Promoting global Internet freedom: policy and technology

This report provides information about US government and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Modern communication tools such as the Internet provide a relatively inexpensive, accessible, easy-entry means of sharing ideas, information, and pictures around the world. In a political and human rights context, in closed societies when the more established, formal news media is denied access to or does not report on specified news events, the Internet has become an alternative source of media, and sometimes a means to organize politically. The openness and the freedom of expression allowed through social networking sites, as well as the blogs, video sharing sites, and other tools of today’s communications technology, have proven to be an unprecedented and often disruptive force in some closed societies. Governments that seek to maintain their authority and control the ideas and information their citizens receive are often caught in a dilemma: they feel that they need access to the Internet to participate in commerce in the global market and for economic growth and technological development, but fear that allowing open access to the Internet potentially weakens their control over their citizens. Internet freedom can be promoted in two ways, through legislation that mandates or prohibits certain activities, or through industry self regulation. Current legislation under consideration by Congress, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 (H.R. 3605), would prohibit or require reporting of the sale of Internet technologies and provision of Internet services to “Internetrestricting countries” (as determined by the State Department). Some believe, however, that technology can offer a complementary and, in some cases, better and more easily implemented solution to ensuring Internet freedom. They argue that hardware and Internet services, in and of themselves, are neutral elements of the Internet; it is how they are implemented by various countries that is repressive. Also, Internet services are often tailored for deployment to specific countries; however, such tailoring is done to bring the company in line with the laws of that country, not with the intention of allowing the country to repress and censor its citizenry. In many cases, that tailoring would not raise many questions about free speech and political repression. This report provides information about federal and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Three appendixes suggest further reading on this topic and describe censorship and circumvention technologies

U.S. Military Space Programs: An Overview of Appropriations and Current Issues

The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military space activities be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD and the intelligence community manage a broad array of space activities, including launch vehicle development, communications satellites, navigation satellites (the Global Positioning System — GPS), early warning satellites to alert the United States to foreign missile launches, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to adversaries (called “space control” or “counterspace systems”). The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War is dubbed by some as the first “space war” because support from space displayed great improvement over what was available during the previous major conflict, Vietnam. These systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military operations. How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space programs has been an issue for many years. Tracking the DOD space budget is extremely difficult since space is not identified as a separate line item in the DOD budget. Additionally, DOD sometimes releases only partial information (omitting funding for classified programs) or will suddenly release without explanation new figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported. Figures provided to CRS show a total (classified and unclassified) DOD space budget of $19.4 billion for FY2003,$20 billion for FY2004, $19.8 billion for FY2005, and a request of$22.5 billion for FY2006. The actual FY2006 and proposed FY2007 budget figures are not yet available. Two DOD space programs that have been particularly controversial are Space Radar (formerly Space-Based Radar — SBR) and TSAT (the transformational communications satellite program). The programs are controversial because their cost estimates are high, and Congress has been skeptical of those estimates and of DOD’s ability to manage the programs successfully based on past program performance. Congress cut DOD’s $226 million FY2006 request for Space Radar by$126 million and its $836 million FY2006 request for TSAT by$400 million. The FY2007 requests for those programs are $266 million for Space Radar and$867 million for TSAT. This report replaces part of CRS Issue Brief IB92011, U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial, originally written by Marcia S. Smith. It will be updated as events warrant

U.S. Military Space Programs: An Overview of Appropriations and Current Issues

The 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act specified that military space activities be conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD and the intelligence community manage a broad array of space activities, including launch vehicle development, communications satellites, navigation satellites (the Global Positioning System — GPS), early warning satellites to alert the United States to foreign missile launches, weather satellites, reconnaissance satellites, and developing capabilities to protect U.S. satellite systems and to deny the use of space to adversaries (called “space control” or “counterspace systems”). The 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War is dubbed by some as the first “space war” because support from space displayed great improvement over what was available during the previous major conflict, Vietnam. These systems continue to play significant roles in U.S. military operations. How to organize DOD and the intelligence community to work effectively on space programs has been an issue for many years. Tracking the DOD space budget is extremely difficult since space is not identified as a separate line item in the DOD budget. Additionally, DOD sometimes releases only partial information (omitting funding for classified programs) or will suddenly release without explanation new figures for prior years that are quite different from what was previously reported. Figures provided to CRS show a total (classified and unclassified) DOD space budget of $19.4 billion for FY2003,$20 billion for FY2004, $19.8 billion for FY2005, and a request of$22.5 billion for FY2006. The actual FY2006 and proposed FY2007 budget figures are not yet available. Two DOD space programs that have been particularly controversial are Space Radar (formerly Space-Based Radar — SBR) and TSAT (the transformational communications satellite program). The programs are controversial because their cost estimates are high, and Congress has been skeptical of those estimates and of DOD’s ability to manage the programs successfully based on past program performance. Congress cut DOD’s $226 million FY2006 request for Space Radar by$126 million and its $836 million FY2006 request for TSAT by$400 million. The FY2007 requests for those programs are $266 million for Space Radar and$867 million for TSAT. This report replaces part of CRS Issue Brief IB92011, U.S. Space Programs: Civilian, Military, and Commercial, originally written by Marcia S. Smith. It will be updated as events warrant

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 to enhance the effectiveness of the various programs. In conjunction with the passage of the act, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released Grand Challenges: High-Performance Computing and Communications. Current concerns are the role of the federal government in supporting IT R&D and the level of funding to allot to it. This report also looks at federal budgets for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape

The report discusses the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-Related Congressional Actions in the 112th Congress

Video Relay Service: Program Funding and Reform

This report provides an introduction on how video relay service works and the program overview. It discusses the fundamental restructuring of the program to support innovation and competition

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

This report discusses the federal government's role in the country's information technology (IT) research and development (R&D) activities. The government's support of IT R&D began because it had an important interest in creating computers and software that would be capable of addressing the problems and issues the government needed to solve and study

Digital Surveillance: The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, P.L. 103- 414, 47 USC 1001-1010), enacted October 25, 1994, is intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently despite the deployment of new digital technologies and wireless services that have altered the character of electronic surveillance. CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to modify their equipment, facilities, and services, wherever reasonably achievable, to ensure that they are able to comply with authorized electronic surveillance actions

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities

This report discusses federal funding for IT research and development. Proponents assert that federal support of IT R&D has produced positive outcomes for the country and played a crucial role in supporting long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing. Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be picking “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing with the private sector

The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities

This report presents funding issues and activities of the federal networking and information technology research and development program