Free speech, privacy, and corporate responsibility: an update

  As I've mentioned on this blog before, over the past year I've been involved with a process to establish a set of global principles on free speech and privacy protection for internet and telecoms companies.

In January, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and Vodaphone publicly admitted to being part of this process. I recently wrote a brief article discussing the reasons why I think the process is a good thing. Contrary to some people's misinterpretation, this is not about Westerners imposing their values on China. (Anybody who thinks that Chinese Internet users are waiting for Westerners to come in and save them is on crack - an issue about which I've ranted at some length in the past.) 

Rather, the process is about helping companies find a way to do business in all major markets, including China, while doing all they can to protect their users' interests against government encroachment globally.  It's as much about protecting Internet users from an over-reaching Bush administration as it is about protecting them from the Chinese public security bureau.

The principles will not even advocate zero censorship or corporate civil disobedience in the face of local law: rather they are the first step in an effort to help companies be more accountable and transparent with their users about how governments are manipulating or accessing information and user data.  That way users can make more informed decisions about what they can or can't safely write in their e-mails, where to publish their blog posts, et cetera.

It is a fact that international companies who do business in China are finding it very hard to behave ethically and survive there - those which care about behaving ethically, anyway.  News Corp with its recent MySpace launch in China doesn't seem particularly interested in ethical behavior, but then we would expect nothing less from the company that brought us Fox News. Not surprisingly, News Corp is not participating in the principles process. But we should applaud the fact that that despite their recent missteps in China, Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft are searching for ways to remain engaged in the Chinese market while doing as little harm as possible.

I wish Yahoo! would apologize directly to the families of Shi Tao and other dissidents it helped put in jail. At the same time a lot of individuals who work for Yahoo! do say privately that they think their company messed up in China, and that in hindsight a lot of people there wish a lot of things had been done differently. Unfortunately, their corporate leaders will never say so publicly. A shareholder resolution demanding among other things that Yahoo! keep user data out of "internet restricting countries" was recently defeated. (Google defeated a similar resolution - I think a major reason has to do with the stipulation about where data can and can't be stored, which would make it very difficult to remain in places like China at all.)  But at the same time Jerry Yang did respond with a long statement about the measures Yahoo! is taking to strengthen user privacy and free expression. I recently received a copy of the full statement, and since I haven't seen the whole thing anywhere else online, I've republished it here. (Thanks to Typepad my blog host for the new "pages" feature.)

Recently Google has also made statements expressing frustration about censorship policies it faces worldwide. In an Associated Press report, Google's director of public policy and government affairs, Andrew McLaughin is quoted saying that Google now views censorship as a barrier to trade and is discussing the issue with the U.S. Trade Representative. The article says: "Google envisions using trade agreements to fight back. The negotiated pacts would include provisions guaranteeing free trade in "information services." As is true of most trade pacts, the provisions would call for arbitration if there are violations."

Arbitrary, un-transparent censorship policies by governments are indeed an obstacle to fair business competition. When you have vague laws (making it illegal to post content "spreading rumors" for example), the result is that companies with the best personal relationships with government regulators win (in other words, local companies always have the advantage over foreign companies). The situation also becomes open to corruption in terms of who gets "punished" by regulators for not properly interpreting the vague regulations in which much gets left unsaid. The playing field is not fair.  People I know who are familiar with Google's situation in China say that people who work for Baidu regularly call up government regulators to tattle on them: pointing out politically sensitive content appearing in Google.cn searches - even though those searches are already censored. Based on my understanding, Google.cn determines what results to censor out of its China search results by constantly running computers connected to Chinese internet service providers inside China to test what sites are blocked by China's ISP's. Then they de-list those URL's on Google.cn. The idea being that since China's regulations are so vague and unspecific, the best way to interpret them is to see what Chinese ISP's are being blocking - presumably in compliance with China's vague law - then block those.  After all, why should Google be required to block more heavily than Chinese ISP's? (I wish Google would be more transparent with its users about what content it is blocking and why, and according to what authority.) But then they get called into meetings with regulators and get the finger shaken at them. And they are not told specifically what they did wrong. Rather they are told vaguely to do a better job at understanding the Chinese system. That doesn't sound to me like a fair business environment. It makes sense that a company would use whatever means available to lobby for regulatory reform that would create a more level competitive playing field.

Companies wanting to build global internet businesses that can be trusted by users worldwide have a thin line to walk between local laws, regulations, and government power grabs on one hand, and their users interests, needs and rights on the other. It is never going to be easy, and mistakes will continue to be made. Meanwhile, we as users need to educate ourselves about which Internet companies are trying hardest to be honest with us and do the right thing. Then we can reward them with our business.

But again, let's be clear. This is not a Westerners vs. Chinese thing. Many Chinese Internet users are frustrated with the current state of un-transparent, unaccountable censorship in their country, and are starting to make their views known through lawsuits and online protests.  The desire for an honest, accountable relationship with one's government is not unique to Westerners. It's a universal human need - as I've learned from the Global Voices advocacy community.

Right now, unfortunately, the principles process involves mainly Western companies, NGO's, investment funds and academic institutions. That needs to change. The people involved with the process are starting to reach out to NGO's, companies, and other stakeholders around the world to get their feedback. Just as users worldwide value their own rights and freedoms, I hope that Internet and telecoms companies everywhere on the planet will commit to treating their users with the respect and honesty that those users will increasingly demand. 

Comments

[mahathir_fan]

I don't think what China is practicing (blocking sites) technically qualifies as censorship.

Censorship is to me, a set of guidelines that must be obeyed both by the producer and by the viewer.

For example, when our films are censored, it is against the law to show the uncensored version. It is also against the law to view the uncensored film.

On China's internet however, it is NOT against the law to view "blocked" sites if one is savvy enough to have the know how in using proxy servers. Neither is it against the law to maintain "blocked" sites.

It is like attending a visa interview at an American Embassy for a Chinese. The visa interviewer could upon looking at one's financials decide to not issue a visa to this person without giving him any reason. He has a lot of discretion on who to issue visa to.

The root cause for such powers is that I think the servers are owned by the government. So they can do whatever they want. I think what is needed is privately owned internet infrastructures.

I'm not a fan of censorship. I myself am gag by my country's Internal Security Act which forbids me from telling you about the difference in treatments of the different races in Malaysia. Whenever I open my mouth about Malaysia, I must be very careful that I am not violating any thing that could put me under arrest by the Internal Security Act.

[doug]

At first, I find myself agreeing with mahathir_fan on his basic point at the end, that servers should be run by a privately owned Internet infrastructure, if he is talking about China. But isn't that already the case? I don't know. I thought that if a company like Google puts its servers in China, then Google still owns those servers and the information on them.

What really concerns me are the statements Google has made earlier that they are always careful about where they put their servers because of the concerns about user privacy and even the constitutional protections of certain freedoms for the users.

But where has that idea gone now that they've placed servers in China?

Who made that decision? Was it voted on in a shareholder referendum? Was it just arbitrary?

I'd like to know more about that.