US Lawmakers to Keep Google Out of China? 491
caese writes "USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China. From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:3, Informative)
No... it's not a human right to have Yahoo and Google, that you are correct.
But is it right for the US govt to say who Yahoo and Google can do business with?
Bogus headline: Keep the SERVERS out (Score:3, Informative)
Yahoo has surrendered personal data on two dissidents at least that have lead to their arrests. Yahoo claims they had no choice. Well, if the data wasn't in China, they wouldn't have had that excuse, though they probably would have folded anyway.
FUD and Flamebait? (Score:5, Informative)
> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that
> would keep Google and others out of China.
Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.
Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.
> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that
> would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft
> to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State
> Department deems repressive to human rights.
The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."
It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.
I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:
http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/laws.htm [house.gov]
Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?
Mod Parent Down (Score:3, Informative)
Let us hope the gentleman from NJ is able to shepherd this bill through Congress and to Mr. Bush.
Re:Why Internet Companies? (Score:5, Informative)
And what about that pinko Nixon -- he kowtowed to Mao in 1972.
And that fellow-traveller Reagan: "...a few countries must obtain an annual presidential waiver or extension of a waiver to continue their NTR status. China is the most important country in this group which must obtain an annual waiver to maintain NTR. The waiver for China has been in effect since 1980."
Re:Why Internet Companies? (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the Chinese-made stuff is of decent quality, but mostly it's not. I don't like the sweatshop image I get when I look at the poorer-quality items. As a result, I've changed my buying habits to try to avoid things from China.
When I'm shopping now I look for the very best item in a given cateogory. I ignore the price, unless I know the item is disposable. Most of the time, the best item will come from (in no particular order) the U.S., Japan, Europe, or Korea.
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:5, Informative)
I highly suggest you go read Article 1, Sections 8 and 10.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html [usconstitution.net]
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html [usconstitution.net]
Section 8 tells us that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.
Section 10 tells us that States have almost no rights to engage in anything with a foreign Power and any laws that States are allowed "shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress"
I already wrote another post in response to someone who didn't read Article 1, Section 8 very closely. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I have some understanding of portions of the Constitution that my studies have touched on.
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:2, Informative)
While it warms my libertarian heart to see somebody express a fondness for the "dead" Amendments (the 9th and 10th), you really should take the time to read the document which is being ameded as well.
9th - All powers not specifically granted to the federal government in this document are reserved for the states
The right to regulate international (and interstate!) commerce is specifically granted to the federal government, so the 9th does not apply here.
10th - Any right not given to the government (see above) here, or prohibited by the states, is automatically given to the people
Since the right is given, the 10th doesn't apply here either.
Re:Anti free trade (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bullshit indeed. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:2, Informative)
I have to admire with your honesty but can't help pointing out that cheap child labor is not the only exploitation/human right violation/crime that US and other western countries commit there. They also violate the rights of tens of millions of "cheap adult" laborers and dump their waste in third world countries and cause enormous environmental damage which in turn destroys tens millions of lives (human, animal and plant) in due course of time.
http://www.hu.mtu.edu/hu_dept/tc%40mtu/papers/bho
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0204a/hightechtras
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Dumping-Pepsi-
This has been going on for centuries now.
Who's asking for sanctions against these crimes against humanity? Not anybody on slashdot.