[LINK] Censoring of Cuban Websites by the US

[Ambrose Andrews]

http://www.juventudrebelde.co.cu/international/2008-03-06/scandalous-censoring-of-cuban-websites-by-the-us-revealed/

Scandalous Censoring of Cuban Websites by the US Revealed

By: Adam Liptak

Email:
2008-03-06 | 12:33:16 EST

Steve Marshall is an English travel agent. He lives in Spain and sells
trips to Europeans who want to go to sunny places, including Cuba. In
October, about 80 of his Websites stopped working, thanks to the
United States government.

The sites —in English, French and Spanish— had been online since 1998.
Some, like www.cuba-hemingway.com, were literary. Others, like
www.cuba-havanacity.com, discussed Cuban history and culture. Still
others —www.ciaocuba.com and www.bonjourcuba.com— were purely
commercial sites aimed at Italian and French tourists.

“I came to work in the morning, and we had no reservations at all,”
said Mr. Marshall by phone from the Canary Islands. “We thought it was
a technical problem.”

It turned out, though, that Mr. Marshall’s Web sites had been put on a
US Treasury Department blacklist and, as a consequence, his American
domain name with the server “eNom Inc.,” had been disabled. Mr.
Marshall said eNom told him that it had done so after a call from the
Treasury Department; the company, based in Bellevue, Wash., says it
learned that the sites were on the blacklist through a blog.

Either way, there is no disputing that eNom shut down Mr. Marshall’s
sites without notifying him and has refused to release the domain
names to him. In effect, Mr. Marshall said, eNom has taken his
property and interfered with his business. He has slowly rebuilt his
Web business over the last several months, and now many of the same
sites operate with the suffix .net rather than .com, through a
European registry. His servers, he said, have been in the Bahamas all
along.

Mr. Marshall said he did not understand “how Websites owned by a
British national operating via a Spanish travel agency can be affected
by US law.” Worse, he said, “these days not even a judge is required
for the US government to censor online materials.”

A Treasury spokesman, John Rankin, referred a caller to a press
release issued in December 2004, almost three years before eNom acted.
It said Mr. Marshall’s company had helped Americans evade restrictions
on travel to Cuba and was “a generator of resources that the Cuban
regime uses to oppress its people.” It added that American companies
must not only stop doing business with the company but also freeze its
assets, meaning that eNom did exactly what it was legally required to
do.

Mr. Marshall said he was uninterested in American tourists. “They
can’t go anyway,” he said.

Peter L. Fitzgerald, a law professor at Stetson University in Florida
who has studied the blacklist —which the Treasury calls a list of
“specially designated nationals”— said its operation was quite
mysterious. “There really is no explanation or standard,” he said,
“for why someone gets on the list.”

Susan Crawford, a visiting law professor at Yale and a leading
authority on Internet law, said the fact that many large domain name
registrars are based in the United States gives the Treasury’s Office
of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC, control “over a great deal of
speech — none of which may be actually hosted in the U.S., about the
U.S. or conflicting with any U.S. rights.”

“OFAC apparently has the power to order that this speech disappear,”
Professor Crawford said.

The law under which the Treasury Department is acting has an
exemption, known as the Berman Amendment, which seeks to protect
“information or informational materials.” Mr. Marshall’s Web sites,
though ultimately commercial, would seem to qualify, and it is not
clear why they appear on the list. Unlike Americans, who face
significant restrictions on travel to Cuba, Europeans are free to go
there, and many do. Charles S. Sims, a lawyer with Proskauer Rose in
New York, said the Treasury Department might have gone too far in Mr.
Marshall’s case.

“The U.S can certainly criminalize the expenditure of money by U.S.
citizens in Cuba,” Mr. Sims said, “but it doesn’t properly have any
jurisdiction over foreign sites that are not targeted at the U.S. and
which are lawful under foreign law.”

Mr. Rankin, the Treasury spokesman, said Mr. Marshall was free to ask
for a review of his case. “If they want to be taken off the list,” Mr.
Rankin said, “they should contact us to make their case.”

That is a problematic system, Professor Fitzgerald said. “The way to
get off the list,” he said, “is to go back to the same bureaucrat who
put you on.”

Last March, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights issued a
disturbing report on the OFAC list. Its subtitle: “How a Treasury
Department Terrorist Watch List Ensnares Everyday Consumers.”

The report, by Shirin Sinnar, said that there were 6,400 names on the
list and that, like no-fly lists at airports, it gave rise to endless
and serious problems of mistaken identity.

“Financial institutions, credit bureaus, charities, car dealerships,
health insurers, landlords and employers,” the report said, “are now
checking names against the list before they open an account, close a
sale, rent an apartment or offer a job.”

But Mr. Marshall’s case does not appear to be one of mistaken
identity. The government quite specifically intended to interfere with
his business.

That, Professor Crawford said, is a scandal. “The way we communicate
these days is through domain names, and the Treasury Department should
not be interfering with domain names just as it does not interfere
with telecommunications lines.”

Curiously, the Treasury Department has not shut down all of Mr.
Marshall’s .com sites. You can still find, for now,
www.cuba-guantanamo.com.

(Taken form The New York Times, March 4, 2008)
Footnote for The New York Times

The New York Times is right in calling the decision of the United
States to enforce its policy toward Cuba on the Internet “scandalous.”
It is an excellent article but leaves out key information that will
help understand why the censorship of websites with the suffix .com,
the most widely used on the Internet, is just the tip of the iceberg
in a wave of aggression against Cuba and the world Internet.

—How many domains with the suffix .com related to Cuba are there in
the black list of the US Treasure Department?

—Thoroughly and patiently revised, the OFAC list comprises 577
“damned” enterprises all over the world and 3,719 .com domains have
been blocked on the Internet without a previous warning to their
owners. For an idea of what it means, one can look at the most recent
register of domains in Latin America (www.latinoamericann.org). There
one can find that Cuba has 1,434 websites under the domain .cu. In
other words, the United States has blocked almost three times as many
websites as the number Cuba has registered under its own domain.

—What is eNom, the company that blocked Mr. Marshall´s websites?

—eNom Inc is he second largest domain registry company in the world,
and is accredited by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers), an independent organization under which the
Internet is organized. The ICANN designates the names and the numbers
of domains, which are equivalent to postal districts on the Internet.

—Can the United States block the entire Internet?

—This is new evidence that the United States not only controls access
to the Internet of its citizens, but the access of all users to the
world Internet. Although there is an abundance of rhetoric about
freedom on the Internet, ICANN has to comply with the US Department of
Commerce and American legislation. Any legal claim on property rights
must be taken to an international court. However, eNom not only
responded to a decision of the American government that violates the
legislations of other countries, but it did so without a previous
warning to the companies and people affected, as was noted by The New
York Times. This fact shows that the United States controls the main
international servers and can block anything on the web at will, even
without the pretext of terrorist aggression.

—Under what law does the United States violate the sovereignty of Cuba
and other countries on the Internet?

—The so-called Torricelli Act, passed in 1992, authorizes the
connection of Cuba to the Internet via satellite with the condition
that every megabyte (range of speed connection) be contracted with an
American firm and that sites have to be approved by the Treasury
Department. It established limitations on transactions and set
extraordinary sanctions —like fines of $50,000 USD for each violation—
for those either in or outside the United States. This has been
rigorously enforced and OFAC, which has gradually expanded its black
list until the extremes recently disclosed by the American newspaper.

—What can be done?

—The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established that
any person in the world can present a lawsuit with the name of a
domain registered under the suffixes .com, .net and .org. According to
Item 4 of the policy of ICANN, a case can be taken to an international
arbitrator in instances of abusive registries of the name of a domain
or its censorship, circumstances that will have to be proven through
the lawsuit. Thanks to this article of The New York Times and the
opinion of specialists consulted by the author, there are 3,719
possible lawsuits for censorship by the United States government in
sight. Which one will begin first?


--
Ambrose Andrews
LPO box 8274 ANU Acton ACT 0200 Australia
http://www.vrvl.net/~ambrose/
mailto:ambrose at vrvl.net
voicemail:+61_261112936
work:+61_261256749
mobile:+61_415544621
irc:{undernet|freenode|oftc}:znalo
xmpp:ambrose at jabber.fsfe.org
skype:znalo7
CE38 8B79 C0A7 DF4A 4F54  E352 2647 19A1 DB3B F823
556A 6D19 0904 827C 9DB8  3697 32D0 1E11 403F 2BE1