Human rights groups are asking the search giant to appear before Congress about its venture into China but Google says no
Politicians have recently attacked Google, Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Yahoo for declining to appear at a briefing about China’s Internet censorship and called for a new law to outlaw compliance with such requirements.
Recent events about Google and its business in China have caused quite a stir in the industry. While other companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo have done similar actions, Google’s stance on its own philosophies have caused people to stand up and ask questions.
The four technology companies said earlier this week that they were not able to schedule an appearance with short notice but would testify at a similar House of Representatives hearing scheduled for Feb. 15.
The Congress’ Congressional Human Rights Caucus has requested that Google meet with it to discuss the ramifications of operating its business and search services in China. Google however, has refused to meet with the Caucus. No statement from either side has been given but there are other companies who have been called in as well. Human rights groups are calling Google out along with Yahoo but no progress is being made. Yahoo also, has not responded to the request for a hearing.
These massively successful high-tech companies, which could not bring themselves to send their representatives to this meeting, should be ashamed, said Rep. Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who is co-chairman of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which organized the briefing.
The Mountain View search-engine company declined the request to send a speaker to the briefing, which will probe the pressures China–puts on U.S. Internet companies that operate there, according to Ryan Keating, a spokesman for Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, who plans to chair the meeting.
A spokeswoman for Google did not return a telephone call seeking comment.
By skipping the briefing, Google is avoiding what will probably be a very public cacophony of complaints. Several members of Congress, as well as human rights groups, have excoriated Google and other companies for limiting freedom of expression in China by blocking Web sites that discuss the Tiananmen Square massacres and Falun Gong spiritual movement, among other things.
Microsoft Corp. and Cisco Systems, which sell equipments which can be used to block Web sites, have also declined to speak at the briefing. Another invitee, Yahoo Inc., has yet to commit, Keating said.
Internet companies that do business in China routinely say they disapprove of the government’s restrictions there but believe that providing even a limited amount of information to Chinese users is better than nothing.
Rep. Tom Lantos commented:
"With all their power and influence, wealth and high visibility, they neglected to commit to the kind of positive action that human rights activists in China take every day…They caved in to Beijing’s demands for the sake of profits, or whatever else they choose to call it."
Because his caucus is not an actual congressional committee, it does not have the power to compel companies to testify at its hearings. The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, which plans to convene a Feb. 15 hearing on the topic, does have that force.
The same companies and interest groups have also been invited to a hearing Feb. 15 with the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations. So far, only Cisco and Yahoo have said they plan to attend.
Several human rights groups are on the speakers list for the briefing, which will take place at the Capitol, have expressed their annoyance over the refusal.
Rep. Christopher Smith, the New Jersey Republican who chairs the subcommittee holding the Feb. 15 hearing, showed up late at Wednesday’s briefing to issue a reminder that he and his colleagues are working on a draft legislation related to the foreign censorship matter.
Our request to these companies is: Reverse yourselves; you can, he said.
Yahoo and Microsoft issued a joint statement in which they encouraged the U.S. government to step up and take a leadership role in opening "government to government" dialogues with China and other countries "where Internet content is treated more restrictively." Google’s senior policy counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, echoed that idea in a blog entry and apologized for Google’s absence, which he owed to "previously scheduled commitments."
A draft of the legislation was not ready. But Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Smith, said the proposal would likely require American Internet service providers to locate their e-mail servers outside of oppressive countries, establish a code of conduct for companies doing business with such regimes and set up a global Internet freedom office within the State Department to coordinate an international strategy.
Cisco, for its part, distributed a statement at a briefing confirming its attendance at Smith’s upcoming hearing. The company acknowledged again that it sells its routers in China but that their inherent features, including the ability to filter content, are no different from those sold in any other country, including the United States.
The search giant’s ‘current cooperation with the Chinese government on this matter also has prevented the Chinese government from having to respond to complaints from Chinese Internet users that they are being denied access to the info they wish to obtain,’ said Carolyn Bartholomew, acting chairwoman of the congressionally appointed U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. She said China has the most sophisticated Internet-filtering system in the world and tens of thousands of "Internet Police" on its payroll.
At the very least, Congress needs to pass legislation that would prohibit companies from turning over customer names to the Chinese government, Tim Malinowski of Human Rights Watch argued. He was referring largely to a recent incident in which Yahoo was accused of turning over personal e-mail records belonging to a Chinese journalist, leading to his conviction for leaking state secrets and a decade-long prison sentence.
Bartholomew and several of the human rights representatives called for new legislation that would penalize companies that aided in censorship activities–an idea that had Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio, the briefing’s chief organizer, nodding in agreement.
John Palfrey, director of Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, cautioned that new laws should only come into play if the technology industry cannot work out the problems on its own.
Instead, he argued, Congress should encourage the industry to develop a set of guiding principles for companies–what he called a "common ethical pathway."
The absence of the tech companies left the briefing heavy on commentary from human rights activists and a representative from a U.S.-China governmental advisory panel.
Several of those representatives accused each of the firms of squelching cyber dissidents or caving into the Chinese government in some way. Google, which launched a censorship-friendly version of its search engine in China last week, was a particular magnet for criticism.
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Texas Democrat who sits on the human rights caucus, appeared briefly to appeal to the absentee firms.
This may be a time for a principle stand, because when you make a principle stand now, today, tomorrow the world will be open to so many who are now suffering under the oppression of censorship, she said. So I would encourage my friends in the world of technology…that this is the time to cherish the Bill of Rights more than you have ever cherished it before.