Ethical Standards for Internet Companies

Reporters Without Borders is asking: "Do Internet companies need to be regulated to ensure they respect free expression?" Good question indeed. The human rights groups lists the various ways in which different American "Internet sector companies" have contributed to the stifling of freedom of speech around the world, blocking channels of communication on matters that are clearly unrelated to porn or terrorism. RWB also reveals that its efforts at dialogue with these companies have been ignored by everybody except Google:

Reporters Without Borders has written to the chief executives of several corporations since 2002 proposing an exchange of ideas on this issue. None of our letters have been answered. We have also tried to alert the shareholders of these companies through investment funds. We presented a joint statement (pdf)  on 7 November in New York in which 25 investment firms managing some 21 billion dollars in assets undertook to monitor the activities of Internet companies operating in repressive countries.

Aside from Google, all the companies we approached refused to enter into a dialogue on this subject. We would therefore now like the American people’s elected representatives and the Department of State to formally take up this issue. [Links and emphasis added.]

A UK-based organization called Article 19 worked with United Nations on a Joint Declaration: International Mechanisms for Freedom of Expression (pdf). The declaration, just released on December 21st, calls for companies and governments to adhere to the following global standards:

· No one should be required to register with or obtain permission from any public body to operate an Internet service provider, website, blog or other online information dissemination system, including Internet broadcasting. This does not apply to registration with a domain name authority for purely technical reasons or rules of general application which apply without distinction to any kind of commercial operation.

· The Internet, at both the global and national levels, should be overseen only by bodies which are protected against government, political and commercial interference, just as freedom from such interference is already universally acknowledged in the area of the print and broadcast media. National regulation of Internet domain names should never be used as a means to control content.

· The right to freedom of expression imposes an obligation on all States to devote adequate resources to promote universal access to the Internet, including via public access points. The international community should make it a priority within assistance programmes to assist poorer States in fulfilling this obligation.

· Filtering systems which are not end-user controlled – whether imposed by a government or commercial service provider – are a form of prior-censorship and cannot be justified. The distribution of filtering system products designed for end-users should be allowed only where these products provide clear information to end-users about how they work and their potential pitfalls in terms of over-inclusive filtering.

· No one should be liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author, unless they have either adopted that content as their own or refused to obey a court order to remove that content. Jurisdiction in legal cases relating to Internet content should be restricted to States in which the author is established or to which the content is specifically directed; jurisdiction should not be established simply because the content has been downloaded in a certain State.

· Restrictions on Internet content, whether they apply to the dissemination or to the receipt of information, should only be imposed in strict conformity with the guarantee of freedom of expression, taking into account the special nature of the Internet.

· Corporations which provide Internet searching, chat, publishing or other services should make an effort to ensure that they respect the rights of their clients to use the Internet without interference. While this may pose difficulties in relation to operations in certain countries, these corporations are encouraged to work together, with the support of other stakeholders, to resist official attempts to control or restrict use of the Internet, contrary to the principles set out herein. [Emphasis added]

I personally believe that when we can keep government out of business, we should try very hard to do so. I would like to see these companies do the right thing and adopt their own industry-wide code of conduct based on guidelines like these, which investors and consumers can hold them too. Various civic monitoring groups can help us measure whether they're keeping their promises.

This will also help us as users measure whether we can trust these companies with our own data, and enable us to make smarter choices about who we give our business to.

But if these companies are completely unresponsive to public opinion and private sector pressure, should government step in? How should such regulations be shaped so as not to be counter-productive?  There are no easy answers but we need a lot more intelligent public debate on this.

Why should Americans care what these companies do abroad? Aside from the fact that the lack of respect for freedom of speech and human rights could come back to bite us at home, what about our fundamental global interests as a nation? One anonymous commentor on my initial Tuesday post on Microsoft's censorship in China puts it thus:

A lot here have been said about doing business in China must follow the Chinese rules or practices. This certainly has its merit, however this is only the half truth. Why most American companies will not and can not bribe their ways out in China as their Chinese competitors normally do? Because there is something called ‘Foreign Corrupt Practices Act(FCPA)’. The dire financial & reputational consequences of breaching such a US law prevent most Americans from doing under-the-table tricks which are ubiquitous in China. Do American business suffer? I assume so. Why not a lot of people cry for this?

So the question is really at what price the Amercians, especailly the American government, will hold their moral high ground. Comparing with the billions of dollors the Americans (or at least half of the Americans) are willingly to shed to promote democracy in Middle-east, I do believe the financial consequences of Microsoft or Google or whoever who do not comply with Chinese blackmails will be just peanuts.

Certainly, from any single corporation’s point of view, especially for those with big stake in China, loss of revenue there is an immediate pain. This is why I think the American government should step in, establishing something similar to the FCPA, forbiding US companies from assisting foreign governments to curb any democratic initiatives.

If American technology companies don't do a better job at showing they care about human rights and freedom of speech, calls for government intervention are likely to grow louder.

By the way, that initial post of mine on Tuesday hit #1 on Blogpulse for the day, which means, I guess, that a lot of people care pretty strongly about this issue.

Comments

[a reader]

Bravo for the principles of Reporters Without Borders!

Now they should open a blogging service in China, and do it right, not like all those evil companies... they can call it freevoices.com, or something like that.

[Judson]

This is a very important discussion to have online, and am glad you are taking the initiative to get it going. I think government oversight of this area could lead to problems though. Like you say, it would be ideal if the industry could think up a system and have trusted third-party sources verify their compliance. Failing that however, I think the web community could come up with it's own standards and verify companies even if they don't want to join in fashioning the rules.

It might in fact create leverage to join the process if companies like Microsoft know there will be an outcome whether they join or not, although even then I would think it would need some corporate buy-in to get the ball rolling.

[mark]

Thanks for such an informed post.

The corporate acquiescence to Chinese state interests and ideology is all the more risible from internet and computer companies, with their extravagant rhetoric about promise of technology.

[Craig Lester]

I have found this blog to be a very good example of freedom of expression and the press. The press are vital in exposing human rights violations that occur on a daily basis. Major Western Corporate Entities should be held liable for their actions, especially when it comes to human rights violations. From child labour in Asia to Microsoft's subservient attitude to the Chinese government, major corporations should be held responsible. On another subject, blogs like this are vital in helping to expose all manner of evil. Most mainstream media are not willing to expose certain issues, or issues that not deemed to be of any consequence are put on the back burner.

One such issue is the matter of Zimbabwe in Southern Africa. Once the breadbasket of the region, with a flourishing society, Zimbabwe has regressed into a mire, that I do not believe that Zimbabwe will ever escape from. The Zimbabwean government has repressed its own people in favour of holding onto power. People have been subjected to one of the most evil passages of history, akin to Pol Pot's terror in Cambodia. 700 000+ people have been displaced and sent to land without any shelter or food, to be re-educated by the government, farms stand idle, handed over to government cronies, farms that were once productive under white farmers who kept Zimbabwe fed and brought in foreign exchange through the sale of excess grain and tabacco. Tabacco is still being bought from Zimbabwe, although in smaller quantities than ever before.

Infrastructure has collapsed. Cholera,anthrax and other diseases caused by poor hygiene are common place. Electricity is becoming more and more scarce. Water is contaminated because the government cannot afford the chemicals to treat water.

Petrol and Diesel are in short supply, and most of the fuel goes to the government.

Hyperinflation is at 500% and will reach 100% before the year is out. These are just some of the issues that affect Zimbabwe.

Politically, people are tortured, the opposition is in disarray and the press is all but shut down. There is no free press in Zimbabwe. Journalists who dare print the truth are imprisoned.

But for the lack of space, I cannot give more details. But if you can, write to your representative in the US congress and senate, asking them to do something about Zimbabwe. The very lives of Zimbabwe is your hands. Over 3 million people may starve in the next two years...

[Chineseactivist]

While I generally applaud your effort to promote freedom of speech in China, I think the approach of attacking US companies for adhering to local laws so they can continue to do business to be very short-sighted and ultimately ineffectual. All the high-mindedness aside, what the Chinese people need is more access to blogs, MSN or otherwise, more access through Cisco routers, and more news through Yahoo news. For every Shi Tao or Michael Anti there are thousands of daily readers of blogs and news, who are increasingly adept and reading between the lines, who know how to circumvent the system, who can access a host of underground blogs, chat rooms, IRC channels, etc..these people (we) don't need Westerners pushing for controls that are unlikely to really have an impact on the type of thing the Chinese government is doing, but will only make it harder for the thousands, nay, bai wans of Chinese Internet users who daily gain knowledge and sophistication about world events despite the "Great Wall of China".....

[Sniper]

Thats Crazy