Amnesty International has released a report in which it shames Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google of violating human rights principles by juxtaposing statements about their corporate values with details of how they acted contrary to these values in cooperating with the Chinese authorities to censor the Web and assisting them to track down dissidents using their respective networks.
Amnesty has accused them of "violating their stated corporate values and policies in pursuit of the potentially lucrative Chinese market." To coincide with the report Amnesty has launched www.irrepressible.info, a new online campaign championing free speech and continuing Amnesty’s fight against Internet censorship.
The London-based human rights group also called on the Internet companies to oppose in public Chinese government requests that violate human rights standards.
All Windows, No Freedom:
Chinese commuters look out from the window of a bus adorned with publicity for Yahoo in Beijing; China.
The three US companies are no stranger to criticism over their China ambitions.
- Yahoo has been repeatedly attacked for its decisions to turn over e-mails and other information to the Chinese government. Some of this information has allegedly resulted in the imprisonment of three dissidents.
- Google is criticized for their decision to censor search results on their new Chinese site, though they are given a bit of credit for informing users when search results have been altered. (Google later admitted that some of its actions in China had compromised the company’s principles).
- Microsoft’s best-known bit of censorship involves blogs on MSN Spaces, where the company has agreed to prevent words like "democracy" from appearing in blog titles or content.
All three companies have lamented the censorship publicly, but none have reversed course in China. The standard line is that, despite having to censor some information, the companies are still doing some good by remaining in the country. Amnesty does not buy it.
In a lengthy section of the report, Amnesty attacks the three most common arguments used by the companies. Regarding the claim that a company must follow local law in China just as it would in the U.S.; Amnesty says that “this argument assumes a greater degree of clarity than currently exists on the substance of Chinese law, as the complex range of relevant rules, laws and regulations are vaguely worded and often contradictory. Those laws that do require monitoring and filtering of content are vague in their language and offer little guidance on how and what information is to be censored. Significantly, none of the companies has been willing or able to specify precisely which laws and legal processes it has been obliged to follow.”
The report, "Undermining Freedom of Expression in China" quotes Yahoo’s corporate values statement: "We believe the Internet is built on openness, from information access to creative expression. We are committed to providing individuals with easy access to information and opportunities to openly communicate and exchange views and opinions."
Yet in China, according to Amnesty, Yahoo! handed over private information that led to the imprisonment of two journalists, Shi Tao and Li Zhi. Yahoo!, Amnesty notes, has also voluntarily signed China’s "Public Pledge on Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry," agreeing to censor and deny access to information.
Microsoft, Amnesty notes, maintains that it has "worked hard to make Microsoft a values-driven company that maintains the highest standards of professional conduct, meets or exceeds the ethical and legal expectations of countries where we do business and seeks to enable people throughout the world to realize their full potential."
Yet, in China, Microsoft shut down the blog of New York Times researcher Zhao Jing at the government’s request. "The company also obeys directions from the Chinese authorities to limit use of certain terms – like ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ – on MSN Spaces," Amnesty says.
Amnesty quotes Google chairman and CEO, Eric Schmidt, saying: "The prize is a world in which every human being starts life with the same access to information, the same opportunities to learn and the same power to communicate. I believe that is worth fighting for."
Yet, in China, Google rolled over for the Chines Authorities and launched a censored version of its international search engine.
The companies “have violated their stated corporate values and policies” in their pursuit of China’s booming Internet market, Amnesty said. It appealed to them to “call for the release of cyber-dissidents.”
“The Internet should promote free speech, not restrict it. We have to guard against the creation of two Internets – one for expression and one for repression,” said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty’s US branch. "It is up to citizens worldwide to keep governments and corporations accountable."
The Rules of the Game:
Ever since the introduction of the Internet in China in 1994 and particularly since its commercialization in 1995, the Chinese government has sought to control its content and to censor information it deemed detrimental or sensitive. With over 123 million Internet users, experts consider that China operates the most extensive, technologically sophisticated and broad-reaching system of Internet filtering in the world.
The willingness of Yahoo, Microsoft and Google to override their principles amounts to a betrayal of trust in the face of the lucrative that the Chinese market offers them, the Amnesty report said. The country’s estimated 123 million Internet users represent only about 9 per cent of China’s total population of 1.3 billion. With a burgeoning economy, this proportion is set to rise.
Amnesty also takes on another common claim, the idea that simply engaging with China will nudge the country toward democracy. The group points out that this has certainly not been the case with the Internet, which has exponentially greater levels of censorship and control than it did a decade ago, when few foreign computer companies operated in the country.
Abused Users:
Chinese journalists and delegates use the internet inside the Great Hall of the People during a conference in Beijing in March 2006. Amnesty said, “The reality is that the Internet has had an established presence in China for over a decade, which means that the world’s major Internet companies can no longer be considered to be helping bring the Internet to China. Instead, they are attempting to gain an increasing share of a rapidly growing market in the knowledge that it will expand with or without their presence.”
Moreover, Amnesty said, Chinese censorship laws and practices contradict the foundations of the Chinese legal system – the Constitution. The Chinese Constitution, under article 35, provides for freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration for all citizens.
The report went on to say, “These companies should also recognize that their actions are in breach of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression for everyone, and that China is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which contains more specific obligations on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information.
In assisting the Chinese administration by complying with its censorship demands, these companies are seen to be facilitating or sanctioning the government’s efforts to control the free flow of information. They thereby contravene established international norms and values, and compromise their own stated principles.
Amnesty rubbished the oft-repeated claim of these companies that they do not morally agree with the restrictions on freedom of expression in China but they are forced to co-operate with the policy based on the premise that local Chinese law demands it. Companies are in effect operating in a zone of ambiguity where they have to make a judgment as to where the boundaries of the law lie.
“This lack of certainty has created a situation where Internet companies are under pressure to undertake ‘self-censorship‘. There is no definitive list of banned words or phrases. Companies, in an effort to retain their license to operate, are required to ‘feel their way’ and follow the filtering habits of competitors.”
Amnesty claims that these companies have simply chosen to censor themselves rather than risk the wrath of the Chinese authorities.
All three companies, the report said, have demonstrated a disregard for their own internally driven and proclaimed policies. “They have made promises to themselves, their employees, their customers and their investors which they failed to uphold in the face of business opportunities and pressure from the Chinese government. This raises doubts about which statements made by these organizations can be trusted and which ones are public relations gestures.”
Finally, regarding the claim that the Internet would be censored in China regardless of US involvement in the country, Amnesty argues that it is not necessarily true. Most of the routing and surveillance technologies have come courtesy of American firms like Cisco, which has recently provided the equipment the government needs to construct a new system called "Policenet." Without the technology provided by these companies, it is unlikely that Chinese censorship would be as pervasive and effective as it is today.
It is this last point that makes the reader wonder why Amnesty chose to focus on Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft. None of these companies provides core censorship technologies; they simply react to government requests. The sale of routing equipment and security software is arguably of much greater importance, and numerous American firms are involved in the business of selling such gear to China. While the report raises some provocative and thoughtful discussion points, it could prove far more useful for Chinese freedom to bring public pressure to bear on the firms who actually make China’s “Great Firewall” a reality.
Amnesty calls on all the companies to be transparent about their dealings with the Chinese authorities and to reveal details of agreements and Web filtering arrangements. It has asked them "to publicly state their principled opposition to implementing requests that flout human rights standards and to call for the release of cyber-dissidents," and "to exhaust all judicial processes and appeals before complying with government requests with human rights implications, such as providing e-mail account details."