Internet Censorship - Complicity Is No Longer An Option
by
Elizabeth Umlas, KLD Senior Research Analyst

         Internet censorship is front-page news. Most readers are familiar with the best-known stories:

• Yahoo’s handing over user information on a journalist, Shi Tao, which helped lead to his incarceration by the Chinese government;

• Microsoft’s voluntary censorship of its Chinese blog service to prevent the use of “subversive” words such as democracy;

• Microsoft’s removal of the website of a social activist blogger in China at the request of government authorities;

• Cisco’s sale of routers to China, which the government allegedly uses to censor the Internet and track down so-called cyber-dissidents;

• Google’s agreement to censor results on the Chinese version of its search engine to comply with the Chinese government’s restriction of sites it deems offensive.

         For several years human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have sounded the alarm about corporate complicity in Internet surveillance and censorship, mostly with no response from the companies.

         But the recent revelations about Google et al have met with tremendous and immediate condemnation, not only from human rights and free speech advocates, but also from the public and in the media. The revelations have sparked a major debate about the use of technology to suppress internationally protected rights like freedom of expression, and the role of corporations in these violations.

         It is disturbing that these companies, whose products and services connect millions to vast amounts of information, also help repressive governments selectively block information and track down users who exercise their right to free speech.

         The companies should not be able to get off the hook by claiming to follow “local laws and customs”, as some breach international law and would not be allowed to guide the companies’ behavior in their home markets. A number of developments indicate that this time companies cannot stonewall their critics:

• Microsoft, Yahoo, Cisco and Google declined to attend a Congressional briefing in early February on Internet censorship. But they will likely attend a hearing on the issue mid-month.¹

• A few US technology companies may be drafting something like the Sullivan Principles – used to guide corporate behavior in apartheid South Africa – to address dilemmas related to the Internet in China. Details were scarce as of this writing.

• Companies are showing signs of budging on the idea of a voluntary code of conduct aimed at preventing the use of their products and services to censor the Internet. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) floated a proposal on this in January. The companies may be willing to discuss the code in part because RSF and others have suggested that if a voluntary code does not work, the US should pass a law governing technology companies' actions in relation to freedom of expression.²

• Rights groups, Internet experts and others have made useful suggestions on how Western companies might address Internet censorship.

• Former journalist and China expert Rebecca MacKinnon challenges companies to publicize their “block lists” and set clear procedures for their China-based staff on what to do if approached by authorities for information.³

• RSF recommends that e-mail services not host servers in repressive countries so that they can legally avoid requests by those governments to hand over user information (so far, Google is doing this in China).⁴

• Danny O’Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asks Google to reduce the amount of user information it stores, and to find technologies that get around censorship mechanisms.⁵

• Social investors have urged companies to publish codes underscoring their commitment to freedom of expression.

        Technology companies have had years to think about this issue, thanks to early warnings by groups like Amnesty. No one is asking the corporations to solve the problem on their own. But they must take the first step and acknowledge some responsibility.

         Once upon a time, footwear, apparel and retail companies tried to wash their hands of the upstream consequences of their business model: sweatshops in international supply chains. These companies know this is not a valid tack anymore, but they took years to start addressing the problem seriously.

         For several years technology companies have also resisted taking any responsibility for the downstream consequences of their actions: selling technology or services to repressive regimes with the knowledge that these might be used for nefarious purposes. They may be stunned at the vehemence of the criticism they have received for their role in Internet censorship. It must be painfully obvious to these companies that complicity is no longer an option.

¹ Tom Zeller, “Internet Lions Turn Paper Tiger in China”, New York Times, February 6, 2006.

2 See Reporters Without Borders, “Do Internet Companies Need to be Regulated to Ensure They Respect Free Expression?” website post on January 6, 2006, at http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=16110

3 Rebecca MacKinnon, “Testing the Castrated Google”, website post on January 26, 2006, at http://rconversation.blogs.com/conversation

4 See footnote 2.

5 Danny O’Brien, “Chinese New Year: Resolutions for Google”, Electronic Frontier Foundation website, January 30, 2006.