John Palfrey, director of the Berkman Center where I am a research fellow, is unable to attend tomorrow's hearings on corporate responsibility and internet censorship, but has submitted written testimony. Download full PDF file here. Here is his conclusion, stated in his usual grace and level-headedness:
There are a number of things that United States technology companies can do to make their actions more transparent to users, more protective of civil liberties, and more accountable to all of us. Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, and Cisco each should be applauded for their respective, increasingly clear public statements about how they will operate moving forward when it comes to doing business in China. These public statements, and action based upon these statements, are essential to moving forward toward a solution.
Legislation and Other State Action
Second, it may be the case that the Congress, or other branches of the United States government, must take new action to solve this problem. That said, any outcome that bans United States technology companies from doing business in China, in the long-run, would not be in the best interests of democracy there or in states with similar Internet policies.
There are many other options beyond an outright ban that could help, if it is clear that the industry cannot solve its own problem. This issue of censorship and surveillance should be the Administration’s top priority with respect to global Internet governance discussions, which have to date focused on the policy backwaters of the functioning of the domain name system. This issue – ultimately, a key issue of human rights and of the development of well-functioning democracies around the world – should be a top priority in trade negotiations, not an after-thought.
As a last resort, the Congress could develop a corollary to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that would guide – and tie the hands of – United States technology companies doing business under these circumstances. Such a step is risky on many levels, raises thorny questions of sovereignty, and should be taken only with great care.
We ought to see this issue not as a crisis, but rather as an opportunity. Internet technologies, developed by the likes of Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google, Cisco, and many others, are doing terrific things for democracy around the world. At the same time, the People’s Republic of China’s Internet filtering and surveillance regime has the greatest effect on the freedom of expression, and on the efforts of human rights workers, of any filtering regime throughout the world. The best outcome would be for our technology companies to be able to compete in these marketplaces – with their best-in-the-world offerings – without having to compromise our values and without having to become complicit in Internet censorship and surveillance.
We need to come together to figure out how to ensure that these companies and their technologies are indeed a force for greater democratic participation, not pushing against it. These companies should be, and can be, the darlings of the human rights community for what they can do for human rights in places like China. It doesn’t happen to be the case today, but I have no doubt that we can get to that point through collaboration that is grounded in honesty, openness, transparency, and a commitment to bedrock democratic values.
Comments