Human Rights Watch: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship

The Human Rights Watch report, "Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship," is finally out. The exhaustive legal and editorial review process lasted nearly two months - followed in the past few days by frantic last-minute changes and revisions because, of course, things change weekly on the Internet and some techincal analysis had to be fixed.

The report focuses specifically on the role played by Western Internet companies in collaborating with Chinese government censorship. The roles of Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Skype are singled out, but the issues certainly apply to a much broader range of global Internet and wireless companies operating in China. There are specific recommendations for a corporate code of conduct and for legislation. Just to make very clear: these recommendations do not represent an endorsement of the legislation currently in the U.S. congress. As I wrote in a long post last month, I personally have some serious problems with the Global Online Freedom Act's way of dealing with the problem of corporate complicity in political censorship and surveillance. The legislation does not recognize the obvious reality that democracies, including the United States, are also vulnerable to the problem of corporate complicity in government censorship and surveillance. China is the most extreme case with the most lucrative market with a very obviously un-democratic government and thus gets the most attention. But political censorship of the Internet is a global problem, and is documented to have occurred in all kinds of political systems.

Nonetheless, I think it's appropriate to call attention to what companies are doing in China in a report such as this. Why? Because if multinational companies go unchallenged when they assume the active role of political censor in China, without being responsible and transparent to the user about what is going on, the same practices will in short order become acceptable behavior all around the world. For me, this is not an issue of Westerners trying to impose a system on China. This should be part of a movement of Internet users supporting each other all over the world in the fight against threats to freedom of speech and information everywhere.

I did a large part of the primary research and writing on this report, but the final product reflects the work and perspectives of many people from the Human Rights Watch Asia and Corporate Responsibility team. Below is the press release:

-----------------

For Immediate Release

China: Internet Companies Aid Censorship
Legislation and Code of Conduct Needed to Ensure Ethical Business Practices

(Hong Kong, August 10, 2006) – Legislation and a strong industry code of conduct are necessary to end the complicity of Western Internet companies in political censorship in China, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. China’s system of Internet censorship and surveillance, popularly known as the “Great Firewall,” is the most advanced in the world.

In the 149-page report, “Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship,” Human Rights Watch documents how extensive corporate and private sector cooperation – including by some of the world’s major Internet companies – enables this system of censorship.

“Western Internet companies are complicit in actively censoring political material without telling users what’s happening and why,” said Rebecca MacKinnon, a consultant to Human Rights Watch. “We believe that companies could act more ethically and still operate in China. It is time for Internet companies to decide whether they want to be part of the problem or part of the solution.”

Research was performed through interviews and extensive testing of search engines in China, and includes 18 screen shots to illustrate examples of censorship. The report vividly illustrates how various companies, including Yahoo!, Microsoft, Google, and Skype block terms they believe the Chinese government will want them to censor.

Human Rights Watch strongly criticized the decision by Yahoo! to release the identity of private users to the Chinese authorities. This assisted in the imprisonment and heavy sentences of four Chinese government critics, Shi Tao, Li Zhi, Jiang Lijun, and Wang Xiaoning. In a letter to Human Rights Watch, published in the report, Yahoo! states that it was only following local laws.

Microsoft has censored searches and blog titles to avoid sensitive political topics, and deleted or blocked whole blogs expressing peaceful political views. Google’s slogan, “Don’t Be Evil,” was called into question by users after it launched a censored search engine, www.google.cn, in response to Chinese government pressure. Skype’s Chinese software is configured to censor sensitive words in text chats without informing the user, which the company has justified as consistent with local best practices and Chinese law.

Human Rights Watch said it was ironic that companies whose existence depends on freedom of information and expression have taken on the role of censor, even in cases where the Chinese government makes no specific demands for them to do so. While companies say they censor under pressure or are only following local regulations, there has been little effort to resist demands or pressures from the Chinese government to censor. Human Rights Watch urged the companies to use all legal means to resist demands for censorship of searches, blogs, and web addresses. Companies should only comply with such demands if they are made via legally binding procedures that can be documented and after the company has exhausted all reasonable legal means to resist them.

Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google all argue that China’s Internet users have greater access to information because the companies operate in China, despite their compromises. “Race to the Bottom” demonstrates that within a difficult environment, different companies have been making different choices about where they draw the ethical line, with widely varying results. Tests showed that Chinese Internet users can access greater amounts of information using the censored www.google.cn and MSN Chinese search engines than they can using providers based in China. But the tests showed that Yahoo! China’s level and method of search censorship is as bad and in some cases worse than the heavily censored Baidu, China’s most popular homegrown search engine. The tests also showed that Google is the most transparent in informing users about censorship.

“Race to the Bottom” includes many examples of blogs by Chinese users outraged by the decisions of these companies.

“Yahoo!’s role in the Shi Tao case and Google’s decision to turn censor in order to curry favor with the Chinese government show the extent of corporate capitulation to China,” said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “But Internet companies are learning they can’t become partners in political censorship without provoking outrage and a loss of trust by users, including those in China.”

Human Rights Watch called the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions to pass legislation prohibiting companies from storing personal user data on servers in China. The aim of this legislation should not be to prevent U.S. or other international companies from operating in China. Rather, the goal should be for companies in the business of disseminating information and ideas to adhere to these goals in China, not to participate in or facilitate censorship or the arrest of individuals involved in peaceful expression, and to set a strong example of ethical corporate behavior.

“Laws are needed to end this race to the bottom and establish a level playing field so that the Chinese government can’t pick off companies one by one,” said Adams. “Otherwise, the standard set will be that of the company trying the hardest to please the Chinese government.”

Human Rights Watch believes the following principles should be included in legislation on corporate responsibility to uphold human rights:

• No user data should be stored in jurisdictions where there is a strong record of punishing individuals for exercising basic rights such as freedom of expression;
• Companies should not take on the role of active censors;
• Companies should be prohibited from complying with oral, undocumented requests from the authorities for censorship of political speech;
• Companies should make public on their websites when a government has forced them to censor political speech;
• When a search returns no results, or only censored results, companies should be required to clearly inform users; and
• Legislation should be adopted by all countries and should apply to companies operating in all countries.

“The aim of effective legislation and corporate codes of conduct should be to help companies all over the world best serve the interests and rights of their users and customers, and to avoid being used by governments as tools for political manipulation – and in some cases abuse of people’s fundamental human rights,” said MacKinnon.

To view the Human Rights Watch report, “Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship,” please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806

------------

If you're in China and unable to get through to the above link via your favorite proxy server for some reason, a large PDF can be downloaded here. (4930.8K)

Your comments and criticisms are of course welcome.

Comments

[matt]

When I tried to show my blog to a friend of mine in Beijing, China's firewall censored access to blogger.com. Naturally, this pisses me off, but I also remember that China is beginning to achieve more widespread net access. Ultimately, I want and believe that China will cease its net censoring activities, but I would rather that internet service providers provide, in the meantime, limited web access rather than none at all.

[Joona]

What strikes me about all these companies is actually their motivations for collaborating with the PRC's internet censorship. Commonly one hears them state that this limited access to the internet will slowly help to bring about freedom of speech, for example. It is the same motivation that one hears from various corporate investors when they invest in China and that the International Olympic Committee when awarding the 2008 Olympics to Beijing. When walking through Beijing or Shanghai now a days there is no denying the big changes that take place, in fact I often say China is one of the most capitalist, not socialist, nations on earth.

Personally I don't see how these companies believe that by supporting censorship and helping to repress human rights they will in fact aid the democratisation of the PRC.

My Chinese university friends, for example, seem little concerned about human rights or the freedom of speech when they can strut down Wangfujing in their Gucci boots- gone are the days of student activism in Beijing. But it is these people who can make a change in China and by these corporations supporting censorship, it gives the message to the young people that everything is OK and that the Western world condones the human rights situation in China.

Just last week Reporters Without Borders condemned the closure of several blogs written by Woeser, a Tibetan poet living in Beijing, following the closure of 'Century China' and a few other popular websites and blogs. Not only did Woeser lose her blogs but her books are also banned in China, she was fired from her job and was kicked out of her flat... just because she said something favourable about the Dalai Lama.

Although, like matt said, consumers do want net access even if it is limited- but that does not mean that Western corporations need to help the Chinese government in censoring the internet and help the PSB arrest cyber dissidents and people who simply want to express themselves on the www.

Sorry, long comment:p Really interesting blog :)

[bobby fletcher]

Is HRW going to publish a critique of US weapon makers for "corporate complicity" in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Shouldn't they stop making weapons for US military? At lease refuse to make Depleted Uranium munition?

Those companies that take Uncle Sam's nuclear weapon contracts are far worse offenders.