In the late 1960s and 1970s, advancements in telecommunications technologies enabled the creation of a large-scale, interconnected network called ARPANET ("Advanced Research Projects Agency Network"). ARPANET was created by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as a government-funded enterprise until the mid-1990s, when it began commercialization. Today's Internet is a direct outgrowth of the technologies developed and lessons learned from ARPANET. During the late 1990s, the Internet began having a significant impact on culture and commerce, including the exponential increase of near instant communication by electronic mail (e-mail), text-based discussion forums, and the graphical World Wide Web. Today, the Internet has evolved even further and many people are using newer tools, such as blogs, social networks, video sharing sites, and other aspects of today's communications technology to express their political ideals, many times in conflict with the political opinions and outlook espoused by their governments. In this way, the Internet has proven to be an unprecedented and often disruptive force in some closed societies, as the governments seek to maintain their authority and control the ideas and information their citizens receive. These regimes are often caught in a dilemma: they need the Internet to participate in commerce in the global market and for economic growth and technological development, but they also seek to restrict the Internet in order to maintain the government's control. Figure 3 illustrates an assessment by Freedom House of the extent to which selected countries restrict freedom on the Internet. In Burma during the 2007 Saffron Revolution, YouTube footage, often filmed with cell phone cameras, conveyed to the world the human rights violations against the monks and generated international awareness and reaction. Demonstrations in Tehran following the June 12, 2009, presidential elections were often organized through Twitter and text messages over cell phones. The Iranian government's violent response to the demonstrations was spread around the world through live cell phone pictures, e-mails, and phone calls. The Voice of America (VOA) reported that during the demonstrations, Iranians sent VOA over 300 videos a day, along with thousands of still pictures, e-mails, and telephone calls to the agency. A variety of control mechanisms are employed by regimes seeking to limit the ways the Internet is used, ranging from sophisticated surveillance and censorship to threats of retaliation (which foster self-censorship) and actual harassment and arrests of Internet users. Such regimes often require the assistance of foreign Internet companies operating in their countries. These global technology companies find themselves in a dilemma. They often must choose between following the laws and the requests of authorities of the host country, or refusing to do so and risking the loss of business licenses or the ability to sell services in that country. Human rights groups have protested that Yahoo! and Google censor and remove material deemed sensitive by host governments on country-specific search engines. Microsoft is said to censor Chinese versions of its blog platforms. Human rights groups also charge that Yahoo! has provided Chinese authorities personal identifying information about users that has allowed the government to identify and arrest individuals for statements made on the Web. A representative of Google, Inc. acknowledged the problem of government involvement, noting As our ... Burma experiences indicate, our products are platforms for free expression, transparency, and accountability. Because of this, we often face efforts by governments throughout the world to restrict or deny access to our products. The Global Online Freedom Act of 2009 (GOFA) ( H.R. 2271 ), introduced by Representative Christopher Smith, would mandate that companies selling Internet technologies and services to repressive countries take actions to combat censorship and protect personally identifiable information. Some believe, however, that technology can offer a complementary and, in some cases, better and more easily implemented solution to prevent government censorship. Hardware and Internet services, in and of themselves, are neutral elements of the Internet; it is how they are implemented by various countries that makes Internet access "repressive." For example, hardware, such as routers, is needed to provide Internet service everywhere. However, hardware features intended for day-to-day Internet traffic management, conducted by Internet service providers (ISPs) and governments for benign purposes, can be misused. Repressive governments are able to use these features to censor traffic and monitor use—sometimes using them to identify specific individuals for prosecution. It is not currently feasible to remove those features from the product, even when sold to countries that use those features to repress political speech. On the other hand, Internet services, such as Google, are often tailored for deployment to specific countries. Such tailoring is done to bring the company's products and services in line with the laws of that country, and not with the end goal of allowing the country to repress and censor its citizenry. In many cases, tailoring does not raise many questions about free speech and political repression because the country is not considered to be a repressive regime. Under Canadian human rights law, for example, it is illegal to promote violence against protected groups; therefore, when reported, Google.ca will remove such links from search results. Internet censorship and the prosecution of individuals who attempt to circumvent that censorship are unlikely to be eliminated in some countries. However, while some governments are continually looking for new and more thorough methods to restrict or inhibit Internet use, citizens in these countries are active in developing techniques to circumvent those efforts. The organization Reporters Without Borders has listed 15 countries where Internet freedom is restricted. These countries are China, Cuba, North Korea, Belarus, Myanmar, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe. This report uses China as an illustrative case study. The People's Republic of China (PRC) has the world's largest number of Internet users, estimated at 330 million people, including 70 million bloggers. It also has one of the most sophisticated and aggressive Internet censorship and control regimes in the world. According to some estimates, between 30 and 40 Chinese citizens are serving prison sentences for writing about politically sensitive topics online. In November 2009, Huang Qi, a human rights advocate, was sentenced to three years in prison for "possessing state secrets" after posting online appeals and complaints of families whose children had been killed in school buildings during the Sichuan earthquake of May 2008. Some studies show that the vast majority of Internet users in China do not view the medium as a political tool. Nonetheless, Chinese Internet users are able to access unprecedented amounts of information, despite government attempts to limit the flow, while political activists and others continue to push back against restrictions and find ways to circumvent censorship. PRC officials have argued that Internet controls are necessary for social stability and that new restrictions target pornography and other "harmful content." Chinese official commentary has suggested that the U.S. government has applied a double standard, regulating the Internet at home while calling for other countries to eliminate controls. The PRC government also has referred to U.S. criticism of Internet restrictions in China as politically motivated and an interference in China's domestic affairs. The PRC government employs a variety of methods to control online content and expression, including website blocking and keyword filtering; regulating and monitoring Internet service providers, Internet cafes, and university bulletin board systems; registering websites and blogs; and occasional arrests of high-profile "cyber dissidents" or crackdowns on Internet service providers. Some analysts argue that even though the PRC government cannot control all Internet content and use, its selective targeting creates an undercurrent of fear and promotes self-censorship. Blocked websites, social networking sites, and file sharing sites include Radio Free Asia, international human rights websites, many Taiwanese newspapers, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The government reportedly has hired thousands of students to express pro-government views on websites, bulletin boards, and chat rooms. Furthermore, some analysts argue that the Internet has enhanced government propaganda and surveillance capabilities. Nonetheless, the Internet has made it impossible for the Chinese government to restrict information as fully as before; bulletin boards, comment boards, chat rooms, blogs, and other outlets have allowed for an unprecedented amount of information and public comment on social and other issues. Although the state has the capability to block news of events or to partially shut down the Internet, as it did in Xinjiang following ethnic unrest that erupted there in July 2009, it often cannot do so before such events are publicized, if only fleetingly, online. The threat of public exposure or condemnation through the Internet reportedly has compelled some government officials to conduct affairs more openly. For Chinese Internet users in search of censored information, circumventing government controls is often made possible by way of "proxy servers" or "virtual private networks" using special software. Furthermore, English language news sites, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post , are generally available. Some human rights activists and U.S. policy makers have expressed concern that U.S. Internet companies have sold Internet services or technologies to China that have assisted the PRC government in restricting information and communication and in monitoring and identifying Internet users. U.S. congressional committees and commissions have held hearings on the topics of global Internet freedom and the roles of U.S. Internet and technology companies in China's censorship regime. Some media watchdog groups and members of Congress have maintained that some U.S. information technology companies, including Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Cisco Systems, have provided willing, direct, sustained, or comprehensive support to PRC Internet censorship and political control efforts. U.S. information technology companies have responded that they must abide by the laws of the countries in which they operate, and that they are not actively cooperating or collaborating with the PRC government or tailoring their products to suit PRC censorship requirements. These companies add that despite PRC censorship policies, they nonetheless are enlarging the volume of information available in China and other Internet-restricting countries, and can better press for freedom of expression and protection of privacy while located in these countries.