The document proposes several provisions for legislation regarding internet companies operating in repressive regimes: 1) Legislation should be universal and aimed at repressive practices like human rights violations, not specific governments. 2) Companies should be required to warn users when data may be shared with governments or third parties so users can make informed decisions. 3) Legislation should prohibit companies from voluntarily censoring content to appease repressive governments. 4) Users should be notified when companies are forced to censor content through a court order and given means to anonymously appeal censorship.

1. Analyze and critique each of these with regards to your own agenda
Universality:
Due to the nature of the Internet, an effective piece of legislation would have to be
universal- meaning that it is not aimed at repressive governments- but at repressive
practices. In this instance, repressive practices are defined as violation of Human
Rights principals committed by these international companies.
Warning of Risks:
There needs to be an inclusion of a clause mandates the issuance of warnings when a
company is bound to share data with one or a number of governments and/or a third
party. Therefore, giving the user the knowledge of the risks and furthermore the
ability to make an informed decision.

2. Analyze and critique each of these with regards to your own agenda
Prohibition of Voluntary Censorship:
Legislation of this sort will be drafted under the understanding that companies do
not operate in countries with repressive governments with the intent of becoming
censors or facilitators of governmental persecution based on online activity. Certain
companies have been accused of such practices- such as Yahoo! providing user data
to the Chinese government. Such actions are taken by companies in order to get on
the “good side” of certain governments through anticipating what kind of content
they might be asked to censor based on past instances. The role of legislation here
would be to prohibit individual companies from taking steps towards voluntary
censorship. Furthermore, international companies operating within a foreign country
should not be allowed to comply without a court order. This is, fortunately, perfectly
aligned with many repressive governments claims that they are interested in
enforcing the “rule of law” on Internet activity.

3. User Notification when the Companies are forced to censor
Following the issuance of a court order, companies are forced to censor content. In
this case, an adequate legislation would require the informing of users, of who and
why censorship is taking place. Furthermore, companies should provide should
provide the possibility of an appeal where users challenge the censorship they are
facing anonymously and securely.
Analyze and critique each of these with regards to your own agenda
No User Data in Repressive Jurisdictions:
Companies should be legally bound to refrain from hosting personally identifying
user data in courts that are known to have a lack of tolerance for individuals’ active
expression of political, social or religious views online. This enables companies to
avoid having to comply with governments’ request to provide information that would
enable the persecution of internet users that use it the World Wide Web as an outlet
for expression.
Full Documentation:
Companies are called upon to maintain written documentation of the requests made
on behalf of governments requesting for the censorship of terms and web addresses

4. and this written documentation should specify which of these requests were
accepted and acted upon and those that were rejected. Moreover, this
documentation should indicate the purpose for which any of said requests were met
and in accordance to what law has this taken place. This documentation should be
fully accessible by the public of any one state
Analyze and critique each of these with regards to your own agenda
Fines and Victims’ Right to Compensation:
In any case should a company violate the laws that regulate the operation of internet
companies within countries known for their repressive approach to internet activism,
victims or their family members should be granted the right to pursue compensation
as well as the ability to seek legal remedies within courts whose jurisdiction they are
subject to.

5. Global
Legislation should not be confined to specific territories or nations but rather, should
apply to all nations with companies operating within their territories in order to up
hold the highest standards of freedom of expression in attempts to effectively tackle
the global issue of political censorship.