S. HRG. 111–684 

GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM AND THE RULE 

OF LAW, PART II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM AND THE RULE OF LAW, PART II 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–829 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–684 

GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM AND THE RULE 

OF LAW, PART II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 2, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–77 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Chief Counsel 

BROOKE BACAK, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Coburn, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ........................ 3 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 1 

prepared statement and attachments ............................................................. 34 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 245 

WITNESSES 

MacKinnon, Rebecca, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, and Co-Founder, Global Voices Online ...................................................................................... 23 

Memarian, Omid, Iranian Blogger, San Francisco, California ............................ 24 

Posner, Michael H., Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................... 4 

Weitzner, Daniel J., Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis 

and Development, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC ........................................ 6 

Wong, Nicole, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google Inc., 

Mountain View, California .................................................................................. 21 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, letters 

to Tech Companies: 

February 2, 2010, letter Regarding Internet Freedom in China .................. 39 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois and Hon. 

Tom Coburn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, joint letters 

to Tech Companies: 

August 7, 2010, letter Human Rights Code of Conduct ................................ 46 

Responses to January 29, 2010 letter: 

Acer Incorporated, Lydia Wu, General Counsel, Taiwan, R.O.C., March 

1, 2010 letter and attachments ................................................................ 49 

Amazon.com, Paul Misener, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Seattle, Washington, February 18, 2010 letter ........................................... 66 

Apple Incorporated, Bruce Sewell, Senior Vice President & General 

Counsel, February 19, 2010 letter ........................................................... 68 

AT&T, Timothy P. McKone, Executive Vice President, Federal Relations, Washington, February 18, 2010 letter .......................................... 70 

Cisco Systems, Incorporated, Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President 

and General Counsel, February 19, 2010 letter ..................................... 72 

Dell Incorporated, Gilbert F. Casellas, Vice President Corporate Responsibility, February 18, 2010 letter ..................................................... 75 

eBay, John Donahoe, President and Chief Executive Officer, San Jose, 

California, February 18, 2010 letter ........................................................ 78 

Facebook, Timothy Sparapani, Director, Public Policy, Palo Alto, California, February 19, 2010 letter ............................................................... 80 

Fortinet, Incorporated, John Whittle, Vice President, General Counsel, 

Sunnyvale, California, February 19, 2010 letter .................................... 83 

Hewlett-Packard Company, Larry Irving, Vice President, Global Government Affairs, Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter ................ 85 

IBM, Christopher A. Padilla, Vice President, Governmental Programs, 

Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter ............................................. 91 

Page

IV 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois and Hon. 

Tom Coburn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, joint letters 

to Tech Companies—Continued 

Lenovo, Rachel A. Adams, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter ...................................... 93 

Motorola, Karen P. Tandy, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs and 

Communications, Schaumburg, Illinois, February 15, 2010 letter ....... 95 

MySpace.com, Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

New York, New York, February 18, 2010 letter ..................................... 97 

Nokia, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Helsinki, Finland, February 23, 1010 ...................................................... 99 

Nokia Siemens Networks, Rajeev Suri, Chief Executive Office, Espoo, 

Finland, February 19, 2010 letter ............................................................ 101 

Oracle Corporation, Jason M. Mahler, Vice President, Government Affairs, Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter ................................... 103 

Paoletta, Mark R., Partner, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, on behalf of 

McAfee, Inc., Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter ...................... 105 

RIM, Robert E. Crow, Vice President, Industry, Goverment & University Relations, Washington, DC, February 19, 2010 letter .................... 109 

SAP, February 19, 2010 letter ..................................................................... 111 

Siemens, Kathleen Ambrose, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Washington, DC, letter ................................................................... 113 

Skype, Josh Silverman, CEO Luxembourg, February 18, 2010 letter ..... 114 

Sprint, Vonya B. McCann, Senior Vice President Government Affairs, 

Washington DC, February 19, 2010 letter .............................................. 119 

Twitter, Alexander Macgillivray, General Counsel, San Francisco, California, February 19, 2010 letter ............................................................... 121 

Verizon, Kathryn C. Brown, Senior Vice President, Public Policy Development & Corporate Responsibility, Washington, DC, February 19, 

2010 letter .................................................................................................. 124 

Vodafone, Vittorio Colao, Group Chief Executive, Berkshire, England, 

February 19, 2010 letter ........................................................................... 127 

Websense, Gene Hodges, Chief Executive Officer, San Diego, California, 

February 17, 2010 letter ........................................................................... 128 

Symantec, Enrique Salem, Mountain View, California, March 5, 2010 

letter ............................................................................................................... 131 

Response from Tech Companies letters: 

3Com Corporation, Neal Goldman, Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative and Legal Officer, Marlborough, Massachusetts, August 

12, 2009 ...................................................................................................... 133 

3Com Corporation, Robert Mao, Chief Executive Officer, Marlborough, 

Massachusetts, March 22, 12010 ............................................................. 135 

Apple, Daniel Cooperman, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & 

Secretary, Cupertino, California, August 27, 2009 letter ...................... 136 

AT&T Services, Inc., Timothy P. McKone, Executive Vice President, 

Federal Relations, Washington, DC, August 25, 2009 letter ................. 145 

CISCO Systems, Inc., Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, San Jose, California, August 27, 2009 letter ................... 148 

Dell Inc., Gilbert F. Casellas, Vice President, Corporate Responsibility, 

Washington, DC, August 27, 2009 letter ................................................. 151 

eBay Inc., John Donahoe, President and Chief Executive Officer, San 

Jose, California, September 1, 2009 letter .............................................. 154 

Facebook, Timothy Sparapani, Director, Public Policy, Palo Alto, California, August 27, 2009 letter .................................................................. 155 

Fortinet, John Whittle, Vice President, General Counsel, Sunnyvale, 

California, August 27, 2009 letter ........................................................... 160 

Hewlett-Packard Company, Bruce Ives, Vice President and Deputy 

General Counsel, Global Alliances & Government Affairs, Palo Alto, 

California, August 27, 2009 letter ........................................................... 161 

Lenovo, Elizabeth A. Hyman, Government Affairs, Washington, DC, 

August 14, 2009 letter .............................................................................. 166 

Motorola, Inc., Gregory Q. Brown, President & Chief Executive Officer, 

Schaumburg, Illinois, August 21, 2009 letter ......................................... 167 

MySpace.com, Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 

New York, New York, August 24, 2010 letter ......................................... 168 

Nokia, Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Helsinki, Finland, August 27, 1009 ......................................................... 170 

Page

V 

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois and Hon. 

Tom Coburn, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, joint letters 

to Tech Companies—Continued 

Nokia Siemens Networks, Rajeev Suri, Chief Executive Office, Espoo, 

Finland, August 27, 2009 letter ............................................................... 176 

Paoletta, Mark R., Partner, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, on behalf of 

McAfee, Inc., Washington, DC, August 27, 2009 letter .......................... 180 

Siemens, Peter Loescher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Washington, DC, September 2, 2009 letters .................................................... 185 

Skype, Josh Silverman, CEO Luxembourg, August 26, 2009 letter ......... 187 

Sprint, Vonya B. McCann, Senior Vice President Government Affairs, 

Washington DC, August 27, 2009 letter .................................................. 194 

Symantec, Enrique Salem, Mountain View, California, January 20, 

2010 letter .................................................................................................. 196 

Verizon, Kathryn C. Brown, Senior Vice President, Public Policy Development & Corporate Responsibility, Washington, DC, August 27, 

2009 letter .................................................................................................. 198 

Vodafone, Vittorio Colao, Group Chief Executive, Berkshire, England, 

August 27, 2009 letter .............................................................................. 200 

Websense, Gene Hodges, Chief Executive Officer, San Diego, California, 

letter ........................................................................................................... 201 

Business for Social Responsibility (BSR), Washington, DC, statement .............. 203 

Black, Edward J., President & Chief Executive Officer, Computer & Communications Industry Association, Washington, DC, statement ........................... 206 

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), Leslie Harris, President & Chief 

Executive Officer, Washington, DC, statement ................................................. 208 

Committee to Protect Journalists, New York, New York, statement .................. 216 

Ganesan, Arvind, Director, Business and Human Rights Program, Human 

Rights Watch, New York, New York, statement ............................................... 219 

Global Network Initiative, March 2, 2010 statement ........................................... 224 

Google, Nicole Wong, Deputy General Counsel, Washington, DC, statement 

and letter .............................................................................................................. 232 

Human Rights First, Washington, DC, statement ................................................ 238 

Internews Network, Washington, DC, statement ................................................. 244 

MacKinnon, Rebecca, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, and Co-Founder, Global Voices Online, statement ................................................................... 247 

Memarian, Omid, Iranian Blogger, San Francisco, California, statement ......... 259 

Microsoft, Pamela S. Passman, Corporate Vice President, Global Corporate 

Affairs, Redmond, Washington, letter and attachment .................................... 264 

Posner, Michael H., Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC, statement ................................ 270 

Reporters Without Borders, Washington, DC, statement .................................... 274 

Verma, Richard R., Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs, Department of 

State, Washington, DC, report ............................................................................ 279 

Washington Post, Caylan Ford, January 20, 2010, article ................................... 281 

Weitzner, Daniel J., Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis 

and Development, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, statement ..................... 283 

Wong, Nicole, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google Inc., 

Mountain View, California, statement ............................................................... 291 

World Organization for Human Rights USA, Morton Sklar, Founding Executive Director Emeritus (retired), Washington, DC, statement ......................... 298 

Yahoo, Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer, Sunnyvale, California, statement 

and attachment .................................................................................................... 306 

(1) 

GLOBAL INTERNET FREEDOM AND THE RULE 

OF LAW, PART II 

TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 

room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. 

Durbin, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Kaufman, Franken, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Judiciary Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law will come to order. 

Today’s hearing is ‘‘Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law, 

Part II.’’ 

After a few opening remarks, I will recognize those Senators who 

are in attendance for an opening statement and then go to our witnesses, whose attendance we appreciate. 

This Subcommittee held our first hearing on this issue in May 

of 2008. At that hearing, we learned that repressive governments 

around the world censor the Internet and persecute human rights 

and democracy advocates who express their views online. Since 

then, the scale and scope of Internet censorship has increased dramatically. 

At our hearing 2 years ago, I showed some pictures of censored 

Internet searches on Google and Yahoo!. Today I am going to demonstrate that, unfortunately, this censorship continues. 

Let me start, if I can do this. What you are looking at here on 

the screen to your left is a Google.com search for the word 

‘‘Tiananmen.’’ You will find pictures of the famous Tiananmen 

Square protests in 1989, especially the iconic photo of a demonstrator standing in front of several tanks. 

Now what you see is Google.cn, Google’s China search engine, 

and a search for the same word, ‘‘Tiananmen.’’ Here you will only 

find beautiful postcard images of Tiananmen Square. 

Let me be clear. I am not singling out Google. Yahoo!, and Bing, 

Microsoft’s search engine, also censor the Internet in China. And 

Baidu, the leading Chinese search engine, censors even more content than these American companies. 

2 

I want to commend Google again for announcing that they plan 

to stop censoring their Chinese search engine. I look forward to an 

update today on their efforts. 

At our first hearing, we discussed the Global Network Initiative, 

or GNI, which was then being negotiated. The GNI is a voluntary 

code of conduct that requires technology companies to take reasonable measures to protect human rights. 

Following the hearing, Senator Tom Coburn, this Subcommittee’s 

Ranking Member, and I encouraged Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! 

to complete the GNI negotiations, and the code was launched in 

October of 2008. I want to commend these three companies for 

their extraordinary leadership in promoting Internet freedom. 

Since then, I have asked several dozen other companies to consider joining the GNI. Without objection, the companies’ written responses will be entered into the hearing record and also will be 

made available on my website. 

I am disappointed that a year and a half after the GNI started, 

no new companies have joined. 

Based on the responses that I have received, only three companies—AT&T, McAfee, and Skype—have even committed to participating in a dialog about joining the GNI. One company, Websense, 

has indicated that they will join the GNI if the membership fee is 

waived. 

Many companies told me that the GNI is not relevant to their 

company’s business. The last 2 years have demonstrated that that 

is simply not true. 

The explosive growth of social networking services, like Twitter 

and Facebook, has helped human rights activists organize and publicize human rights violations in Iran and other places around the 

world. However, repressive governments can use these same tools 

to monitor and crack down on advocates. 

I invited Facebook and Twitter to testify today but they refused 

to appear. 

Last year, the Chinese Government announced that they would 

require all computers sold in China to include software called 

‘‘Green Dam,’’ which censors political content and records user activity. 

Thanks to the opposition from the U.S. Government and companies, the Chinese Government eventually backed down. This incident highlighted the human rights challenges faced by computer 

manufacturers. 

I invited Hewlett-Packard and Apple to testify about these challenges today, and they also refused. 

Filtering software produced by American companies has allegedly 

been used to censor the Internet in several countries with repressive governments. 

I invited McAfee, which produces filtering software, to testify 

today. McAfee initially agreed but on Friday informed us that they 

were pulling out. 

The bottom line is this: With a few notable exceptions, the technology industry seems unwilling to regulate itself and unwilling 

even to engage in a dialog with Congress about the serious human 

rights challenges that the industry faces. 

3 

In the face of this resistance, I have decided that it is time to 

take a more active position. At our hearing 2 years ago, I indicated 

that Congress could step in if the industry failed to take concrete 

action to protect Internet freedom. 

Today I am announcing that I will introduce legislation that 

would require Internet companies to take reasonable steps to protect human rights or face civil or criminal liability. I look forward 

to working with my Republican colleague Senator Coburn and my 

other colleagues to enact this legislation into law. 

I recognize that the technology industry faces difficult challenges 

when dealing with repressive governments, but we have a responsibility in the United States—and Congress shares in that responsibility—to ensure that American companies are not complicit in violating freedom of expression, a fundamental human right enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

Now I want to recognize my colleague Senator Coburn, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COBURN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator COBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and due to being a 

little bit under the weather, I think I will just ask that my opening 

statement be made a part of the record. 

Chairman DURBIN. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coburn appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Franken, do you have any opening 

remarks? 

Senator FRANKEN. I do not. I look forward to the hearing, 

though, and thank you for calling it, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Franken. 

We are going to turn to our first panel of witnesses. The U.S. 

Government has an important role to play in promoting global 

Internet freedom and ensuring U.S. technology companies do not 

facilitate government repression. I look forward to hearing about 

the administration’s plans to advance freedom of expression around 

the world. Our witnesses will each be given 5 minutes for an opening statement. Their complete written statements will be made 

part of the record and posted online. 

I will ask now if the witnesses would please stand and raise their 

right hands to be sworn. Do you affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. POSNER. I do. 

Mr. WEITZNER. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that both 

of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Our first witness, Michael Posner, is the Assistant Secretary of 

State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, our Government’s 

top human rights official. Mr. Posner was previously founding Executive Director and President of Human Rights First, which he 

headed for 30 years. He has substantial expertise in corporate social responsibility and played a key role in founding the Global 

4 

Network Initiative. Mr. Posner has a bachelor’s degree from the 

University of Michigan and a law degree from the University of 

California at Berkeley. He first testified before the Subcommittee 

last year when we held a hearing on the implementation of human 

rights treaties, and we are glad he is with us again. 

Our following witness is Daniel Weitzner, the Associate Administrator for the Office of Policy Analysis and Development in the 

Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and I think he is going to win a prize for 

the longest title of a witness appearing before our Committee. Mr. 

Weitzner is one of our Nation’s leading experts on Internet policy. 

Prior to joining NTIA, Mr. Weitzner was Director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory’s Decentralized 

Information Group and Policy Director of the World Wide Web 

Consortium Technology and Society Activities. Mr. Weitzner was 

also co-founder and Deputy Director of the Center for Democracy 

and Technology, and Deputy Policy Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. 

Your re ́sume ́ is loaded with titles. That is terrific. 

Mr. Weitzner has a bachelor’s degree from Swarthmore and a 

law degree from Buffalo Law School. We thank you as well for joining us. 

Mr. Posner, would you like to make your opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you. I want to thank you, Senator Durbin 

and Senator Coburn, for inviting me to testify and for your longstanding interest in this subject. I have followed this issue quite 

closely and the Subcommittee’s involvement since your Part I hearing in 2008, and it is great that you are pursuing this. 

When you first addressed Internet freedom, the primary concerns 

of those testifying were content filtering on the Internet and harassment and arrest of digital activists. These problems persist 

today. As Secretary Clinton highlighted in her January 21st speech 

on Internet freedom, the State Department continues to protest the 

arrest, detention, and harassment of bloggers in Iran, in China, in 

Egypt, in Vietnam, and elsewhere. And countries that seek to filter 

access to information are only becoming more skilled at doing so. 

These problems persist. 

But the threats to Internet freedom are expanding beyond restricting access to content. As, again, Secretary Clinton described, 

repressive regimes are co-opting new media tools to crush dissent 

and deny human rights. And while the rapid increase in the use 

of mobile phones creates new platforms for connecting people and 

providing access to information, it also creates new threats to free 

expression and the free flow of information. So we have a major set 

of challenges. 

The State Department since 2006 has had an Internet Freedom 

Task Force which has been re-launched as the Net Freedom Task 

Force, chaired by two of our Under Secretaries, and it is going to 

oversee the State Department’s efforts on these issues. I want to 

just quickly cite three aspects of what we are doing. 

5 

The first is advancing Internet freedom through programming. 

Our effort is to provide unfettered safe access to information and 

communication. Beginning in 2008, the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, which I lead, has implemented $15 million in programming to support Internet freedom. I spell out some 

of the details in my testimony. We are also working with AID, with 

the Middle East Partnership Initiative on a range of specific initiatives aimed at providing training to journalists, civil society activists, political parties on the use of these new technologies. 

The second thing that we are doing more broadly is monitoring 

and analyzing. Next week we will release the annual Human 

Rights Report of the State Department on human rights practices, 

annual Country Reports. One of the things we are going to do in 

the coming year is to review the reporting process and improve and 

expand on Internet freedom reporting, which is an essential piece 

of what we need to be doing. We are going to make the reports 

more accessible to people around the world who have limited access 

to the Internet, and we are going to increase the capacity of our 

embassy officers to monitor and respond when there are threats to 

Internet freedom. 

And that is really the third aspect of what we are doing—responding. It is, unfortunately, too often the case that those who are 

involved in human rights and other advocacy are themselves targeted because of their advocacy, and those who are using the Internet and social networking sites are being attacked precisely because they are communicating effectively. 

For example, last fall, when a popular social networking site was 

blocked in Vietnam, we raised the issues with officials in Hanoi 

and in Washington. When bloggers in countries such as China and 

Vietnam and Egypt and Iran are threatened, we speak out publicly 

on their behalf. This is an important part of what we can be and 

need to be doing. 

I want to just say a last comment, and it relates to what you 

spoke about, Senator Durbin, in your opening. This is an issue 

where the Government has a role, but the private sector also has 

a role. As you noted, I was involved before coming into Government 

in the creation of the Global Network initiative, which is a multistakeholder initiative that brings together companies, NGO’s, academic experts, and social and investing firms. 

I think it is really critical that we and you work to figure out 

ways for companies to step up and take responsibility here. We 

cannot do it alone, and companies acting alone cannot make a difference. There needs to be a collective response, and I am personally very committed, as are others in the State Department, to trying to find ways to work collectively with the private sector to 

make a difference in this area. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Posner appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Weitzner. 

6 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. WEITZNER, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WEITZNER. Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Coburn, 

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this invitation to testify on behalf of the Department of Commerce and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration—I will work 

on shortening titles—on the global challenges facing the Internet 

industry. As an advocate of economic growth, innovation, and exports, the Department of Commerce’s goal is to support a global, 

open Internet as a platform for the free flow of information, goods, 

and services. The Department of Commerce is committed to our 

role as partner with U.S. companies, large and small, as they grapple with the challenges of operating in countries that reject openness, transparency, and the free flow of information. 

The great innovative energy of the Internet is due to the fact 

that even the smallest U.S. Internet startups can be reached by 

user all over the world. With this strength, we must also recognize 

that U.S. companies can become the target of arbitrary foreign 

laws, even if they have no offices in that country. 

Today I will summarize the challenges we see facing U.S. companies, discuss the importance of transparency on the Internet, and 

update you on the Commerce Department’s activities to support a 

commercial, robust, and transparent Internet. Let me just highlight 

three major threats that we see very briefly. 

First, U.S. companies are often pressured to block or filter Internet content or communications absent any evidence of illegality, 

based on rules that are unclear, unwritten, and often lacking due 

process or transparency. 

Second, some governments would require their Internet service 

providers to assist in electronic surveillance without due process or 

adequate judicial supervision. This puts these companies in untenable situations that they should not have to face. 

U.S. companies, third, risk being the victims of hacking attempts 

sponsored by overseas criminals, foreign governments, or loose-knit 

groups of both working together. In this era of globally integrated, 

cloud computing platforms, security threats in one country can put 

the entire global enterprise at risk. Worse, security has become a 

pretext often for forced compliance with government-imposed technically deficient standards, disadvantaging U.S. companies which 

support global Internet standards, and putting the entire Internet 

at risk. 

Unfair treatment of Internet users and providers threatens the 

Internet’s fundamental modus operandi—transparency. Open technical standards have enabled rapid innovation and global interoperability of the Internet and the applications that run on it. 

Despite recent attention to vulnerabilities in the Internet infrastructure, we must not lose sight of the extraordinary engineering 

achievements that enable global citizens to communicate through a 

common platform. Transparency is at the heart of the Internet’s 

success. 

7 

Looking forward, the Commerce Department will continue its 

successful tradition of working with stakeholders to develop Government, industry, civil society partnerships supporting Internet 

development. We have been heartened by the Global Network Initiative’s ongoing efforts to develop a voluntary code of conduct for 

Internet companies. The Government must be a full partner in this 

effort, we believe, standing up for individuals and businesses when 

the free flow of information and human rights are threatened. 

Ensuring that the Internet is open for innovation and social 

progress is a vital priority for the Department. In the early months 

of the new administration, we assembled a cross-department Internet Policy Task Force whose mission is to identify leading public 

policy and operational challenges in the Internet environment. Our 

task force leverages expertise across many bureaus, including 

international communications policy, trade, intellectual property 

protection, business advocacy, and corporate responsibility. Our 

work began with developing a new Internet privacy and cybersecurity. The task force has convened consultations with major U.S. 

corporations and innovators across academia and civil society. We 

have now added consideration of global trade barriers along with 

online copyright enforcement and Internet governance. 

In the coming months, outreach will continue as the task force 

will issue Notices of Inquiry on these topics. Based on this feedback, the task force will focus departmental resources on this challenge and contribute to an administration-wide public policy development. 

In closing, let me say from my own experience that the Internet 

was created and has grown to global scale because of a unique combination of cooperation and transparency. Academic and commercial researchers, as you know, came together to create and extend 

the underlying Internet technology. As the Internet grew, it was 

often cooperative efforts of industry, civil society, and Government 

that came together to solve hard social and legal problems. 

The threats to the free flow of information on the Internet are 

serious. We should look to solve them as much as possible with the 

unique cooperative, transparent spirit that gave us the Internet in 

the first place. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to be here and for your 

longstanding attention to this important issue, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weitzner appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks a lot. 

We asked Facebook to testify, and they said, ‘‘We have no business operations in China or, for that matter, in most of the countries of the world.’’ They went on to say, ‘‘As a young startup, our 

resources and influence are limited. We do not have the resources 

to devote to GNI membership.’’ 

But here are the facts. Facebook has over 400 million users, 

which makes it the second most viewed website in the world. About 

70 percent of Facebook users are outside the United States. 

Facebook has over 1,000 employees, hundreds of millions of dollars 

in annual revenues, and is worth billions of dollars. That is hardly 

a mom-and-pop operation that cannot afford to be a part of GNI. 

8 

And Facebook acknowledges that it engages in censorship. In 

their letter to me, Facebook said, and I quote, ‘‘When content 

shared from a particular jurisdiction violates that jurisdiction’s 

local laws or customs, Facebook may take down that content.’’ 

Mr. Posner, it is my understanding that Facebook recently asked 

the State Department for help when they were blocked in Vietnam, 

and you responded by raising the issue with the Vietnamese Government. Is that right? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, we have responded—a number of companies 

have come to us. Facebook is one of them. And we are obviously 

trying to promote Internet freedom, so we are trying to be cooperative with all of them. 

Chairman DURBIN. So if Facebook expects our Government to 

help in resolving efforts to censor their service, it only seems reasonable that they accept some responsibility themselves for addressing human rights issues. 

Mr. Posner, does Facebook face human rights challenges such as 

censorship that GNI would address? 

Mr. POSNER. You know, again, I do not want to single out one 

particular company, but I think it is fair to say that companies like 

Facebook and Twitter are certainly susceptible to a lot of the pressures that we have seen others face. The technology is changing. 

The world is changing. Governments are getting much more aggressive in trying to regulate and control content. So I think it 

is—— 

Chairman DURBIN. I do not want to single out one company either, so let me single out another one. Let us take Twitter. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. In a letter to me, Twitter expressed confidence they were having a positive impact on human rights, and 

I believe that. They said, and I quote, ‘‘Twitter is a triumph of humanity, not technology.’’ Twitter has helped activists to organize 

and publicize human rights violations, but they also face human 

rights challenges. For example, there are reports the Iranian Government is tracking down opposition activists who use Twitter. 

However, in their letter to me, Twitter declined to join the GNI 

saying, and I quote, ‘‘It is our initial sense that GNI’s draft policies, 

processes, and fees are better suited to bigger companies who have 

actual operations in sensitive regions.’’ 

Mr. Posner, does Twitter face human rights challenges that the 

GNI could address? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, they do, and I think one of the things that 

makes the GNI to me an important part of the solution here is that 

companies are going to learn from each other. There is not one 

company that is going to have a monopoly on creativity or thoughts 

about how to deal with this. They need to work collectively, and 

that is part of what this initiative is designed to do. 

Chairman DURBIN. In our next panel, Omid Memarian, an Iranian blogger who is a witness today, says in his testimony, and I 

quote, ‘‘It was not the Iranian Government who shut down my 

website, it was the domain and host provider in the United States 

that did it.’’ 

9 

Testimony by Rebecca MacKinnon, another witness on our second panel, indicates that U.S. web hosting companies have also denied services to political opposition groups in Zimbabwe and Syria. 

I would like to ask you both: What can be done to ensure that 

U.S. sanctions and exports controls do not prevent U.S. companies 

from providing Internet technology and services like website 

hosting to human rights and democracy activists living under repressive governments? 

Mr. WEITZNER. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the jurisdiction for 

export controls is shared between the Commerce Department. We 

enforce our Export Administration regulations and other rules of 

the State Department as well as the Treasury Department. 

As to services such as Twitter and others that you mentioned 

that do not employ any encryption software on the user end, as far 

as we understand, those services are freely available around the 

world from the perspective of U.S. regulations. Obviously, as you 

note, other countries may block access to those services. But the 

Commerce Department’s Export Administration regulations do not 

prevent anyone in the world from using a service like Twitter. That 

is because it is a service that is based on the Web; it does not require the installation of software. 

It is also the case that under Commerce Department regulations 

publicly available, downloadable software with encryption can be 

used widely. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let me ask about another issue that is related. Some commentators have expressed concern about the appearance that the State Department is too close to some American 

Internet companies. For example, last week, Twitter CEO Jack 

Dorsey was a member of an official State Department delegation to 

Russia. Top State Department officials used Twitter to post details 

about their personal lives. Technology expert Evgeny Morozov said, 

and I quote, ‘‘The kind of message that it sends to the rest of the 

world—that Google, Facebook, and Twitter are now just extensions 

of the U.S. State Department—may simply endanger the lives of 

those who use such services in authoritarian countries. It is hardly 

surprising that the Iranian Government has begun to view all 

Twitter users with the utmost suspicion.’’ 

Mr. Posner, are you concerned about the perception that the 

State Department is too close to companies like Twitter and 

Facebook? And how can we combat the impression that these companies are just an arm of our Government? 

Mr. POSNER. I think we have to be able to work in multiple ways 

as a Government. The fact that there are these social networking 

sites or Internet sites that deploy or allow information to be disseminated quickly means that they are a tool for all governments 

and for private citizens. We should not reject that. But at the same 

time, I think we have to be clear that there is a separation between 

Government and these private companies. They are not part of the 

Government. And there are certain obligations we are to hold their 

feet to the fire to be acting responsibly as companies. 

So I think we need to be really operating in multiple tracks here, 

not to deny ourselves the ability to use the excellent tools that they 

provide, but at the same time keeping the lines clear of who we are 

10 

and who the companies are and holding them accountable for their 

own actions. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. Posner, you talked about the three things that you all are 

doing in terms of programming, monitoring, and analyzing, then 

responding, and you spoke specifically about responding to two or 

three different instances. Vietnam I think was one that you mentioned. 

What has been the effect of that response? 

Mr. POSNER. This is a long-term and tough subject for us to 

claim immediate results. It is not going to happen that way. Governments are testing the limits, and we’re pushing back. 

I think in the long run we are going to succeed because I think 

efforts by governments to control people’s ideas are not going to 

succeed. People are going to find creative ways to circumvent whatever restrictions governments put up. 

But I think we just have to be resolute in saying we are absolutely dedicated, as Secretary Clinton said, to a free, open Internet 

and communications environment without restrictions, and we are 

going to keep pushing for that. And when governments push back, 

we are going to be there to say this is counter to American values 

and American foreign policy. 

Senator COBURN. So there is definitely going to be a consistency 

to your message and a constance to your message. 

Mr. POSNER. If we are not consistent, we are not going to succeed. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Mr. Weitzner, you mentioned the GNI in 

your testimony. Given your unique perspective of the diversity of 

all the companies that make up the industry, that offer Internetbased goods and services around the world, do you see GNI as a 

framework that will fit every one of those companies? Or is there 

the case that maybe this does not fit some of them? 

Mr. WEITZNER. From the perspective of the efforts that we imagine at the Commerce Department, our main interest is to be a partner with the GNI. It seems unlikely that every single Internet company in the United States would join. We certainly hope more do. 

These organizations have to figure out how to create the proper 

kind of fit between their mission and those whom they hope to 

serve. That is not an easy challenge, as you know, but we think 

it is important. 

From the Commerce Department’s perspective, we hear from 

companies large and small and across a number of sectors of the 

Internet economy. Certainly small startups may not be able to fully 

participate in the GNI, but we think, first of all, they will benefit 

from the efforts of an organization like that, and we are looking 

very carefully at how we can make the trade assistance resources 

we have available on the ground in over 60 countries around the 

world available to those U.S. companies who, for whatever reason, 

do not fit as well. 

Senator COBURN. But you do feel that ultimately they all will 

have some benefit, directly or indirectly. 

11 

Mr. WEITZNER. I think that if the GNI can succeed at its efforts 

to bring greater transparency and a set of commonly accepted best 

practices, that would benefit the Internet as a whole. 

Senator COBURN. What kind of guidance does your Department 

give to U.S. companies offering Internet-based goods and services 

in Internet-restricted countries to overcome the challenges that you 

outlined in your testimony? 

Mr. WEITZNER. I would not say there is a single answer to that 

question, but as I noted, the Commerce Department resources, 

working along with State Department resources in many countries, 

works on a case-by-case basis to work through barriers or misunderstandings that companies face. When those barriers are seen 

to be too hard to resolve in individual cases, we can escalate those 

to discussions with the governments, and often a government-togovernment discussion at whatever level can be helpful in a way 

that the company may not be able to muster all by itself. 

This is especially true for smaller companies, for companies that 

do not have the international profile of some of the cases that we 

have seen in the news. So, again, we think that we will have an 

essential role to play in helping U.S. companies that way. 

Senator COBURN. Are there some instances of success where you 

have been able to accomplish that? 

Mr. WEITZNER. Well, very often these are efforts that require cooperation across the executive branch. I would point to the recent 

interactions involving the Green Dam Internet filtering requirement that was proposed by the Chinese Government. As that issue 

was raised to various parts of the U.S. Government, including the 

Commerce Department, the International Trade Administration, 

the USTR, State Department, and others, we were able to have a 

dialog with the Chinese Government that we think produced results. 

Senator COBURN. OK. The Department of Commerce seems to be 

on the forefront of some of the issues we are discussing today. But, 

on the other hand, I was startled to hear that efforts to target 

Internet policy changes seem to have only just begun. 

Is the Interagency Internet Policy Task Force the first such initiative undertaken by the Department? 

Mr. WEITZNER. The Department of Commerce’s efforts in Internet policy go back to more or less the beginning of the commercial 

Internet in the mid–1990’s, so early work was done in the Department of Commerce in laying out a framework for global electronic 

commerce and laying privacy rules and approaches that would be 

appropriate for the Internet. So I am proud to say there is a longstanding tradition at the Commerce Department far pre-dating our 

work, and we intend to continue that. 

Senator COBURN. How long before a Notice of Inquiry runs in the 

Federal Register to solicit additional outside opinions? 

Mr. WEITZNER. We are hoping to do this in the next couple of 

months. 

Senator COBURN. Why can’t it be done immediately? 

Mr. WEITZNER. Well, we have been engaging in discussions with 

a variety of companies and technical experts and academics to 

make sure we understand the questions we ought to be asking. So 

12 

we are actively engaged in that, and we are going to get it out just 

as soon as we can. 

Senator COBURN. That is fair. When does the task force anticipate making formal recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce? 

Mr. WEITZNER. We will be working over the course of this year, 

and we expect by the end of the year we will have recommendations. But we will be contributing based on what we learned in an 

informal way both to Commerce Department efforts and to administration-wide efforts. So we view this as an ongoing effort. 

Senator COBURN. You have this tremendous knowledge and tremendous experience. Is it always going to be possible for U.S. companies to operate in ways that support a global open Internet that 

facilitates the free flow of information, goods, and services even 

with countries that do not share those values? And how do we get 

there? 

Mr. WEITZNER. I hesitate to say anything is always possible. I 

think that it will be possible, and I share my colleague Secretary 

Posner’s optimism that we will be able to make progress on this. 

I think the history of the Internet has been the spread of a recognition that openness is good for everyone. 

Senator COBURN. It is a powerful tool. 

Mr. WEITZNER. Yes. 

Senator COBURN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Posner, Congress has reserved tens of millions of dollars for 

funding anti-censorship initiatives. Just last December, your Bureau called for $5 million of this funding. However, as a bipartisan 

group of Senators has pointed out, the application required a significant ‘‘in-country presence,’’ requiring the groups developing 

anti-censorship software, for example, to actually physically be 

present in an authoritarian country. 

I am no IT expert, but the impression I get is that software is 

pretty portable. I also get the impression that it is hard to live in 

an authoritarian country as an anti-censorship programmer in a 

country like Iran. 

Why do we have this requirement? And is it necessary? 

Mr. POSNER. Senator, I think there has been some misunderstanding of that requirement, and I will say we have gotten a 

range of very exciting proposals from more than 20 different entities. 

What we are trying to do is create opportunities for people operating in tough, repressive places like Iran to get access to information. When we talk about presence, we are not talking about having servers on the scene or complicated technical equipment. What 

we are trying to do is find entities, a range of different groups, who 

are looking, as we are, creatively at how to use Internet, how to 

use telephone applications to better communicate within their own 

societies. So the field is wide open, and we have a range of different 

applicants for that money, many of whom are not physically located 

in the countries that are—— 

Senator FRANKEN. In the proposal it says the bulk of project activities must take place in-country and last between 1 and 3 years. 

13 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, but when we say that, what we are talking 

about is—for example, let us take the example of Iran. What we 

are interested in doing is providing the kind of training, assistance, 

protection to people, Iranians, who are in within their own society 

trying to open up the free flow of information and access to information. We are working with a range of groups that are not themselves based in Iran or in China or in any of these countries, but 

we are trying to create opportunities for people inside their own 

countries, their own societies, to communicate more effectively. 

That is the purpose of that language. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. I am not sure I totally follow it, but let 

us go somewhere else. The Washington Post specifically criticized 

the State Department for not giving a cent to a group called the 

Global Internet Freedom Consortium, and, Mr. Chairman, without 

objection, I would like to add a copy of that editorial for the record. 

Chairman DURBIN. Without objection. 

[The editorial appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. According to the Wall Street Journal, these 

are the guys who developed the software that allowed protesters in 

Iran to communicate during and after the government crackdown. 

Can you speak to the Post editorial? Why hasn’t this group received any funding? 

Mr. POSNER. First of all, the group you mention is one of the 20- 

some that applied for funding in December, and those applications 

or that money is now being disbursed—or we are reviewing all of 

the applications and will make a decision in the next few months. 

And the competition was open, and we encouraged them to apply 

and they did, which is a good sign. 

Our approach has been that there is not one magic answer to 

how to circumvent these restrictions, that there needs to be a range 

of tools, a range of different approaches. We sort of view ourselves 

as somewhat like the venture capital firms in the Silicon Valley 

trying a lot of different things. The technology—— 

Senator FRANKEN. But this group seemed particularly successful 

and is not one that received funding. 

Mr. POSNER. There are different views about how successful any 

one of these has been, and we are looking at that. But, you know, 

we are absolutely open to their being a candidate for funding and 

are looking at it very seriously. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Weitzner, I know that free trade agreements or trade agreements are negotiated by the United States Trade Representative, 

not your Department, but I still want to ask you this question. 

Over time, our free trade agreements have come to include robust 

protections for workers and for the environment. One of our latest 

FTAs, the Korean FTA, includes a provision protecting ‘‘the free 

flow of information in facilitating trade,’’ but it only covers international information flows, not intra-country censorship, and also 

isn’t mandatory. 

Will this administration support a simple mandatory ban on political censorship on the Internet in future trade agreements? 

Mr. WEITZNER. That is a question I am not prepared to speak to 

right here, but will certainly take it back and consider it. I think 

that as we look at the free trade agreements that we have that 

14 

would be amended and the new ones that are being negotiated, it 

is certainly appropriate to consider the range of issues that affect 

the open Internet. It is clearly in the interest of promoting free 

trade to have an open Internet, and we will be happy to come back 

with you and talk in more detail about your suggestion. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. And you mentioned that part of your 

portfolio is trade and intellectual property, so I just wanted to 

ask—we are talking about a free flow of information and Internet 

freedom here, but I want to also talk for a second, that as long as 

we are considering putting this kind of restrictions in our trade 

agreements that will restrict censorship, what are we doing on intellectual property? And can we put these together to prevent countries like China from ripping off our intellectual property, our movies, music, et cetera? 

Mr. WEITZNER. As you probably know, Senator, a number of the 

free trade agreements that we have already negotiated have intellectual property protection provisions in them, and there are negotiations ongoing in other venues to advance that to other countries 

as well. So it is an agenda that is being actively pursued by this 

administration. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is very timely, it is important. There 

is hardly anything I can think of that is more important than the 

free exchange of ideas if we are going to be successful in having 

a peaceful world over the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years. 

I spent 13 years on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and we 

wrestled time and again with the problem of Internet freedom and 

how you deal with it in certain countries. And I would just like to 

reinforce what Mr. Posner said, and that is, in the late 1990s, we 

went out to Silicon Valley and talked to the experts out there about 

how do you do this battle and how can you win. And they all to 

a person reassured us that they cannot block what it is they were 

sending. It is always easier to send a message than it is to block. 

It is sort of like nuclear where they said one, two, three, four missiles, knocking them down is much more difficult than putting 

them up. So the key to this thing in the end is being creative and 

doing more, and people will find their way. That in no way, in no 

way, to know how difficult it is for people to deal—they are nontechnical people—with these different techniques that are available. 

The second thing, I would like to really follow up strongly on 

what Senator Coburn said. I am absolutely convinced that one of 

the secrets of this is government to government. These folks, if 

they think this is important—for instance, if we are dealing with 

a country that we all know—without naming any countries—there 

are always 20 things we want to talk about. If this is not on the 

agenda for discussion, they get the clear message we do not care 

about it. And far too often this issue has not been on the agenda, 

not just the Internet freedom but freedom of the press. 

So I am just saying that in those discussions when you go overseas, if you do not raise this, they will get the message that this 

15 

really does not matter. So Senator Coburn is right on point in my 

opinion in saying that we have got to stress the government-to-government part. 

Can both of you kind of comment on the recent conviction of 

Google executives in Italy for third-party content and what it 

means for Internet freedom and what we can do about it, both in 

the State Department and the Commerce Department? 

Mr. POSNER. It is distressing, to say the least, that Italian authorities have sought to make representatives, local representatives 

of a private company in a sense the censors of content and, you 

know, we are clearly concerned about the ramifications of that as 

it would spread out across the globe. There are obviously sensitivities. The companies, I think, have got to take, again, responsibility 

for monitoring the content, but this is a company that, to my mind, 

was trying to do that and, when they were informed about the content, acted appropriately and yet they are being targeted by a government. 

So I think this is actually a very important case and one that we 

need to respond to and follow very closely. 

Mr. WEITZNER. Thank you, Senator. I would agree that their case 

is very important, and the larger issue that it raises is probably 

even more important. 

One of the first steps that the United States took in legislating 

and creating a legal environment for the Internet was to recognize 

that if we place third parties in the position of—whether they are 

Internet service providers or those who host content, such as 

YouTube, if you place those parties in the position of having to figure out what the rules about third-party content might be, figure 

out whether they might be liable, the Internet really would grind 

to a halt. And I think that it is an issue that I think we tackled 

early on in the United States, and it is one that I hope we can raise 

awareness of around the world as we go forward. 

Senator KAUFMAN. And I hope there, again, we will do government-to-government, multilateral—this could bring the entire 

Internet to a halt, and it is not in the interest of anyone to have 

this happen. And if Italy gets away with it, then more countries 

will do the same thing. 

One of the models I think we should use going forward on this 

is not voluntary matters, the VOICE Act, to deal with Iran and the 

way Iran blocks the Internet and the things they do. And the 

VOICE Act has the government promoting ways to get around, to 

help folks get around the Iranian blocking of the Internet. And, Mr. 

Posner, we are expecting a report soon. Can you kind of give me 

the status of where we are on that? 

Mr. POSNER. As I understand it, the report was—a draft of it has 

been prepared by the BBG, and it is now being reviewed in an 

interagency process, and I think you should get it shortly. But it 

is certainly underway, and I will make sure that you get it very 

soon. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Good. Thank you. 

Are there any examples beyond Google, what Google is doing in 

China, of corporations taking on charges for Internet freedom that 

you can think of off the top of your head, some good stories? 

16 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, I would say one of the things that, again, has 

been encouraging to me about the companies that have participated in the Global Network Initiative is that they have taken internally steps to do things to preempt or to anticipate problems. So, 

for example, we talk about Google. I would also talk about Yahoo! 

in the same breath. They have really internally undertaken to 

make human rights part of their internal decisionmaking process, 

and when they have gone into new markets, they have undertaken 

to review and do country analyses so they know what they are getting themselves into. 

I think those sorts of steps, while they are not dramatic, are essential. If we are really talking companies stepping up and taking 

responsibility, it starts within their own corporate structure, and it 

starts with their understanding of the places where they are operating and taking the time to really evaluate the human rights and 

free expression risks. So I think that is the kind of initiative that 

I am looking at and hoping that other companies will follow. 

Senator KAUFMAN. You know, I think that is a business decision, 

having worked in corporate America, that is a decision you make, 

whether you go into a country where clearly you are going to have 

a problem. But, you know, many people attribute the end of segregation in the South to when American corporations decided they 

were going to do away with the good neighbor policy. And I think, 

with all due respect—and I mean with all due respect—until corporations decide that they are not going to abide by the Internet 

freedom good neighbor policy, we are going to be aiding and abetting, as we have in the past, regimes from blocking the Internet, 

and a lot of it is being done with U.S. technology and U.S. companies. 

So I am sensitive to the fact that internally we have to deal with 

it, but at some point someone has got to get up and say, ‘‘I am not 

going to do it.’’ And, you know, the slippery slopes we all travel, 

and we all know this, and that is, when you say, ‘‘If I don’t do it, 

someone else will,’’ that is the time to stop back and examine your 

conscience on what is going on. 

The other thing that is kind of an interest of mine—and I will 

just finish with this, if that is OK—is U.S. companies. I mean, 

what is a U.S. company today with multinational corporations having so many interests around the world, how do you deal—do you 

deal with non-U.S. companies and what they are doing about Internet freedom? 

Mr. POSNER. I think one of the challenges we face now and the 

GNI will face in its own operation is trying to re-engage particularly with some of the Western European governments and companies and some of the Asian companies, the Japanese and Koreans 

and others. This cannot just be a U.S.-based initiative. And in the 

early negotiations or discussions of the GNI, several of the telephone companies from Europe were nominally involved, preliminarily involved, and they pulled back. We are very keen to get European governments and European companies in particular, and 

some of these Asian companies as well, to get engaged as well. This 

has to be a collective response. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

17 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

I would like to ask a question that may betray my legal training 

back in the early days of our Republic, but I am trying to put in 

my own mind a spectrum of activities where it would be—most of 

us would approve of an Internet company cooperating with the 

Government. 

Example one, child pornography, and our Government in the 

course of an investigation asks for the identification of those who 

have had access to certain websites which we believe would be the 

basis for a criminal prosecution. 

Example two, people venting their political feelings bordering on 

the suggestion of violence against certain public officials. 

No. 3, specific threats of violence against an individual, a Member of Congress or the President of the United States. 

No. 4, involvement in terrorism, working with groups that are 

literally trying to do us harm. 

No. 5, the disclosure of information classified by our Government 

as top secret which may compromise our National security. 

Going up the spectrum here, you can see the severity of the issue 

and the seriousness of the issue. And I am wondering—I do not 

want to oversimplify what we are doing here and say it should be 

easy for companies doing business in other countries to know 

where to draw the line. Where does GNI draw the line? How do 

they draw the line? 

Mr. Posner. 

Mr. POSNER. It is an excellent question, and, you know, it is 

probably one of the toughest questions to deal with in a practical 

way. That list you give, we have all sorts of constraints now in society against pornography and against promoting or supporting terrorism or engaging in violent acts or promoting that. I think we 

have to use the same frame globally and say there are certain activities that the Government has an obligation to prevent as a matter of law enforcement. 

The challenge we face is that the concept of law enforcement and 

national security takes on a very different coloration if you are 

talking about the Government of Iran or the Government of China 

or any others. And the notion of national security becomes so overwhelmingly broad that what we would consider protected speech, 

political speech, you know, criticism of government action, comes 

under that rubric. 

So that is the challenge. Companies say, and with some justification, we need to follow local law. Somebody tells us there is a violation of national security; we need to be responsive to that. 

I think the hardest, almost the hardest question is when do you 

say, ‘‘No, that does not feel to us like a legitimate national security 

question; you just do not like being criticized’’ ? And that is the 

world we live in. 

Chairman DURBIN. How does GNI draw the line? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, to be honest, we had many, many discussions 

in the negotiation of the GNI on exactly that question, and I think 

those are going to be the hardest calls for companies to make or 

for Government to make. 

The good news for me is there is an awful lot of activity and 

work that can be done that is short of that where you are dealing 

18 

with pure speech and where, you know, your example, the video, 

you know, the Tiananmen Square image on Google.com ought to be 

the same one that is on the Google site that we all look at. 

And so there is a lot of room to be done in promoting free expression that I think where there is clearly a path forward if companies 

work together, push the limits, and as Senator Kaufman said, we 

reinforce that with Government action. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Weitzner. 

Mr. WEITZNER. Thank you. Let me try to address the procedural 

aspect of that question. I think the substantive nature of that spectrum that you drew out, we recognize as some national variations 

around the world, and we have always had to deal with that. I 

think some part of the way that we can come together in an environment where the Internet can actually function globally, where 

these national differences can be accounted for where they are reasonable, but where they do not become overall barriers to the free 

flow of information and to the viability of the Internet, is to keep 

in mind two important principles. 

I think that we should have a basic expectation of due process. 

National rules may vary, but when they become arbitrary, I think 

we all have a concern, and that is obviously of most concern for the 

individual rights at stake. 

By the same token, transparency and predictability of these 

rules, wherever they fall on that spectrum and however that spectrum evolves over time, are essential if we are going to have a viable commercial environment because, as we have discussed, companies simply cannot make these choices by just throwing darts at a 

board and trying to figure out what is in the mind of the governments that have real power over them. 

I would say that if we can stick to those procedural motions of 

due process and transparency, we have some chance as an international community of evolving toward a set of norms that everyone can live with. We will never, I think, close the gap completely, 

sad to say, but what we have to work for, both for the sake of 

human rights and for the sake of U.S. innovation and global innovation on the Internet, is making sure that we have an environment in which everyone is able to function with some predictability 

and stability. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator COBURN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I guess I just wanted to make this one thing 

clearer for people listening or watching about the situation in Italy, 

because I think we talked on a pretty high level about it. Basically 

if you are a platform in America, you are not responsible for—you 

cannot be put in prison because somebody used your platform to 

print something that was libelous or something like that, and that 

allows for the free flow of information; whereas, in Italy what has 

happened is that Google executives have been prosecuted and convicted—right?—and will have to go to prison just because something showed up using their platform. 

I am only saying this because—I just wanted to clarify it for people listening. Sometimes I think we operate on a higher level here 

than—or maybe I am mistaken. Maybe people listening are operating on a higher level than we are—— 

19 

Mr. WEITZNER. Senator, hopefully there is some of both. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WEITZNER. I know you have a witness from Google on the 

next panel, so I do not want to speak for them. But, yes, I think 

it is a very stark situation. There were criminal convictions handed 

out, and indeed, this situation—and it is indeed the case that that 

sort of conviction would not have happened under United States 

law because of the protections that we provide to service providers 

and platform—— 

Senator FRANKEN. I want people to understand this. I remember 

when MoveOn had a contest to do ads, and it was basically antiBush ads. And one of the people sent in an ad comparing the Bush 

administration to the Nazi regime, which was just wrong. You do 

not do that. The Nazi regime was way, way, way beyond parallel. 

I mean, you cannot do that. 

Now, MoveOn did not know it was up. When it was alerted that 

it was up, it took it down. But I kept hearing shows like on Fox 

saying MoveOn put on an ad comparing, you know, Bush with Hitler. You know, I just want people to understand what that was and 

what a platform is and that we cannot hold those platforms responsible for things that people put up on the platform. 

That is all. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Kaufman. 

Senator KAUFMAN. Yes, they cannot police that. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I would ask you, in your comments on legally how we should deal with this, I think if you go to these other 

countries—and correct me if I am wrong—in my experience in 

them, all—not just the Internet—all jamming of broadcasts, all 

closing down, they do not say we are doing anything about it. This 

is not about the public discourse. This is about child pornography. 

That is the No. 1—I mean, so American corporations, when you go 

to them early on in this process and say, ‘‘What are you doing?’’ 

‘‘Oh, no, we are just providing equipment to deal with child pornography.’’ When, in fact, when you go to the country and you see 

what is on the air, clearly they are blocking everything. This is like 

Potter Stewart’s—you know, you pornography, you know when you 

see it. 

So legally they will say, ‘‘We are doing child pornography. We are 

controlling national security.’’ They usually say national security. 

They use that in these very sophisticated countries as why they are 

blocking the Internet. Is that a fair analysis of what is going on? 

Mr. POSNER. It is. You know, in fact, after Secretary Clinton gave 

her speech in January, I talked to several Chinese activists, and 

that is exactly the way the Chinese Government and Chinese 

media were portraying the speech: ‘‘This is not about free speech. 

It is a pretext. They just want to promote pornography.’’ 

So we sort of live in a world where we assume there is a rational 

discourse about these things. In fact, our intentions are being challenged all the time. And the notion of a kind of free, open Internet 

is assumed to be for purposes that we, in fact, would also not regard as legitimate. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Kaufman, and thanks to 

this first panel. We appreciate it. We may have some follow-up 

questions and hope you can answer them in a timely fashion. 

20 

If the second panel would please come to the table, I am going 

to ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the assessment of fees for the GNI, which I believe will be referred to by one 

of the witnesses in the second panel. One of the companies that 

was asked whether it would participate in GNI said that if the fee 

would be waived, they would consider it. The fees range from 

$2,000 annual fees for companies with annual revenues up to $100 

million to $60,000 annual fees for companies with revenues over 

$50 billion. It would seem that the fee should not be an impediment or obstacle to those that want to actively participate in what 

we consider to be a very valuable thing to the industry. 

[The information referred to appears as a submission for the 

record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Let me start by asking the three witnesses 

who are before us to please stand and raise your right hand. Do 

you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you God? 

Ms. WONG. I do. 

Ms. MACKINNON. I do. 

Mr. MEMARIAN. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the 

three witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

The first witness is Nicole Wong. She is Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at Google, where she is primarily responsible 

for company products and regulatory matters. 

Ms. Wong, again, I want to commend you and your company, 

Google, for engaging with Congress on this critical issue. 

Prior to joining Google, Ms. Wong was a partner at the law firm 

of Perkins Cole. In 2006, she was named one of the Best Lawyers 

Under 40 by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. 

Ms. Wong holds a law degree and a master’s degree in journalism 

from the University of California at Berkeley. She testified before 

this Subcommittee at our first hearing in 2008. We thank you for 

joining us again. 

Following her, Rebecca MacKinnon, a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy, cofounded Global Voices Online, an international network of journalists and bloggers. She is a founding member of the Global Network 

Initiative. Ms. MacKinnon has been a research fellow at Harvard’s 

Berkman Center for Internet and Society and assistant professor at 

the University of Hong Kong’s Journalism and Media Studies Center. She previously worked as a journalist with CNN in Beijing for 

9 years, serving as CNN’s Beijing Bureau chief correspondent from 

1998 to 2001. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Harvard College. 

Thank you for being here. 

And our final witness is Omid Memarian, a journalist and 

blogger. He was a Rotary Peace Fellow at the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. He received 

Human Rights Watch’s highest honor in 2005, the Human Rights 

Defender Award. He was awarded the Golden Pen Award at the 

National Press Festival in Iran in 2002. He has been blogging in 

English and Persian since 2002. He has a bachelor’s degree from 

Azad University. 

21 

Mr. Memarian, I know the Iranian Government persecuted you 

simply because you exercised your freedom of speech. Thank you 

for having the courage to continue to speak out and for joining us 

today. 

Let us start with Ms. Wong. You have 5 minutes. Your written 

statement will be put in the record in its entirety. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE WONG, VICE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY 

GENERAL COUNSEL, GOOGLE INC., MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 

Ms. WONG. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 

Coburn, and members of this Committee. Thank you for your continued attention to 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 upload 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 governments have blocked 

Google services, including YouTube and Blogger. The growing problem is consistent with Secretary Clinton’s recent speech on Internet 

freedom, in which she cited cases from China to Tunisia to Uzbekistan to Vietnam. For example, our video service, YouTube, has 

been blocked in Turkey for nearly 2 years now because of user videos that allegedly insult 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 on line, notifying users 

when information has been removed by government demand, and 

retaining our users’ trust by protecting privacy and security. 

No example has 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 

22 

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, albeit a significant one, 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, most 

likely through phishing or malware placed on those users’ computers. 

These circumstances, as well as attempts over the last year to 

limit free speech online, led us to conclude that we are no longer 

comfortable censoring our search results in China. We are reviewing our business operations there now. 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 lawmakers, and particularly your leadership, 

Mr. Chairman, 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 users’ 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 of our foreign policy. The free flow 

of information is an important part of diplomacy, foreign assistance, and engagement in 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 Internet companies but also hurts businesses in every sector that use the Internet to reach their customers. 

Third, our Government and governments around the world 

should be transparent about demands to censor a request for user 

information 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 get the right training and tools. 

I want to thank each of you for your continued leadership in the 

fight against online censorship. We look forward to working with 

you to maximize access to information and promote online free expression around the world. 

Chairman DURBIN. 

23 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Ms. Wong. 

Ms. MacKinnon. 

STATEMENT OF REBECCA MACKINNON, VISITING FELLOW AT 

THE CENTER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, AND 

CO-FOUNDER, GLOBAL VOICES ONLINE 

Ms. MACKINNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to 

testify today. I look forward to answering your questions along 

with those of other esteemed members of this Subcommittee. 

After describing how authoritarianism is adapting to the Internet—in ways that involve companies, I am afraid—I will offer some 

policy recommendations. 

Now, authoritarian regimes accept these days that they need to 

connect to the Internet in order to be economically competitive. But 

they are also working out how to control things well enough to stay 

in power. Regimes like China and Iran and a growing list of others 

usually start with the blocking of websites, but they also use a 

range of other tactics outlined in greater detail in my written testimony. They include cyber attacks against activist websites, deletion 

of online content by Internet companies at government request, 

and 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 ever intended to do so. 

So what do we do? At the top of my list of recommendations is 

corporate responsibility. Mr. Chairman, your recent letters to 30 

companies in the information and communications technology sector were an important step in advancing the conversation about 

how American companies can compete in the global marketplace 

while at the same time upholding core values of Internet freedom. 

Soon after your 2008 hearing on this subject, Google, 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 academics, including myself. The GNI recognizes that no market is without its 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. But, fundamentally, it is reasonable, I 

believe, to expect that all companies in the information and communications technology sector should acknowledge and seek to 

mitigate the human rights risks and concerns associated with their 

businesses, just as they and other companies consider environmental risks and waiver concerns. 

Next comes legislation. Law may be needed to induce corporate 

responsibility if companies fail to take voluntary action. Meanwhile, however, I recommend some immediate steps. 

It should be made easier for victims to take action in a U.S. court 

of law when companies assist regimes in violating their universally 

recognized rights. We need to incentivize private sector innovation 

that helps support Internet freedom. 

24 

We need to revise export controls and sanctions in two ways. On 

the one hand, we need to fix laws that now make it difficult for 

U.S. Internet companies to legally serve activists from sanctioned 

countries like Iran, Syria, and Zimbabwe. Yet, on the other hand, 

we have to make collaboration with repression more difficult by 

making 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. 

Then there is technical support. Congress deserves great praise 

for supporting the development of tools that help people in repressive regimes get around Internet blocking. But these tools do nothing to counter other tactics regimes are now using. So our support 

should also include tools and training to help people evade surveillance, detect spyware, and guard against debilitating cyber attacks; 

mechanisms to preserve and redistribute censored content that has 

been deleted from the Internet; and also support for global platforms through which citizens around the world can share information and tactics to fight Internet freedom in innovative ways. 

Finally, it is vital that we have continued executive branch leadership. Secretary of State Clinton’s landmark speech on Internet 

freedom made it clear that this is a core American value. In reviving the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, the administration 

can coordinate between Government and industry and between 

Government agencies so that U.S. diplomacy, trade, commerce, and 

national security all can support the goal of Internet freedom. 

In conclusion, there is no ‘‘silver bullet’’ for global Internet freedom. As with physical freedom, Internet freedom requires constant 

struggle and constant vigilance. We will also need a supportive ecosystem of industry, Government, and concerned citizens working 

together. 

Mr. Chairman and all other members of the Subcommittee 

Chairman Durbin, I commend you for taking the historic first steps 

in that direction. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacKinnon appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MEMARIAN. If you would please—thank you. 

STATEMENT OF OMID MEMARIAN, IRANIAN BLOGGER, SAN 

FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MEMARIAN. I welcome this opportunity to speak on the important matter of Internet freedom, and I hope that our efforts help 

people around the world to have more access to information via the 

Internet and the other means of communication. 

I am a journalist and a senior researcher for the International 

Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an independent nonprofit 

that monitors Iran’s compliance with international human rights 

standards. 

In 2004, I was arrested by the Iranian security forces, and I was 

held in a prison and in a solitary confinement. Then I was taken 

to Evin prison, where hundreds of political prisoners—journalists, 

civil society activists—are being kept after the June 12th Presidential election. During my time in solitary confinement, I was 

beaten and psychologically and physically tortured repeatedly, and 

25 

I was told that I cannot post my writings on my blog and I should 

stop working as a journalist. There was no actual crime in my case; 

I was arrested and abused for using the Internet to share information. Just last year, the blogger Omid Mirsayyafi died in detention. 

When I moved to the United States in 2005, I learned that my 

website had been shut down. Don’t get me wrong. It was not the 

Iranian Government who shut down my website. It was a company 

that provided the domain and host for me. In a letter, the company 

mentioned the restriction on any transaction with Iranian companies. Later I learned that many pro-democracy and pro-human 

rights websites had to change their domain on account of that restriction. Anyway, it is very easy for the Iranian Government to 

monitor dot.ir domains. 

When I decided to participate in this hearing, I talked to many 

of my friends who are bloggers or journalists, and those who have 

difficulties to even send a simple e-mail or chat on, for example, 

Yahoo! Messenger. Almost all of them believe that any kind of support to give Iranians more access to the Internet is supporting 

human rights and democracy in the country, supporting security in 

the Persian Gulf region, and more importantly, saving the lives of 

many people who are threatened by restrictions on information 

that allow the Iranian Government to operate behind closed doors 

as it violates their basic rights. 

As a journalist and a human rights defender, I would like to 

stress the importance of applying standards in a balanced—not political—way. Not only Iran but numerous other countries violate 

the right to access the Internet, as the other people today mentioned. And the United States should support compliance across 

the board. Otherwise, the charge of holding double standards will 

stick. 

So with that in mind, I would like to make four main points in 

my testimony this morning in relation to global Internet freedom: 

First, modifying the U.S. sanctions on Iran. 

Certain sanctions or interpretations of the sanctions have seriously damaged the ability of Iranians to access the Internet and 

need to be modified. All mass market software that is useful for 

publishing, communications, and education should be exempted 

from the sanctions. 

Second is the European companies who still sell surveillance or 

censorship technology to the Iranian Government need to be exposed and face sanctions. Also, online advertising is not allowed for 

Persian websites. Many companies, such as Google or Facebook, do 

not include Persian or Farsi as a supported language for online advertising websites or allow targeting users with such a language. 

Also, funding is needed to allow hiring a limited number of web 

developers in Iran. Many of these small activist groups need to hire 

developers to be at their websites. The number of web developers 

with the command of the Persian language outside of Iran is very 

few. These groups need to be allowed to hire web developers in 

Iran. The amount of payments could be capped to $10,000 per year 

to make sure such a solution is not abused for other purposes. 

And I have some other suggestions in regard to internal access 

and giving VPN accounts to the activists and using anti-jamming 

for satellite broadcasts. As you know, for Iranian broadcasts, the 

26 

U.S. Government could dedicate a specific satellite which is hardened against the jamming using technologies similar to military 

satellites. And also providing the Iranians with free satellite Internet, which is technologically possible. E-mail security, which is very 

important, I think there are companies that can provide those kind 

of technologies. And also PC security, which is another idea, but we 

can discuss it later. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Memarian appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Memarian, thank you. We have had a 

number of witnesses before this Human Rights Subcommittee who 

have inspired us to continue our work, and you are one of them. 

You have paid a heavy price for your commitment to your profession of journalism and for your commitment to free expression. 

Mr. MEMARIAN. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. And your courage to come here today is inspiring to all of us, so thank you very much for doing that. 

I can recall the not too distant past when my mother’s homeland 

of Lithuania was finally seeking freedom and independence, and 

what kept us alive in the United States was the information that 

came from Lithuania during those dark and dangerous times over 

fax machines. Well, that was the technology of the moment, and 

the Soviets could not stop us. And we were kept up to speed on 

what was happening on a day-to-day basis, and we were able to respond in the global media. 

Well, technology has grown in so many different ways, but it still 

is the right avenue, as Ms. Wong has said, for us to seek it and 

use it to promote dialog and expression and freedom, which you 

have sacrificed so much for personally. 

In the course of your testimony, you talked about the European 

companies who sell surveillance or censorship technology to the 

Iranian Government. As a result of U.S. sanctions against Iran, 

U.S. companies are not allowed to sell that kind of technology to 

the Iranian Government. Do you think the U.S. Government should 

make certain American companies do not sell surveillance or censorship technology to other countries that censor the Internet, such 

as China or Vietnam? 

Mr. MEMARIAN. I think it is very important to include other 

countries as well, because as some of these countries—Iranians 

provide those kind of technologies through a third country. So that 

kind of technology could go to Iran through China or the other 

countries that have a good relationship with Tehran. 

Chairman DURBIN. I suppose after the election that took place 9 

months ago, there was the expectation that this so-called Twitter 

Revolution in Iran would topple the government and change Iran. 

And obviously that has not occurred, and we have seen the limits 

of this activism in Iran. But can you give us your view of what impact this had and continues to have in inspiring those who question 

the current government? 

Mr. MEMARIAN. I think if it was not the Internet, God knows how 

many more people would have been killed on the streets of Tehran 

and the other cities. And so it has been really important that peoVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:04 Nov 04, 2010 Jkt 061829 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\61829.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
27 

ple could document their narratives of the event after the election. 

So it was very significant. 

Chairman DURBIN. I think Ms. Wong made that point as well, 

and I would like to ask you, you saw the introduction here of 

Google China and the reference to Tiananmen Square, and I know 

that your company has announced a change in terms of censorship 

in China. Can you tell me what your timetable is to accomplish 

that? If you would turn your microphone on, please. Thank you. 

Ms. WONG. Thank you, Senator, and it is a very fair question so 

let me take it on directly. We do not have a specific timetable. Having said that, we are firm in our decision that we will not censor 

our search results in China, and we are working toward that end. 

We have many employees on the ground, some of whom are very 

dear colleagues of mine. And so we recognize both the seriousness 

and the sensitivity of the decision we are making, and we want to 

figure out a way to get to that end of stopping censoring our search 

results in a way that is appropriate and responsible. And so we are 

working on that as hard as we can, but it is a very human issue 

for us. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you for stating your clear goal, and I 

think we are all sensitive to the fact that there are important steps 

to reach that goal that we want you to make in the right way, in 

an expeditious way but one that is sensitive to those elements. 

Earlier I spoke to the panel, the first panel, about this gradation 

of cooperation between a company like yours and the government, 

and I went through a list of possible activities on the Internet, asking where we would draw the line: cooperation with the government to stop child pornography, cooperation with the government 

in dealing with non-specific politically threatening language, cooperation with the government for specific threats of violence over 

the Internet, cooperation with the government when there is evidence of advocacy of terrorism, and cooperation when it comes to 

the disclosure of information classified as secret by that government. 

You are on the firing line here when it comes to this issue and 

the legal questions you have to face. How would Google address 

these? And how would you draw the lines? 

Ms. WONG. Senator, that is a very insightful observation because 

it is actually something that we wrestle with, and it is incredibly 

difficult not only to look at a specific piece of content, but to look 

at it in the context of the country where you are operating. And 

I think there are multiple layers at which you try and address it. 

The first is making decisions about entry into a market in the first 

place, about what frameworks of law that you have to work with. 

And then when you look at particular pieces of content, you try and 

make decisions based on what you know about the laws in that 

country, some of which, like you say, there seems to be almost universal agreement on child pornography as bad, and then on the 

other extreme very heavy-handed political censorship. 

Our general solution is to try and figure out which laws are appropriate for us to abide by given the values of our company and 

the laws that—or the places where we operate. The second part of 

that solution is one that Mr. Weitzner commented on, which is 

transparency. In every jurisdiction where we are required to reVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:04 Nov 04, 2010 Jkt 061829 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\61829.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28 

move information, we try to be transparent with our users that information has been removed to comply with government laws. For 

example that in China where, when we remove search results from 

our dot.cn property, we actually put a notice at the bottom of that 

search result page to let users know that information has been removed as required by law. We do that on all of our services, and 

in most of our services, what we actually do is link to the demand 

letter that asked us to remove the information so that the user can 

see exactly who requested it and what was requested to be removed. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to follow up and ask about two 

elements: 

The element of due process in these countries. If you are to challenge a government and their assertion of the right to know the 

name of the user or to censor information, do you use due process 

in that country to follow their laws? 

And, second, can you turn to any international organizations that 

establish standards that you try to stand by beyond GNI? 

Ms. WONG. Sure. Well, yes, we do try to use the legal processes 

within the country to address—to challenge either requests for user 

information or censorship demands when we think appropriate. We 

have done that in Turkey, for example. What that has gotten us 

is being blocked in Turkey for the last 2 years. In addition, you 

know, we are looking in terms of our own standards at the GNI 

principles, but principles that are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it is along those lines that we are trying to ensure the maximum amount of access to information. 

Chairman DURBIN. If Senator Franken would allow me to ask 

one more question, and I will not need a second round, and I will 

then defer to him. But, Ms. MacKinnon, let me ask you about the 

GNI. I find it interesting that after 2 years we have three active 

participants and some flirtation and some ignoring of the operation. What is holding them back? I mean, it cannot be money because I put the fee schedule in the record here. It is certainly a reasonable fee, $2,000 for a company with $100 million in revenue. It 

does not sound like a lot of money, although some use that as an 

excuse. Is there something else that you need to tell us, that you 

can share with us about this resistance to make this an American 

effort or an international effort? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Mr. Chairman, that is a very good question, 

and a question I often ask myself. What is holding these companies 

back? And it does seem in part a fear of acknowledging that human 

rights is part of their business, that telecommunications and Internet companies, no matter how you slice it, have implications for 

free expression, privacy, and human rights. And I think a lot of 

companies are afraid of even having that conversation for fear that 

people will then hang charges on them of various kinds and that 

they would rather just avoid having the conversation at all. 

I think what we saw with Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft was an 

evolution of self-awareness and a real coming out in terms of recognizing it is OK to have this conversation, it is OK to recognize that 

you have responsibilities, and, in fact, if you hold yourself accountable, that this is good for your business because your users are 

more likely to trust you, and that if you do make mistakes, there 

29 

is a process by which you can try and figure out how to reverse 

them through a multistakeholder group that is trying to help you 

succeed. 

The point of GNI is not for the human rights groups and the academics like myself in the process to play ‘‘gotcha’’ with the companies, but to really help them avoid making the mistakes by anticipating and thinking through in advance. But the first step is acknowledging that you are not perfect, that you are fallible, that you 

might even be corruptible as a human being in the pursuit of profits, and that you need help from society and from a range of actors 

to help do the right thing. 

And just as it took quite a while, I think, for industry over time 

to recognize they had to have public conversations about environmental issues—that took a few decades—and adhere to labor 

standards—you know, 100 years ago, it took a certain process for 

companies to be comfortable discussing these things in public, and 

it has really only been the past few years that companies in this 

sector have been confronted with this reality that just because you 

are connecting people to the Internet does not mean you are automatically going to free them, that you have responsibilities in 

terms of how you are setting up your business and how you are 

constructing your relationships with different governments and 

that that matters. 

So Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are to be commended for making the first step, and I really do hope that other companies will 

recognize that this is not as scary as it may seem to them and that 

it is really essential for the future of their business and their credibility, in addition to being the right thing to do if they want a free 

and open Internet to continue to exist. 

Chairman DURBIN. I am going to close with this question, which 

you may need to think about, maybe not. Let us assume that you 

are a customer or a user of Facebook, Twitter, Apple, HewlettPackard, companies that are not part of this conversation. How 

could you, if you were a customer or user who happens to believe 

they should be part of this human rights effort, most effectively influence them through the Internet? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Well, certainly there are all kinds of online activist tools, some of which are—you know, you can form Facebook 

groups, of course. But I think part of it is for customers and consumers and users to really think of themselves as citizens of the 

Internet and, look, you need to push these companies and services 

that you are using to do the right thing, you need to be active. And 

also investors should be thinking about, OK, when I am investing 

in stock of these different companies, this should be one of the criteria that I am using in addition to their environmental and labor 

behavior and also when you are thinking of buying products and 

so on. 

So there is a whole bunch of different ways to do this, but part 

of it is absolutely for consumers to be talking about this, to be putting pressure and saying this company is good, I can trust these 

people, and these people I am not so sure if I can trust because 

they are in denial about whether or not there are even any issues 

about my privacy. 

30 

Chairman DURBIN. My guess is before we adjourn this hearing, 

there will be something underway, and I thank you for your testimony and you, Senator Franken, for your patience. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to follow up on that because—I think the Global 

Network Initiative is a great start, but—and this is for both you 

and Ms. Wong, and, Mr. Memarian, I want to get to you, and I cannot tell you how much admiration I have for your work and your 

courage. 

I think GNI is a great start, but Microsoft is one of the members 

and Yahoo! is one of the members, and I do not see them making 

the same kind of decision that Google has made. I think that Bill 

Gates recently called Chinese censorship very limited. I think those 

were his words. So what do you think we can do and others can 

do to help other companies follow Google’s lead in China? And that 

is both to you, Ms. Wong, and you, Ms. MacKinnon. 

Ms. WONG. I want to be clear that our decision about China was 

not an easy one. And I do not think for any company that will confront how to do business in these regimes it is an easy one. We 

think we have now made the right decision. We stand by our decision for sure. I was frankly kind of puzzled by Microsoft’s statements because they are not consistent at all with the conversations 

we have had over the last 3 years, and in our view, you know, the 

censorship in China is a human rights issue. It is not to be minimized. 

Having said that, I think we have been very clear all through the 

GNI process that we are not striving for one-size-fits-all solutions. 

This is the right decision for Google. We would not propose that— 

impose our decision on any other company, and we do think it is 

important that they be part of a conversation where we actively 

discuss how things are going in a country, and that is an important 

part of GNI. 

Ms. MACKINNON. Just to follow up on that, within the GNI, certainly after the CEOs of Microsoft and some other companies made 

some remarks that were quite disappointing, we had some rather 

heated discussions internally about that. But it is absolutely true, 

as Nicole said, it is not one size fits all, that each company has a 

very different kind of business going on in China. Yahoo! actually 

sold their Chinese business to a Chinese company a few years ago 

and do not actually have operational control over that anymore. 

Microsoft’s situation is also somewhat different. 

So the idea is not to impose a one-size-fits-all set of standards 

on everybody in a very rigid way but, rather, to help the companies 

be mindful about what decisions they are making and what the implications are and to be transparent and accountable about those 

decisions, because part of the problem—and Senator Durbin alluded to this—is these companies are in China, they have to comply with certain law enforcement decisions, but how are you complying with them? 

And so it is an issue of to what extent do they feel comfortable 

that they are complying in a way that is transparent and responsible and that they can do that within the context of that particular 

market. And it may be possible for one company to do it and not 

31 

another, depending on the very specific relationship they have with 

the government and the very specific nature of their product. 

It is also the case that Google over the past year in China has 

come under tremendous pressure from the government and in the 

Chinese media under the guise really of an anti-pornography crackdown, that they have been slammed in the Chinese media for exposing Chinese youth to smutty content when, lo and behold, you 

type smutty terms into the search engine, smutty results appear. 

And so, you know, a lot of these crackdowns and so on are done 

under the guise of law enforcement and language that we use in 

the West in a very different context. And so there are very difficult 

decisions that companies have to make. Oftentimes it is very specific to that company, and the point of the GNI is to be flexible and 

accountable at the same time. And next year is going to be the first 

year where we do our first set of evaluations where we start being 

able to benchmark how the companies have done so far, and that 

will also help move the process forward. 

But it is definitely important to get more companies recognizing, 

stepping up and taking responsibility. And the GNI is not about, 

you know, engage or disengage. The fact is that there are a lot of 

different ways in which you can engage. It is about how you engage 

rather than in or out. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. China is a big market. That is my 

guess. And you brought up the issue of companies wondering, doing 

self-examination and talking about how corruptible they are. And 

I suppose if you are looking at potentially the world’s biggest market and taking yourself out of it on a matter of principle, you are 

making a big decision about how corruptible or incorruptible you 

are. 

Mr. Memarian, thank you for your integrity, your incorruptibility. In your testimony you talk about what is keeping us from 

having a greater expansion of freedom of speech online in Iran, and 

rightfully so. But I have a different question, and then I might 

even go over my time, too, Mr. Chairman. Can you tell us what 

technological tools Iranians are using right now to get past government censors and surveillance? And I want to know what is already working so that maybe we can do more to support that. 

Mr. MEMARIAN. There are companies that provide anti-censorship software so people can go beyond proxies, go behind proxies 

and have access to the Internet and see those websites that have 

been filtered. And private companies and initiatives also can provide resources, you know, if you want to do more and provide more 

access for them, you know, initiatives can provide resources to support the development of technology designed to combat Internet 

censorship. 

I know many people are working on these kinds of software now 

in San Francisco, in Silicon Valley, and the other States are. So 

those kind of initiatives could be supported by the States or the 

State Department or other companies. 

I just wanted to add something about the fact that some companies like Yahoo! and Facebook have not joined the GNI initiative. 

There are many rumors in Iran that Yahoo! and Facebook have 

made a deal with the Iranian Government and eventually they will 

give them the information of their users. And the rumors are so 

32 

strong in a way that some people have removed their profiles from 

Facebook because of the threat that they feel. 

So I think the fact that Facebook and Yahoo! are not eager to 

join such initiatives, it is not really acceptable at the time that people are—that really it is a matter of life and death of some people 

around the world. The world is not suggesting you ask—millions of 

people in other countries, in Iran, in China, in Vietnam, and Egypt, 

they use these services and they are really responsible for what 

they do or what they provide. 

Senator FRANKEN. You know, it occurs to me, there was in Mad 

Magazine a series, an ongoing serial cartoon called ‘‘Spy vs. Spy,’’ 

and this whole thing seems to have an element to it where there 

is the anti-censorship technology that is being worked on by some 

people. 

Ms. Wong, the Chairman brought this up. In Mr. Memarian’s 

written testimony, he talked about companies like yours and Microsoft block certain downloads to people in Iran for fear of sanctions. 

And Mr. Memarian kind of explains that this really just hurts the 

people of Iran because there is encryption technology that the Iranian Government already has but the people of Iran do not. 

So I was wondering in this ‘‘Spy vs. Spy’’ kind of world that we 

are in here, which includes not just technology but policy, government policy, and business ethics and self-searching, what should 

we be doing about these kinds of technologies? Do you think that 

just the government policy here is wrong? 

Ms. WONG. I will confess to not being an expert in export control 

law, but my understanding is that the Office of Foreign Assets 

Controls has certain regulations that prohibit the download of applications containing encryption, and that is why, in order to comply with those U.S. laws, we do not permit the download of certain 

applications like our Chrome browser, for example. 

Senator FRANKEN. Right. 

Ms. WONG. Having said that, our web services are globally available, and we do not prohibit users the access to our websites within 

Iran. Whether or not there should be a change in those OFAC regulations, I think that totally deserves, just based on the conversation I heard today, some consideration. I know that, for example, 

some of the regulations are framed according to particular countries. You can have the regulation of not exporting certain things, 

but exceptions are made, for example, books because we want to 

have that flow of information and educational materials to a country. Maybe we should start to think about some of the tools that 

companies like ours provide in that same category of access to information. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think Mr. Memarian was basically saying 

that the Government of Iran already has access to this encryption, 

so what is the point other than keeping this out of the hands of 

Iranians. Right? 

Mr. MEMARIAN. That is true, and I think that the sanctions are 

really blanket and should be revised and modified. I understand 

the concern of those companies which do not risk because the Iranian market is small and these companies prefer to stay away from 

it. Instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to 

33 

apply for an export license, they prefer just to forget it. So if those 

sanctions would be modified, I think that really helps. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging 

me. Mr. Memarian, thank you for your courage. 

Mr. MEMARIAN. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Ms. Wong, and thank you, Ms. 

MacKinnon. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Franken, for your interest in 

this hearing. 

On the last question that you asked, I would submit for the 

record, and ask that it be made part of the record, a letter from 

Rich Verma, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, to Senator 

Carl Levin which notes that the Department of State is recommending that the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control issue a general license that would authorize downloads 

of free mass market software by companies such as Microsoft and 

Google to Iran for personal communication. So our Government is 

asking for a waiver so that they can provide that additional information. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I also have a statement, which I will enter 

into the record, without objection, from the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, as well as statements from Business for Social Responsibility, Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Global Network Initiative, and Reporters 

Without Borders, which will be entered without objection in the 

record. 

[The statements appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I want to thank this panel and the previous 

panel, two extraordinary panels before this Committee on a critically important topic, brought home by your testimony, Mr. 

Memarian. You urged us to think about the millions of people 

around the world looking for a ray of hope each day so that they 

should continue in their struggle for freedom and find it when they 

can reach others on the Internet who share their beliefs. This is 

what made America in its earliest days—Thomas Paine did not 

have access to the Internet, but his pamphlets were distributed and 

inspired a lot of people to fight for freedom. You have inspired us, 

as I mentioned earlier, by coming here today and testifying, particularly about the sacrifice you made in Iran to help that country 

move forward. I want to thank you for that. 

We are going to continue to work on this issue. It may not be 

2 years before we meet again, but let us hope that a lot of the companies that refused to be part of this hearing will have second 

thoughts and will make the right decision to move forward. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

34 


61829.001
35 


61829.002
36 


61829.003
37 


61829.004
38 


61829.005
39 


61829.006
40 


61829.007
41 


61829.008
42 


61829.009
43 


61829.010
44 


61829.011
45 


61829.012
46 


61829.013
47 


61829.014
48 


61829.015
49 


61829.016
50 


61829.017
51 


61829.018
52 


61829.019
53 


61829.020
54 


61829.021
55 


61829.022
56 


61829.023
57 


61829.024
58 


61829.025
59 


61829.026
60 


61829.027
61 


61829.028
62 


61829.029
63 


61829.030
64 


61829.031
65 


61829.032
66 


61829.033
67 


61829.034
68 


61829.035
69 


61829.036
70 


61829.037
71 


61829.038
72 


61829.039
73 


61829.040
74 


61829.041
75 


61829.042
76 


61829.043
77 


61829.044
78 


61829.045
79 


61829.046
80 


61829.047
81 


61829.048
82 


61829.049
83 


61829.050
84 


61829.051
85 


61829.052
86 


61829.053
87 


61829.054
88 


61829.055
89 


61829.056
90 


61829.057
91 


61829.058
92 


61829.059
93 


61829.060
94 


61829.061
95 


61829.062
96 


61829.063
97 


61829.064
98 


61829.065
99 


61829.066
100 


61829.067
101 


61829.068
102 


61829.069
103 


61829.070
104 


61829.071
105 


61829.072
106 


61829.073
107 


61829.074
108 


61829.075
109 


61829.076
110 


61829.077
111 


61829.078
112 


61829.079
113 


61829.080
114 


61829.081
115 


61829.082
116 


61829.083
117 


61829.084
118 


61829.085
119 


61829.086
120 


61829.087
121 


61829.088
122 


61829.089
123 


61829.090
124 


61829.091
125 


61829.092
126 


61829.093
127 


61829.094
128 


61829.095
129 


61829.096
130 


61829.097
131 


61829.098
132 


61829.099
133 


61829.100
134 


61829.101
135 


61829.102
136 


61829.103
137 


61829.104
138 


61829.105
139 


61829.106
140 


61829.107
141 


61829.108
142 


61829.109
143 


61829.110
144 


61829.111
145 


61829.112
146 


61829.113
147 


61829.114
148 


61829.115
149 


61829.116
150 


61829.117
151 


61829.118
152 


61829.119
153 


61829.120
154 


61829.121
155 


61829.122
156 


61829.123
157 


61829.124
158 


61829.125
159 


61829.126
160 


61829.127
161 


61829.128
162 


61829.129
163 


61829.130
164 


61829.131
165 


61829.132
166 


61829.133
167 


61829.134
168 


61829.135
169 


61829.136
170 


61829.137
171 


61829.138
172 


61829.139
173 


61829.140
174 


61829.141
175 


61829.142
176 


61829.143
177 


61829.144
178 


61829.145
179 


61829.146
180 


61829.147
181 


61829.148
182 


61829.149
183 


61829.150
184 


61829.151
185 


61829.152
186 


61829.153
187 


61829.154
188 


61829.155
189 


61829.156
190 


61829.157
191 


61829.158
192 


61829.159
193 


61829.160
194 


61829.161
195 


61829.162
196 


61829.163
197 


61829.164
198 


61829.165
199 


61829.166
200 


61829.167
201 


61829.168
202 


61829.169
203 


61829.170
204 


61829.171
205 


61829.172
206 


61829.173
207 


61829.174
208 


61829.175
209 


61829.176
210 


61829.177
211 


61829.178
212 


61829.179
213 


61829.180
214 


61829.181
215 


61829.182
216 


61829.183
217 


61829.184
218 


61829.185
219 


61829.186
220 


61829.187
221 


61829.188
222 


61829.189
223 


61829.190
224 


61829.191
225 


61829.192
226 


61829.193
227 


61829.194
228 


61829.195
229 


61829.196
230 


61829.197
231 


61829.198
232 


61829.199
233 


61829.200
234 


61829.201
235 


61829.202
236 


61829.203
237 


61829.204
238 


61829.205
239 


61829.206
240 


61829.207
241 


61829.208
242 


61829.209
243 


61829.210
244 


61829.211
245 


61829.212
246 


61829.213
247 


61829.214
248 


61829.215
249 


61829.216
250 


61829.217
251 


61829.218
252 


61829.219
253 


61829.220
254 


61829.221
255 


61829.222
256 


61829.223
257 


61829.224
258 


61829.225
259 


61829.226
260 


61829.227
261 


61829.228
262 


61829.229
263 


61829.230
264 


61829.231
265 


61829.232
266 


61829.233
267 


61829.234
268 


61829.235
269 


61829.236
270 


61829.237
271 


61829.238
272 


61829.239
273 


61829.240
274 


61829.241
275 


61829.242
276 


61829.243
277 


61829.244
278 


61829.245
279 


61829.246
280 


61829.247
281 


61829.248
282 


61829.249
283 


61829.250
284 


61829.251
285 


61829.252
286 


61829.253
287 


61829.254
288 


61829.255
289 


61829.256
290 


61829.257
291 


61829.258
292 


61829.259
293 


61829.260
294 


61829.261
295 


61829.262
296 


61829.263
297 


61829.264
298 


61829.265
299 


61829.266
300 


61829.267
301 


61829.268
302 


61829.269
303 


61829.270
304 


61829.271
305 


61829.272
306 


61829.273
307 


61829.274
308 


61829.275
309 

Æ 


61829.276