Last week, several news outlets reported that Google will alter the version of its Street Views product that it plans to launch in Canada. To comply with Canadian privacy law, the images of Canadian cities available through Street Views – photos of public places taken at eye-level to give the perspective of a pedestrian – will have human faces and vehicle license plate numbers blurred. Google decided to take this step after receiving a letter from Canadian privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, who raised concerns about whether the product would respect national privacy laws.

This incident reveals one of many useful functions that a national privacy commissioner performs. By having an independent privacy entity with the appropriate authority and expertise, the privacy of Canadian consumers is proactively protected. In contrast, privacy policy in the U.S. suffers from a crisis-driven approach – with each new privacy-invasive technology or sector-specific issue that arises, reactions and solutions are tailor-made to manage the particular problem at hand. Commissioner Stoddart was able to identify a potential privacy threat ahead of time, and the pressure her authority provides will hopefully result in a privacy-protective outcome for Canadian consumers as Google Street Views is rolled out in Canada. Unfortunately, we are not so lucky in the United States to have a federal official whose job it is to protect our privacy interests.

Going back nearly a decade, CDT has promoted the creation of an independent privacy entity within the federal government empowered with the scope, expertise, and authority to guide our nation’s policies on privacy. This entity would not only monitor commercial and technological developments with respect to privacy, but could also conduct research, recommend new policies, and provide oversight for government agency privacy compliance. Our neighbors to the north seem to have embraced this concept, and perhaps one day soon we will follow their lead.

Last Friday it was reported that the government of Burma government had shut down the Internet and cell-phone service in an attempt to quell the pro-democracy protests led by the country’s Buddhist monks. The sharp drop in reporting on the peaceful demonstrations over the weekend seems to indicate that the government has been successful in shrouding the country in electronic silence. There are no dramatic pictures of monks being beaten by the military. There are no first-hand accounts of protesters being text-messaged around the world.

Burma has withdrawn from the 21st century and, in doing so, deprived its citizens of their human rights, and the world a fair account of events. Has the country’s military dictatorship in fact crushed the protests and restored order? Or are the demonstrations still ongoing? What has happened to the countless of people who have been arrested, including scores of monks? By denying Burma’s citizen journalists and activists the tools necessary to communicate with the world through the Internet, the regime is free to peddle its own, heavily edited version of events with little fear of the truth ever being revealed.

The right to live, of course, is the ultimate human right. President Bush and the State Department joined leaders from around the world in rightly issuing strong statements condemning the military junta’s violent and sometimes deadly response to the protests.

However, it is surprising that the more democratic nations around the world have not specifically condemned the blackout of the Internet by the Burmese government. Freedom of speech, which includes the rights to express oneself, communicate with others, share and receive information, hold and state opinions, and even freely associate, is a fundamental human right, recognized by Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of speech is essential for government accountability and the achievement of human potential, and the Internet facilitates free expression like never before.

While private actors such as business, academia and Internet users themselves have a role to play, they alone will not be successful in advancing “Internet Human Rights” around the world. An open Internet is a human rights issues, thus the U.S. and other democratic countries must vehemently denounce any attempt by governments to interfere with their citizens’ legitimate and rightful use of this powerful medium. Burma, by silencing its people has violated their human rights and ours.