Perspective: A cyber blind spot on human rights

Recent revelations that Yahoo helped the Chinese police and judicial authorities identify and convict a journalist who criticized human rights violations in China are shocking.

But the case turned the spotlight on a situation we have condemned for years. Yahoo's is just the most striking example of Internet companies that help the world's most repressive regimes, especially China, carry out online censorship and surveillance. Consider the following:

•  Microsoft censors the Chinese version of its blog tool, MSN Spaces, using a blacklist provided by authorities in Beijing. You cannot enter the terms "democracy" or even "capitalism" in the Chinese version of MSN Spaces as the system automatically rejects these words.

But what is the best way to get concrete results? We think it is time to involve U.S. congressmen.

•  Cisco Systems built the entire infrastructure of the Chinese Internet and allegedly supplied the Chinese security services with equipment that enables them to monitor Internet users.

•  Finally Google, which has always refused to censor its search engine, nonetheless agreed last year to eliminate all "subversive" news sources from Google News China.

When questioned about their unethical behavior, all these corporations respond as one: "We are just complying with local laws." That is a bit facile. What would happen if Yahoo itself were asked to track down cyberdissidents--those who write about democracy and express support for the United States on the Internet--and report them to the authorities? Would it comply with such requests on the grounds that they were "legal?"

Freedom of expression, recognized by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is enshrined in black and white in the Chinese constitution. It is a principle that should be respected by everyone--governments, citizens and companies as well.

What can we do in response to this lack of ethics on the part of the Internet giants? Reporters Without Borders' first reaction was to write to their chief executives in an attempt to engage them in an exchange of views and a debate about the issue. We got no reply to any of our letters, so we had to look for other ways to make ourselves heard.

We tried drawing the media's attention to the problem, thinking these companies would be concerned about protecting their image and would be sensitive to this kind of pressure. Despite the hundreds of articles on this subject that have appeared in the international press, Yahoo and the others have remained silent. We then tried to alert these companies' shareholders through investment funds. On Nov. 7, we presented a joint statement in New York in which 25 mutual trusts and financial analysts managing a total of 21 billion dollars in assets undertook to monitor the activities of Internet companies operating in repressive countries.

Finally, we also alerted members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives and government officials, and several of them have already called on the companies concerned to give an official accounting of their behavior.

Thanks to all this pressure, some of these companies seem at last to be opening their eyes. Yahoo's discourse, for example, has evolved slightly in recent weeks. A Yahoo representative told the Associated Press: "We understand that there are unique and inherent challenges to doing business in China." This is obviously just a small step forward, as the spokesperson at no point recognized that Yahoo ought to reconsider its strategy. But the formulation seems to indicate that Yahoo is now ready to seriously ponder the consequences of its activities in China.

But what is the best way to get concrete results? We think it is time to involve U.S. congressmen. They could, for example, call on corporations such as Yahoo, Google and Microsoft to define a joint position on the requests they receive from repressive governments, a code of conduct that each of them would undertake and respect. These rules could include a ban on any censorship by them of such terms as "democracy" and "human rights."

If these companies refuse to regulate themselves within a reasonable deadline, it might then be necessary for the Senate or House of Representatives to draft legislation. The threat, at least, should be brandished right away.

Biography
Julien Pain is the head of the Internet freedom desk for Reporters Without Borders.

More Perspectives

[hadaso]

Oppressive regimes should be dealt with by their own citizens

History shows that oppressive regimes are overthrown either by their own people revolting or, when their leaders are stupid enough to threat or attack other countries, by losing a war. Often, but not always, they are then replaced by other opressive regimes.

Why shouldn't corporations whose only legal role is making money for their shareholders respect local Chinese laws when the Chinese themselves accept their regime and its laws and do not revolt and replace the regime like the Americans and the French did to their oppressive regimes in the late 18th century, or the Russians in the early 20th century?

I don't know...

maybe they can't revolt and replace the regime? It's too powerful?

[robertcampbell2]

Yes, it does, but

You're probably historically right for the most part, although I'm not sure Iraq would fit this view.

At any rate, it certainly is worth having a national discussion on the possibility that corporations should not engage in this sort of thing.
Dispite the outpouring of sympathy, there are many people in the world who do not view 911 as an act of terrorism, but an act of war, just as there are those who feel Iraqi insurgents are freedom fighters.

When corporations do business overseas, they represent us, and if they represent us in the wrong way, we all end up paying for it...

I have no idea what the solution is and I'm not throwing stones at Yahoo, Google or Microsoft. I use all of their products. But maybe it's time people spoke up about the issue...

[casper2004]

Speaking of oppressive regimes

The United States has an oppressive regime. It's called the Bush Administration. If you want to know how, look at their time in power. They shoot out agendas and gun down it's opponents.

[mbjc88]

Keep Out

A reporter without borders doesn't sound like he would like a company without borders.

He should keep his invasive legislative intrusions to himself.

Why should Yahoo or Google or anyone stay in America if the government starts dictating to them?

I don't agree with what they have done, but i think US government intervention is just as bad or worse.

[databyss]

Excellent Idea! (sarcasm)

Let's use our government to force those companies not to listen to governments that we don't like!

[edolet]

International Ethics

I don't think that many of us like the policies that China is pursuing as they propagate their infrastructure, but I don't think that US governmental restrictions on American corporations is any kind of reasonable answer.

Mr. Julien's moralistic tone seems misplaced... his conclusory statements of the tech company's lack of ethics are made from a paradigm in the West of privacy on the Net and freedom of speech generally.

His statement about China's recognition of Article 19 seems to be grasping at straws. Ask Yahoo about Nazi-related auctions and how France feels about them (in spite of France's recognition of Article 19), or pedophiles how much our First Amendment protects their freedom of speech. Even "black and white" statements are subject to local implementation and review.

Should we all be working to improve China's movement towards freedom and democracy? Sure. But attempting to use US governmental capital to bully American corporations into following local rules and mores is going to end up with them on the outside looking in as China invests or with them distancing themselves from US control.

[p.shearer]

somewhat self-contradictory, Ed

somewhat self-contradictory, Ed

You speak of encouraging freedom and democracy however I fail to see how aiding a communist government block those very key words from being searched furthers this aim. And what is with this placing freedom and pedophilia as moral equivalents? You just alienated a large part of the reader base.

The rule of law is only legitimate when it derives is just powers from the consent of those governed. (that would democracy, Ed.) I have no problem with American business doing business in China. Indeed, I think we should. I do, however, have a problem with American companies acting in a manner inconsistent with basic American ideals and human rights.

[casper2004]

It's the beginning of the new economic order

This is just a prelude to what will happen in the USA one day. They are feeding us this crap to get us used to the idea. The government has been doing it for years, and look where it got us. Too many of us now accept big brother into every aspect of everyone elses lives.

[robertcampbell2]

Isn't it really the same old same old?

A "cyber" blind spot? I remember taking a trip through Mexico years ago and seeing a huge amount of toxic waste and pollution generated by US companies. We dont't do anything to stop it and we won't do anything to stop this.

[eichelman]

Fine companies that violate civil rights

If these companies are denying basic civil rights, like the freedom of speech, in whatever country, they should be fined by our governement, since the UN wont do so.

Non-USA citizens have rights too! Will internet companies next violate these human rights of non-citizens, but legal residents in the USA?

If we dont look out for the rights of people around the world, then no one will look our for our rights either. Do for others as you would like them to do for you.

[casper2004]

This is an example of the new economic order

Regarding customers

Businesses are allowed to do whatever they want. They can tag a customers purchases with microchips. They can bar a customer for body odor. They can sell you something with no return policy. If they don't like a customers foul mouth, they can throw them out. If they feel that the customer is going to use a product different than what the label suggests, they can refuse to sell it to them. For example, I knew a person who needed alligator clips for his engine job. The store thought it was to hold joints so they refused to sell them to him and dared him to go to the law and say that.

Regarding Employees

It goes from bad to worse. You either live the life your employer approves of, or he/she can find someone who will. They don't care that you might have all kinds of experience and be good at the job, they just want you to follow orders on and off the job.

[glenmcd]

Many problems, one solution

Money alone currently dictates the actions of most individuals, to the aggregated detriment of all individuals.

I doubt that this situation will go on for much longer, as people such as Julian extend themselves to make a point. Unfortunately to make a point you need to play their game - get control of lots of money, even if it isn't yours.

By far the most powerful weapon against repression - which exists both in and outside of China - is a global communication system, combined with reputation and digital Identity systems. Without all three, we have nothing.

A digital Identity system is essential as a security measure, otherwise a reputation system cannot possibly have any value.

There are far too many people in the world with viewpoints that are range from extremely valuable, to outright spam. Reputation enables intelligent filtering, based on the discretion of the individual, rather than the state.

To make the transition, will require recognition of the value to all mankind of such a move, by someone or some people that have already suceeded financially, and would now like to be instrumental in bringing an end to the worlds most pressing problems - tyrrany, Identity Theft, fraud, widespread apathy, depression, violent crimes, excessive taxation and spam.

It can be done using current technologies. It needs just two things - money and the right people to get together. This will come, because someone some day will read this, and send the email that starts it all happening.

Glen McDiarmid
[e-mail]

[casper2004]

Go check it out

Money is the root of all evil. Have you seen the eyeball on the dollar bill? It's the new world order keeping an eye on you.

[stanleebing]

This "issue" is created in echo chamber

The "reporter" would do himself a favor by stepping back and actually doing a little original research rather than relying on his colleagues' echo-chamber comments that are spinning this issue up in the first place.

First, China is a sovereign nation. They set their own laws. Companies wishing to do business in China must comply with those laws. Just like Chinese companies wishing to do business in the U.S. must comply with U.S. laws. That's the system.

This reporter and his colleagues do not like that inconvenience. They should direct their efforts towards the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Congress or the White House if they think this is a vital enough issue.

Companies exist to make a dollar. Companies exist to give shareholder value. Extracting oneself from one of the world's largest market because we don't like how they treat their citizens isn't exactly in Microsoft's, Yahoo's, Google's or Cisco's best interest. Following this logic, perhaps these companies should also pull out New Orleans 9th ward and the poorest neighborhoods in the US. We don't like how these citizens are treated either, but going after law-abiding companies is not the right way to go about this effort. Talk to the state department is my advice.

Better yet, spend your time, money and efforts somewhere else on an issue that really matters, like hunger or poverty...after all, having access to some internet is better than no internet, imho. And, in the long run, access to some internet WILL get this French-based organization (Reporters Without Borders) what it ultimately wants - namely, it's own opinion of what is viewed as right and wrong within the borders of China. Just give it some time.

[stanleebing]

This "issue" is created in echo chamber

The "reporter" would do himself a favor by stepping back and actually doing a little original research rather than relying on his colleagues' echo-chamber comments that are spinning this issue up in the first place.

First, China is a sovereign nation. They set their own laws. Companies wishing to do business in China must comply with those laws. Just like Chinese companies wishing to do business in the U.S. must comply with U.S. laws. That's the system.

This reporter and his colleagues do not like that inconvenience. They should direct their efforts towards the U.S. State Department, the U.S. Congress or the White House if they think this is a vital enough issue.

Companies exist to make a dollar. Companies exist to give shareholder value. Extracting oneself from one of the world's largest market because we don't like how they treat their citizens isn't exactly in Microsoft's, Yahoo's, Google's or Cisco's best interest. Following this logic, perhaps these companies should also pull out New Orleans 9th ward and the poorest neighborhoods in the US. We don't like how these citizens are treated either, but going after law-abiding companies is not the right way to go about this effort. Talk to the state department is my advice.

Better yet, spend your time, money and efforts somewhere else on an issue that really matters, like hunger or poverty...after all, having access to some internet is better than no internet, imho. And, in the long run, access to some internet WILL get this French-based organization (Reporters Without Borders) what it ultimately wants - namely, it's own opinion of what is viewed as right and wrong within the borders of China. Just give it some time.

[casper2004]

Don't believe me? Stay tuned!

Reporters are hired to report what they are told. If they were to write what really goes on behind the scenes, they'd end up unemployed by the NWO and left to walk away with just the clothes on their backs

[qenny]

Frightening cultural imperialism

It never ceases to amaze me how many folks in the US seem to assume that their legal system has jurisdiction over the world. It doesn't. And if a US company wants to do business in China, and China puts up some rules about what it can and can't do, that's for China to decide.

When companies operate internationally, they have to comply with local regulations in terms of the tax regime, rules about legitimate expenses, worker protection, etc. Countries that have a more tightly defined set of rules may impose additional restraints such as those discussed in this article. It is for companies such as Google to decide whether or not they want to operate under the rules that are imposed on them. If they don't like it, they can get out of that country.

I know some people who insist that you remove your shoes at the front door before proceeding into their house. It's their house, so I abide by their rules. I don't have such a rule in my house, but I go along with what they want because of a little thing called respect for autonomy.