's
statement because I too felt that it really contradicted a lot
of the work that other Microsoft executives have been doing in
the Global Network Initiative. And it certainly is true that
the GNI is not seeking to do a one-size-fits-all, that in all
cases you have to do X. Every business is different, these
businesses need to make conscious decisions on their own based
on precisely what their products are and precisely what their
business relationships are. So we are not saying that Microsoft
should follow exactly what Google does in all situations.
However, Microsoft at a working level has been trying to
implement greater transparency and human rights assessments in
their businesses in China and elsewhere. So Mr. Ballmer's
statement was indeed extremely puzzling.
Mr. Wortzel. Businesses mitigate risk often without direct
concern for human rights or national security, and that is
where some of these export controls come in. But dual-use
items, I would just tell you, are very difficult. I mean I had
an experience in a plant in China, or a manufacturing facility,
that was working on pollution control systems. And I looked
inside the router boxes and found routers that were coproduced
by a major American defense company and ten miles up the road
the partner of that defense company had a Chinese electronic
warfare and electronic countermeasures regiment in its yard
being outfitted with the same routers, so I would just say it
is a difficult problem.
Mr. Smith. I see I am out of time, but if we could go back
in the second round to Cisco and some additional questions.
Mr. Sherman [presiding]. Thank you. My first question is
for Ms. Wong; it may be a step outside the general scope of
these hearings. I stumble across illegal pirated works on the
Internet, full Bruce Springsteen albums, entire seasons of
current television shows available online, and sometimes they
are surrounded by Google ads. Now, I understand that it is
Google's policy to prohibit users from displaying Google ads
alongside unlawful content, and I would like to know how Google
is enforcing that policy. When you get a take-down notice for a
copyright or trademark owner, do you automatically remove the
ads placed next to the infringing material? And how long does
it take for you to remove the illegal material and the
advertising?
Ms. Wong. So, of course for both business and legal
reasons, we feel very strongly about protection of intellectual
property and the removal of illegal content from our systems.
We build our systems with both automated processes as well as
manual processes to make sure that we do that well. I don't
know the specific take-down times that you are asking me for,
but I am happy to come back.
Mr. Sherman. I am going to ask you to supplement your
answer for the record.
Ms. Wong. Sure.
Mr. Sherman. But is it your policy that when you have
unlawful material, you take down the ads?
Ms. Wong. When we identify unlawful material where our ads
are showing, it is our policy to remove them.
Mr. Sherman. I will ask you to respond for the record to
the more detailed portions of the question. Mr. Holleyman, you
asked us to get tough. Businesses are always coming to Congress
and asking us to get tough, and then when you ask them for
specifics they basically ask that we beg in a louder voice,
which is not effective with China. Business communities are
totally unwilling to say, Well why don't we have a week where
we block our ports to Chinese imports? Are you proposing
anything tough or are you like other businesses, business
representatives just wanting us to beg?
Mr. Holleyman. We believe that a record needs to built very
quickly that is completely solid in terms of the economic harm
that is being caused to the U.S., and particularly in my
reference to the unfair subsidies that are effectively existing
for companies outside the U.S. who are using illegal software,
and we know that there are Members of Congress who are asking
for those to be built. And then we think that we need to take
appropriate action.
Mr. Sherman. Does taking appropriate action actually do
anything, or are you just asking us to beg with big stacks of
legal documents?
Mr. Holleyman. No, no, I mean we think----
Mr. Sherman. Are you proposing action that would in any way
diminish Chinese access to U.S. markets or impose taxes on
Chinese goods coming into our markets?
Mr. Holleyman. We are proposing that the U.S. use the
bilateral mechanisms we have and the multilateral through the
WTO.
Mr. Sherman. I guarantee delay and failure unless you are
willing to support, and the business community is ready to
support, immediate, you know, action at the ports on the
ground, real action. These bilateral, you know, we will throw
paper at them, they will throw paper at us, nothing is going to
happen. And my next question is rather, you know, requires a
technical knowledge of the Internet, and I used to look around
the audience for someone with a plastic pocket protector and
figure that was the person, but I am looking, I can't find
anybody in the audience, so I will address this to Mr.
Holleyman unless there is someone else with a greater technical
knowledge.
And that is, in a war between a group of software engineers
that are trying to build a wall and a group of software
engineers who are trying to poke holes in the wall, who has got
the upper hand? It would seem to me that you just have to poke
one hole in the wall, one way for the word to get around to
Chinese citizens as to how to have access to the real Internet.
How difficult is it for us to build these holes?
Mr. Holleyman. Our experience in a whole host of areas is
that it is always possible to punch a hole. And whether it is
just in general security technology, it is always possible to
do it. It is not easy, but it happens. And the converse of that
is that we look to build more secure systems in the U.S. to
prevent attacks. We know that holes will be punched, but we
have to keep building in an arms race to build more secure
technology.
Mr. Sherman. I see my time is expired. I will recognize the
man from California, the outstanding representative Mr.
Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we
are discussing today actually goes to the heart of a
contradiction, and you can't treat gangsters and tyrants as if
they are the same as democratic leaders and honest people and
expect there not to be some problem developing. And this is
what we are talking about here today. China is a vicious
dictatorship. They may well have had a lot of economic reform
in the sense that they have had economic progress, but there
has been no liberalization whatsoever politically.
And we have our business community, you know, stepping on
themselves trying to get over there to make a profit dealing
with these gangsters. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got to come to
grips with that. The corporate world isn't going to make these
decisions on their own. They are looking to us as
representatives of the democratic society that we represent to
set the ground rules because they aren't able to do it
themselves because stockholders are clamoring for profit et
cetera. Google is making an attempt, but again, announcements
are one thing, actually implementing policies are another. Let
me ask one thing. Are religious groups as well, like the Falun
Gong, being discriminated against finding themselves with
Internet restrictions in China?
Ms. Mackinnon. I can answer your question about the Falun
Gong. Yes, Falun Gong material is heavily censored on the
Chinese Internet.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So Falun Gong, the Uighurs we know are,
the Tibetan Buddhists are. So we could say that if religion
manifests itself in some actual power in a society, we have got
a regime that is willing to use a heavy hand to try to stamp
that out or to restrict their abilities to utilize technology
in their freedom. I don't know, again the central problem here
is that we are trying to treat China as if it is Belgium, and
it is not. China is not a democratic country, and we should
have different rules.
When we talk about World Trade Organization and MFN, what
we are really talking about is trying to get a dictatorship
into the same rules that apply to democratic countries. You
know, this is the challenge we face, I think it is not one that
we can solve. I think that frankly dictatorships do not deserve
the same trading rights and the same considerations that we
give to democratic countries. As I say, it is the concept of
free trade between free people.
At the same time we must make sure that we are siding with
the people of China. The people of China, I happen to believe,
are our greatest ally in the cause of world peace and
democracy. Because if we are going to have world peace and the
promotion of freedom in the world, the people of China are on
the front line, and what we have to make sure that everybody
knows is the people of the United States and our Government
and, yes, our corporations through government mandates are on
the side of the people of China and not the dictatorship.
Which means that when the companies fell over themselves
trying to sell computers to the police of China, I am sorry,
yes they could say, Well the police are just a neutral thing,
they are just law and order. No it is not. The Gestapo and the
police in Nazi Germany were not the same as the police in
London or in the United States. So, Mr. Chairman, I am looking
forward and I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Smith of course, for this Global Online Freedom Act and some of
the really--and we have gotten to the point and to the heart of
the matter on this trade issue with China, and I am a proud
supporter of the Global Online Freedom Act.
And I would hope, and that is why I wanted you to have an
extra 30 seconds to answer that, I would hope corporate America
starts making some moral stands in that way too when our
Government is trying to stand up for what this country is all
about. If it wasn't for our Government and our country standing
up for these principles of freedom, none of your corporations
would have the ability to make any money, none. Because we
wouldn't have freedom in this country, we wouldn't have a free
enterprise system. So it behooves you to sort of perhaps get
behind great efforts like this in Congress to stand up for
American principles. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We have another
representative from the great state of California, the great
Lynn Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is so
frustrating. The United States is not a vicious dictatorship,
we know that. But we have citizens right here in our own
country, including very young folks, kids almost, who can break
into our own Department of Defense computer systems and
information systems, and do from afar. So is this even possible
in this world of ours of so many smart people, so many ways
around everything to protect information?
And certainly, you know, there is a difference between
protecting information through security and economic bottom
line and allowing people to have freedom of speech, I mean they
go hand in hand. But when we open up for freedom of speech do
we then open up even more for the ability to be hacked? Where
do we go with this and what is it costing us and what is the
tradeoff? I know that is very big, but that is as technical as
I can get. Mr. Holleyman?
Mr. Holleyman. Ms. Woolsey, thank you for the question. I
think we know that as we have opened up the Internet and opened
up computing technology we have opened up vast channels for
positive information and positive growth. At the same time,
that interconnectedness has posed vulnerabilities, and it
really is very much in the area of cybersecurity an arms race
to build more secure systems because the bad elements, bad
actors, whether they are state-supported or individuals, have
sophisticated technology.
I was in San Francisco last week with 16,000 people for the
RSA Security Conference. Howard Schmidt, who is the President's
new Cybersecurity Advisor--the first in the White House--spoke
quite well about the steps we need to take to make us more
secure. There are billions of dollars that the U.S. is
spending, both in working with the private sector but also to
build more secure networks in the U.S. and to make sure that we
have full cybercapacity.
But at the heart of your question is an anomaly, that the
U.S. is the largest source of cyber-criminal activity in the
world, and that is because we are the most connected country in
terms of our business work, so it is not surprising. China is
number two. Germany and France are three and four. So this is
ultimately a global problem, it is going to take global
solutions, and we will not be able to block the cyber
intrusions completely. What we have to do is make sure though
that we continue to build the best technology, build private
sector solutions, and it is neither one nor the other. We will
have more interconnectedness, but through that we will have
more vulnerabilities.
Mr. Wortzel. Ms. Woolsey?
Ms. Woolsey. Yes?
Mr. Wortzel. Let me say that just as the government has
tried to approach this through ensuring that on Federal systems
you have trusted hardware and trusted software developed here
in the United States, there are things you can do, at far
higher cost. But if your software research and development, and
I am just going to use China, if your software research and
development is in China and your hardware is being
manufactured, researched, developed, and manufactured in China,
and people who do this work in China move freely between
companies and government agencies, you are never going to be
secure. The best you can do is monitor what goes on on your
net.
Ms. Woolsey. Ms. MacKinnon?
Ms. Mackinnon. Well, Ms. Woolsey, I think you really do hit
the heart of the problem about this balance between the need
for security and the need for freedom. And really, you know,
this goes back to when our own country was being founded and
you had the arguments between Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton
about where do you get the right balance between freedom and
security in order to have both a secure and adequately free
society. And we are now kind of taking that argument from a
country level to a global level on the Internet, and how do we
get that balance right globally? Because we can't divide it up
country by country.
And Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out to the problem of treating
markets all like they are Belgium. Part of the problem too is
that our technology treats all countries like they are Belgium.
So Nokia, for instance, when it sold its equipment to Iran, its
equipment by default included a lawful interception gateway,
which when implemented in the context of proper judicial
oversight over the police and what not, is deemed, you know,
was required in Europe for Nokia to include that technology in
its phones and in its systems. But you take that into a place
like Iran and you have got 1984.
Same with the Calea requirements in American made routers
and so on, the communications assistance for law enforcement.
There are technical requirements that we build into our
equipment on the assumption that this equipment is going to be
used in a society that has oversight, but then that equipment
is sold into a society where there is no oversight and where
crime is defined broadly to include political and religious
speech. So how do we prevent that from happening?
Ms. Woolsey. You are supposed to tell us. You are the
witnesses.
Ms. Mackinnon. Well, it is difficult. We need to be
thinking about, you know, the systems that we are building and
we are assuming are going to be universally used, how are those
systems going to get distorted when they are applied globally,
and do we need to rethink what we bake into our technology as a
default?
Mr. Sherman. I think the time of the gentlelady is expired.
We have yet another talented Member from the State of
California, the ranking member of the Terrorism,
Nonproliferation, deg. and Trade Subcommittee, of
course the best subcommittee of the full committee, and that is
of course Ed Royce.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Wortzel, in reading
your testimony, one thing I think jumps out to all these
Californians here today, or should, and that is your coverage
of the Chinese researchers at the Institute of Systems
Engineering of Dalian University of Technology and their
published paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid
subnetwork in a way that would cause a cascading failure of the
entire U.S. West Coast power grid. How helpful in terms of that
university study.
Also, just reading through your testimony and listening to
your remarks, Chinese military officers noted that scholars
hold differing opinions about whether a computer network attack
may constitute an act of war. They also note the frequent
difficulty in accurately identifying the source of cyber
attacks and argued that the source must be clearly identified
before a counterattack could be responsibly launched.
I am going back to your quote from General James
Cartwright, who was commander of the U.S. Strategic Command,
and he is currently vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He said, ``I don't think the U.S. has gotten its head around
the issue yet, but I think that we should start to consider
that effects associated with a cyber attack could in fact be in
the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction.''
And I would ask you in light of those comments, and in
light of the fact, as you say, that China currently is thought
by many analysts to have the world's largest denial of service
capability and you go through exactly what that would mean, let
me ask you this. It was reported that the White House National
Security Council downgraded China in our country's intelligence
collection priorities from priority 1 to priority 2. In your
opinion, is China less of a security threat today than it was
last year or the year before, and is the decision to downgrade
China wise in your opinion? Commissioner?
Mr. Wortzel. Mr. Royce, it is and remains, according to the
director of National Intelligence, the director of the FBI, the
number one intelligence threat to the United States. It is only
one of two countries that can put nuclear warheads on the
United States, and we have no existing arms control
architecture with China. So it should absolutely be the number
one priority.
Mr. Royce. Thank you, Commissioner. I will also ask you, we
have heard reports that the cyber attacks on Google and other
countries originated from within China, but officially, many
have danced around China's role, or at least the Chinese
Government's role in this, right? So for a minute if we were to
be frank, were these attacks sponsored by the Chinese
Government?
Mr. Wortzel. I don't believe that the Chinese Government
has any interest in how Google fares inside China. They have an
interest in making sure that Baidu, which is partially owned by
them, does well. So if Google has code stolen, I am not a
lawyer, I don't have to argue it in court, I am an intelligence
officer, I am going to analyze who could do it, who profits,
what might happen. I have very little doubt that is who did it.
And with respect to this, the information on rights activists,
I couldn't tell you if it was the Ministry of State Security or
the Public Security Bureau, but it was the Chinese Government
Mr. Royce. Thank you. Thank you. We have heard much on
China, I think rightfully so. I am equally concerned on the
attacks and the persecution especially of Vietnamese cyber-
dissidents. There the government continues its crackdown on
those that blog on democracy and human rights. The Communist
government there removes some postings, but more problematic is
their resorting to violence in the most extreme cases, and I
was wondering, and I think I will ask this of Rebecca MacKinnon
from Princeton University's Center for Information Technology
Policy, I would ask you if you could speak on how bloggers
could evade detection from authorities when they want to talk
about free speech. How do you get around that kind of?
Ms. Mackinnon. Well, there are tools, anonymity tools. One
is called Tor, which is an open source tool, and there are a
number of others, that help you disguise your IP address as you
access a Web site. So there are methods, and there is a range
of other methods as well that people who have gained
instruction and awareness can use. But many people are not
sufficiently aware of how to cover their tracks on the
Internet, and end up taking one measure but not another
measure, end up being under surveillance because they
downloaded some software that had spyware in it, and so on.
So it is very difficult to evade detection, although it is
possible. But there is also a lot of other issues too related
to how social networking services, like Facebook to just give
one example among many others, how they handle their privacy
policies, and to make sure that not only are they to the liking
of American teenagers but that also that American companies
with global Internet services have really done a human rights
stress test on these services to makes sure that certain
security services can't take advantage of them.
Mr. Sherman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Royce. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses.
Mr. Sherman. I will point out to the witnesses that the
statement that America does not torture applies only to the
executive branch; the chair has announced his intention to do a
second round. And demonstrating that not all wisdom comes from
California, we now have an outstanding member of the committee,
the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Sires. Well thank you very much. I was getting a
complex, Chris and I. I am just wondering, Ms. Wong, how much
negotiating powers does a company like Google have when you
have foreign governments that have these sense of policies. I
mean do you have any leverage at all?
Ms. Wong. It is a very good question. And as a single
company, it is based on your ability to engage that government
and hopefully having someone who is reasonable on the other
side, and that is certainly not always the case. One of the
reasons that we were one of the founding members of the Global
Network Initiative is actually to improve our ability to deal
with these governments, so that you would have a set of
companies that could approach a government about policies and
as a united front tell them that you were not willing to do
certain types of censorship or not willing to deal with some of
their more restrictive laws. But it is very difficult and
different in every country.
Mr. Sires. Well, you know, as I looked at--I am originally
from Cuba and I am always very interested in the process there.
I mean only last year did they allow cell phones on the island.
You can imagine the government how they restrain information,
and now we have a situation where somebody was doling out
computers and he is in jail. How does a private company and
government work together to prevent this stuff from happening?
I mean they could care less.
Ms. Wong. Right. From a company perspective, what we do is
do a human rights impact assessment before entering a country,
before deciding to put people on the ground. So we will
actually look at a country in terms of what is the rule of law,
what are their censorship laws like, what are their government
surveillance laws like, to know it before going in or offering
a product there exactly what we might be in for in terms of
dealing with that government or regime. That is one step.
We have had in the past issues where we actually couldn't
come to agreement with other governments and actually have
found that our Government through the State Department and
other areas were extremely helpful in being a partner with us
to intercede in those discussions. And that is one of the
reasons in my recommendations in my testimony I talk about
using this making freedom of expression part of our foreign
policy, making it part of our trade agreements, which gives
both us and our Government a better platform for having those
conversations.
Mr. Sires. Well thank you very much. Dr. Wortzel, we are in
the middle of a big cold war here, and I just wanted your
opinion on where you think America is at in terms of awareness
of how serious this issue is. I mean we have bad economic
times, we have issues that we are working on, but is America
really focusing enough on this new cold war that is happening
today? This could have repercussions beyond, you know, what we
can even think.
Mr. Wortzel. Well, first of all, it is very different from
the Cold War in the sense that we don't have, you know, the
containment policy against China. We are heavily engaged. But
we are certainly already engaged in a cyber war. We are
certainly already engaged in a military competition and space
competition, and at the same time we are heavily dependent on
each other in trade, banking, and finance. So I think you have
to be very careful how you navigate your way through that. I
think the public needs to be aware of the threats. Much of what
the Congress and the American people thought would happen by
getting China into the World Trade Organization and opening
normal trade relations with it in terms of democratizing did
not occur.
Mr. Sires. Did not.
Mr. Wortzel. It did not occur, it did not democratize, it
got worse, as a matter of fact. So it has a very free economy,
or a reasonably free economy that is growing, but more
effective repression. So I think----
Mr. Sires. And it comes to--I hate to interrupt--but it
comes to my point that I hate to see the China model become the
model throughout some of these countries.
Mr. Wortzel. Well, I think you are absolutely right there,
and it takes careful export controls and careful controls over
what we do in terms of trade.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wortzel. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. The
gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had a number
of small businesses who have been adversely impacted by unfair
business practices as I ventured out into the global market.
And then just in general, I know that it has been brought up
previously, but I really am concerned, I guess I don't
understand the ability for a Chinese counterfeiter to use
Google advertising to sell its products, to buy that trademark
and purchase the trademark of the company involved and then
sell the products.
I think there has been litigation in the past, here in the
United States, Geico, American Airlines. But for the small
businesses, the people that don't have the deep pockets, the
people that don't have the ability to litigate and go through
that long process, it is very, very difficult. So my question
is, why can't we have the same policy? Don't sell another
company's trademark to counterfeiters. I mean I just don't
understand that. So if you all could comment on that it would
be appreciated. But these are the kind of things that have to
be worked out in the future as the world becomes smaller. It
just seems very, very unfair, and so if you would comment I
would appreciate that.
Ms. Wong. So our trademark policies permit advertisers who
come to the Google adware system to advertise based on certain
keywords. We actually have a very robust process that is both
automated and manual to try and prevent the misuse of
trademarks and to assist trademark owners in protecting their
rights. Having said that, there is a freedom of expression
component on being able to advertise on particular keywords.
Take apple for example. An advertiser who wants to advertise on
the word apple, we have to be able to detect what they mean,
whether they are in competition with the computer or with the
fruit. And so that type of process is something that we are
working on all the time to improve.
Mr. Boozman. So if a business owner, once they establish
that there is a problem, and these things are sometimes very
cut and dried, then you do take steps and fix the problem
immediately?
Ms. Wong. Yes, we do have both an automated and a full team
that is dedicated to resolving those issues.
Mr. Boozman. Okay. Would the rest of you all agree? Mr.
Holleyman?
Mr. Holleyman. Congressman, I can't comment on those
specific policies. What I can comment on though is the broader
question, which is, each of your constituents, businesses large
and small, who have competitors in a high-piracy country like
China have a disadvantage against their Chinese competitor who
is using the same productivity tools but who, in the case of
China, 80 percent of those businesses are not paying for it
while your constituents are. And so this is an issue that goes
well beyond whether you are in the software industry or the
technology industry, but it is unfair competition, and in
addition to the specific cases related to ads we need to look
at this broader impact that goes to every district, every
business in this country.
Ms. Mackinnon. Just briefly, to put this in a broader free
expression context as well, there have been some concerns,
particularly there have been some discussions about policies
and laws in some European jurisdictions, and there is also the
ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Act, that is a state secret
so we don't know what is really in it. But one of the things
that sometimes is advocated by copyright holders, who certainly
deserve to have their intellectual property protected, is that
greater liability be placed on carriers and platforms to censor
and surveil their users in order to prevent copyright theft.
But at the same time when putting those mechanisms in
place, this comes back to the law enforcement issue that I was
raising earlier, it also gives repressive regimes an extra
excuse to surveil and censor and put liability on carriers to
surveil and censor for political reasons as well. So we need to
make sure that as we are seeking to protect legitimate business
interests we are also not providing extra tools for repression
because they are sort of dual use in that way. Because a lot of
governments justify their censorship and surveillance with the
excuse of child protection, law enforcement, and copyright
protection.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. In fact, I would ask the gentleman if I
could suggest unanimous consent that he have 1 additional
minute and ask him if he would yield to me on this issue that
he is raising.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
actually hear stories that there are people who in the name of
freedom of expression think that every potential protection of
copyrights or patents or trademarks that is suggested could
theoretically and potentially, if taken too far, impinge on
first amendment rights and therefore oppose any single and
every single effort to protect intellectual property. Have you
ever come across such people?
Ms. Mackinnon. All the time.
Chairman Berman. Okay.
Ms. Mackinnon. I do not count myself among those people.
Chairman Berman. Good.
Ms. Mackinnon. I believe we need to find the right balance.
I believe there need to be solutions, we just need to be
mindful in grabbing at solutions that we are thinking about the
larger context and how some solutions can be misused.
Chairman Berman. They can. Thank you. And just, I will take
that last 5 seconds. Ms. Wong, could you do me a favor and take
a look in the context of Mr. Boozman's questions about the
misappropriation of Rosetta Stone's trademark on the Google
process? People have come to us about that, and this is a good
place to do my case work.
Ms. Wong. I don't have the specific background on it, but I
am happy to come back to you.
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. My time is expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again
to the esteemed panel. I had to step out for a while so if I
repeat something that may have been touched on, I apologize,
but I just wanted to get back to that issue of piracy of
intellectual property and what it costs America and how we can
deal with it. Ms. Wong, maybe you could start. How does Google
approach this, whether it is films or music and people who use
Google to, either in this country or abroad, to pirate
intellectual material, what is Google's thoughts on it and what
is the strategy for dealing with it both here and abroad?
Ms. Wong. So as a technology company and one with a good
deal of important software for us, we absolutely believe in the
protection of intellectual property, and we think there is a
significant legal infrastructure for protecting intellectual
property which we think is appropriate. To Ms. MacKinnon's
statement earlier though, we also believe that there has to be
a balance. And so part of our reason for being here at this
meeting is to talk about the lack of a similar infrastructure
for platforms for free expression, because we think that that
is actually the area where in the past the legislatures have
not paid as much attention. We do believe in the protection of
intellectual property. We also believe in the balance that
permits a continuing and vibrant platform for free expression.
Mr. McMahon. So how will you balance that in China and
particular where, you know, estimates are, and I know
Congressman Sherman talked about this, but, you know, 82
percent of all software products purchased in China were
obtained through intellectual property piracy, many through the
Internet of course and through using the Google platform to do
it. How can you help us protect that American interest, that
vital American interest?
Ms. Wong. Yeah, well this is one of those areas where
partnership with our Government is obviously really important.
Our experience in China was interesting because we were
competing with their homegrown search engine, Baidu, which owes
a great deal of its popularity to the free download of licensed
music. We recently offered, or last year I guess, started doing
our own music download service all with licensed music, and
tried to set an example in that way that users we thought would
appreciate, you know, legitimate licensed music. That has not
yet proven to help us very much in that market, but it is one
of the ways that we were trying to make headway in China.
Mr. McMahon. Can you do more and can we do more?
Ms. Wong. I think that there probably is room for
continuing to look at intellectual property laws as we apply
them in China. I know there are ongoing conversations now in
terms of the trade agreements that we are dealing with, and we
would be happy to give you more thoughts on that following the
hearing.
Mr. McMahon. Thank you. Mr. Holleyman, would you want to?
Mr. Holleyman. Thank you, Mr. McMahon. I will add to that.
Certainly in a country like China we see $6.7 billion in losses
due to piracy, a significant portion of that loss is to U.S.
software companies but also to Chinese software companies and
to the channel. What I think in all of this though that we need
to consider is that the impact of this goes far beyond any
individual working in a software- or a copyright-based company
or even their partners. In an area like software, what we find
is that most of the software piracy in China is not necessarily
from a counterfeit copies and not necessarily from downloaded
copies of software.
For software, which is the largest copyright industry in
the world, is when an otherwise legitimate business may have
one or two legal copies but they have duplicated it for 50 or
100 or 1,000 or 2,000 workers. And when that happens, they are
getting the productivity benefits for their company, they are
selling their products at a cheaper price than people in your
districts. And so we have to look at this as something that is
first and foremost hurting U.S. companies because we are the
leaders in producing copyright works. But it is displacing
legitimate sales by U.S. companies in a whole host of
industries, and we need to look at that.
Mr. McMahon. So it affects our very competitiveness, the
competitiveness of the American companies.
Mr. Holleyman. Absolutely, far beyond any company that sees
themselves as an intellectual property-based company.
Mr. McMahon. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman has yielded back the
remainder of his time. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Manzullo, ranking member on the Asia, the Pacific and the
Global Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was tied up in
other meetings. I caught portions of the testimony. My question
here is to Ms. Wong. I remember my staff, Nien Su, who was
fluent in Chinese, and typed in Tiananmen Square on Google.cn,
and he was led to an official Chinese site treating it I think
as a travel opportunity, tourist opportunity. And then he typed
on Google.com Tiananmen Square and got a very robust history of
everything that happened there. My question to you is, I know
you are in negotiations on censorship, but allowing a little
bit of censorship is allowing all of censorship. And my
question to you is, what if the Chinese say, ``That is it, we
are not going to change our policies''; what is Google going to
do?
Ms. Wong. Thank you, Congressman, that is a very good
question. So let me be really clear. Google is firm in its
decision that it will stop censoring for China our search
results, and we are working as quickly as possible toward that
end. The fact of the matter is that we have hundreds of
employees on the ground, some of whom are very dear colleagues
of mine, and we do not underestimate the seriousness or the
sensitivity of the decision that we have made. So we will stop
censoring on our .cn property, the results, but we want to do
it in an appropriate and a responsible way. There is----
Mr. Manzullo. What if China says, ``You continue, we'll
continue to censor or you are out''?
Ms. Wong. We are not going to change our decision on
stopping to censor, not censoring results anymore. So if the
option is that we will need to both shutter our .cn property
and leave the country, we are prepared to do that.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman yields back the balance of
his time. And the gentleman from Missouri, chairman of the
International Organizations, Human Rights, deg. and
Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing on how we can transform our cyberspace
policy to advance democracy, security, and trade. First I would
like to turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
adopted in 1948 under the Truman administration. Article 19
says, ``Everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and
expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive, and impart
information and ideas through any media regardless of
frontiers.''
I think that is a great principle, and certainly the
Internet was not around when that concept was really adopted,
but certainly it applies here today. And I first want to ask
about market share in China. I understand Google's market share
has grown from about 15 percent in '06 to about 31 percent
today, meanwhile Baidu has increased its market share from
about 47 percent over the same time period up to 64 percent
today. If Google leaves, and Baidu would be handed an effective
monopoly, can you make an economic argument why this is not in
China's national interest? And let me direct that to Ms. Wong.
Ms. Wong. Well, I think it clearly is in China's economic
interest. As I understand it, after we made our announcement
that we would no longer be censoring search results Baidu's
stock shot right up, and they are a Nasdaq listed company that
does quite well obviously based on their market share. Having
said that, consistent with our principles as a company, we felt
that we could no longer continue to operate under the
regulations in China.
Mr. Carnahan. And I applaud your company's principled
decision. And let me ask next, to what extent would this
decision, if you do leave, stifle competition and innovation?
How would such a decision limit the ability of other U.S.
businesses to operate and advertise in China? And let me ask
Mr. Holleyman about that.
Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Carnahan, thank you for the question. I
think it shows just how important it is that the U.S.
Government take this on as an issue and ensure that U.S.
companies can compete in various markets fairly and consistent
with U.S. values. One of the challenges from the data I have
seen is that Baidu is the third largest site for searches
globally, behind Google and behind Yahoo and above Microsoft.
And so one of the challenges will become as we will be doubling
the number of Internet users, does a platform like Baidu become
a prominent platform not just in China but, as they have
indicated, on a global basis?
And so I would submit that it is more important and it is
important for the U.S. Government to make sure that companies
like Google and Yahoo and Microsoft and others can do business
in a market like China so that as that next generation of
Internet is built out it will continue to be based on U.S.
companies rather than ceding that next generation to companies
like Baidu and others who may not have the same commitments
that U.S. companies do.
Mr. Carnahan. Great. Any others on the panel want to
comment on that? Ms. MacKinnon?
Ms. Mackinnon. Well certainly, you know, China has short
term interests and long term interests as well, and there are
many people in China who are not necessarily members of the
government who argue that in the long run China is really
hurting itself by censoring, by stifling information, and that
China's long term competitiveness and innovation will be best
served by being open. So that there are certainly those who are
arguing that as well within China, and whatever we can do to
help amplify that point of view and show that actually there
are multiple points of view in China about what best serves
their interests, I think would be helpful.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman is expired. And
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair. And thank you to all of
the panelists for being here today. I had a bill on the floor,
so forgive me for being a little late. It passed unanimously, I
am glad to say.
Chairman Berman. We want to complement you for your
exquisite timing.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Iran and
China are just two prominent examples of countries that have
been moving to control or censor, frankly speech, free speech
over the Internet. Anyone on the panel, but what role do you
see the private sector taking with regard to freedom of
expression overseas? And what role should the private sector
take with respect to that set of issues?
Ms. Wong. Well I will start but maybe Rebecca will want to
jump in too. I think that the private sector has made a really
great step by farming the Global Network Initiative, which is a
group of not just companies but also human rights
organizations, academics, and socially responsible investors.
And I think that having that body both as an area for shared
learnings as well as having a unified voice on censorship
issues around the world is really important. One of the things
that we observed in the last few years is that when we went
into a country we would be told by government regulators there,
hey the guys down the street are doing this, you need to do it
too.
Having a coalition of companies that are in agreement with
each other about our principles, and also being able to push
back together against a government, is extraordinarily
important. Having said that, the importance of having strong
leadership in our Government to back us up when we make those
decisions to open up channels for communication so that we can
have reasonable conversations about those things is
extraordinarily important.
Mr. Connolly. Yeah, I think that is a really good point.
Ms. Mackinnon. And just to back that up, that is absolutely
true. It took a generation for the private sector to recognize
that it had responsibilities in terms of labor practices. It
took another generation for the private sector to recognize its
environmental responsibilities, and now it is time for the
entire ICT sector, information communications and technology
sector, to recognize its responsibilities as regard free
expression and human rights.
And at the moment there are a few leading companies who
have really taken the first step, and it is a learning process
now through the Global Network Initiative and through the
efforts of this committee and others in Congress, to really
help the private sector step up to its responsibilities and
figure out how to do that and still be competitive. Because I
don't think it is always a binary choice, engage or get out.
I think the lessons of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo over
the past few years since 2006 and the first hearings has been
that it is often about how you engage, that you can make
specific choices. As Mr. Smith pointed out, in Vietnam, Yahoo,
having learned its lessons in China when it didn't think
through how it was going to implement certain services, they
thought through in Vietnam, how do we provide blogging services
without exposing user data to the police in Vietnam? And so it
is about helping companies be more thoughtful about their
responsibilities while still doing business.
Mr. Connolly. Good point. And I know the two gentlemen want
to respond as well, and maybe in your response I would also
like to know how you think the Global Network Initiative might
play a role in this as well. Dr. Wortzel?
Mr. Wortzel. Well, I have followed the Global Network
Initiative on the commission, on the China Commission. I think
that they are moving along well. I encourage Congress to
continue to monitor their progress on what they hope to
achieve. But I want to use bribery as kind of an analogy. You
know, I don't have this great faith that the private sector is
always going to behave well. We have got laws that stop U.S.
companies from bribing foreign officials. So I think that, you
know, you really do need to look at forms of legislation that
may, if things like the Global Network Initiative don't catch
on and work, may restrict what they can do and force them to
adhere to our values. And I will just end it at that.
Mr. Connolly. You have got the final word, Mr. Holleyman.
Mr. Holleyman. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I certainly agree
with the sentiments of the other panelists, and we applaud the
effort of the Secretariate and the members of the Global
Network Initiative to look at potential ways of expanding that
beyond the original ISP community with whom it was intended to
more companies. And certainly I can't commit any particular
company to participating in that, but I know that we have many
members who are engaged in part of the work plan and discussion
about potential participation as it is broadened.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you all. My time is up. I look
forward to this as a continuing dialogue. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Berman. Thank you. And the gentleman's time is
expired. And, if you don't mind having a slightly later than
usual lunch, I would like to open up for a few more questions.
No one has screamed, so I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Wortzel, a specific and a more general question. The
specific question: You talk about our greatest vulnerability
coming from China and that we have no arms control agreement
with China. What about a cyber-control agreement, a bilateral
protocol regulating both countries' behavior in cyberspace?
There has been some discussion of this. I would be curious
about your comments.
The more general question: It is hard to articulate, but
somewhere--there have been times when people in the American
Government have been quite sanctimonious about attacking what
other governments are doing and seeking to ban them, which if
literally applied to our own conduct might affect us. Is there
a line here that we need to, things that we do because we think
they are--there are probably limitations on what we can talk
about here--but things that we do because we think they are
essential to our national security interest? And of course we
are right and the others aren't, but it is harder to sell that
internationally.
Mr. Wortzel. Well, I wouldn't want to touch on the
operations of the cyber-commands inside the U.S. military here,
but I think you have hit on a very important point. We have a
long history, the United States has a long history of arms
control discussions and agreements with the Soviet Union that
has led both to tacit acceptance of certain rules of behavior
and formal treaties. Our attempts to do the same with the
People's Republic of China have pretty well failed. And I have
been involved with those directly since 1986.
They won't talk to us about incidents at sea seriously, we
had a treaty with the Russians. They won't talk and sit down
formally in arms control and nuclear strategy negotiations as a
confidence building measure. So even though the Russians today
are beginning to talk to the United States about cyber, the
Chinese have not reached the point of doing that. But your
question is an extremely important one because I think what we
have to do is focus on strategies to bring them in, track 2
discussions in academia.
Ensuring that there are international conferences that
focus on things like the laws of war and how cyber warfare
affects international warfare that they can attend. I think
that our war colleges should be encouraging legal papers on
these subjects, there are very few out there. And you are going
to find Chinese responding to these. So gradually you begin to
build up a body of almost common law on what constitutes an act
of war, what activities are permissible. And remember that the
laws of war were essentially written sometime between the end
of World War I and mostly the end of World War II. So there is
nothing in there about space warfare and the cyber age. We do
need to address that.
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much. Mr. Holleyman?
Mr. Holleyman. Let me add one quick point to that, sort of
going beyond it. When the President announced the results of
the Cyberspace Policy Review, it was a significant undertaking
for the first U.S. President to talk about cyberspace policy
ever, reflective of the times. But I will say, while we greeted
this with great support, probably the least well-developed
prong of that plan relates to international, and to the
international framework, the international cooperation, what
the U.S. is trying to seek from our allies.
There is a great intent, there is work being done, but
looking at the auspices of this committee, I think one of the
great contributions you can make is to ensure that there is the
support, there is the attention, and there is the participation
to make sure that that international prong of Cyberspace Policy
Review is at least as robust as the domestic, because we don't
have domestic security without having it internationally.
Chairman Berman. Okay. I have a couple more questions. Mr.
Smith, should I just give myself another 2 minutes and we will
do the same for you and Mr. Connolly and then deg.?
Okay. This issue of engaging with these countries that I would
designate as Internet repressive, or however you would describe
it, or removing ourselves completely--there have been articles
about the ability to subvert the firewalls that these
governments impose. Is there a particular value here to be in
the country promoting, sort of knowing that there are ways to
overcome those government firewalls that is lessened if you
simply extricate yourself from that country? In the end, is
there an argument to be made that you can get more information
and encourage more communications by staying and hoping that
those firewalls can be pierced than by just pulling out
completely, or can you do it all from internationally just as
easily and therefore you don't need to stay? Ms. MacKinnon?
Ms. Mackinnon. I think there certainly is an argument, and
that is why Google went into China initially after much soul
searching, and why many people in China including dissidents
and activists who I know are worried that Google might pull
out, because they are afraid that then the firewall is going to
come down on all Google services and that will make it harder
for people to have independent conversations and gain outside
knowledge.
So there is very much a strong argument, and again why it
is important to think about not just the binary engage or
disengage but how you go about engaging, because there is great
benefit to being there on the ground and to helping people
access information. And also because blocking isn't the only
part of censorship or the only barrier to free expression. You
have removals, you have surveillance and attacks and all kinds
of things, which makes it all the harder if you are on the
outside.
Ms. Wong. If I could just amplify?
Chairman Berman. Well, yes.
Ms. Wong. So our experience prior to going into China and
offering a localized domain in 2006 is that we were being
regularly blocked in China, wholesale. Probably 10 percent of
the time, and much of the time even then we were much slower
because of the latency of being outside of the country. That
was the initial reason for going into China. We found that when
we were there we were not blocked as frequently, we found that
we were able to do really innovative things, like we were the
first company to start displaying when we had removed search
results because of government requirements that we let users
know, and that actually has now become an industry standard in
China and we think that is good for the transparency to the
country.
I don't want to underplay what a difficult decision it has
been that we may not be able to continue to provide search
results in China from the .cn property. We think we did a lot
of good there. There was a study by the journal Nature recently
where they surveyed scientists in China, and 80 percent of them
use Google for their academic research because we are more
comprehensive than the local players. But having said that and
in doing the evaluation, we actually just felt that we couldn't
continue to do what seems to be a trajectory of increasing
political censorship.
Chairman Berman. All right. Can I try and squeeze in one
more, guys? Okay. Mr. Holleyman talked about these discussions
about expanding GNI, and I am curious to what extent, and I
guess, Ms. MacKinnon, you are directly involved, you are I
guess one of the academic participants in that process. To what
extent do you see the prospect for that kind of expansion, to
go beyond just the ISPs and bring others who have software and
hardware products into this initiative?
Ms. Mackinnon. I think the prospects are strong if the
other technology companies make efforts.
Chairman Berman. Well, do you see a way in which Congress
could incentivize those companies as they go back and forth on
this issue to tip in favor of joining?
Ms. Mackinnon. Certainly. I mean different members of the
GNI might have different public views on this, but I do think
that we wouldn't be where we are today if there hadn't been the
threat of legislation in the first place, and so Congress
certainly has a role to play there. And one of the objections
or the excuses for not joining GNI by some companies is that,
well it doesn't fit our business model.
And our response is, look this is meant to be a flexible
process, this is not meant to squeeze everybody into completely
inappropriate frameworks. The point of this is to help
companies, no matter what their business model is, no matter
what their specific technology, do the right thing. And so our
implementation guidelines and our governance charter and our
assessment mechanisms can be adapted to anybody who is willing
to engage substantively in joining, but they have to make the
first step in engaging substantively and seriously on how they
can join.
Chairman Berman. You can have elasticity as to business
models if they will come inside the tent, basically.
Ms. Mackinnon. That is right.
Chairman Berman. All right, I am going to yield back, but I
do want to indicate that, from much of the testimony that I had
a chance to read before the hearing and discussions, I have in
mind some legislation. I want to work closely with Mr. Smith
who has his own legislation to see if we can come up with
something that invests our Government in playing the role they
should be playing and that I think the Secretary, by her
speech, indicated a willingness to play in getting it on a
government-to-government basis, incentivizing people to join,
putting some reasonable kinds of obligations on the companies
in terms of this very important issue. And so with that I will
yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms.
MacKinnon, I think your point about the threat of legislation
causing or inspiring some additional action, the week we had
the hearing, the day we had the hearing in February 2006, all
of a sudden the State Department announced, and we welcomed it
obviously, a task force to being looking at this issue and
looking at it hopefully robustly. So I think your point was
very well taken. All of your points were excellent. Thank you
for your testimony and your work.
Let me just, a couple of questions. Right before the
Beijing Olympics, Congressman Frank Wolf and I traveled to
Beijing on a human rights mission, we met with underground
pastors of churches, most of whom were arrested. We had a
prisoners list of 732 prisoners and very precise information
about their alleged crimes, which was simply trying to live out
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Labor leaders, you
know, there was a broad list. And we got nowhere with that.
But we went to a cyber cafe while we were there, and we
spent huge amount of time, both Mr. Wolf and I, accessing every
site we could think of, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America,
anything pertaining to the Dalai Lama. I even couldn't get my
Web site. All of it was blocked. I don't know what they thought
they were blocking when they were blocking my Web site but it
was blocked.
And even when I went to a very esoteric search time, and
that was Manfred Nowak--the special rapporteur for torture who
is a outstanding U.N. diplomat and, you know, he stands head
and shoulders, I believe, above many in terms of the
preciseness of his reporting--he had done a scathing report on
torture in China. And when I typed in Manfred Nowak, what I got
was his report on Guantanamo, not his report on Chinese
systematic and pervasive use of torture.
So my fear then, and as it always has been, is that a whole
generation of Chinese are precluded accurate information, or at
least information that they can make accurate or informed
decisions about. And so the censoring issue, that and
personally identifiable information are, you know, the two
hallmarks of the Global Online Freedom Act, so I do hope we
move forward on that and I would welcome any further thoughts
you have on that.
One concern that I have that I don't think we focus enough
on, when I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, I held two hearings
on China's increasingly poisoning role on Africa. The fact that
when it comes to good governance, you know, they are net
exporters to the U.S., our balance of trade was $228 billion
over the last 12 months. They export other things too, and that
is a repression model that is being scooped up by the likes of
people in Sudan and other places, and other currently existing
dictatorships are borrowing, Lukashenko in Belarus and others,
the model that has been hand-given to them by the Chinese cyber
police.
So my question is, you know, I don't think we have the
luxury of time. You know, dictatorships are repressing by the
day, if you are in a torture chamber or in a gulag somewhat or
the Lao Gai in China, you don't know if you are going to live
to the next day. So time is of the essence, we don't have the
luxury of delay. And so I would raise the issue, you know, we
try to share best practices, the United States and other
democracies. They are sharing worst practices, and they are
doing it as aggressively as we could possibly imagine in Latin
America, in Africa, and elsewhere. So I do think we need a
hurry-up offense to make sure that we do much more and we do it
effectively.
So if you might want to comment on that, because I do
think, you know, if you destroy the dissidents, the Lech
Walessas of Poland and all the other great leaders, the Harry
Wus, who thankfully at least he is alive and well here but
exiled, where is democracy and human rights going to come from?
You will cower the generation to remain silent and stay under
the radar, and that goes for labor leaders and everything else.
So these worst practices, I hope our businesses realize that
they are not neutral in this. And it is unwitting I think.
When we had the four members of the four biggest companies
here, even though we were all upset about what was happening,
my sense was, I think it is unwitting, I don't think they want
this to happen, I think it is perhaps naivety and maybe some
complicity, but who knows? The firewall busting technology, if
you could speak to that. You know, we have appropriated $30
million for that. Our friends in the Falun Gong and others feel
that they have a useful product, maybe you want to speak to
whether or not--I mean I see it as a sidebar issue. GOFA and
those initiatives, government to government, should be the
mainstream, but there are technologies that can evade and
hopefully.
And finally on the Cisco, which we didn't get time to
answer before, their, you know, Police Net and the kind of
technology that Cisco has transferred not just to the police
but also to the military is extraordinarily effective in making
sure that everyone walks in lockstep with a dictatorship or
else. So if you could speak to those issues I would appreciate
it. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a letter
from Google, and I thank them again for endorsing GOFA, from
eleven NGOs, including Amnesty International, Reporters Without
Borders, a list of eleven, and Freedom House, be made a part of
the record.
Chairman Berman. We will, subject to reviewing it to see if
there are any terms that we can't include. No--it will be
included for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]Smith
FTR deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Mackinnon. Well, just, I think you raised a lot of
really good points. And I was actually a journalist working for
CNN in the '90s when the Internet arrived in China, and we were
all very naive, I think, in thinking that, well there is no way
that an authoritarian government can survive the Internet.
Well, I think China is absolutely the poster child for how
authoritarianism does survive the Internet, and that this is a
model that many regimes are copying. And Chinese networking
companies like Hyawei and ZTE are doing very good business in
African and Middle Eastern countries as well.
And so that is one thing, and I remember in the 2006
hearing some of the companies basically were saying things
like, well as long as we provide the Internet in China,
ultimately in the long run that will do everybody more good, so
in the short run there are some consequences but, you know,
that is just short run, in the long run we are going to be
bringing freedom. And I think what we have learned over the
last few years is that it is not that simple, and that the so
called collateral damage immediately does matter and needs to
be taken seriously, and that companies can be providing
Internet access yet at the same time enabling
authoritarianism's survival in the Internet age and helping to
raise this whole generation of people who don't know what they
don't know. And so that is very serious.
And as you say about Cisco, I have had conversations with
them and they say, well we are not doing anything illegal, you
know, we are selling to police forces like we sell to law
enforcement all over the world. And this is a problem not just
with Cisco but there are a number of American companies selling
biometric technologies that are also being used for law
enforcement. And to also just speak very quickly to Mr.
Holleyman's point about the next generation Internet and the
need for American companies to be at the forefront of that,
well China and many other countries also want to be at the
forefront of building the next generation of the Internet,
which is going to be much more mobile, ``Internet of things''
and so on.
And we need to make sure that our companies are not
enabling and contributing to a next generation Internet that
does not allow anonymity, that does not allow for privacy and
makes dissent even more difficult than it is becoming today. So
this is all the more reason why we need to make sure that
companies across a broad spectrum of technology applications
and business models are all mindful of what they are doing. And
then the filtering technology.
Yes, I know a lot of people in China who are using a range
of different tools to get around censorship, and this is
certainly something that deserves continued support. There is a
challenge that I find that actually many Chinese people, many
Chinese Internet users, even though they are aware of these
tools, aren't using them. So there is a whole other range of
issues about education and community building around these
tools. And also the fact that again Internet blocking isn't the
whole story with censorship. On the Chinese language Internet a
lot of content is just being removed, and so that circumvention
tools won't help you with that if the content has been taken
down or if a site has been hacked, and the self-censorship that
takes place because of surveillance and so on. So we need a
whole range of different tactics along with circumvention to
help people conduct free and open conversations without fear.
Mr. Holleyman. Mr. Smith, I will just comment to Ms.
MacKinnon's comment about the next generation Internet. I mean
one of the--looking at the title of this hearing, how does
cyber policy address issues of democracy, security, trade, as
we build to a next generation Internet we will definitely be
better as a country if the backbone of that is based on U.S.
companies. And we will be more secure, there will be more
democratization in the world, and we will have greater economic
security.
What we need to do is make sure that we are using the most
vigorous abilities of the U.S. Government to make these
government-to-government issues to really drive this
discussion, and then also to work against things that would
make it difficult or impossible for U.S. companies in IT to
remain in markets. Because as we move to a marketplace for the
Internet that will be dramatically larger than it is today, it
would not be in the U.S. foreign policy interest for the
platform of that Internet to be based on companies who had
their genesis and origin in countries that had restrictive
policies.
Mr. Smith. If I could just one 5-second question? Harry Wu
said there were 35,000 cyber police, and that was an estimation
in 2006. Do any of you have the number of how many police are
deployed to that operation?
Ms. Mackinnon. I don't have a very reliable number. It has
become very difficult to quantify because every police
department, every kind of military division and so on has
people who are involved with Internet, but also a lot of
policing of the Internet is actually basically outsourced to
private companies, so it is not police doing it but Baidu and
many other Chinese companies have entire departments of people
whose job it is to monitor and censor content. And so a lot of
it is not actually being done by police, it is being done by
the private sector.
Mr. Wortzel. I agree with Ms. MacKinnon. I don't think you
are going to get a reliable figure today. Cyber militias have
been created, reserve public security people are brought in
from universities and businesses, and it is outsourced.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Virginia will have the
last question.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to
piracy, what is the obligation of search engines like Google
and what is the obligation of governments in protecting content
providers against piracy and especially links to piratical
sights?
Ms. Wong. So Google's policy in terms of search starts with
the notion of we want to have the most comprehensive index
possible. When you type in a search we want to deliver
something that is relevant for you. However, when we become
aware of content that is illegal, we do remove those from the
search engine and have a process for doing that. I think that
that is part of being responsible in terms of showing users as
much information as possible but also respecting the rights of
intellectual property owners.
Mr. Connolly. But what I am hearing you say, Ms. Wong, is
Google acknowledges it has some responsibility when you know a
site is illegally piratical and you are putting a content
provider at risk linking to that site, you are going to do
something about maybe removing that site, or that link.
Ms. Wong. That is right. It is actually governed by a law
passed by this body many years ago, the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. We have a process for receiving claims by the
intellectual property holder and to process those claims to
remove it upon notice. Under that process then for search
engines they are taken out of index.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Holleyman?
Mr. Holleyman. We think there needs to be a workable
mechanism. We do believe certainly that the U.S. foundation--
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--was a solid foundation.
We also think that there need to be obligations that companies
assume on their own where there are repeat instances of piracy
that has been identified, whether they are not simply
responding to a complaint from a copyright holder but they are
also taking affirmative steps to take down repeat infringers
and to prohibit means that would monetize activity associated
with piracy.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Berman. Well now that you have opened up that
issue, I just want to, I just feel compelled to follow up a
little bit here. Actually, Ms. MacKinnon, your testimony
originally, your first testimony you submitted before the snow
week, had some recommendations regarding intermediary
liability. You spoke to that in your testimony today but you
didn't include that in your conclusions. But if, let us just
talk hypothetically.
Ms. Wong, you have mentioned notice and takedown provisions
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act--but if you could have
a pretty darn flawless kind of filter to separate what Mr.
Connolly has talked about, or add to that child pornography or
other things, from other kinds of content, what is wrong with
intermediary liability in that situation? In places
particularly where there is an activity that makes you
something more than just a sort of automatic conduit? Having
changed the nature of this hearing.
Ms. Wong. I think we have seen the dangers of intermediary
liability, most recently in a case in Italy that was brought
against three of our executives for the alleged violation of
invasion of privacy under Italian law.
Chairman Berman. We talked about that, right.
Ms. Wong. In which three of our executives were criminally
convicted for a video that was uploaded to YouTube. Although,
when we got notice from law enforcement that that video
existed, it was a cyber bullying video that violated our
policies, we took it down within hours. However, our three
executives have been convicted in an Italian court.
What that means for a service, of any platform service but
for YouTube, where users upload 20 hours of video every minute,
the concept that you would prescreen or else be subject to
liability means that that platform cannot exist with the
robustness that has proven to provide video footage of the
protests in Iran, of in Burma. There has to be a way to
continue to permit the robustness of that platform. And a
prescreening requirement or intermediary liability for user
content I think would dampen that.
Chairman Berman. That was not a case where you were sort of
promoting and advertising linking to this video, right? I mean
this was not, you were not trying to commercially exploit the
placement of that particular video.
Ms. Wong. Right.
Chairman Berman. What if part of the intermediary liability
constrained it only to areas where there was an intermediary's
action to essentially promote links?
Ms. Wong. Which means the intermediary or the platform has
somehow appropriated or reviewed and decided to commercially
use that information.
Chairman Berman. Yes.
Ms. Wong. I think that that is different. We have actually
tried to----
Chairman Berman. Okay, now we have narrowed this down. All
right.
Ms. Wong. I think that we have tried to find a thread which
actually partners with the content holders. So for example on
YouTube we have a content ID process where, we are not in a
position to know who that content owner is or what their rights
in it might be, but the content holders can identify it for
themselves and make a decision to have it monetized, to have
claimed or to have it taken down.
Chairman Berman. That is right. All right, look, thank you
all very much for coming. It has been a very valuable hearing.
I would like to get, if you would be willing to take the time,
some more specific suggestions on these Iran issues of trying
to get out of our export prohibitions the kinds of things that
could help there for our legislation. We are in a situation
where we could make great use of that information. And with
that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
