The United States Congress should restrict the National Security Agency’s ability to collect “bulk data” without a warrant

US IFreedom Promotion Key

US internet freedom is a key model internationally—resolves censorship by authoritarian governments

McCoy 8/25 (Shawn, Publisher @ InsideSources and previous Communications Director on Romney political Campaign, International Consequences Worry Observers of the Domestic Net Neutrality Debate, Inside Sources, 8/24/14, http://www.insidesources.com/international-consequences-worry-observers-of-the-domestic-net-neutrality-debate/)//LA

As some call for government oversight of the Internet in the United States, there are worries that implementing such regulation could undermine the US in pressing for more Internet freedom worldwide. Leading up to the Global Internet Governance Forum in early September, other countries are watching the domestic debate in the US and looking for clues in Washington’s thinking. In 2012, the US led an effort to derail a treaty at the World Conference of International Telecommunications that was seen as an effort by oppressive regimes to grab greater control of online content. Two years later, the domestic debate in the US is focused on “Title II” authority to regulate broadband as a public utility. Critics of Title II say that such a regulatory power grab in the US undermines the country’s international efforts to promote an open Internet. Experts on the issue of net neutrality believe there are potential consequences for other countries in both democratic and authoritarian parts of the world. In an interview with InsideSources, the Heritage Foundation’s James Gattuso said he sees the greatest international danger in Title II coming as other countries also move to institute common carrier and “unintentionally suppress the Internet.” Others view the debate over Title II, and the larger discussion of net neutrality, as an opportunity for the US to lead by example. President Obama, speaking recently at a forum of African leaders, suggested that he would support a move toward stronger regulation. Freedom House, a watchdog organization supporting democratic rights, has argued against the current FCC proposal, which could allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to charge companies a higher price for their content to be delivered at a faster speed. As many ISPs are state-owned, Freedom House expresses concerns that authoritarian governments could cite “fast lanes” as justification for censorship.

We get modeled

Kehl 8/28 (Danielle, Contributor to The Hill, Why US net neutrality debate matters globally, The Hill, 8/28/14, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/216107-why-the-us-net-neutrality-debate-matters-globally)

The carriers are right that the path the FCC ultimately chooses matters beyond the domestic context — but for very different reasons. The global interest in the U.S. net neutrality debate is not borne out of fear that strong rules will enable a "U.N. takeover" of the Internet or bolster Chinese and Russian arguments for censorship and control. (They may try to use it in their rhetoric, but it won't convince anyone who does not already agree with them.) It's because the precedent we set here may influence whether and how governments in other countries choose to protect net neutrality on their own soil. The issue at stake is whether the United States will continue to be a leader in protecting a fundamental piece of the open Internet: the right of users to freely access the content of their choosing online. Experts have argued before that Internet freedom begins at home, and that to maintain credibility in our foreign policy objectives, the United States needs to demonstrate that we hold ourselves to the similar standards here as well. In the case of net neutrality, that sentiment rings particularly true. In fact, the rules that net neutrality advocates want the FCC to enact are not heavy-handed, nor do they demonstrate a "solution in search of a problem," as some have suggested. They are based on real threats to Internet openness, and outline a targeted response grounded in clear, bounded legal authority. Implying that bright-line rules that protect against blocking and discriminatory behavior would make it easier for foreign governments to justify censorship and greater control over the network simply does not compute. The United States is in a much stronger position globally when we can demonstrate that our domestic policies reinforce the values that we're promoting abroad. As a result, the current net neutrality proceeding matters not only in the domestic context, but also if the U.S. hopes to continue to serve as a global model for protecting the open Internet. To demonstrate that leadership, we need strong, clear network neutrality rules based on sound legal authority.

US key driver of GLOBAL internet freedom

Roff 2/25/14 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2014/02/25/will-obama-abandon-internet-freedom Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he's now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News' opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere.

Freedom built the Internet. Up to now it has been the position of the United States government to defend that idea. The U.S. actively pressures other countries who guard news and information more jealously, who exercise a greater degree of control over news and information content than we do here to play by our rules – which include free and open access and freedom of content. Giving up control of the Internet to any international body would make that a much tougher row to hoe. It’s perfectly well and good for senior U.S. officials like Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with bloggers from China about the promotion of Internet freedom. But if the president and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker are at the same time working out a scheme to give the Chinese government – which is not exactly a worldwide symbol of free thought and free association -- a commanding voice in how the Internet is managed, then what’s the point? The situation is more complex than former President Jimmy Carter’s long-ago give-away of the Panama Canal. The idea that “We built it, we paid for it, it’s ours,” as Ronald Reagan famously said years ago, is the starting point of the discussion -- not the closing argument. The idea behind the Internet is freedom, and no country can guarantee that freedom as well or as enduringly as the United States. Policymakers in Washington need to put a stop to the globalization of its management now, before it’s too late.

US key to internet freedom signal

Fontaine and Rogers 11 Richard Fontaine is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Will Rogers is a Research Associate at the Center for a New American Security http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineRogers_0.pdf

At the same time, the United States should counter the view that Internet freedom is merely an American project cooked up in Washington, rather than a notion rooted in universal human rights. The United States promotes Internet freedom more actively than any other country, and is one of the only countries that actively funds circumvention technologies. It leads in promoting international norms and has made a greater effort than most to incorporate Internet freedom into its broader foreign policy.