Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a speech in which she made it clear that Internet freedom would be a major theme of the US government's attempts to get information to the citizens of repressive governments. Things haven't change much in the interim, with the conviction of Google executives in Italy serving as a reminder that it's not simply repressive regimes that put companies in legal hot water. With those events as a backdrop, the US Senate's Judiciary Committee heard testimony today on Internet freedom that emphasized how challenging it will be to find a way to open up the flow of information in repressive regimes.

The Google-Italy case did figure briefly, as an example of how even a country with values that have a significant overlap with those of the US can have significant legal differences when it comes to online activities (Italy lacks the US' safe harbor provisions for hosts of user-generated online content). Still, the hearings focused primarily on those nations, such as China and Iran, that exercise significant control over online content.

The consensus at the hearings is that it's in the US government's interests to continue to promote the free flow of information on the Internet, including in states like China and Iran. The challenges that these nations pose came up throughout the testimony, but were best summarized in the testimony of Rebecca MacKinnon a Fellow at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy. MacKinnon noted that almost every aspect of technology and law that cause problems for the citizens of repressive regimes all have legitimate uses in other contexts.

So, for example, although US law allows a safe harbor, it remains illegal here to transfer things like child porn or classified materials over the Internet. In other nations, however, various forms of basic political activity are illegal, and Internet companies may end up acting as censors or informants in order to comply with the laws of other countries. Adding filtering capabilities to network hardware is essential for basic security, but the same technology can be used to enforce censorship.

The Global Network Initiative, meant to foster freedom of expression, had so far attracted only three corporations as members (Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo).

Sanctions and export controls also create problems. Google's Nicole Wang suggested that browser-based encryption could potentially help dissidents communicate securely, but her company cannot allow downloads to nations like Cuba and Iran. And a former Iranian blogger who has lived in the US since his 2004 detention by Iranian security forces pointed out that sanctions prevent US-based companies from hosting material where it's out of reach of Iranian authorities.

Clearly, some finer-grained legal frameworks could help in these instances, but they wouldn't be enough to force systematic change in how both US regulators and businesses approach these markets.

When it comes to the current US administration, representatives for the Departments of State and Commerce were on hand to describe the progress of a multiagency task force that's in the process of reviewing how best to promote Internet freedom in other countries. But, in response to questions from Tom Coburn (R-OK), the Commerce representative said that the results wouldn't be ready for public comment until several months from now.

In the meantime, the State Department is pursuing various informal methods of promoting the safe exchange of information with the citizens of repressive regimes, although it has to balance those activities against the risk of discrediting dissidents by having them appear to be too closely associated with the US. Some of the Department's efforts include hosting censored or deleted materials, providing education in the use of software for evading censorship and monitoring, and helping groups in different nations share relevant expertise.

The Commerce Department sees its role as using business regulation as a way of promoting freer exchange. Many governments saddle US-based companies with burdensome regulations or inferior technologies as part of their censorship efforts—China's Green Dam-Youth Escort was used as an example—and Commerce can help organize and add weight to the resistance.

But hearing Chair Richard Durbin (D-IL) also complained that many companies simply seemed uninterested in participating in the process. He noted that Twitter and Facebook were invited to send representatives to the hearings, but declined. The Global Network Initiative, meant to foster freedom of expression, had so far attracted only three corporations as members (Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo). What's needed, MacKinnon argued, is a change in attitude: "Just as companies have a social responsibility not to pollute our air and water or exploit twelve-year-olds, companies have a responsibility not to collaborate with the suppression of peaceful speech. "

So, how do we drive this sort of cultural change in businesses? MacKinnon suggested one way to get there would be the classic American approach to almost anything: a lawsuit. She recommended that US laws allow those targeted for repression to sue any US-based companies that turned over information on them. Durbin also mentioned that he was considering a bill that would require companies take steps to protect human rights overseas.

Overall, the clear message is that using the US' economic and political leverage to drive an open Internet will be a long and difficult process. Companies will always have to balance their humanitarian instincts against their business interests, and a lone company won't be able to drive significant change on its own. The government can play an important role in coordinating the efforts of US-based businesses and providing support and expertise for local dissidents. All of those, combined with the content-agnostic nature of the Internet itself should eventually be enough to open some societies, but it won't happen overnight, and the efforts will almost certainly require a fine-tuning of US law along the way.