This document is available as a pdf.

October 26, 2010

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Ranking Member Jeff Sessions
United States Senate
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: S. 3804, Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)

Dear  Chairman  Leahy  and  Ranking  Member  Sessions:

The  undersigned  advocates  and  human  rights  and  press  freedom  organizations  write  to  express  our  deep   concern  about  S.  3804,  the  “Combating  Online  Infringement  and  Counterfeits  Act”  (COICA).    While  we   sympathize  with  the  underlying  goals  of  S.  3804,  we  believe  that  key  provisions  in  the  bill  will  result  in  serious   unintended  consequences  for  freedom  of  expression  and  human  rights  on  the  Internet,  undermining  global   Internet  freedom  abroad.    We  urge  you  to  refrain  from  moving  this  legislation  until  these  issues  are  fully   examined  and  addressed.

In  its  essence,  the  bill  would  enshrine  in  US  law  a  legal  process  that  would  force  Internet  service  providers  (ISPs)   to  block  certain  communications  based  on  content,  oblige  registry  operators  to  lock  domains  for  the  entire   world,  and  create  an  extrajudicial  blacklist  of  suspected  content—setting  a  precedent  that  we  believe  would   reverberate  around  the  globe.    Over  forty  countries  now  filter  or  block  content  on  the  Internet  to  some  degree,   and  that  number  is  growing.    Even  more  problematic,  filtering  is  no  longer  the  sole  province  of  pariah  states;   liberal  democracies  like  Australia  are  also  considering  mandatory  filtering  regimes.    Historically,  the  United   States  has  been  the  bulwark  against  censorship  and  government-­?imposed  blocking  of  Internet  content.    If  the   United  States  sets  the  precedent  that  any  country  can  order  the  blocking  of  a  domain  name  of  a  foreign  website   or  seize  such  a  domain  (thus  taking  down  content  for  the  world),  it  will  forfeit  the  high  ground  in  this  global   debate,  and  the  effort  to  secure  the  rights  of  Internet  users  and  citizen  journalists  around  the  world  to  speak   and  access  legal  content  may  be  irreparably  harmed.

The  human  rights  community  has  strongly  condemned  countries  that  use  the  tactics  proposed  in  COICA  to  take   down  content  for  a  site’s  global  user  base.    In  Turkey,  for  example,  YouTube  has  been  blocked  for  several  years   because  it  refuses  to  disable  access  to  content  illegal  under  local  law  for  the  site’s  global  user  base.    Advocates   in  Turkey  have  been  working  to  rescind  this  order.    Yet  this  bill  would  ratify  global  content  blocking  by  allowing   the  Attorney  General  with  a  court  order  to  direct  a  registry  operator  or  registrar  located  in  the  US  to  disable   access  to  a  domain  name  for  the  global  Internet.    While  the  technical  mechanisms  for  achieving  this  may  vary,   the  effect  is  the  same:  COICA  would  stand  for  the  proposition  that  countries  have  the  right  to  insist  on  removal   of  content  from  the  global  Internet  in  service  to  the  exigencies  of  domestic  law.    Nothing  in  principle  would  limit   application  of  this  approach  solely  to  copyright  infringement.

COICA  could  also  lead  many  states,  including  liberal  democracies,  to  adopt  similar  policies  directed  at  US   content,  taking  it  down  worldwide.    Content  that  is  fully  protected  under  the  First  Amendment  remains proscribable  in  other  countries,  such  as  hate  speech  in  France  and  Germany,  and  local  access  to  such  speech   remains  a  frustration  for  governments  in  those  countries.    And  of  course,  COICA’s  approach  could  be  misused  in   countries  where  the  rule  of  law  is  weak  or  entirely  absent.    As  Microsoft’s  recent  experiences  in  Russia  have   revealed,  governments  can  exploit  copyright  laws  as  a  pretext  for  suppression  of  political  speech  in  other  parts   of  the  world.    Further,  once  the  US  sends  the  green  light,  the  use  of  domain  locking  or  ISP  domain  blocking  to   silence  other  kinds  of  content  considered  unlawful  in  a  given  country—from  criticism  of  the  monarchy  in   Thailand  to  any  speech  that  “harms  the  interests  of  the  nation”  in  China—could  metastasize,  impacting  bloggers,   citizen  journalists,  democracy  movements,  human  rights  advocates,  and  ordinary  users  all  over  the  world.    For   countries  already  engaged  in  ISP  blocking,  US  precedent  would  legitimize  the  actions  of  their  governments,   undermining  the  US  government’s  ability  to  criticize  such  practices.    And  the  precedent  that  domain  locking  or   blocking  can  be  encouraged  through  an  extrajudicial  blacklist  only  intensifies  this  risk.

Finally,  directing  ISPs  to  block  content  through  DNS  tampering  directly  undermines  the  US  government’s   commitment  to  advancing  one  global  Internet.    In  her  February  speech  at  the  Newseum,  Secretary  of  State   Clinton  decried  the  development  of  “a  new  information  curtain  []  descending  across  much  of  the  world,”  and   declared  the  United  States’  support  “for  a  single  Internet  where  all  of  humanity  has  equal  access  to  knowledge   and  ideas.”    If  many  other  countries  adopt  COICA’s  approach—and  there  is  little  doubt  that  they  will—it  will   worsen  the  balkanization  of  the  Internet,  where  the  information  any  individual  can  access  will  depend  entirely   on  where  that  individual  sits.    Freedom  of  expression  and  association  are  universal  rights;  further  balkanization   of  the  Internet  undermines  these  rights  and  threatens  the  potential  of  the  Internet  as  a  powerful  tool  for   advancing  human  rights  and  democracy.  

In  all,  this  bill  is  in  tension  with  current  US  foreign  policy  and  could  have  grave  repercussions  for  global  human   rights  and  the  free  and  open  Internet.    We  sympathize  with  frustration  over  copyright  enforcement  in  a  global   environment,  but  Congress  must  not  enact  COICA  (S.  3804)  without  fully  addressing  its  impact  on  other  core  US   values  and  policy  objectives.    We  look  forward  to  working  with  you  to  identify  ways  to  address  legitimate   concerns  about  copyright  infringement  without  undermining  Internet  freedom  and  user  rights.

Respectfully  submitted,

American  Civil  Liberties  Union
  Center  for  Democracy  &  Technology
  Electronic  Frontier  Foundation
  Freedom  House
  Human  Rights  First
  Human  Rights  Watch
  Rebecca  MacKinnon
  Reporters  Sans  Frontie?res
  World  Press  Freedom  Committee

This document is available as a pdf.

October 26, 2010

Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
United States Senate
433 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Ranking Member Jeff Sessions
United States Senate
335 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Re: S. 3804, Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)

Dear  Chairman  Leahy  and  Ranking  Member  Sessions:

The  undersigned  advocates  and  human  rights  and  press  freedom  organizations  write  to  express  our  deep   concern  about  S.  3804,  the  “Combating  Online  Infringement  and  Counterfeits  Act”  (COICA).    While  we   sympathize  with  the  underlying  goals  of  S.  3804,  we  believe  that  key  provisions  in  the  bill  will  result  in  serious   unintended  consequences  for  freedom  of  expression  and  human  rights  on  the  Internet,  undermining  global   Internet  freedom  abroad.    We  urge  you  to  refrain  from  moving  this  legislation  until  these  issues  are  fully   examined  and  addressed.

In  its  essence,  the  bill  would  enshrine  in  US  law  a  legal  process  that  would  force  Internet  service  providers  (ISPs)   to  block  certain  communications  based  on  content,  oblige  registry  operators  to  lock  domains  for  the  entire   world,  and  create  an  extrajudicial  blacklist  of  suspected  content—setting  a  precedent  that  we  believe  would   reverberate  around  the  globe.    Over  forty  countries  now  filter  or  block  content  on  the  Internet  to  some  degree,   and  that  number  is  growing.    Even  more  problematic,  filtering  is  no  longer  the  sole  province  of  pariah  states;   liberal  democracies  like  Australia  are  also  considering  mandatory  filtering  regimes.    Historically,  the  United   States  has  been  the  bulwark  against  censorship  and  government-­?imposed  blocking  of  Internet  content.    If  the   United  States  sets  the  precedent  that  any  country  can  order  the  blocking  of  a  domain  name  of  a  foreign  website   or  seize  such  a  domain  (thus  taking  down  content  for  the  world),  it  will  forfeit  the  high  ground  in  this  global   debate,  and  the  effort  to  secure  the  rights  of  Internet  users  and  citizen  journalists  around  the  world  to  speak   and  access  legal  content  may  be  irreparably  harmed.

The  human  rights  community  has  strongly  condemned  countries  that  use  the  tactics  proposed  in  COICA  to  take   down  content  for  a  site’s  global  user  base.    In  Turkey,  for  example,  YouTube  has  been  blocked  for  several  years   because  it  refuses  to  disable  access  to  content  illegal  under  local  law  for  the  site’s  global  user  base.    Advocates   in  Turkey  have  been  working  to  rescind  this  order.    Yet  this  bill  would  ratify  global  content  blocking  by  allowing   the  Attorney  General  with  a  court  order  to  direct  a  registry  operator  or  registrar  located  in  the  US  to  disable   access  to  a  domain  name  for  the  global  Internet.    While  the  technical  mechanisms  for  achieving  this  may  vary,   the  effect  is  the  same:  COICA  would  stand  for  the  proposition  that  countries  have  the  right  to  insist  on  removal   of  content  from  the  global  Internet  in  service  to  the  exigencies  of  domestic  law.    Nothing  in  principle  would  limit   application  of  this  approach  solely  to  copyright  infringement.

COICA  could  also  lead  many  states,  including  liberal  democracies,  to  adopt  similar  policies  directed  at  US   content,  taking  it  down  worldwide.    Content  that  is  fully  protected  under  the  First  Amendment  remains proscribable  in  other  countries,  such  as  hate  speech  in  France  and  Germany,  and  local  access  to  such  speech   remains  a  frustration  for  governments  in  those  countries.    And  of  course,  COICA’s  approach  could  be  misused  in   countries  where  the  rule  of  law  is  weak  or  entirely  absent.    As  Microsoft’s  recent  experiences  in  Russia  have   revealed,  governments  can  exploit  copyright  laws  as  a  pretext  for  suppression  of  political  speech  in  other  parts   of  the  world.    Further,  once  the  US  sends  the  green  light,  the  use  of  domain  locking  or  ISP  domain  blocking  to   silence  other  kinds  of  content  considered  unlawful  in  a  given  country—from  criticism  of  the  monarchy  in   Thailand  to  any  speech  that  “harms  the  interests  of  the  nation”  in  China—could  metastasize,  impacting  bloggers,   citizen  journalists,  democracy  movements,  human  rights  advocates,  and  ordinary  users  all  over  the  world.    For   countries  already  engaged  in  ISP  blocking,  US  precedent  would  legitimize  the  actions  of  their  governments,   undermining  the  US  government’s  ability  to  criticize  such  practices.    And  the  precedent  that  domain  locking  or   blocking  can  be  encouraged  through  an  extrajudicial  blacklist  only  intensifies  this  risk.

Finally,  directing  ISPs  to  block  content  through  DNS  tampering  directly  undermines  the  US  government’s   commitment  to  advancing  one  global  Internet.    In  her  February  speech  at  the  Newseum,  Secretary  of  State   Clinton  decried  the  development  of  “a  new  information  curtain  []  descending  across  much  of  the  world,”  and   declared  the  United  States’  support  “for  a  single  Internet  where  all  of  humanity  has  equal  access  to  knowledge   and  ideas.”    If  many  other  countries  adopt  COICA’s  approach—and  there  is  little  doubt  that  they  will—it  will   worsen  the  balkanization  of  the  Internet,  where  the  information  any  individual  can  access  will  depend  entirely   on  where  that  individual  sits.    Freedom  of  expression  and  association  are  universal  rights;  further  balkanization   of  the  Internet  undermines  these  rights  and  threatens  the  potential  of  the  Internet  as  a  powerful  tool  for   advancing  human  rights  and  democracy.  

In  all,  this  bill  is  in  tension  with  current  US  foreign  policy  and  could  have  grave  repercussions  for  global  human   rights  and  the  free  and  open  Internet.    We  sympathize  with  frustration  over  copyright  enforcement  in  a  global   environment,  but  Congress  must  not  enact  COICA  (S.  3804)  without  fully  addressing  its  impact  on  other  core  US   values  and  policy  objectives.    We  look  forward  to  working  with  you  to  identify  ways  to  address  legitimate   concerns  about  copyright  infringement  without  undermining  Internet  freedom  and  user  rights.

Respectfully  submitted,

American  Civil  Liberties  Union
  Center  for  Democracy  &  Technology
  Electronic  Frontier  Foundation
  Freedom  House
  Human  Rights  First
  Human  Rights  Watch
  Rebecca  MacKinnon
  Reporters  Sans  Frontie?res
  World  Press  Freedom  Committee