You may have heard about SOPA, the innocuously-named yet frighteningly over-broad Stop Online Piracy Act. If you believe in the power of technology as a social and economic good, and think that due process of law is a good thing, now is the time to take action against this noxious bill that’s zooming through the US House of Representatives. If you are an American citizen, you can call your representative now to voice your opinion on it: http://engineadvocacy.com/voice/ 

This past year has demonstrated the astonishing power of Internet technology to effect change for the better, and shown the potential for more to come. From Arab Spring to the Occupy movement and beyond, we’ve seen policy brutality exposed on YouTube, movements organized on Facebook, and conversations and events “broadcast” in real time through novel live-streaming technologies. None of this would have been imaginable just a few years ago.

As an employee of a tech company and a member of Digital Democracy’s advisory board, I’m terribly concerned that if SOPA were to become law, this blossoming of empowerment through web-based innovation would grind to a halt. In the name of copyright enforcement, SOPA gives corporations outsized and unchecked power to stop the business of perfectly respected sites, without due process of law. (For a bit more detail, here’s a good infographic and a great video.)

The chilling effect on innovation on the Internet could be awful in two major ways. First, entrpreneurs would be severely discouraged from creating any website that hosts user-generated content; one errant link out to a site that illegally distributes copywritten content offshore, and they could be shut down in a week without any court involvement. Second, SOPA would institute a censorship regime on the Internet in the US, both by effectively compelling individual websites to review all their user-generated content, and also by empowering the US Attorney General to rework the plumbing of the web and block access to sites.

The recording industry says that SOPA’s opponents are overreacting, that we can trust them to judiciously apply these unprecedented powers of corporate thuggery to go after only really bad guys. But their track record of intimidating helpless individuals with huge lawsuits says otherwise. Plus, the way the law is written, just about anybody could make spurious claims or even outright lies about a site and still get that site shut down.

A broad base, from web entrepreneurs to news editors to human rights organizations to even the recording industry’s hometown LA Times, has slammed this bill as a huge step backwards for freedom, due process, and innovation. If you’re in the US, add your voice to the chorus, and tell your congressperson right now that they need to vote against SOPA. Just put in your name, phone number, and zip code and you’ll be connected directly to their office: http://engineadvocacy.com/voice/

I’ve joined Digital Democracy because I believe in the need for technology tools to be harnessed to empower the voices of marginalized groups and ordinary citizens to fight for their human rights. I hope you’ll join me and millions of others in working to keep the web a safe and healthy place for innovation and political action by voicing your opposition to SOPA today.

Jesse Friedman is a member of Digital Democracy’s advisory board. He leads marketing for Google Politics & Elections, and is part of the company’s team resisting SOPA. 

Flowers left at Google headquarters in China

In August 2008, Digital Democracy conducted research with Burmese community groups operating in southern China, near the Burma/Myanmar border. While researching the use of communications technologies, one young Kachin man explained the difference between the Internet in China and Burma, stating, “To me the web in China is totally free.” Censored though the Chinese web may be, his statement helps us keep in mind the complex realities – and differing degrees – of modern communication tools.

This fall, Digital Democracy submitted testimony to US Congress at the US-Helsinki Commission briefing, “Twitter against Tyrants: New Media in Authoritarian Regimes.” In our statement, we stressed that repressive regimes thrive on the distortion of truth, and the need for better understanding of how communications technology is used on the ground by grassroots organizations. We emphasized the critical need for dialogue on security, new media literacy and the meaning of freedom of speech.

Just 24 hours after Google announced a shift in their China policy, a conversation of this nature is well under way. With their statement A new approach to China, the Fortune 500 company has openly described the difficulties of operating within the country, conforming to China’s censorship policy and facing cyberattacks on their users.

“We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech.”

We read Google’s statement as not just an update on attacks on its server, but an attempt to develop a more responsible approach to complex issues of freedom of information. From a company whose motto “don’t be evil” has often been met with cynicism (and serious privacy concerns) we applaud this beginning of a debate on freedom of information.

One concern we hope to closely monitor is what impact this decision will have on the end users in China. Our Congressional statement made four recommendations based on the idea that in the current information age, knowledge is power. However, as our Burmese colleague in southern China reminded us, even restricted information can play a valuable role. We hope to hear from friends and colleagues what effect Google’s decision has among Internet users in China. Amidst the uncertainty, we’re compelled to revisit our recommendations to the Helsinki Commission.

1. Security continues to be a priority and access to information can continue to happen anywhere in the world when accessed with knowledge of the right tools.
2. Local partners continue to have the best information about ICT realities on the ground in any particular country, and it is critical to connect and dialogue with them on their needs.
3. Tools should be developed and adapted to address changing circumstances.
4. Education is critical. Reducing barriers to freedom of information requires an evolving new media literacy.

Ultimately, we view Google’s move as a teachable moment in a global conversation about our individual, collective and corporate responsibility in supporting freedom of information. From Yahoo!s previous missteps handing information to Chinese authorities, to Facebook’s founder recently declaring that the age of privacy is over, Google’s step is an important one, and one we hope will raise the conversation of secure methods every internet user should employ. We are pleased to see that Gmail now defaults to encrypted access, an important protection. We hope other companies will consider similarly appropriate steps, and hope that more will contribute their thoughts to an honest and open dialogue about responsible ICT practice in the year 2010 and beyond. As we wrote,

“A lack of legal infrastructure prevents US corporations from protecting new media users in repressive regimes. Site owners are culpable for content in foreign states, even when data is physically housed on US soil in data farms, and legal frameworks have not yet been fully established for US companies to protect end-users.”

How momentous will Google’s decision be, ultimately? Will this moment be a turning point in the US, China, and our relations between both countries?  In China, the following meme is spreading quickly:

90后：今天我翻墙，看到一个国外网站叫Google的，妈的全是抄袭百度的。00后：翻墙是什么？ 10后：网站是什么？ 20后：国外是什么？

People born in 90s: Today I stepped out of the Great Firewall and saw a foreign website named Google. Shit, it is all but a copy of Baidu.
Born in 00s: What do you mean by stepping out of Great Firewall?
Born in 10s: What do you mean by website?
Born in 20s: What is ‘foreign’?