China censorship: Microsoft's defence

In his Congressional testimony, Microsoft’s Jack Krumholtz regrets what happened to the Chinese blogger Michael Anti:

The example that has received the most attention to our services in China involved the removal of a well-known blogging site on MSN Spaces authored under the pseudonym of “Michael Anti” at the request of the Chinese government. The details of that case have been carefully reviewed, and although we do not think we could have changed the Chinese government’s determination to block this particular site, we regret having to do so and have since clarified the manner in which we will deal with similar requests in the future.

Microsoft says its now committed to the following steps:

First, explicit standards for protecting content access: Microsoft will remove access to blog content only when it receives a legally binding notice from the government indicating that the material violates local laws, or if the content violates MSN’s terms of use. 

Second, maintaining global access: Microsoft will remove access to content only in the country issuing the order. When blog content is blocked due to restrictions based on local laws, the rest of the world will continue to have access. This is a new capability Microsoft is implementing in the MSN Spaces infrastructure.

Third, transparent user notification: When local laws require the company to block access to certain content, Microsoft will ensure that users know why that content was blocked, by notifying them that access has been limited due to a government restriction.

Our ongoing reviews may result in other changes of policy as we continue to examine our options and seek the input of a broad array of experts. In addition to active discussions within the industry and with the Executive branch, we have been meeting with NGO’s focused on issues of human rights in China and will continue those discussions. We are seeking the advice of recognized experts on China to better understand the dynamics and trends affecting the issues we are addressing here. And we will continue to discuss these issues with Members of Congress, including testimony before appropriate Committees such as this one.”

This is followed by a section explaining the importance of complying with legal systems. The statement ends:

‘When pressed on this point, most observers would no doubt concede that there are circumstances—such as instances of kidnapping, child abuse, or cyber-attack—when the apprehension of serious criminals justifies cooperation with law enforcement authorities even in authoritarian societies—so long as law enforcement is not used as a pretext for political repression. Yet in practice, when companies face law enforcement requests of this kind, there is little room to question the motivations or and second-guess the judgments made by officials in these cases.

In the end, the issue comes back to a difficult judgment of the risks and benefits of these powerful technologies, not just in China, but in a wide range of societies where cultural and political values may clash with standards of openness and free expression.

Microsoft cannot substitute itself for national authorities in making the ultimate decisions on such issues. What Microsoft will do is provide the technologies and services that enable individuals and organizations to harness the power of the Internet for their own purposes—if allowed to do so. And we will continue to advocate that people should have the maximum opportunity to use these technologies in exercising those decisions for themselves.

We think that the trend of history and the impact of technology will continue to come down on the side of greater openness and transparency—as it has in China, and as it is likely to do elsewhere. …”

Read the full PDF if you want the admiring quote from Bill Gates at the end.

Comments

[Tom - Daai Tou Laam]

Yet in practice, when companies face law enforcement requests of this kind, there is little room to question the motivations or and second-guess the judgments made by officials in these cases.

Perhaps Microsoft and Smith/Lantos, et al should be lobbying the Chinese government to make search warrants more well delineated and more transparent as to rationale. That way there is less reason to question the motivations and judgements made by government officials.

[lihlii]

The key problems the cunning lawyers of Microsoft is cheating about, is that there is NO LAW in China at all. The so-called "laws" in China is illegal. Microsoft is cheating by making illegal "rules" of CCP as "laws".

As an example: Were the anti-Jewish rules in Nazi Germany "laws"? Should Microsoft obey and cooperate with the Nazi government?

It's very important premise to clarify what is a law and what is a "rule". Law is a liberal social contract, while rule is only a restriction enforced by power.

[lihlii]

I demand at least Microsoft keep a backup copy of the data they will remove, notify the content owner, and send him the copy safely delivered to his hand.

[lihlii]

Please notice that Microsoft removed Michael Anti's blog data completely without any notice to the author.

[lihlii]

Complying with legal systems? If the official order or even threat is "legal", then Microsoft please "comply with legal systems" of USA first, split your services into 3 parts as the Department of Justice of the US federal government demanded. :)

Why you defend your rights in the USA so bravely on court, but sell out the human rights of your users in China so impudently?

The same words fit for Google.

The Chinese Communist Party is buying out the freedom, conscience and safety of the liberal world.

[lihlii]

We think that the trend of history and the impact of technology will continue to come down on the side of greater openness and transparency—as it has in China, and as it is likely to do elsewhere.

This is also cheating. If Adolf Hitler got Internet, he can use it to kill the Jewish more efficiently. Technology is only a knife: whether killing or helping people depends on by whom and how it is used.

Microsoft is using technology to help killing.

[lihlii]

We think that the trend of history and the impact of technology will continue to come down on the side of greater openness and transparency—as it has in China, and as it is likely to do elsewhere.

By saying this, Microsoft is trying to exempt itself of the responsibility of using technology in the conscientious way, and the general responsibility of each citizen of the earth to fight for liberal rights.

By saying this, Microsoft is placing a equal sign between itself and in-human "technology", that is, Microsoft is a pile of computers, software and papers, but not vivid human beings. Let the "technology" fight for human rights, and Microsoft CEO "comply with the" anti-liberty "'legal' systems" and trade conscience for bulk money.

By saying this, the atomic technology in Iran and North Korea in the eyes of Microsoft means the "trend of" "come(ing) down on the side of greater openness and transparency" of the 2 despotic governments. So it's really ridiculous for the UN to keep such a great concern about these.

[Chris]

Microsoft should have stood it's ground with
the help of the rest of the west! (and Google)

But "happy" Chinese citizens need to keep posting the
REAL news!!