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

55–395PDF 2010

THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING U.S.

CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE

DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 10, 2010

Serial No. 111–85

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SHANNA WINTERS, General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor 

GENELL BROWN, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Nicole Wong, Esq., Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google, Inc. .. 9

Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon, Visiting Fellow, Center for Information Technology 

Policy, Princeton University, Cofounder of Global Voices Online .................... 19

Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D., Commissioner, U.S.-China Economic and Security 

Review Commission ............................................................................................. 32

Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II, President and CEO, Business Software Alliance ....................................................................................................................... 45

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Nicole Wong, Esq.: Prepared statement ................................................................ 12

Ms. Rebecca MacKinnon: Prepared statement ...................................................... 21

Larry M. Wortzel, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ...................................................... 34

Mr. Robert W. Holleyman, II: Prepared statement .............................................. 48

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey: Letter from Google, NGO Joint Statement in 

Support of H.R. 2271 and letter from Freedom House ..................................... 81

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 92

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 93

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 95

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 97

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri: Prepared statement ......................................................................... 100

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: Prepared statement ............................................................... 101

The Honorable Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: Prepared statement ............................................................................. 102

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ....................................... 103

Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida .................................. 114

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Joseph Crowley, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of New York ................................. 115

Question submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey ........................... 116

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Michael T. McCaul, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ..................................... 117

(1)

THE GOOGLE PREDICAMENT: TRANSFORMING 

U.S. CYBERSPACE POLICY TO ADVANCE DEMOCRACY, SECURITY, AND TRADE 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Chairman BERMAN. The committee will come to order. Just for 

the three colleagues of mine who are here now, I would like to remind you that at 8:30 a.m. tomorrow I will be hosting a meeting 

of the Foreign Assistance Reform Working Group in room 2255, 

and I encourage my colleagues to come. Next week at 9:30 a.m. we 

will have what promises to be a very interesting hearing on the 

European security architecture and the transatlantic security architecture. 

And sometime before the spring recess I hope to hold a markup 

to consider Mr. Smith’s International Megan’s Law legislation and 

possibly a bill on science diplomacy which Mr. Fortenberry and I 

will introduce today. 

After Mr. Smith and I make our opening remarks, other members will have the opportunity to make 1-minute statements if they 

wish to do so. Members are also welcome to place written statements in the record. In fact, for the members who are here now, 

I think—and given that the Afghanistan legislation is not going to 

be on until later—for the members who are here at the time of the 

gavel, I think we will allow 2-minute opening statements by them. 

Today’s hearing: In a recent speech on 21st-century statecraft, 

Secretary Clinton said the State Department is realigning its policies and priorities to harness and promote the power of the latest 

communication tools. Her remarks illustrate the fact that new 

means of electronic communication have created both opportunities 

and challenges for those who formulate our national security and 

foreign policy. 

While many congressional committees have looked at the issues 

of human rights, defense, and trade in connection with the Internet, it is time for us to consider a comprehensive approach to the 

increased worldwide use of cyber technology. 

This hearing will address what we are calling the ‘‘Google Predicament’’ because Google’s experience over the past couple of months 

highlights the challenges in developing a cyber-specific foreign polVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

icy. The Internet is a useful tool to promote freedom and trade, but 

in some places it also serves as a means of censorship. It is a boon 

for U.S. business but also a source of great vulnerability with respect to U.S. national security. Reconciling these conflicting policy 

challenges is a key mission for the administration and, I believe, 

for this committee. 

The latest communication technologies are being put to use to 

advance democracy and protect human rights. Widespread use of 

Twitter overcame the Iranian regime’s ban on media coverage of 

last summer’s election results and their aftermath. And a graphic 

video posted on YouTube of a young Iranian woman who was shot 

and killed during a protest galvanized world opinion, as it gave 

people an unvarnished look at the crackdown. 

The administration acknowledged the power of these communication tools just this past Monday by granting a general license for 

the transfer of social networking software to Iran and other repressive nations. This is an important and good step that will foster 

greater freedom of expression. But paradoxically, cyber technology 

also serves as a weapon of choice for repressive regimes. Under our 

former chairman, Tom Lantos, this committee examined closely 

how American companies, however passively, can and do facilitate 

censorship. Our colleague Chris Smith has also been very active in 

advancing the discussion of this subject. 

The notion that American companies can heedlessly supply their 

software, routers, and information to governments that use them 

for repressive purposes is untenable. But preventing companies 

from engaging in trade with countries ruled by those repressive 

governments is equally untenable, for it would deny billions of people the ability to access the very information needed to support 

their resistance. 

When it comes to human rights, there must be a way to balance 

the benefits of cyber technology with its very real potential harms. 

A voluntary organization known as the Global Network Initiative, 

made up of human rights organizations and various companies, 

works directly on this issue. Regrettably, many companies have 

failed to join. As a result, we may consider legislation to address 

this issue. Providers of technology need to step up. 

American companies did just that last year when Beijing mandated installation of the Green Dam-Youth Escort Software on all 

computers sold in China. This software program would have 

blocked Internet searches on politically sensitive subjects and made 

computers more vulnerable to hackers. Companies persuaded the 

United States Government to protest the Green Dam requirement 

because it violated free trade obligations under WTO rules. We 

need to see that kind of public-private partnership at work across 

the board on issues involving cyber security and Internet freedom. 

It is also very much in the interest of U.S. business to make such 

a partnership work. Brand integrity of U.S. entities is at stake 

when someone hacks into and alters or steals the intellectual property of U.S. companies such as Google. Melissa Hathaway, author 

of President Obama’s recent ‘‘Cyberspace Policy Review,’’ suggests 

that the government may need to retool our intelligence and diplomatic communities to protect U.S. intellectual property abroad. 

3

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, is the way cyber technology 

can be exploited to undermine our own security. Make no mistake: 

Not only are sophisticated and network-secure companies like 

Google vulnerable to attack from foreign countries, but the entire 

U.S. network faces assault on a daily basis. As recently noted by 

Deputy Defense Secretary Lynn, an adversarial nation could deploy 

hackers to take down U.S. financial systems, communications and 

infrastructure at a cost far below that of building a trillion-dollar 

fleet of jet fighters or an aircraft carrier. 

China’s alleged hacking of Google and subsequent reports that 

Google is partnering with the National Security Agency to analyze 

the attack raise some relevant questions for this committee: Does 

an unauthorized electronic intrusion constitute a violation of national sovereignty, equivalent to a physical trespass onto U.S. territory—and if so, what is the appropriate response? 

We also need to consider the foreign policy implications of offensive U.S. capabilities. The United States has much to lose from a 

lawless cyberspace where countries can attack each other at will 

and engage in a perennial low-intensity cyber conflict. 

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can 

simultaneously promote Internet freedom and deprive repressive 

regimes of the tools of cyber-repression; and how we can promote 

the global diffusion of the Internet while also protecting ourselves 

from cyber attack. 

But before we hear from our witnesses, first let me turn to our 

esteemed colleague, Chris Smith—designated by the ranking member to serve in her stead today—for any opening remarks that he 

may wish to make. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank 

you for convening this very timely and very important hearing. Mr. 

Chairman, as you know, Reporters Without Borders documents 

that at least 120 people are currently imprisoned for online postings, that is the ones we know of, 72 of them in China alone, but 

also large numbers in Iran and Vietnam. In 2005, I had a meeting 

in a restaurant in Hanoi with Vu Thuy Ha, the wife of Dr. Pham 

Hong Son, who had e-mailed an article entitled ‘‘What is Democracy?,’’ downloaded from U.S. Embassy in Hanoi’s Web site. 

He sent it to his friends. The Vietnamese Internet police called 

this espionage and punished him with a very long prison term. 

While Vu and I talked, police thugs conspicuously sat at the next 

table—there were three of them—scowled at her, took her picture, 

I took theirs, and they made a number of threatening gestures. She 

was very fearful. Many people in this room will remember the 

groundbreaking hearings this committee held on Internet freedom. 

I chaired two of those in 2006, I chaired an 8-hour hearing on 

the Internet in China, which we subtitled ‘‘A Tool for Freedom or 

Suppression.’’ The hearing responded to Yahoo’s cooperation with 

Chinese Internet police in tracking down journalist Shi Tao, who 

is still serving a 10-year prison term for disclosing state secrets—

that is, he e-mailed to the United States Chinese Government orders on not reporting on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen 

Square massacre—he sent that to an NGO in New York. 

In 2007, Tom Lantos followed up with a hearing on Shi Tao and 

others in which Yahoo’s Jerry Yang testified to the committee 

4

while Shi Tao’s mother sat right behind him in the audience. At 

the end of the hearing, Jerry Yang met with Shi Tao’s mother, and 

since then Yahoo has undertaken to do what it can to compensate 

some of the families like Shi Tao’s and others imprisoned because 

of their Internet work. But the victims of the growing global assault on Internet freedom are also entire peoples denied their right 

to free expression, often self-censoring out of fear, and denied access to information. 

These include the Chinese, Iranian, Belarusian, Cuban, Burmese, Egyptian, North Korean, Saudi Arabians, Syrian, Tunisian, 

Turkmen, and Uzbek peoples, who live under governments which 

Reporters Without Borders classifies as the twelve worst enemies 

of the Internet. Currently, over three dozen countries routinely censor the Internet. This number is growing. And in recent years they 

have developed increasingly sophisticated tools for blocking, filtering, and surveilling the Internet. They exchange technologies 

and tactics, which are often modeled on the Chinese Government’s 

Great Firewall of China. 

Yet we have also learned some positive lessons from 2006. We 

have seen that many U.S. IT companies really want to do the right 

thing. Since 2006, Yahoo has established much stricter policies governing its interactions with repressive governments, working to 

keep personally identifying information out of their hands. When 

it went into Vietnam, for example, Yahoo stored personally identifiable information in Singapore, out of reach of the government secret police. 

Google’s transformation has even been more remarkable. Since 

2006, I have been meeting with Google executives and they have 

known for some time that the theory that their mere presence in 

the Chinese market would somehow liberalize China or at least 

justify their willingness to censor searches has proven mistaken, 

and that China was growing more repressive. Google’s statement 

in January that it ‘‘is no longer willing to continue censoring results on its Chinese search engine’’ was remarkable and it was 

thrilling. Certainly the hearts of millions of Chinese human rights 

activists and political dissidents were equally happy. 

Google deserves to be praised for this decision. It is a blow 

against the cynical silence of so many about the Chinese Government’s human rights abuses, a blast of honesty and courage from 

which we can all draw inspiration. Mr. Chairman, I believe 

Google’s making a principled and public commitment to do the 

right thing and stop censoring, combined with its willingness to 

spend some time in patient dialogue with the Chinese Government, 

giving that government every chance to do the right thing as well, 

is a model of how IT companies can deal with repressive regimes. 

But I also believe the model can be improved upon. Google’s recent difficulties in China make it even more clear, clearer than 

ever, that however well intentioned American IT companies are, 

they are not powerful enough to stand up to a repressive government, particularly the likes of China. Without U.S. Government 

support and backing, they are inevitably forced to play a role in the 

repressive government censorship and surveillance. 

But the Global Online Freedom Act, legislation I crafted in ’06 

and reintroduced this Congress, will give American IT companies 

5

the U.S. Government backup they need to negotiate with repressive 

governments. I would remind my colleagues it was patterned after 

three major initiatives, the International Religious Freedom Act of 

1998, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, which I authored, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which in the late 

’70s, many people said that it disadvantaged U.S. companies. Yet, 

it really became the model—not just for the U.S. but for the 

world—on not providing bribes and other such ways of doing business all over the world. 

It is the standard, it is a model, and is a minimum standard that 

needs to be followed now on the Internet side. Because of time, I 

will not go through all of the various provisions of the Global Online Freedom Act, but I would ask my colleagues to take a good 

hard look at it. I think it is an idea whose time has come in terms 

of really setting at least a minimal standard, a floor if you will, to 

protect nonviolent political speech and nonviolent religious speech; 

and that is the aim of the legislation. 

It does it in two very simple ways: By requiring a full disclosure 

of what it is that is being censored, and secondly, by ensuring that 

personally identifiable information is put out of reach of Internet 

restricting countries, a designation that would be conferred on 

those countries after due diligence and analysis by an office that 

would be created within the Department of State. I thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for again calling this hearing. We need to move on this 

and move quickly. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. Time of the gentleman has expired. Under 

the unanimous consent edict or whatever, the members who were 

here at the time, if they wish to, can be recognized for up to 2 minutes. Other members who wish to make opening statements for 1 

minute. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, seeks recognition? The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. American policy is marked by perhaps a very aggressive military policy and a very passive approach to using our 

economic, technological, and diplomatic power. Keeping Google out 

of China is not the solution, in fact that may be what China is trying to achieve. We should instead have hundreds of millions of dollars devoted to developing the technology and putting out the contracts to develop the technology to punch a hole in the Great Wall 

of China and all the other barriers to the use of the Internet. 

Likewise, we should be aggressive in using our technology to 

take down terrorist sites around the world. But this isn’t just an 

Internet issue, this is an overall economic issue. We have an enormous trade deficit with China because we open our markets to 

them and they figure out ways to close their market to us. Hacking 

is just one of many ways they do that. We have had hearings in 

our Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, in 

which business after business comes forward and talk about what 

they face when they try to export to China. The offsets, the criminality, the theft, the confiscation and our Government does nothing. As long as American policy is dominated by Wall Street and 

Wal-Mart, neither democracy nor America will be in the ascendancy. I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman has yielded back. Does the 

gentleman from California seek recognition? 

6

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes I do. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. And I would like to 

identify myself with the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sherman, 

who is again getting to the heart of the matter in many ways. Let 

us just note, in January of this year when Google announced its 

intention to stop censoring its search results in the People’s Republic of China, I was very supportive and I was very complimentary 

of Google, and because that was in stark contrast to some of the 

other companies that were operating in China. 

Unfortunately, Google has yet to follow through on and to stop 

self-censoring. And, you know, our praise shouldn’t be for an intent, our praise should be for accomplishing what has been set out, 

and I am very anxious today, Mr. Chairman, to hear the details 

about what Google is planning to do, and there seems to be a contradictory position here between what their goal is and what they 

are actually doing as we speak. Let us note that the Internet is a 

powerful force in the world today, and I would suggest it can be 

used for positive things, it can be used to promote freedom and 

human dignity and information, the spread of information over a 

broad area, or it can be used for just the opposite, it could be used 

by tyrants and gangsters to oppress their own people. 

It behooves us, as people who believe in freedom and democracy, 

to stand with the people of China and to say that in this very important area of technology transforming our societies, that we will 

work with the people of China, not the Government of China, to see 

that this technology is used in a positive way and not a negative 

way. If, as Mr. Sherman says, if our corporations hold true to those 

values, we will work with those corporations. If the corporations 

that happen to be owned by Americans do not, we will be against 

them. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Who 

else seeks recognition for opening statements? The gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very quick. 

China is a very desirable market, and that makes it that much 

more difficult for us and the corporations in China to take a principled stand against, well, our corporations to take a principled 

stand against China’s cyber action and policies. That is very clear 

to us. But of course we must take a stand. And it would certainly 

be best, as Congressman Rohrabacher said, if the corporations and 

businesses in China and the United States would work out our differences and make this work. But if it can’t, I support our chairman in saying that we will need to take action. So I am so anxious 

to hear today what our witnesses have to say because I bet you 

have some good ideas about this. And I would like to yield the rest 

of my time to Congresswoman Lee from California. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady yields 1 minute to the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the gentlelady 

for yielding and just welcome our panelists and just say, you know, 

while these very powerful technologies have provided many opportunities to improve lives as well as strengthen international enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

gagement and partnership, they have also opened doors for misuse 

or abuse by governments, businesses, and individuals. Adapting 

and planning for the current and anticipated impact of this technological transformation is really critical for us to ensure that we 

take a very proactive approach to fostering the flow of information, 

guarding our vital national security interests, and protecting individual freedoms and civil liberties for ours and for future generations. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank again the 

gentlelady for yielding, and welcome, look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman BERMAN. Time of the gentlelady has expired. Anyone 

else seek recognition for an opening statement? The gentleman 

from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I was practicing 

law in about 1999, the assistant IT person at our firm handed me 

a piece of paper, he said, ‘‘Google’’—he had written it out—he said, 

‘‘Google, that is what you want to go search on.’’ Now, like I suppose most people, I am frustrated by any other search engine, because they are not as fast and they are not as good as Google. So 

the thought of having a real Google and a fake Google, one that 

turns up all the results that the rest of the world can see, and one 

that turns up just what the Chinese Communist dictators want you 

to see, is just an amazing incongruity, it just doesn’t make sense. 

And so I am so grateful for Google recognizing that and making the 

decision to move toward providing the people of China with the 

real Google, the real information that the rest of the world gets. 

That is the way it should be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley, seeks recognition. The 

gentleman is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I also want 

to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for organizing this hearing. I would also like to thank the witnesses for their willingness 

to share their experiences. It is no secret that there are different 

opinions on doing business in China, especially when it comes to 

matters relating to freedom of expression. At the same time, we 

know that those with differing views are acting in the spirit as 

Confucius’s famous saying goes, hold faithfulness and sincerity as 

first principles. These issues, the security of the Internet, intellectual property, and indeed national security, go to the very core of 

our national interests. I look forward to hearing more from the witnesses on these important matters and this timely discussion. With 

that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back 20 seconds. 

Chairman BERMAN. Yes, that and what gets you a cup of coffee? 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Royce, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Information is power, and 

during the Cold War, radio free Europe in its broadcasts helped to 

spread untainted information that empowered people like Lech 

Walessa and Vaclav Havel. But today the means have changed, but 

the ability of information to undermine totalitarian regimes remains constant. The Internet has empowered new generations. You 

have the green movement in Iran that has utilized new technologies to disseminate information among dissidents, democracy 

8

advocates from China to Vietnam are blogging about freedom and 

about democracy. But I will close with this irony, and it is from the 

Washington Post. They wrote recently, ‘‘China aims not just at 

eliminating the free speech and virtual free assembly inherent in 

the Internet, but at turning it into a weapon that can be used 

against democrats and against democratic societies.’’ Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentlelady from California, Ambassador 

Watson, is recognized for 1 minute. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. The Internet 

is an invaluable tool for expression of information and ideas. Not 

only does this Internet allow for speedy disbursal, but also reaches 

scores of people that was previously unimaginable. That is why I 

feel that Internet security and freedom are so important, and we 

must be able to protect our constituents and our Government agencies from unwarranted cyber attacks from international players 

such as China. 

Sites such as Twitter and YouTube have provided us with information about unjust acts all around the world, such as the recent 

videos of election day protests in Iran. These videos provide a window into the world that has previously been closed to us. For that 

reason, I believe that we must do all we can to protect the freedom 

of speech on the Internet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Time of the gentlelady is expired. Who else 

seeks recognition? The gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon 

is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I join those who 

thank you for scheduling this hearing and having these witnesses 

come as well. I would just ask that the witnesses, as they address 

the issue of Internet freedom in China and report on what happened with Google and what is going forward, that they also keep 

in mind and speak about intellectual property rights and the fact 

that as we have freedom of information flowing we also respect the 

rights of those who create music, who create intellectual property, 

films and the like, because that has become a very valuable good 

or manufactured thing or commodity that America produces and 

yet our rights seem to be taken away by those who do that. So I 

would ask you to focus on that as well as we go forward. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired. And 

now we will—oh, the gentleman from New Jersey seeks recognition. Mr. Sires is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I read this, you know, 

I am very concerned that the China model may become a model for 

the rest of the countries that want to stifle free information, and 

I think it is very important that the negotiations that are going on 

now do not become a model for all these other countries that want 

to stifle. I am thinking specifically of Cuba and North Korea. So, 

you know, you have got your hands full. And I just wanted to make 

that statement, I know I have a little time, but I will have questions and I want to thank you for being here and thank the chairman for holding this meeting. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, and 

now we are going to introduce and hear from our witnesses. Nicole 

9

Wong is deputy general counsel at Google, working primarily on 

the company’s product and regulatory matters. Prior to joining 

Google, she was a partner at the law firm of Perkins Coie, where 

she represented traditional media and new media clients. Ms. 

Wong also taught media and Internet law courses as an adjunct 

professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Stanford University, and the University of San Francisco. 

Rebecca MacKinnon is a visiting fellow at Princeton University 

Center for Information Technology Policy, where she is working on 

a book about China, the Internet, and the future of freedom in the 

Internet age. She is a cofounder of the Global Voices Online, an 

Internet blogger’s network, and a founding member of the Global 

Network Initiative, a multi-stakeholder initiative that promotes 

free expression and privacy around the world. 

Dr. Larry Wortzel, serves as a—am I pronouncing that right? 

Okay—commissioner on the congressionally-appointed U.S.-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission. Previously, Dr. 

Wortzel served as vice president for foreign policy and defense 

studies, and as director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage 

Foundation. 

And Robert Holleyman is president and CEO of the Business 

Software Alliance, an association of the world’s leading developers 

of software, hardware, and Internet technologies. Prior to joining 

BSA in 1990, Mr. Holleyman spent 8 years on Capitol Hill as legislative director to former U.S. Senator Russell Long, and then as 

senior counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. We are really very pleased that you 

folks would come. We apologize for that snow that put this hearing 

off until now, but all of you working out your schedules to join us 

today we are very grateful for. Ms. Wong, why don’t you lead off? 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE WONG, ESQ., VICE PRESIDENT AND 

DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, GOOGLE, INC. 

Ms. WONG. Thank you. Chairman Berman, Congressman Smith, 

and members of the committee, thank you for your continued attention on the issue of Internet freedom. I want to talk to you 

today about the importance of an open Internet. An open Internet 

is what allowed a national broadcaster in Venezuela to update 

daily newscasts on YouTube after Hugo Chavez revoked their 

broadcasting license because their opinions ran counter to his policies. An open Internet is what ensured the publication of blog reports, photos, and videos of hundreds of Burmese monks being 

beaten and killed in 2007 even after the government shut down the 

national media and kicked out foreign journalists. 

An open Internet is what brought the protests following the Presidential elections in Iran last summer to all of our attention, even 

after the government banned foreign journalists, shut down the national media, and disrupted Internet and cell phone service. But 

the continued power of this medium requires a commitment from 

citizens, companies, and governments alike. In the last few years, 

more than 25 countries have blocked Google services, including 

YouTube and Blogger. The growing problem is consistent with Secretary Clinton’s recent speech on Internet freedom when she cited 

cases from China to Tunisia to Uzbekistan to Vietnam. 

10

For example, our video service YouTube has been blocked in Turkey for 2 years now because of user videos that allegedly insulted 

Turkishness. In 2009, during elections in Pakistan, the Pakistani 

Government issued an order to all of its ISPs to block certain opposition videos on YouTube. And of course there is our experience in 

China, where the last year showed a measurable increase in censorship in every medium including the Internet. 

An open Internet, one that continues to fulfill the democratic 

function of giving voice to individuals, particularly those who speak 

in dissent, demands that each of us make the right choices to support a free and strong Internet and to resist government censorship 

and other acts to chill speech even when that decision is hard. As 

Google’s deputy general counsel, part of my job is handling censorship demands from around the world guided by three principles: 

Maximizing access to information online, notifying users when information has been removed by government demand, and retaining 

our users’ trust by protecting privacy and security. 

No examples received more attention than China in recent 

months. In mid December, we detected a highly sophisticated and 

targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure, originating from 

China with a primary but unsuccessful goal to access Gmail accounts. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared 

to be solely a security incident was something quite different. 

Other companies from a range of businesses, finance, technology, 

media, and chemical, were similarly targeted. 

We discovered in our investigation that the accounts of dozens of 

Gmail users around the world who advocate for human rights in 

China appear to have been accessed by third parties. Let me be 

clear that this happened independent of the attack on Google, likely through fishing or malware placed on those users’ computers. 

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

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

comfortable censoring our search results in China. We are currently reviewing our business operations there. 

No particular industry, much less any single company, can tackle 

Internet censorship on its own. Concerted, collective action is needed to promote online free expression and reduce the impact of censorship. We are grateful for law makers, and in particular this 

committee’s leadership, who have urged more companies to join the 

Global Network Initiative. As a platform for companies, human 

rights groups, investors, and academics, GNI members commit to 

standards that respect and protect user rights to privacy and freedom of expression. Additional corporate participation will help the 

GNI reach its full potential. 

Beyond the GNI, every one of us at the grass roots corporate and 

governmental level should make every effort to maximize access to 

information online. In particular, government can take some specific steps. First and foremost, the U.S. Government should promote Internet openness as a major plank for our foreign policy. The 

free flow of information is an important part of diplomacy, foreign 

assistance, and engagement on human rights. Second, Internet censorship should be part of our trade agenda because it has serious 

economic implications. It tilts the playing field toward domestic 

companies and reduces consumer choice. It affects not only U.S. 

11

and global Internet companies, but also hurts businesses in every 

sector that use the Internet to reach customers. 

Third, our Government and governments around the world 

should be transparent about demands to censor or request information about users or when a network comes under attack. This is a 

critical part of the democratic process, allowing citizens to hold 

their governments accountable. Finally, Google supports the commitment of Congress and the administration to provide funds to 

make sure people who need to access the Internet safely have the 

right training and tools. I want to thank each of you for your continued leadership in this fight against online censorship. We look 

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

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wong follows:]

12


55395b-1.eps
13


55395b-2.eps
14


55395b-3.eps
15


55395b-4.eps
16


55395b-5.eps
17


55395b-6.eps
18


55395b-7.eps
19

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MacKinnon? 

STATEMENT OF MS. REBECCA MACKINNON, VISITING FELLOW, CENTER FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY POLICY, 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, COFOUNDER OF GLOBAL VOICES 

ONLINE 

Ms. MACKINNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Smith, for 

the chance to testify today and for your leadership on this issue 

which has already begun to impact the behavior of a number of 

companies. After describing how authoritarianism is adapting to 

the Internet in ways that often involve companies, I will offer some 

policy recommendations. Regimes like China and Iran, and a growing list of others, usually start with the blocking of Web sites, but 

they also use a range of other tactics outlined in greater detail in 

my written testimony. 

They include cyber attacks against activist Web sites; deletion of 

online content by Internet companies at government request, which 

entails taking it off the Internet entirely. Surveillance is used in 

many countries that don’t censor the Internet much if at all. In 

Egypt, for example, heavy surveillance of Internet users is justified 

as an anti-terrorism measure, but is also used to harass, identify, 

and persecute peaceful critics of the regime. And finally there is 

the use of law enforcement demands in countries where the definition of crime includes political speech, which means that companies 

end up assisting in the jailing and tracking of activists whether or 

not they had actually intended to do so at the outset when they entered a market. 

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

corporate responsibility. In the fall of 2008, Google along with 

Yahoo and Microsoft launched the Global Network Initiative, a 

code of conduct for free expression and privacy, in conjunction with 

human rights groups, investors, and academic researchers like myself. The GNI recognizes that no market is without political difficulties or ethical dilemmas. Every company, every product, and 

every market is different. Therefore, we believe in an approach 

that combines flexibility with accountability. 

Fundamentally, however, it is reasonable to expect that all companies in this sector should acknowledge and seek to mitigate the 

human rights risks associated with their businesses, just as they 

and other companies consider environmental risks and labor concerns. Next comes legislation. Law may in fact be needed if companies fail to take voluntary action. However, it is important that any 

law be sufficiently flexible and global in scope to avoid becoming 

quickly ineffective or even counterproductive due to rapid technological or geopolitical changes. 

Meanwhile, I recommend some immediate steps. First, private 

right of action. It should be easier for victims to take action in a 

U.S. court of law when companies assist regimes in violating their 

rights. Second, we need to incentivize private sector innovation 

that helps support Internet freedom. Third, we need to continue revising sanctions and export controls. We should make it harder for 

U.S. companies to sell products and services to regimes with a 

20

clear track record of suppressing peaceful political and religious 

speech. 

However, our laws should not, on the other hand, bar companies 

from serving those who are risking their lives to peacefully voice 

dissent. The Treasury Department took an important step this 

week in issuing export licenses for free services and software to 

people in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Other activists and places like 

Zimbabwe and Syria are still out in the cold, and there remains the 

issue of paid services and equipment for individual use that can 

also help promote freedom of expression. 

Technical support: Congress deserves great praise for supporting 

development of tools and technologies that are helping people get 

around Internet blocking. But these tools do not counter other tactics regimes are also increasingly using. Our support, therefore, 

should also include tools and training to help people evade surveillance, detect spyware, and protect against cyber attacks. We also 

need to help people develop mechanisms to preserve and redistribute censored content that has been taken off the Internet. We 

should also help with platforms through which citizens around the 

world can share information and tactics to fight for Internet freedom and empower those individuals. 

Finally, Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that Internet freedom is a core American value and policy priority. In reviving the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, the administration 

can improve coordination so that the U.S. Government agencies to 

not inadvertently constrain Internet freedom in the course of pursuing other policy goals. 

In conclusion, it is clear that the Internet has brought new challenges to all governments, most companies, and most parents for 

that matter. Mr. Chairman, I hope this Congress will work to ensure that our cybersecurity solutions, our child protection efforts, 

economic strategies, and business deals at home and abroad will all 

be compatible with a free and open global Internet. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. MacKinnon follows:]

21


55395c-1.eps
22


55395c-2.eps
23


55395c-3.eps
24


55395c-4.eps
25


55395c-5.eps
26


55395c-6.eps
27


55395c-7.eps
28


55395c-8.eps
29


55395c-9.eps
30


55395c-10.eps
31


55395c-11.eps
32

Chairman BERMAN. I am tempted to say easier said than done, 

but I hope we can do that. 

Dr. Wortzel? 

STATEMENT OF LARRY M. WORTZEL, PH.D., COMMISSIONER, 

U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Mr. WORTZEL. Chairman Berman, Mr. Smith, members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. The 

views I will present are my own. They are a product of my service 

on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, decades of service as an Army intelligence officer, and decades of study 

of China. China is the origin of extensive and malicious cyber activities that target the United States. Our commission, in a contracted report, provided a case study of a penetration into the computer systems of an American high technology company. 

The study detailed the way the data was acquired and transferred to an Internet protocol address in China and what institutional and individual actors in China may have been involved. Now 

I am going to discuss three types of malicious Chinese computer 

network operations: Those that strengthen political control in 

China; those that gather economic, military, or technology intelligence and information; and those that reconnoiter, map, and 

gather targeting information on U.S. military, government, or civil 

infrastructure networks for later exploitation. 

The organizations in China most likely to have gathered the information or attempted to gather information about rights activists 

during the Google penetrations are those responsible for internal 

security, repression of the Chinese population, and control over the 

distribution of information. These are the Ministry of State Security, the Public Security Bureau, and subsidiaries of the Chinese 

Communist Party such as the Party’s Central Propaganda Department. 

The second type of malicious activity is intended to gather information of military, technical, scientific, or economic value. Gathering this type of information may speed the development and 

fielding of weapons, improve technology in sectors of China’s industries, while saving time and money in research and development, 

and compromises valuable intellectual property. The organizations 

of the Chinese Government with the mission and capability to conduct such activities span military and civilian agencies as well as 

the state owned companies in China’s military industrial complex. 

Now, not all cyber-espionage in China is government controlled. 

There are plenty of cyber-espionage entrepreneurs who operate outside the government and who could be working on behalf of Chinese companies or state run science and technology parts. But let 

us be candid, when the Department of Justice is prosecuting several espionage cases involving the acquisition by China of defense 

technologies and military information and the same type of data is 

being stolen by cyber penetrations, a logical person would conclude 

that the vast majority of this activity is directed by the Chinese 

Government. 

In the third type of cyber activity, China’s intelligence or military 

services penetrate computers that control our vital infrastructure 

or our military computer networks, reconnoiter them electronically, 

33

and map or target nodes in the system for future penetration or attack. Malicious code is often left behind to facilitate future entry. 

Regarding this third type of computer network penetration, General James Cartwright suggested that effects associated with a 

cyber attack could be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction, and former Director of National Intelligence Mike 

McConnell recently made a similar comparison. 

Now, I believe the government should vigorously monitor and defend our Government computer and critical infrastructure networks. Congress also should put in place legislation that facilitates 

similar programs for industry. Our Government should work closely with allies and friends to combat malicious cyber activity, and 

we should ally with like minded nations to keep the worldwide web 

out of the control of some international body and authoritarian governments such as the one in China that would stop the free exchange of ideas and virtual freedom of association. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify, and I will be pleased to respond to any 

questions the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wortzel follows:]

34


55395e-1.eps
35


55395e-2.eps
36


55395e-3.eps
37


55395e-4.eps
38


55395e-5.eps
39


55395e-6.eps
40


55395e-7.eps
41


55395e-8.eps
42


55395e-9.eps
43


55395e-10.eps
44


55395e-11.eps
45

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Holleyman. For a second I thought I was in the Judiciary 

Committee. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT W. HOLLEYMAN, II, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Exactly, that is a good committee as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today, and Mr. 

Smith, other members of this committee. This is certainly a timely 

and important hearing, and the Business Software Alliance which 

represents leading companies in the software, hardware, and Internet arena welcomes the opportunity to provide its perspective. A 

number of the companies and individuals talking today have provided key aspects to today’s hearing. I would like to talk about 

some of the challenges that we face as an industry in ensuring that 

the Internet is an open platform for communication. 

We are proud of the fact that the tools that companies—largely 

American-based companies—have developed and have deployed 

that have allowed both the greatest economic opportunity and for 

individual and personal communication to disseminate around the 

world. The announcement just earlier this week that you referred 

to in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, by the Treasury Department shows just how important it is to get communications 

tools into the hands of individuals, including in countries with repressive regimes. 

And the U.S. has an important role in the area of global cyber 

technology leadership and cybersecurity leadership. President 

Obama spoke to that issue in the Cyberspace Policy Review, and 

the international component of that, and the international leadership by the U.S. is critical. I would like to address today three 

issues: (1) the legal environments that restrict U.S. technology 

companies from foreign markets; (2) the tolerance of industrial 

theft of U.S. intellectual property; and (3) the threat of cyber attacks. 

First, let me address the market restrictions we are facing. Some 

governments are taking steps that would displace American technology from current and, more importantly, future and growing 

markets by implementing restrictive industrial policies. For example, the Chinese Government is pursuing indigenous innovation 

policies that are aimed at shutting foreign firms out of the market 

or compelling them to transfer their intellectual property and relocate their research and development to China. 

I was pleased to have an opportunity to testify late last year before Ms. Watson in the first subcommittee hearing that looked at 

this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, your own letter to the Chinese ambassador making it clear that this issue of indigenous innovation 

policy as a means of shutting American and other countries’ companies out of the market not only in technology but for green development—for the most innovative technology—was an issue that demanded high level attention. Certainly the administration is making it such, but we have not yet achieved significant progress with 

China. 

Late last year, China attempted to mandate that all computers 

sold in the country had Green Dam filtering software. And again, 

46

as you said in your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, we were one 

of the industry groups that joined together across continents to call 

on China to reverse that policy because of its impact on security, 

privacy, and the free flow of information. Fortunately, the Chinese 

Government suspended this mandate, but it could return in the future. 

Other witnesses have addressed specific laws and policies that 

impose restrictions on the free flow of information, and some of 

these policies impede the ability of technology companies to operate 

in these countries. Both at home and abroad, U.S. companies are 

bound to follow the laws of the jurisdictions where they do business. In some instances, these laws confront American companies 

with a difficult binary choice: Stay in the market and comply with 

local law, or leave. We believe that remaining engaged in those 

markets is important wherever possible to do so. 

Second is the issue of theft of intellectual property. Mr. 

McMahon mentioned this in his opening comment. This is an important issue in many markets. China is probably the market 

where it is of the highest importance. This problem is restricting 

the ability of organizations—of companies operating out of the 

U.S.—and their workers to access foreign markets, and it harms 

the U.S. economy. Most software theft occurs when an otherwise legitimate business illegally copies software for its use. When that is 

repeated millions of times around the world, this conduct has a 

staggering cumulative effect. 

But more importantly, software theft distorts competition and it 

destroys American jobs. A company that steals productivity software for its use competes unfairly against a company that pays for 

it. Both enjoy productivity benefits from the software, but only one 

is bearing the legitimate cost. Which means, for example, that in 

a country like China, where only 20 percent of the productivity 

software is paid for, Chinese enterprises are enjoying an unfair advantage over their U.S. competitors who are paying for the licensed 

software. 

So this issue goes way beyond the IP industry, and in this case 

touches every business that is affected by a high-piracy country. 

And we believe that the U.S. has to use tough diplomacy and tough 

trade measures to attack these issues. 

And third is the issue of cyber attacks and cyber intrusions, one 

of the three prongs of this hearing. These intrusions and attacks 

are preventing the Internet from reaching its full potential, and 

unfortunately the cyber attacks experienced by Google and other 

companies as talked about today were not unique. 

In this era of increased interconnectedness, having commercial 

security practices as well as government attention to cybersecurity 

is vital to our economic and national security. Our companies are 

also among the leaders in building and implementing cyber technology. We support the administration’s ambitious international 

cybersecurity strategy, and this has to be an international priority. 

No one country can do it alone. In my written statement I have 

listed seven steps that we would recommend for the U.S. and for 

any country to look at as a matter of law and working with the private sector to enhance cybersecurity. 

47

Let me simply say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Smith, 

that the Internet is growing and changing. A majority of Internet 

users reside outside the U.S., and that majority is growing rapidly. 

As leaders in Internet technology, U.S. companies have a toe-hold 

in many of these fastest growing markets. We believe strongly that 

it is both in U.S. foreign policy interest and U.S. domestic economic 

interest for U.S. technology companies to remain present in overseas markets as the next generation of the Internet is built out. 

And we want to work with this committee, with the Congress 

and with the government in ensuring that we have the ability as 

American companies to be the platform that provides these communications and information tools and to fight against the challenges 

that we face, and we thank you for holding this hearing. I would 

be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holleyman follows:]

48


55395d-1.eps
49


55395d-2.eps
50


55395d-3.eps
51


55395d-4.eps
52


55395d-5.eps
53


55395d-6.eps
54


55395d-7.eps
55


55395d-8.eps
56


55395d-9.eps
57


55395d-10.eps
58

Chairman BERMAN. Well thank you very much, all of you. A lot 

of questions here. We may, I know I am going to want to have at 

least my shot at a second round and if others want to as well. I 

am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes, and then I am going 

to turn the chair over to Mr. Sherman while I have a meeting, but 

we will proceed. The Post this morning talks about Iran blocking 

foreign domestic Web sites—that is the Washington Post, not the 

New York Post—Iran blocking foreign domestic Web sites to curb 

antigovernment activists. 

It raises an issue that Ms. MacKinnon touches on in her testimony and that we have been thinking about a lot in terms of the 

Iran sanctions bill and export control reform. In addition to the 

Treasury license which was granted this week, what changes are 

needed to our Iran embargo to help facilitate protection for the dissenters in Iran? And the flip side of this is, are there technologies 

that sometimes U.S. subsidiaries, sometimes companies located in 

allied countries, are exporting to Iran that may aid their ability for 

the government to suppress communication? Do any of you just 

want to take a crack at that? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I am happy to take a crack at beginning, I am 

sure there will be other thoughts as well. Speaking to Iranian 

bloggers and activists, members of the green movement in Iran, 

people raise a number of issues, and they very much welcome the 

initial steps by the Treasury Department in making it legal now 

for Google and many other companies to provide access to their free 

services, but there is concern that Iranian activists, it is still illegal 

for American web hosting companies to provide them paid web 

hosting service. So if an Iranian green movement Web site wants 

to be hosted outside of Iran, they cannot purchase that space on 

a web hosting service directly because it is illegal for that American company to serve them. 

Chairman BERMAN. Illegal because our codification of our embargo? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Absolutely. 

Chairman BERMAN. So an amendment to that could deal with 

that problem? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Right. And also because this latest step only 

handles free services, for instance another issue that Iranian activists face is the ability to buy domain names outside of .IR, which 

is controlled by the government, they can’t buy domain names very 

easily directly from international registrars. So they have to go 

through third parties, people exiled, and so on, and so what that 

leads to is that their domain names often get stolen by hackers and 

others, and it makes them much more vulnerable, it makes it much 

more difficult for them to run Web sites outside of Iran that are 

accessible. 

Chairman BERMAN. Explain that a second, why would it make it 

more usually subject to theft? 

Ms. MACKINNON. So if you cannot control your account directly. 

Chairman BERMAN. I see, all right. 

Ms. MACKINNON. You are relying on second or third parties. 

Chairman BERMAN. There are intermediaries getting into this 

transaction. 

59

Ms. MACKINNON. It makes it much harder to maintain control 

over your domain name. And so there have been some instances 

lately of green movement Web sites that got hacked, and then their 

domain names were stolen, but they couldn’t easily regain control 

because they couldn’t interact directly with the domain name registrars and so on because it wasn’t legal for the domain name registrars to do that. So there are a number of issues like that. Activists also point to the issue of——

Chairman BERMAN. Tell you what, let me interject here only because I am going to run out of time. I am actually quite serious 

about trying to pursue some specific things we need to do to change 

our law because I think we are going to have an opportunity to in 

the Iran legislation, and so I will follow up with you. 

Ms. MACKINNON. Right. And so the point is that there are a lot 

of paid services that individuals need access to in order to really 

speak out in the way they need to. 

Chairman BERMAN. I got it. 

Ms. MACKINNON. And also individual equipment, access to satellite phones that enable people to access the Internet through satellite and so on, the individual ability to purchase that. 

Chairman BERMAN. I am going to follow up with you; we are 

going to get the specifics and move on that. In my last 20 seconds, 

Mr. Holleyman, how come more of your members haven’t joined the 

Global Network Initiative? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question. Certainly we have discussed this with a number of our members. The 

Global Network Initiative, as I understand it, was initially created 

to deal with companies who were functioning mostly as Internet 

service providers. And so the three largest American companies 

working in that area, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo——

Chairman BERMAN. Mr. Holleyman, I hate to do this to myself, 

but my time is expired, so we will follow up on it. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would ask unanimous consent that the 

chairman be given an extra 30 seconds so we can hear the answer 

to that question. 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. It was an issue that the GNI was initially 

started to deal with companies who were working as Internet service providers. There are discussions underway with the executive 

secretariate and others at the GNI about potentially expanding it 

to deal with companies in a broader group of technology functions. 

And many of our companies are part of discussing that, but those 

who are the ISPs, for whom it was created, are part of that effort. 

Other companies certainly are working actively today with the 

U.N. Compact as well, so they are looking at it in a variety of 

ways. 

Chairman BERMAN. My time is expired. I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a 

few questions of the panelists, and thank you for your testimony 

and for your work following the White House decision to support 

Google’s action to no longer censor searches, Microsoft made it very 

clear that it will stay in China, and it was quoted in Forbes, ‘‘We’ve 

been quite clear that we are going to operate in China,’’ said MicroVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
60

soft CEO Steve Ballmer. On January 22nd Forbes reports that 

Ballmer suggested in his speech to oil company executives that 

‘‘Google’s decision to no longer filter out Internet searches objectionable to the Chinese Government was an irrational business decision. The U.S. is the most extreme when it comes to free speech.’’

Frankly, I find that outrageous. I am not sure how the panel 

feels about that. When I asked the four top Internet companies, 

more than just Internet, Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo, and Google, to 

testify back in 2006 and it took us months to get them to come voluntarily, which they did, we had that kind of statement from each 

of those representatives. It was disheartening, both to myself as 

chair and to Tom Lantos, who was the ranking member. We left 

no stone unturned in trying to point out the disservice that that 

did to the human rights activists. And now Mr. Ballmer, with that 

kind of statement, shows that there has been no learning curve or 

very little, and I would appreciate any thoughts that any of you 

might have on that statement which I find unconscionable. 

Secondly, Harry Wu had testified that Cisco said that the Chinese Secret Police were sold by Cisco Police Net, which substantially enabled the detection, arrest, torture, and incarceration of political dissidents, labor leaders, and religious people as well. As a 

matter of fact, Ms. MacKinnon, he quoted your Web site in his testimony. Obviously, much damage has been done. As we all know, 

with any high tech there always needs to be upgrades, there always need to be technological enhancements, as new products come 

online. 

And the issue, as awful as it exists today, the cyber police are 

combing the Internet looking for anybody who puts in the word 

Dalai Lama, Falun Gong, underground Christians, Uighurs, you 

name it. On the security side as well there are all kinds of mischief 

being done searching for anybody who has a contrary view to Beijing. What would you suggest we do vis-a`-vis a Cisco in order to 

mitigate even more harm being done? At the end title of our Global 

Online Freedom Act, we originally had a dual-use effort, to try to 

stop dual-use products, I should say, that could be abused by police. It is now a feasibility study because several members objected 

to it, but I just want to ask you if you could, I don’t have much 

time, comment on those two issues first, Ballmer and Cisco. 

Ms. WONG. So as a member of the Global Network Initiative with 

Rebecca and both Yahoo and Microsoft, we were frankly very puzzled by the comments that were reported from Mr. Ballmer, because they are not consistent with the conversations we have been 

having at the GNI for the last 3 years, and certainly we would 

never minimize the human rights impact of censorship in China or 

any other country. We do think that the forum for GNI provides 

a really important role for companies to talk about, what they are 

seeing on the ground in all of these countries, and hopefully it continues to have that role. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. MacKinnon? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I was very puzzled as well by Mr. Ballmer’s 

statement because I too felt that it really contradicted a lot of the 

work that other Microsoft executives have been doing in the Global 

Network Initiative. And it certainly is true that the GNI is not 

seeking to do a one-size-fits-all, that in all cases you have to do X. 

61

Every business is different, these businesses need to make conscious decisions on their own based on precisely what their products are and precisely what their business relationships are. So we 

are not saying that Microsoft should follow exactly what Google 

does in all situations. However, Microsoft at a working level has 

been trying to implement greater transparency and human rights 

assessments in their businesses in China and elsewhere. So Mr. 

Ballmer’s statement was indeed extremely puzzling. 

Mr. WORTZEL. Businesses mitigate risk often without direct concern for human rights or national security, and that is where some 

of these export controls come in. But dual-use items, I would just 

tell you, are very difficult. I mean I had an experience in a plant 

in China, or a manufacturing facility, that was working on pollution control systems. And I looked inside the router boxes and 

found routers that were coproduced by a major American defense 

company and ten miles up the road the partner of that defense 

company had a Chinese electronic warfare and electronic countermeasures regiment in its yard being outfitted with the same routers, so I would just say it is a difficult problem. 

Mr. SMITH. I see I am out of time, but if we could go back in the 

second round to Cisco and some additional questions. 

Mr. SHERMAN [presiding]. Thank you. My first question is for Ms. 

Wong; it may be a step outside the general scope of these hearings. 

I stumble across illegal pirated works on the Internet, full Bruce 

Springsteen albums, entire seasons of current television shows 

available online, and sometimes they are surrounded by Google 

ads. Now, I understand that it is Google’s policy to prohibit users 

from displaying Google ads alongside unlawful content, and I would 

like to know how Google is enforcing that policy. When you get a 

take-down notice for a copyright or trademark owner, do you automatically remove the ads placed next to the infringing material? 

And how long does it take for you to remove the illegal material 

and the advertising? 

Ms. WONG. So, of course for both business and legal reasons, we 

feel very strongly about protection of intellectual property and the 

removal of illegal content from our systems. We build our systems 

with both automated processes as well as manual processes to 

make sure that we do that well. I don’t know the specific takedown times that you are asking me for, but I am happy to come 

back. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am going to ask you to supplement your answer 

for the record. 

Ms. WONG. Sure. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But is it your policy that when you have unlawful 

material, you take down the ads? 

Ms. WONG. When we identify unlawful material where our ads 

are showing, it is our policy to remove them. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask you to respond for the record to the 

more detailed portions of the question. Mr. Holleyman, you asked 

us to get tough. Businesses are always coming to Congress and 

asking us to get tough, and then when you ask them for specifics 

they basically ask that we beg in a louder voice, which is not effective with China. Business communities are totally unwilling to say, 

Well why don’t we have a week where we block our ports to ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
62

nese imports? Are you proposing anything tough or are you like 

other businesses, business representatives just wanting us to beg? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. We believe that a record needs to built very 

quickly that is completely solid in terms of the economic harm that 

is being caused to the U.S., and particularly in my reference to the 

unfair subsidies that are effectively existing for companies outside 

the U.S. who are using illegal software, and we know that there 

are Members of Congress who are asking for those to be built. And 

then we think that we need to take appropriate action. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Does taking appropriate action actually do anything, or are you just asking us to beg with big stacks of legal documents? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. No, no, I mean we think——

Mr. SHERMAN. Are you proposing action that would in any way 

diminish Chinese access to U.S. markets or impose taxes on Chinese goods coming into our markets? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. We are proposing that the U.S. use the bilateral mechanisms we have and the multilateral through the WTO. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I guarantee delay and failure unless you are willing to support, and the business community is ready to support, 

immediate, you know, action at the ports on the ground, real action. These bilateral, you know, we will throw paper at them, they 

will throw paper at us, nothing is going to happen. And my next 

question is rather, you know, requires a technical knowledge of the 

Internet, and I used to look around the audience for someone with 

a plastic pocket protector and figure that was the person, but I am 

looking, I can’t find anybody in the audience, so I will address this 

to Mr. Holleyman unless there is someone else with a greater technical knowledge. 

And that is, in a war between a group of software engineers that 

are trying to build a wall and a group of software engineers who 

are trying to poke holes in the wall, who has got the upper hand? 

It would seem to me that you just have to poke one hole in the 

wall, one way for the word to get around to Chinese citizens as to 

how to have access to the real Internet. How difficult is it for us 

to build these holes? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Our experience in a whole host of areas is that 

it is always possible to punch a hole. And whether it is just in general security technology, it is always possible to do it. It is not easy, 

but it happens. And the converse of that is that we look to build 

more secure systems in the U.S. to prevent attacks. We know that 

holes will be punched, but we have to keep building in an arms 

race to build more secure technology. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I see my time is expired. I will recognize the man 

from California, the outstanding representative Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think what we 

are discussing today actually goes to the heart of a contradiction, 

and you can’t treat gangsters and tyrants as if they are the same 

as democratic leaders and honest people and expect there not to be 

some problem developing. And this is what we are talking about 

here today. China is a vicious dictatorship. They may well have 

had a lot of economic reform in the sense that they have had economic progress, but there has been no liberalization whatsoever politically. 

63

And we have our business community, you know, stepping on 

themselves trying to get over there to make a profit dealing with 

these gangsters. Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got to come to grips 

with that. The corporate world isn’t going to make these decisions 

on their own. They are looking to us as representatives of the 

democratic society that we represent to set the ground rules because they aren’t able to do it themselves because stockholders are 

clamoring for profit et cetera. Google is making an attempt, but 

again, announcements are one thing, actually implementing policies are another. Let me ask one thing. Are religious groups as 

well, like the Falun Gong, being discriminated against finding 

themselves with Internet restrictions in China? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I can answer your question about the Falun 

Gong. Yes, Falun Gong material is heavily censored on the Chinese 

Internet. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So Falun Gong, the Uighurs we know are, 

the Tibetan Buddhists are. So we could say that if religion manifests itself in some actual power in a society, we have got a regime 

that is willing to use a heavy hand to try to stamp that out or to 

restrict their abilities to utilize technology in their freedom. I don’t 

know, again the central problem here is that we are trying to treat 

China as if it is Belgium, and it is not. China is not a democratic 

country, and we should have different rules. 

When we talk about World Trade Organization and MFN, what 

we are really talking about is trying to get a dictatorship into the 

same rules that apply to democratic countries. You know, this is 

the challenge we face, I think it is not one that we can solve. I 

think that frankly dictatorships do not deserve the same trading 

rights and the same considerations that we give to democratic 

countries. As I say, it is the concept of free trade between free people. 

At the same time we must make sure that we are siding with 

the people of China. The people of China, I happen to believe, are 

our greatest ally in the cause of world peace and democracy. Because if we are going to have world peace and the promotion of 

freedom in the world, the people of China are on the front line, and 

what we have to make sure that everybody knows is the people of 

the United States and our Government and, yes, our corporations 

through government mandates are on the side of the people of 

China and not the dictatorship. 

Which means that when the companies fell over themselves trying to sell computers to the police of China, I am sorry, yes they 

could say, Well the police are just a neutral thing, they are just law 

and order. No it is not. The Gestapo and the police in Nazi Germany were not the same as the police in London or in the United 

States. So, Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward and I want to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Smith of course, for this 

Global Online Freedom Act and some of the really—and we have 

gotten to the point and to the heart of the matter on this trade 

issue with China, and I am a proud supporter of the Global Online 

Freedom Act. 

And I would hope, and that is why I wanted you to have an extra 

30 seconds to answer that, I would hope corporate America starts 

making some moral stands in that way too when our Government 

64

is trying to stand up for what this country is all about. If it wasn’t 

for our Government and our country standing up for these principles of freedom, none of your corporations would have the ability 

to make any money, none. Because we wouldn’t have freedom in 

this country, we wouldn’t have a free enterprise system. So it behooves you to sort of perhaps get behind great efforts like this in 

Congress to stand up for American principles. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. We have another 

representative from the great state of California, the great Lynn 

Woolsey. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is so frustrating. 

The United States is not a vicious dictatorship, we know that. But 

we have citizens right here in our own country, including very 

young folks, kids almost, who can break into our own Department 

of Defense computer systems and information systems, and do from 

afar. So is this even possible in this world of ours of so many smart 

people, so many ways around everything to protect information? 

And certainly, you know, there is a difference between protecting 

information through security and economic bottom line and allowing people to have freedom of speech, I mean they go hand in hand. 

But when we open up for freedom of speech do we then open up 

even more for the ability to be hacked? Where do we go with this 

and what is it costing us and what is the tradeoff? I know that is 

very big, but that is as technical as I can get. Mr. Holleyman? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Ms. Woolsey, thank you for the question. I 

think we know that as we have opened up the Internet and opened 

up computing technology we have opened up vast channels for positive information and positive growth. At the same time, that interconnectedness has posed vulnerabilities, and it really is very much 

in the area of cybersecurity an arms race to build more secure systems because the bad elements, bad actors, whether they are statesupported or individuals, have sophisticated technology. 

I was in San Francisco last week with 16,000 people for the RSA 

Security Conference. Howard Schmidt, who is the President’s new 

Cybersecurity Advisor—the first in the White House—spoke quite 

well about the steps we need to take to make us more secure. 

There are billions of dollars that the U.S. is spending, both in 

working with the private sector but also to build more secure networks in the U.S. and to make sure that we have full 

cybercapacity. 

But at the heart of your question is an anomaly, that the U.S. 

is the largest source of cyber-criminal activity in the world, and 

that is because we are the most connected country in terms of our 

business work, so it is not surprising. China is number two. Germany and France are three and four. So this is ultimately a global 

problem, it is going to take global solutions, and we will not be able 

to block the cyber intrusions completely. What we have to do is 

make sure though that we continue to build the best technology, 

build private sector solutions, and it is neither one nor the other. 

We will have more interconnectedness, but through that we will 

have more vulnerabilities. 

Mr. WORTZEL. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes? 

65

Mr. WORTZEL. Let me say that just as the government has tried 

to approach this through ensuring that on Federal systems you 

have trusted hardware and trusted software developed here in the 

United States, there are things you can do, at far higher cost. But 

if your software research and development, and I am just going to 

use China, if your software research and development is in China 

and your hardware is being manufactured, researched, developed, 

and manufactured in China, and people who do this work in China 

move freely between companies and government agencies, you are 

never going to be secure. The best you can do is monitor what goes 

on on your net. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Ms. MacKinnon? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Well, Ms. Woolsey, I think you really do hit the 

heart of the problem about this balance between the need for security and the need for freedom. And really, you know, this goes back 

to when our own country was being founded and you had the arguments between Thomas Jefferson and Hamilton about where do 

you get the right balance between freedom and security in order to 

have both a secure and adequately free society. And we are now 

kind of taking that argument from a country level to a global level 

on the Internet, and how do we get that balance right globally? Because we can’t divide it up country by country. 

And Mr. Rohrabacher pointed out to the problem of treating markets all like they are Belgium. Part of the problem too is that our 

technology treats all countries like they are Belgium. So Nokia, for 

instance, when it sold its equipment to Iran, its equipment by default included a lawful interception gateway, which when implemented in the context of proper judicial oversight over the police 

and what not, is deemed, you know, was required in Europe for 

Nokia to include that technology in its phones and in its systems. 

But you take that into a place like Iran and you have got 1984. 

Same with the Calea requirements in American made routers 

and so on, the communications assistance for law enforcement. 

There are technical requirements that we build into our equipment 

on the assumption that this equipment is going to be used in a society that has oversight, but then that equipment is sold into a society where there is no oversight and where crime is defined broadly to include political and religious speech. So how do we prevent 

that from happening? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. You are supposed to tell us. You are the witnesses. 

Ms. MACKINNON. Well, it is difficult. We need to be thinking 

about, you know, the systems that we are building and we are assuming are going to be universally used, how are those systems 

going to get distorted when they are applied globally, and do we 

need to rethink what we bake into our technology as a default? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think the time of the gentlelady is expired. We 

have yet another talented Member from the State of California, the 

ranking member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee, of course the best subcommittee of the full committee, 

and that is of course Ed Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Wortzel, in reading 

your testimony, one thing I think jumps out to all these Californians here today, or should, and that is your coverage of the ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
66

nese researchers at the Institute of Systems Engineering of Dalian 

University of Technology and their published paper on how to attack a small U.S. power grid subnetwork in a way that would cause 

a cascading failure of the entire U.S. West Coast power grid. How 

helpful in terms of that university study. 

Also, just reading through your testimony and listening to your 

remarks, Chinese military officers noted that scholars hold differing opinions about whether a computer network attack may constitute an act of war. They also note the frequent difficulty in accurately identifying the source of cyber attacks and argued that the 

source must be clearly identified before a counterattack could be responsibly launched. 

I am going back to your quote from General James Cartwright, 

who was commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, and he is currently vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said, ‘‘I don’t 

think the U.S. has gotten its head around the issue yet, but I think 

that we should start to consider that effects associated with a cyber 

attack could in fact be in the magnitude of a weapon of mass destruction.’’

And I would ask you in light of those comments, and in light of 

the fact, as you say, that China currently is thought by many analysts to have the world’s largest denial of service capability and you 

go through exactly what that would mean, let me ask you this. It 

was reported that the White House National Security Council 

downgraded China in our country’s intelligence collection priorities 

from priority 1 to priority 2. In your opinion, is China less of a security threat today than it was last year or the year before, and 

is the decision to downgrade China wise in your opinion? Commissioner? 

Mr. WORTZEL. Mr. Royce, it is and remains, according to the director of National Intelligence, the director of the FBI, the number 

one intelligence threat to the United States. It is only one of two 

countries that can put nuclear warheads on the United States, and 

we have no existing arms control architecture with China. So it 

should absolutely be the number one priority. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Commissioner. I will also ask you, we 

have heard reports that the cyber attacks on Google and other 

countries originated from within China, but officially, many have 

danced around China’s role, or at least the Chinese Government’s 

role in this, right? So for a minute if we were to be frank, were 

these attacks sponsored by the Chinese Government? 

Mr. WORTZEL. I don’t believe that the Chinese Government has 

any interest in how Google fares inside China. They have an interest in making sure that Baidu, which is partially owned by them, 

does well. So if Google has code stolen, I am not a lawyer, I don’t 

have to argue it in court, I am an intelligence officer, I am going 

to analyze who could do it, who profits, what might happen. I have 

very little doubt that is who did it. And with respect to this, the 

information on rights activists, I couldn’t tell you if it was the Ministry of State Security or the Public Security Bureau, but it was the 

Chinese Government 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. Thank you. We have heard much on 

China, I think rightfully so. I am equally concerned on the attacks 

and the persecution especially of Vietnamese cyber-dissidents. 

67

There the government continues its crackdown on those that blog 

on democracy and human rights. The Communist government 

there removes some postings, but more problematic is their resorting to violence in the most extreme cases, and I was wondering, 

and I think I will ask this of Rebecca MacKinnon from Princeton 

University’s Center for Information Technology Policy, I would ask 

you if you could speak on how bloggers could evade detection from 

authorities when they want to talk about free speech. How do you 

get around that kind of? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Well, there are tools, anonymity tools. One is 

called Tor, which is an open source tool, and there are a number 

of others, that help you disguise your IP address as you access a 

Web site. So there are methods, and there is a range of other methods as well that people who have gained instruction and awareness 

can use. But many people are not sufficiently aware of how to cover 

their tracks on the Internet, and end up taking one measure but 

not another measure, end up being under surveillance because they 

downloaded some software that had spyware in it, and so on. 

So it is very difficult to evade detection, although it is possible. 

But there is also a lot of other issues too related to how social networking services, like Facebook to just give one example among 

many others, how they handle their privacy policies, and to make 

sure that not only are they to the liking of American teenagers but 

that also that American companies with global Internet services 

have really done a human rights stress test on these services to 

makes sure that certain security services can’t take advantage of 

them. 

Mr. SHERMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I thank all the witnesses. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will point out to the witnesses that the statement that America does not torture applies only to the executive 

branch; the chair has announced his intention to do a second 

round. And demonstrating that not all wisdom comes from California, we now have an outstanding member of the committee, the 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Well thank you very much. I was getting a complex, 

Chris and I. I am just wondering, Ms. Wong, how much negotiating 

powers does a company like Google have when you have foreign 

governments that have these sense of policies. I mean do you have 

any leverage at all? 

Ms. WONG. It is a very good question. And as a single company, 

it is based on your ability to engage that government and hopefully 

having someone who is reasonable on the other side, and that is 

certainly not always the case. One of the reasons that we were one 

of the founding members of the Global Network Initiative is actually to improve our ability to deal with these governments, so that 

you would have a set of companies that could approach a government about policies and as a united front tell them that you were 

not willing to do certain types of censorship or not willing to deal 

with some of their more restrictive laws. But it is very difficult and 

different in every country. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, you know, as I looked at—I am originally from 

Cuba and I am always very interested in the process there. I mean 

only last year did they allow cell phones on the island. You can 

68

imagine the government how they restrain information, and now 

we have a situation where somebody was doling out computers and 

he is in jail. How does a private company and government work together to prevent this stuff from happening? I mean they could 

care less. 

Ms. WONG. Right. From a company perspective, what we do is do 

a human rights impact assessment before entering a country, before deciding to put people on the ground. So we will actually look 

at a country in terms of what is the rule of law, what are their censorship laws like, what are their government surveillance laws like, 

to know it before going in or offering a product there exactly what 

we might be in for in terms of dealing with that government or regime. That is one step. 

We have had in the past issues where we actually couldn’t come 

to agreement with other governments and actually have found that 

our Government through the State Department and other areas 

were extremely helpful in being a partner with us to intercede in 

those discussions. And that is one of the reasons in my recommendations in my testimony I talk about using this making 

freedom of expression part of our foreign policy, making it part of 

our trade agreements, which gives both us and our Government a 

better platform for having those conversations. 

Mr. SIRES. Well thank you very much. Dr. Wortzel, we are in the 

middle of a big cold war here, and I just wanted your opinion on 

where you think America is at in terms of awareness of how serious this issue is. I mean we have bad economic times, we have 

issues that we are working on, but is America really focusing 

enough on this new cold war that is happening today? This could 

have repercussions beyond, you know, what we can even think. 

Mr. WORTZEL. Well, first of all, it is very different from the Cold 

War in the sense that we don’t have, you know, the containment 

policy against China. We are heavily engaged. But we are certainly 

already engaged in a cyber war. We are certainly already engaged 

in a military competition and space competition, and at the same 

time we are heavily dependent on each other in trade, banking, 

and finance. So I think you have to be very careful how you navigate your way through that. I think the public needs to be aware 

of the threats. Much of what the Congress and the American people 

thought would happen by getting China into the World Trade Organization and opening normal trade relations with it in terms of 

democratizing did not occur. 

Mr. SIRES. Did not. 

Mr. WORTZEL. It did not occur, it did not democratize, it got 

worse, as a matter of fact. So it has a very free economy, or a reasonably free economy that is growing, but more effective repression. So I think——

Mr. SIRES. And it comes to—I hate to interrupt—but it comes to 

my point that I hate to see the China model become the model 

throughout some of these countries. 

Mr. WORTZEL. Well, I think you are absolutely right there, and 

it takes careful export controls and careful controls over what we 

do in terms of trade. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WORTZEL. Thank you. 

69

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired. The 

gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had a number 

of small businesses who have been adversely impacted by unfair 

business practices as I ventured out into the global market. And 

then just in general, I know that it has been brought up previously, 

but I really am concerned, I guess I don’t understand the ability 

for a Chinese counterfeiter to use Google advertising to sell its 

products, to buy that trademark and purchase the trademark of the 

company involved and then sell the products. 

I think there has been litigation in the past, here in the United 

States, Geico, American Airlines. But for the small businesses, the 

people that don’t have the deep pockets, the people that don’t have 

the ability to litigate and go through that long process, it is very, 

very difficult. So my question is, why can’t we have the same policy? Don’t sell another company’s trademark to counterfeiters. I 

mean I just don’t understand that. So if you all could comment on 

that it would be appreciated. But these are the kind of things that 

have to be worked out in the future as the world becomes smaller. 

It just seems very, very unfair, and so if you would comment I 

would appreciate that. 

Ms. WONG. So our trademark policies permit advertisers who 

come to the Google adware system to advertise based on certain 

keywords. We actually have a very robust process that is both automated and manual to try and prevent the misuse of trademarks 

and to assist trademark owners in protecting their rights. Having 

said that, there is a freedom of expression component on being able 

to advertise on particular keywords. Take apple for example. An 

advertiser who wants to advertise on the word apple, we have to 

be able to detect what they mean, whether they are in competition 

with the computer or with the fruit. And so that type of process 

is something that we are working on all the time to improve. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So if a business owner, once they establish that 

there is a problem, and these things are sometimes very cut and 

dried, then you do take steps and fix the problem immediately? 

Ms. WONG. Yes, we do have both an automated and a full team 

that is dedicated to resolving those issues. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. Would the rest of you all agree? Mr. 

Holleyman? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Congressman, I can’t comment on those specific 

policies. What I can comment on though is the broader question, 

which is, each of your constituents, businesses large and small, 

who have competitors in a high-piracy country like China have a 

disadvantage against their Chinese competitor who is using the 

same productivity tools but who, in the case of China, 80 percent 

of those businesses are not paying for it while your constituents 

are. And so this is an issue that goes well beyond whether you are 

in the software industry or the technology industry, but it is unfair 

competition, and in addition to the specific cases related to ads we 

need to look at this broader impact that goes to every district, 

every business in this country. 

Ms. MACKINNON. Just briefly, to put this in a broader free expression context as well, there have been some concerns, particuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
70

larly there have been some discussions about policies and laws in 

some European jurisdictions, and there is also the ACTA, the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Act, that is a state secret so we don’t know 

what is really in it. But one of the things that sometimes is advocated by copyright holders, who certainly deserve to have their intellectual property protected, is that greater liability be placed on 

carriers and platforms to censor and surveil their users in order to 

prevent copyright theft. 

But at the same time when putting those mechanisms in place, 

this comes back to the law enforcement issue that I was raising 

earlier, it also gives repressive regimes an extra excuse to surveil 

and censor and put liability on carriers to surveil and censor for 

political reasons as well. So we need to make sure that as we are 

seeking to protect legitimate business interests we are also not providing extra tools for repression because they are sort of dual use 

in that way. Because a lot of governments justify their censorship 

and surveillance with the excuse of child protection, law enforcement, and copyright protection. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. In fact, I would ask the gentleman if I could 

suggest unanimous consent that he have 1 additional minute and 

ask him if he would yield to me on this issue that he is raising. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I actually 

hear stories that there are people who in the name of freedom of 

expression think that every potential protection of copyrights or 

patents or trademarks that is suggested could theoretically and potentially, if taken too far, impinge on first amendment rights and 

therefore oppose any single and every single effort to protect intellectual property. Have you ever come across such people? 

Ms. MACKINNON. All the time. 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay. 

Ms. MACKINNON. I do not count myself among those people. 

Chairman BERMAN. Good. 

Ms. MACKINNON. I believe we need to find the right balance. I 

believe there need to be solutions, we just need to be mindful in 

grabbing at solutions that we are thinking about the larger context 

and how some solutions can be misused. 

Chairman BERMAN. They can. Thank you. And just, I will take 

that last 5 seconds. Ms. Wong, could you do me a favor and take 

a look in the context of Mr. Boozman’s questions about the misappropriation of Rosetta Stone’s trademark on the Google process? 

People have come to us about that, and this is a good place to do 

my case work. 

Ms. WONG. I don’t have the specific background on it, but I am 

happy to come back to you. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. My time is expired. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. McMahon. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again 

to the esteemed panel. I had to step out for a while so if I repeat 

something that may have been touched on, I apologize, but I just 

wanted to get back to that issue of piracy of intellectual property 

and what it costs America and how we can deal with it. Ms. Wong, 

maybe you could start. How does Google approach this, whether it 

71

is films or music and people who use Google to, either in this country or abroad, to pirate intellectual material, what is Google’s 

thoughts on it and what is the strategy for dealing with it both 

here and abroad? 

Ms. WONG. So as a technology company and one with a good deal 

of important software for us, we absolutely believe in the protection 

of intellectual property, and we think there is a significant legal infrastructure for protecting intellectual property which we think is 

appropriate. To Ms. MacKinnon’s statement earlier though, we also 

believe that there has to be a balance. And so part of our reason 

for being here at this meeting is to talk about the lack of a similar 

infrastructure for platforms for free expression, because we think 

that that is actually the area where in the past the legislatures 

have not paid as much attention. We do believe in the protection 

of intellectual property. We also believe in the balance that permits 

a continuing and vibrant platform for free expression. 

Mr. MCMAHON. So how will you balance that in China and particular where, you know, estimates are, and I know Congressman 

Sherman talked about this, but, you know, 82 percent of all software products purchased in China were obtained through intellectual property piracy, many through the Internet of course and 

through using the Google platform to do it. How can you help us 

protect that American interest, that vital American interest? 

Ms. WONG. Yeah, well this is one of those areas where partnership with our Government is obviously really important. Our experience in China was interesting because we were competing with 

their homegrown search engine, Baidu, which owes a great deal of 

its popularity to the free download of licensed music. We recently 

offered, or last year I guess, started doing our own music download 

service all with licensed music, and tried to set an example in that 

way that users we thought would appreciate, you know, legitimate 

licensed music. That has not yet proven to help us very much in 

that market, but it is one of the ways that we were trying to make 

headway in China. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Can you do more and can we do more? 

Ms. WONG. I think that there probably is room for continuing to 

look at intellectual property laws as we apply them in China. I 

know there are ongoing conversations now in terms of the trade 

agreements that we are dealing with, and we would be happy to 

give you more thoughts on that following the hearing. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you. Mr. Holleyman, would you want to? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Thank you, Mr. McMahon. I will add to that. 

Certainly in a country like China we see $6.7 billion in losses due 

to piracy, a significant portion of that loss is to U.S. software companies but also to Chinese software companies and to the channel. 

What I think in all of this though that we need to consider is that 

the impact of this goes far beyond any individual working in a 

software- or a copyright-based company or even their partners. In 

an area like software, what we find is that most of the software 

piracy in China is not necessarily from a counterfeit copies and not 

necessarily from downloaded copies of software. 

For software, which is the largest copyright industry in the 

world, is when an otherwise legitimate business may have one or 

two legal copies but they have duplicated it for 50 or 100 or 1,000 

72

or 2,000 workers. And when that happens, they are getting the productivity benefits for their company, they are selling their products 

at a cheaper price than people in your districts. And so we have 

to look at this as something that is first and foremost hurting U.S. 

companies because we are the leaders in producing copyright 

works. But it is displacing legitimate sales by U.S. companies in a 

whole host of industries, and we need to look at that. 

Mr. MCMAHON. So it affects our very competitiveness, the competitiveness of the American companies. 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Absolutely, far beyond any company that sees 

themselves as an intellectual property-based company. 

Mr. MCMAHON. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman has yielded back the remainder of his time. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, ranking 

member on the Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment Subcommittee, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was tied up in other 

meetings. I caught portions of the testimony. My question here is 

to Ms. Wong. I remember my staff, Nien Su, who was fluent in Chinese, and typed in Tiananmen Square on Google.cn, and he was led 

to an official Chinese site treating it I think as a travel opportunity, tourist opportunity. And then he typed on Google.com 

Tiananmen Square and got a very robust history of everything that 

happened there. My question to you is, I know you are in negotiations on censorship, but allowing a little bit of censorship is allowing all of censorship. And my question to you is, what if the Chinese say, ‘‘That is it, we are not going to change our policies’’; what 

is Google going to do? 

Ms. WONG. Thank you, Congressman, that is a very good question. So let me be really clear. Google is firm in its decision that 

it will stop censoring for China our search results, and we are 

working as quickly as possible toward that end. The fact of the 

matter is that we have hundreds of employees on the ground, some 

of whom are very dear colleagues of mine, and we do not underestimate the seriousness or the sensitivity of the decision that we have 

made. So we will stop censoring on our .cn property, the results, 

but we want to do it in an appropriate and a responsible way. 

There is——

Mr. MANZULLO. What if China says, ‘‘You continue, we’ll continue 

to censor or you are out’’? 

Ms. WONG. We are not going to change our decision on stopping 

to censor, not censoring results anymore. So if the option is that 

we will need to both shutter our .cn property and leave the country, we are prepared to do that. 

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 

time. And the gentleman from Missouri, chairman of the International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

holding this hearing on how we can transform our cyberspace policy to advance democracy, security, and trade. First I would like to 

turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 

73

1948 under the Truman administration. Article 19 says, ‘‘Everyone 

has a right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, 

receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.’’

I think that is a great principle, and certainly the Internet was 

not around when that concept was really adopted, but certainly it 

applies here today. And I first want to ask about market share in 

China. I understand Google’s market share has grown from about 

15 percent in ’06 to about 31 percent today, meanwhile Baidu has 

increased its market share from about 47 percent over the same 

time period up to 64 percent today. If Google leaves, and Baidu 

would be handed an effective monopoly, can you make an economic 

argument why this is not in China’s national interest? And let me 

direct that to Ms. Wong. 

Ms. WONG. Well, I think it clearly is in China’s economic interest. As I understand it, after we made our announcement that we 

would no longer be censoring search results Baidu’s stock shot 

right up, and they are a Nasdaq listed company that does quite 

well obviously based on their market share. Having said that, consistent with our principles as a company, we felt that we could no 

longer continue to operate under the regulations in China. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And I applaud your company’s principled decision. And let me ask next, to what extent would this decision, if 

you do leave, stifle competition and innovation? How would such a 

decision limit the ability of other U.S. businesses to operate and 

advertise in China? And let me ask Mr. Holleyman about that. 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Mr. Carnahan, thank you for the question. I 

think it shows just how important it is that the U.S. Government 

take this on as an issue and ensure that U.S. companies can compete in various markets fairly and consistent with U.S. values. One 

of the challenges from the data I have seen is that Baidu is the 

third largest site for searches globally, behind Google and behind 

Yahoo and above Microsoft. And so one of the challenges will become as we will be doubling the number of Internet users, does a 

platform like Baidu become a prominent platform not just in China 

but, as they have indicated, on a global basis? 

And so I would submit that it is more important and it is important for the U.S. Government to make sure that companies like 

Google and Yahoo and Microsoft and others can do business in a 

market like China so that as that next generation of Internet is 

built out it will continue to be based on U.S. companies rather than 

ceding that next generation to companies like Baidu and others 

who may not have the same commitments that U.S. companies do. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Great. Any others on the panel want to comment 

on that? Ms. MacKinnon? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Well certainly, you know, China has short term 

interests and long term interests as well, and there are many people in China who are not necessarily members of the government 

who argue that in the long run China is really hurting itself by 

censoring, by stifling information, and that China’s long term competitiveness and innovation will be best served by being open. So 

that there are certainly those who are arguing that as well within 

China, and whatever we can do to help amplify that point of view 

74

and show that actually there are multiple points of view in China 

about what best serves their interests, I think would be helpful. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Chairman BERMAN. The time of the gentleman is expired. And 

the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. And thank you to all of the 

panelists for being here today. I had a bill on the floor, so forgive 

me for being a little late. It passed unanimously, I am glad to say. 

Chairman BERMAN. We want to complement you for your exquisite timing. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Iran and 

China are just two prominent examples of countries that have been 

moving to control or censor, frankly speech, free speech over the 

Internet. Anyone on the panel, but what role do you see the private 

sector taking with regard to freedom of expression overseas? And 

what role should the private sector take with respect to that set of 

issues? 

Ms. WONG. Well I will start but maybe Rebecca will want to 

jump in too. I think that the private sector has made a really great 

step by farming the Global Network Initiative, which is a group of 

not just companies but also human rights organizations, academics, 

and socially responsible investors. And I think that having that 

body both as an area for shared learnings as well as having a unified voice on censorship issues around the world is really important. One of the things that we observed in the last few years is 

that when we went into a country we would be told by government 

regulators there, hey the guys down the street are doing this, you 

need to do it too. 

Having a coalition of companies that are in agreement with each 

other about our principles, and also being able to push back together against a government, is extraordinarily important. Having 

said that, the importance of having strong leadership in our Government to back us up when we make those decisions to open up 

channels for communication so that we can have reasonable conversations about those things is extraordinarily important. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yeah, I think that is a really good point. 

Ms. MACKINNON. And just to back that up, that is absolutely 

true. It took a generation for the private sector to recognize that 

it had responsibilities in terms of labor practices. It took another 

generation for the private sector to recognize its environmental responsibilities, and now it is time for the entire ICT sector, information communications and technology sector, to recognize its responsibilities as regard free expression and human rights. 

And at the moment there are a few leading companies who have 

really taken the first step, and it is a learning process now through 

the Global Network Initiative and through the efforts of this committee and others in Congress, to really help the private sector step 

up to its responsibilities and figure out how to do that and still be 

competitive. Because I don’t think it is always a binary choice, engage or get out. 

I think the lessons of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo over the past 

few years since 2006 and the first hearings has been that it is often 

75

about how you engage, that you can make specific choices. As Mr. 

Smith pointed out, in Vietnam, Yahoo, having learned its lessons 

in China when it didn’t think through how it was going to implement certain services, they thought through in Vietnam, how do we 

provide blogging services without exposing user data to the police 

in Vietnam? And so it is about helping companies be more thoughtful about their responsibilities while still doing business. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good point. And I know the two gentlemen want 

to respond as well, and maybe in your response I would also like 

to know how you think the Global Network Initiative might play 

a role in this as well. Dr. Wortzel? 

Mr. WORTZEL. Well, I have followed the Global Network Initiative on the commission, on the China Commission. I think that 

they are moving along well. I encourage Congress to continue to 

monitor their progress on what they hope to achieve. But I want 

to use bribery as kind of an analogy. You know, I don’t have this 

great faith that the private sector is always going to behave well. 

We have got laws that stop U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials. So I think that, you know, you really do need to look at 

forms of legislation that may, if things like the Global Network Initiative don’t catch on and work, may restrict what they can do and 

force them to adhere to our values. And I will just end it at that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You have got the final word, Mr. Holleyman. 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. I certainly agree with 

the sentiments of the other panelists, and we applaud the effort of 

the Secretariate and the members of the Global Network Initiative 

to look at potential ways of expanding that beyond the original ISP 

community with whom it was intended to more companies. And 

certainly I can’t commit any particular company to participating in 

that, but I know that we have many members who are engaged in 

part of the work plan and discussion about potential participation 

as it is broadened. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you all. My time is up. I look forward 

to this as a continuing dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you. And the gentleman’s time is expired. And, if you don’t mind having a slightly later than usual 

lunch, I would like to open up for a few more questions. No one 

has screamed, so I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Wortzel, a specific and a more general question. The specific 

question: You talk about our greatest vulnerability coming from 

China and that we have no arms control agreement with China. 

What about a cyber-control agreement, a bilateral protocol regulating both countries’ behavior in cyberspace? There has been some 

discussion of this. I would be curious about your comments. 

The more general question: It is hard to articulate, but somewhere—there have been times when people in the American Government have been quite sanctimonious about attacking what other 

governments are doing and seeking to ban them, which if literally 

applied to our own conduct might affect us. Is there a line here 

that we need to, things that we do because we think they are—

there are probably limitations on what we can talk about here—

but things that we do because we think they are essential to our 

national security interest? And of course we are right and the others aren’t, but it is harder to sell that internationally. 

76

Mr. WORTZEL. Well, I wouldn’t want to touch on the operations 

of the cyber-commands inside the U.S. military here, but I think 

you have hit on a very important point. We have a long history, 

the United States has a long history of arms control discussions 

and agreements with the Soviet Union that has led both to tacit 

acceptance of certain rules of behavior and formal treaties. Our attempts to do the same with the People’s Republic of China have 

pretty well failed. And I have been involved with those directly 

since 1986. 

They won’t talk to us about incidents at sea seriously, we had a 

treaty with the Russians. They won’t talk and sit down formally in 

arms control and nuclear strategy negotiations as a confidence 

building measure. So even though the Russians today are beginning to talk to the United States about cyber, the Chinese have not 

reached the point of doing that. But your question is an extremely 

important one because I think what we have to do is focus on strategies to bring them in, track 2 discussions in academia. 

Ensuring that there are international conferences that focus on 

things like the laws of war and how cyber warfare affects international warfare that they can attend. I think that our war colleges 

should be encouraging legal papers on these subjects, there are 

very few out there. And you are going to find Chinese responding 

to these. So gradually you begin to build up a body of almost common law on what constitutes an act of war, what activities are permissible. And remember that the laws of war were essentially written sometime between the end of World War I and mostly the end 

of World War II. So there is nothing in there about space warfare 

and the cyber age. We do need to address that. 

Chairman BERMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Holleyman? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Let me add one quick point to that, sort of 

going beyond it. When the President announced the results of the 

Cyberspace Policy Review, it was a significant undertaking for the 

first U.S. President to talk about cyberspace policy ever, reflective 

of the times. But I will say, while we greeted this with great support, probably the least well-developed prong of that plan relates 

to international, and to the international framework, the international cooperation, what the U.S. is trying to seek from our allies. 

There is a great intent, there is work being done, but looking at 

the auspices of this committee, I think one of the great contributions you can make is to ensure that there is the support, there is 

the attention, and there is the participation to make sure that that 

international prong of Cyberspace Policy Review is at least as robust as the domestic, because we don’t have domestic security without having it internationally. 

Chairman BERMAN. Okay. I have a couple more questions. Mr. 

Smith, should I just give myself another 2 minutes and we will do 

the same for you and Mr. Connolly? Okay. This issue of engaging 

with these countries that I would designate as Internet repressive, 

or however you would describe it, or removing ourselves completely—there have been articles about the ability to subvert the 

firewalls that these governments impose. Is there a particular 

value here to be in the country promoting, sort of knowing that 

there are ways to overcome those government firewalls that is lessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:42 May 21, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\031010\55395 HFA PsN: SHIRL
77

ened if you simply extricate yourself from that country? In the end, 

is there an argument to be made that you can get more information 

and encourage more communications by staying and hoping that 

those firewalls can be pierced than by just pulling out completely, 

or can you do it all from internationally just as easily and therefore 

you don’t need to stay? Ms. MacKinnon? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I think there certainly is an argument, and 

that is why Google went into China initially after much soul 

searching, and why many people in China including dissidents and 

activists who I know are worried that Google might pull out, because they are afraid that then the firewall is going to come down 

on all Google services and that will make it harder for people to 

have independent conversations and gain outside knowledge. 

So there is very much a strong argument, and again why it is 

important to think about not just the binary engage or disengage 

but how you go about engaging, because there is great benefit to 

being there on the ground and to helping people access information. And also because blocking isn’t the only part of censorship or 

the only barrier to free expression. You have removals, you have 

surveillance and attacks and all kinds of things, which makes it all 

the harder if you are on the outside. 

Ms. WONG. If I could just amplify? 

Chairman BERMAN. Well, yes. 

Ms. WONG. So our experience prior to going into China and offering a localized domain in 2006 is that we were being regularly 

blocked in China, wholesale. Probably 10 percent of the time, and 

much of the time even then we were much slower because of the 

latency of being outside of the country. That was the initial reason 

for going into China. We found that when we were there we were 

not blocked as frequently, we found that we were able to do really 

innovative things, like we were the first company to start displaying when we had removed search results because of government requirements that we let users know, and that actually has 

now become an industry standard in China and we think that is 

good for the transparency to the country. 

I don’t want to underplay what a difficult decision it has been 

that we may not be able to continue to provide search results in 

China from the .cn property. We think we did a lot of good there. 

There was a study by the journal Nature recently where they surveyed scientists in China, and 80 percent of them use Google for 

their academic research because we are more comprehensive than 

the local players. But having said that and in doing the evaluation, 

we actually just felt that we couldn’t continue to do what seems to 

be a trajectory of increasing political censorship. 

Chairman BERMAN. All right. Can I try and squeeze in one more, 

guys? Okay. Mr. Holleyman talked about these discussions about 

expanding GNI, and I am curious to what extent, and I guess, Ms. 

MacKinnon, you are directly involved, you are I guess one of the 

academic participants in that process. To what extent do you see 

the prospect for that kind of expansion, to go beyond just the ISPs 

and bring others who have software and hardware products into 

this initiative? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I think the prospects are strong if the other 

technology companies make efforts. 

78

Chairman BERMAN. Well, do you see a way in which Congress 

could incentivize those companies as they go back and forth on this 

issue to tip in favor of joining? 

Ms. MACKINNON. Certainly. I mean different members of the GNI 

might have different public views on this, but I do think that we 

wouldn’t be where we are today if there hadn’t been the threat of 

legislation in the first place, and so Congress certainly has a role 

to play there. And one of the objections or the excuses for not joining GNI by some companies is that, well it doesn’t fit our business 

model. 

And our response is, look this is meant to be a flexible process, 

this is not meant to squeeze everybody into completely inappropriate frameworks. The point of this is to help companies, no matter what their business model is, no matter what their specific 

technology, do the right thing. And so our implementation guidelines and our governance charter and our assessment mechanisms 

can be adapted to anybody who is willing to engage substantively 

in joining, but they have to make the first step in engaging substantively and seriously on how they can join. 

Chairman BERMAN. You can have elasticity as to business models 

if they will come inside the tent, basically. 

Ms. MACKINNON. That is right. 

Chairman BERMAN. All right, I am going to yield back, but I do 

want to indicate that, from much of the testimony that I had a 

chance to read before the hearing and discussions, I have in mind 

some legislation. I want to work closely with Mr. Smith who has 

his own legislation to see if we can come up with something that 

invests our Government in playing the role they should be playing 

and that I think the Secretary, by her speech, indicated a willingness to play in getting it on a government-to-government basis, 

incentivizing people to join, putting some reasonable kinds of obligations on the companies in terms of this very important issue. 

And so with that I will yield to the ranking member. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Ms. 

MacKinnon, I think your point about the threat of legislation causing or inspiring some additional action, the week we had the hearing, the day we had the hearing in February 2006, all of a sudden 

the State Department announced, and we welcomed it obviously, a 

task force to being looking at this issue and looking at it hopefully 

robustly. So I think your point was very well taken. All of your 

points were excellent. Thank you for your testimony and your 

work. 

Let me just, a couple of questions. Right before the Beijing Olympics, Congressman Frank Wolf and I traveled to Beijing on a 

human rights mission, we met with underground pastors of churches, most of whom were arrested. We had a prisoners list of 732 

prisoners and very precise information about their alleged crimes, 

which was simply trying to live out the Universal Declaration on 

Human Rights. Labor leaders, you know, there was a broad list. 

And we got nowhere with that. 

But we went to a cyber cafe while we were there, and we spent 

huge amount of time, both Mr. Wolf and I, accessing every site we 

could think of, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, anything pertaining to the Dalai Lama. I even couldn’t get my Web site. All of 

79

it was blocked. I don’t know what they thought they were blocking 

when they were blocking my Web site but it was blocked. 

And even when I went to a very esoteric search time, and that 

was Manfred Nowak—the special rapporteur for torture who is a 

outstanding U.N. diplomat and, you know, he stands head and 

shoulders, I believe, above many in terms of the preciseness of his 

reporting—he had done a scathing report on torture in China. And 

when I typed in Manfred Nowak, what I got was his report on 

Guantanamo, not his report on Chinese systematic and pervasive 

use of torture. 

So my fear then, and as it always has been, is that a whole generation of Chinese are precluded accurate information, or at least 

information that they can make accurate or informed decisions 

about. And so the censoring issue, that and personally identifiable 

information are, you know, the two hallmarks of the Global Online 

Freedom Act, so I do hope we move forward on that and I would 

welcome any further thoughts you have on that. 

One concern that I have that I don’t think we focus enough on, 

when I chaired the Africa Subcommittee, I held two hearings on 

China’s increasingly poisoning role on Africa. The fact that when 

it comes to good governance, you know, they are net exporters to 

the U.S., our balance of trade was $228 billion over the last 12 

months. They export other things too, and that is a repression 

model that is being scooped up by the likes of people in Sudan and 

other places, and other currently existing dictatorships are borrowing, Lukashenko in Belarus and others, the model that has 

been hand-given to them by the Chinese cyber police. 

So my question is, you know, I don’t think we have the luxury 

of time. You know, dictatorships are repressing by the day, if you 

are in a torture chamber or in a gulag somewhat or the Lao Gai 

in China, you don’t know if you are going to live to the next day. 

So time is of the essence, we don’t have the luxury of delay. And 

so I would raise the issue, you know, we try to share best practices, 

the United States and other democracies. They are sharing worst 

practices, and they are doing it as aggressively as we could possibly 

imagine in Latin America, in Africa, and elsewhere. So I do think 

we need a hurry-up offense to make sure that we do much more 

and we do it effectively. 

So if you might want to comment on that, because I do think, you 

know, if you destroy the dissidents, the Lech Walessas of Poland 

and all the other great leaders, the Harry Wus, who thankfully at 

least he is alive and well here but exiled, where is democracy and 

human rights going to come from? You will cower the generation 

to remain silent and stay under the radar, and that goes for labor 

leaders and everything else. So these worst practices, I hope our 

businesses realize that they are not neutral in this. And it is unwitting I think. 

When we had the four members of the four biggest companies 

here, even though we were all upset about what was happening, 

my sense was, I think it is unwitting, I don’t think they want this 

to happen, I think it is perhaps naivety and maybe some complicity, but who knows? The firewall busting technology, if you 

could speak to that. You know, we have appropriated $30 million 

for that. Our friends in the Falun Gong and others feel that they 

80

have a useful product, maybe you want to speak to whether or 

not—I mean I see it as a sidebar issue. GOFA and those initiatives, 

government to government, should be the mainstream, but there 

are technologies that can evade and hopefully. 

And finally on the Cisco, which we didn’t get time to answer before, their, you know, Police Net and the kind of technology that 

Cisco has transferred not just to the police but also to the military 

is extraordinarily effective in making sure that everyone walks in 

lockstep with a dictatorship or else. So if you could speak to those 

issues I would appreciate it. And for the record, Mr. Chairman, I 

would ask that a letter from Google, and I thank them again for 

endorsing GOFA, from eleven NGOs, including Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, a list of eleven, and Freedom 

House, be made a part of the record. 

Chairman BERMAN. We will, subject to reviewing it to see if there 

are any terms that we can’t include. No—it will be included for the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

81


55395f.eps
82


55395g-1.eps
83


55395g-2.eps
84


55395h-1.eps
85


55395h-2.eps
86

Ms. MACKINNON. Well, just, I think you raised a lot of really good 

points. And I was actually a journalist working for CNN in the ’90s 

when the Internet arrived in China, and we were all very naive, 

I think, in thinking that, well there is no way that an authoritarian government can survive the Internet. Well, I think China is 

absolutely the poster child for how authoritarianism does survive 

the Internet, and that this is a model that many regimes are copying. And Chinese networking companies like Hyawei and ZTE are 

doing very good business in African and Middle Eastern countries 

as well. 

And so that is one thing, and I remember in the 2006 hearing 

some of the companies basically were saying things like, well as 

long as we provide the Internet in China, ultimately in the long 

run that will do everybody more good, so in the short run there are 

some consequences but, you know, that is just short run, in the 

long run we are going to be bringing freedom. And I think what 

we have learned over the last few years is that it is not that simple, and that the so called collateral damage immediately does matter and needs to be taken seriously, and that companies can be providing Internet access yet at the same time enabling 

authoritarianism’s survival in the Internet age and helping to raise 

this whole generation of people who don’t know what they don’t 

know. And so that is very serious. 

And as you say about Cisco, I have had conversations with them 

and they say, well we are not doing anything illegal, you know, we 

are selling to police forces like we sell to law enforcement all over 

the world. And this is a problem not just with Cisco but there are 

a number of American companies selling biometric technologies 

that are also being used for law enforcement. And to also just 

speak very quickly to Mr. Holleyman’s point about the next generation Internet and the need for American companies to be at the 

forefront of that, well China and many other countries also want 

to be at the forefront of building the next generation of the Internet, which is going to be much more mobile, ‘‘Internet of things’’ 

and so on. 

And we need to make sure that our companies are not enabling 

and contributing to a next generation Internet that does not allow 

anonymity, that does not allow for privacy and makes dissent even 

more difficult than it is becoming today. So this is all the more reason why we need to make sure that companies across a broad spectrum of technology applications and business models are all mindful of what they are doing. And then the filtering technology. 

Yes, I know a lot of people in China who are using a range of 

different tools to get around censorship, and this is certainly something that deserves continued support. There is a challenge that I 

find that actually many Chinese people, many Chinese Internet 

users, even though they are aware of these tools, aren’t using 

them. So there is a whole other range of issues about education 

and community building around these tools. And also the fact that 

again Internet blocking isn’t the whole story with censorship. On 

the Chinese language Internet a lot of content is just being removed, and so that circumvention tools won’t help you with that 

if the content has been taken down or if a site has been hacked, 

and the self-censorship that takes place because of surveillance and 

87

so on. So we need a whole range of different tactics along with circumvention to help people conduct free and open conversations 

without fear. 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. Mr. Smith, I will just comment to Ms. 

MacKinnon’s comment about the next generation Internet. I mean 

one of the—looking at the title of this hearing, how does cyber policy address issues of democracy, security, trade, as we build to a 

next generation Internet we will definitely be better as a country 

if the backbone of that is based on U.S. companies. And we will be 

more secure, there will be more democratization in the world, and 

we will have greater economic security. 

What we need to do is make sure that we are using the most vigorous abilities of the U.S. Government to make these governmentto-government issues to really drive this discussion, and then also 

to work against things that would make it difficult or impossible 

for U.S. companies in IT to remain in markets. Because as we 

move to a marketplace for the Internet that will be dramatically 

larger than it is today, it would not be in the U.S. foreign policy 

interest for the platform of that Internet to be based on companies 

who had their genesis and origin in countries that had restrictive 

policies. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could just one 5-second question? Harry Wu said 

there were 35,000 cyber police, and that was an estimation in 2006. 

Do any of you have the number of how many police are deployed 

to that operation? 

Ms. MACKINNON. I don’t have a very reliable number. It has become very difficult to quantify because every police department, 

every kind of military division and so on has people who are involved with Internet, but also a lot of policing of the Internet is actually basically outsourced to private companies, so it is not police 

doing it but Baidu and many other Chinese companies have entire 

departments of people whose job it is to monitor and censor content. And so a lot of it is not actually being done by police, it is 

being done by the private sector. 

Mr. WORTZEL. I agree with Ms. MacKinnon. I don’t think you are 

going to get a reliable figure today. Cyber militias have been created, reserve public security people are brought in from universities and businesses, and it is outsourced. 

Chairman BERMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will have the 

last question. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to piracy, what is the obligation of search engines like Google and what 

is the obligation of governments in protecting content providers 

against piracy and especially links to piratical sights? 

Ms. WONG. So Google’s policy in terms of search starts with the 

notion of we want to have the most comprehensive index possible. 

When you type in a search we want to deliver something that is 

relevant for you. However, when we become aware of content that 

is illegal, we do remove those from the search engine and have a 

process for doing that. I think that that is part of being responsible 

in terms of showing users as much information as possible but also 

respecting the rights of intellectual property owners. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But what I am hearing you say, Ms. Wong, is 

Google acknowledges it has some responsibility when you know a 

88

site is illegally piratical and you are putting a content provider at 

risk linking to that site, you are going to do something about 

maybe removing that site, or that link. 

Ms. WONG. That is right. It is actually governed by a law passed 

by this body many years ago, the Digital Millennium Copyright 

Act. We have a process for receiving claims by the intellectual 

property holder and to process those claims to remove it upon notice. Under that process then for search engines they are taken out 

of index. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Holleyman? 

Mr. HOLLEYMAN. We think there needs to be a workable mechanism. We do believe certainly that the U.S. foundation—the Digital 

Millennium Copyright Act—was a solid foundation. We also think 

that there need to be obligations that companies assume on their 

own where there are repeat instances of piracy that has been identified, whether they are not simply responding to a complaint from 

a copyright holder but they are also taking affirmative steps to 

take down repeat infringers and to prohibit means that would monetize activity associated with piracy. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BERMAN. Well now that you have opened up that 

issue, I just want to, I just feel compelled to follow up a little bit 

here. Actually, Ms. MacKinnon, your testimony originally, your 

first testimony you submitted before the snow week, had some recommendations regarding intermediary liability. You spoke to that 

in your testimony today but you didn’t include that in your conclusions. But if, let us just talk hypothetically. 

Ms. Wong, you have mentioned notice and takedown provisions 

of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—but if you could have a 

pretty darn flawless kind of filter to separate what Mr. Connolly 

has talked about, or add to that child pornography or other things, 

from other kinds of content, what is wrong with intermediary liability in that situation? In places particularly where there is an 

activity that makes you something more than just a sort of automatic conduit? Having changed the nature of this hearing. 

Ms. WONG. I think we have seen the dangers of intermediary liability, most recently in a case in Italy that was brought against 

three of our executives for the alleged violation of invasion of privacy under Italian law. 

Chairman BERMAN. We talked about that, right. 

Ms. WONG. In which three of our executives were criminally convicted for a video that was uploaded to YouTube. Although, when 

we got notice from law enforcement that that video existed, it was 

a cyber bullying video that violated our policies, we took it down 

within hours. However, our three executives have been convicted in 

an Italian court. 

What that means for a service, of any platform service but for 

YouTube, where users upload 20 hours of video every minute, the 

concept that you would prescreen or else be subject to liability 

means that that platform cannot exist with the robustness that has 

proven to provide video footage of the protests in Iran, of in Burma. 

There has to be a way to continue to permit the robustness of that 

89

platform. And a prescreening requirement or intermediary liability 

for user content I think would dampen that. 

Chairman BERMAN. That was not a case where you were sort of 

promoting and advertising linking to this video, right? I mean this 

was not, you were not trying to commercially exploit the placement 

of that particular video. 

Ms. WONG. Right. 

Chairman BERMAN. What if part of the intermediary liability 

constrained it only to areas where there was an intermediary’s action to essentially promote links? 

Ms. WONG. Which means the intermediary or the platform has 

somehow appropriated or reviewed and decided to commercially 

use that information. 

Chairman BERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. WONG. I think that that is different. We have actually tried 

to——

Chairman BERMAN. Okay, now we have narrowed this down. All 

right. 

Ms. WONG. I think that we have tried to find a thread which actually partners with the content holders. So for example on 

YouTube we have a content ID process where, we are not in a position to know who that content owner is or what their rights in it 

might be, but the content holders can identify it for themselves and 

make a decision to have it monetized, to have claimed or to have 

it taken down. 

Chairman BERMAN. That is right. All right, look, thank you all 

very much for coming. It has been a very valuable hearing. I would 

like to get, if you would be willing to take the time, some more specific suggestions on these Iran issues of trying to get out of our export prohibitions the kinds of things that could help there for our 

legislation. We are in a situation where we could make great use 

of that information. And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:34 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(91)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

92


55395n.eps
93


55395m-1.eps
94


55395m-2.eps
95


55395a-1.eps
96


55395a-2.eps
97


55395i-1.eps
98


55395i-2.eps
99


55395i-3.eps
100


55395j.eps
101


55395k.eps
102


55395l.eps
103


55395x-1.eps
104


55395x-2.eps
105


55395y-1.eps
106


55395y-2.eps
107


55395y-3.eps
108


55395o-1.eps
109


55395o-2.eps
110


55395p-1.eps
111


55395p-2.eps
112


55395p-3.eps
113


55395p-4.eps
114


55395q.eps
115


55395r.eps
116


55395s.eps
117


55395t.eps
118


55395u-1.eps
119


55395u-2.eps
120


55395u-3.eps
121


55395v-1.eps
122


55395v-2.eps
123


55395w-1.eps
124


55395w-2.eps
125

Æ


55395w-3.eps