Censorship in China
US Companies Implicated in Abuses
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Yahoo! Microsoft Google
Nearly 6 years since Amnesty first reported on this issue, little has changed. The primary US companies implicated are Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google.
Take action now to help end online censorship in China!>>
- Yahoo!
Restricting Information Online
In 2002 Yahoo voluntarily signed the 'Public Pledge on Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry'. Among other things, the Pledge requires Yahoo to 'refrain from producing, posting or disseminating harmful information that may jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability, contravene laws and regulations and spread superstition and obscenity'. The 2007 version of the pledge further encourages Internet companies to register the real names, addresses and other personal details of the bloggers, and then keep this information, in addition to deleting any "illegal or bad messages". Yahoo is under no legal obligation to sign this pledge, yet they chose to sign it, first in 2002 and again in 2007.
By taking this step, the company has aligned itself with the Chinese Government's approach to suppressing dissent, damaging its own credibility in the process. Yahoo! claims that the pledge does not impose a greater obligation than already exists in local law, however by signing this pledge Yahoo! is agreeing with and publicly expressing its support for some of the requests of the Chinese government that are inconsistent with international human rights standards, specifically freedom of expression. Since signing the pledge, Yahoo! has continued to censor search results via the Chinese version of its search engine. Amnesty calls on Yahoo! to rescind their agreement to abide by the pledge which contradicts their stated intent in participating in the multi-stakeholder initiative, an effort that emphasizes the upholding of international standards in the face of government crack-downs on human rights.
Yahoo’s involvement in the detention of Shi Tao and othersOf grave concern to Amnesty is Yahoo’s cooperation with authorities in China in events which led to the detention of Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist. Mr. Shi was imprisoned solely for the legitimate exercise of his right to seek, receive and impart information, as guaranteed under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political R
ights. According to the court transcript of the Changsha Intermediate People's Court of Hunan Province Criminal Verdict, evidence presented by the prosecutor that led to the sentencing of Mr. Shi included account-holder information provided by Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd.
Yahoo has admitted that their subsidiary provided this evidence by correcting the record to state that the information was supplied not directly by Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd., but by Yahoo China, which is held by Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. On April 27, 2005, Mr. Shi received a ten-year prison term for sending information about a Communist Party decision through his Yahoo email account to a website based in the United States. Mr. Shi's appeal was denied on June 2, 2005.
Amnesty International considers Mr. Shi a prisoner of conscience, as he was imprisoned for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and opinion. TAKE ACTION NOW.
Click here for the hi-res version.In a disturbingly similar case, it has come to light that Yahoo released information to the Chinese government which could have contributed to the arrest of another dissident, Li Zhi. Mr. Li was jailed for eight years in 2003, after posting comments that criticized government corruption. His case was highlighted in the 2004 Amnesty report, Controls tighten as Internet activism grows.
Yahoo’s Response
At a Congressional hearing held on February 15, 2006, Yahoo! presented formal testimony regarding Shi Tao specifically and internet censorship generally, and responded to many questions from Representatives of Congress about their role in China. Google, Microsoft and Cisco Systems also presented testimony. Overall, Congress was not satisfied with the current state of play regarding IT and human rights in China, leading to a spirited debate about what could be done.
Despite being faced with the tragic reality of the company's role in Shi Tao's arrest and detention, and allegedly the detentions of other internet dissidents, Yahoo! essentially denied any responsibility for investigating how email user information was being utilized by the Chinese government in its February 2006 testimony.
In fact, it asserted that the company had no knowledge of the nature of Shi Tao’s investigation at the time. However, a Chinese police document that later surfaced indicated that Yahoo! was at least aware of the general nature of the ‘crime’, before it decided to hand over Shi Tao’s account user information: The Duihua Foundation reported that an April 2004 police notice to Yahoo! states that the police were seeking evidence in a suspected case of “illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities,” an offense that is often cited by government officials to hinder freedom of expression rights of dissidents and journalists.Addressing the issue?
In February 2006, in advance of the US Congressional hearing, Yahoo! released a statement expressing that they were "deeply concerned by efforts of governments to restrict and control open access to information and communication." Furthermore, they committed to "Collective Action," as Amnesty and others demanded in Congressional testimony, agreeing to "work with industry, government, academia and NGO's to explore policies to guide industry practices in countries where content is treated more restrictively than in the United States and to promote the principles of freedom of speech and expression." This commitment ultimately resulted in the multistakeholder initiative, launched in January 2007, which Yahoo has participated in.While Amnesty welcomed such a process, we wanted to ensure that it would be open and transparent, and lead not only to a set of principles, but explicit guidelines for implementation and evaluation. We agreed with Yahoo! that "government-to-government dialogue is vital to achieve progress on these complex political issues" and that the US government has an important role to play. As such, we used our testimony to the Congress in part to support regulating US Internet technology companies operating overseas, and other companies publicly traded on US stock exchanges (which would include Baidu (BIDU), the primary Chinese competitor), requiring them to report on their participation in government-ordered filtering/censorship wherever they operate and prohibiting them from complying with violations of freedom of expression and information by repressive regimes. The Global Online Freedom Act is designed to respond to and prevent censorship and abuse of freedom of expression on the Internet by placing restrictions on US Internet content hosting companies operating in countries that censor, prosecute and/or persecute individuals based on the exercise of such freedoms.
Lastly, Yahoo agreed to "actively engage in ongoing policy dialogue with governments with respect to the nature of the Internet and the free flow of information." We were pleased that Yahoo had stopped diminishing their important role in relationship to foreign governments, and had hoped that their first step would be to call for the immediate release of Shi Tao and other internet dissidents, both those imprisoned with the aid of Yahoo as well as others. Yet to this day, this has not happened.
Alongside these commitments, however, Yahoo! has repeatedly attempted to shunt its responsibilities by citing its relationship with Alibaba (Alibaba controls Yahoo! China in exchange for Yahoo!’s 40% ownership share of Alibaba) to explain its lack of ability to resist government requests for user information. Yahoo should not arrange a business relationship with a Chinese Internet company and then cite its own lack of control over its operations as an excuse for not taking pro-active steps to stop involvement in abuse of freedom of expression or privacy rights.
Shareholder activism
On May 25, 2006, Tony Cruz represented Amnesty at the Yahoo stockholder meeting where he had a chance to speak face-to-face with CEO Terry Semel and Founder Jerry Yang.At the meeting, Tony pointed out that Yahoo's business is dependent on MORE freedom of expression, not less. He then added, "At least two Chinese writers, who were Yahoo customers, have been imprisoned after Yahoo provided their account information to the Chinese police. Right here and right now will you call on the Chinese government to release Shi Tao, Li Zhi, and other innocent victims of China's online repression named by Amnesty International as Prisoners of Conscience?" He then held out a list of nearly 50 internet dissidents currently in jail in China who have been named Prisoners of Conscience, and offered it to Semel, who did not take the list.
After a lengthy but inadequate response about how Yahoo feels problems in China should be addressed, Tony politely but firmly reminded the executives that he still needed an answer to his question. When Yang responded, "We are going to do it in the way we think is most appropriate." Tony again asked if that was a "no" answer and Yang continued to evade a direct response.
Though Amnesty did not attend the 2007 shareholder meeting, we supported a shareholder proposal submitted by the New York City Pension Funds regarding censorship and privacy issues. We plan to attend the 2008 shareholder meeting on July 3, where two shareholder proposals regarding human rights will be voted on.
Pressure on Yahoo increases
On November 6, 2007, Yahoo! was requested to appear again before the US Congressional House Foreign Relations Committee to explain the apparent discrepancy in how much it knew about the request for Shi Tao's information. At the hearing, the late Rep. Tom Lantos told Yahoo! that, while technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies.”Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang offered an apology to Shi Tao's mother, who attended the November 6th hearing. On November 14, it was announced that Yahoo! settled the lawsuit brought by the families of Shi Tao and pro-democracy activist and blogger Wang Xiaoning, both of whom were convicted and imprisoned based on information that Yahoo! gave to the Chinese authorities.
Because many terms of the settlement are private, it is difficult for Amnesty to assess the degree to which it will impact the human rights of Shi Tao or other journalists or dissidents in China.More Information:
Yahoo! Settlement in Chinese Journalists' Case Does Not Fix Dangers of Doing Business in China, says Amnesty International, November 13, 2007
Amnesty International USA Statement on Yahoo! Testimony Before Congressional Committee Regarding the Company's Involvement in Case of Imprisoned Chinese Journalist , November 6, 2007
In February 2008, Jerry Yang wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to help secure the release of dissidents in China. Amnesty welcomes this letter as a first step toward the action we have been asking Yahoo! to take – to make that same appeal for Chinese prisoners of conscience with the Chinese government, the government that it assists in targeting journalists and dissidents for exercising peaceful, protected expression.
Yahoo! has said that it “balance[s] the requirement to comply with laws that are not necessarily consistent with [its] own values against [its] strong belief that active involvement in China contributes to the continued modernization of the country as well as a benefit to Chinese citizens through the advancement of communications, commerce and access to information.”
It remains to be seen to what degree Yahoo! is benefiting Chinese citizens, since all of its services in China appear to comply with the same standards adhered to by their Chinese competitors. What we do know for a fact, is that Yahoo's operation in China has contributed to at least one extremely severe case of human rights abuse. By complying with this censorship, companies like Yahoo! are sending a clear message to Chinese citizens that they endorse such practices. The Chinese Government is keeping pace with technology, finding new ways to control access to information at every turn. By complying with this censorship, companies like Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google are sending a clear message to Chinese citizens that they endorse such practices.
In May 2008, Yahoo! was again requested to appear before Congress to report on steps they have taken since these concerns first arose. Yahoo! seems to be making steps in the right direction. It is participating in the multi-stakeholder initiative to develop voluntary standards on freedom of expression and privacy, and in May 2008 it announced the establishment of a Business and Human Rights program within the company as part of its commitment to freedom of expression and privacy rights.
Amnesty is watching to see if the program will result in concrete changes to prevent a situation similar to Shi Tao's case from reoccurring in the future. While the description of the program sounds appealing, the actual impacts it will have on the ground is yet to be seen. For example, will the existence of the program compel Yahoo! to lobby the Chinese government to release Shi Tao? Will it cause Yahoo! to rescind its signature on the 2007 self-discipline pledge? Will it change how Yahoo! interacts with Alibaba? Will it result in the company’s human rights impact assessments being disclosed and independently assessed?Take action now! Call on Yahoo! to stop supporting the Chinese Government's denial of fundamental freedoms and use its influence to secure Shi Tao's release. Act Now! | See the video
Microsoft’s search engine MSN China filters the results of searches for politically sensitive terms, displaying a message in Chinese which states ‘Certain content was removed from the results of this search’. Searches undertaken in June 2006 by AI produced this message for the words ‘Falun Gong’, ‘Tibet Independence’ and ‘June 4’ (the date of the Tiananmen Square massacre). In May 2008, the fine print removal message still appears on many searches.
Microsoft has voluntarily signed the 'Public Pledge on Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry'. Among other things, the Pledge requires Microsoft to 'refrain from producing, posting or disseminating harmful information that may jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability, contravene laws and regulations and spread superstition and obscenity'. Microsoft is under no legal obligation to sign this pledge.
Microsoft has admitted that it responds to directives from the Chinese government by restricting users of MSN Spaces from including certain terms in their account name, space name, space sub-title or in photo captions. At the same time the company asserts that MSN Spaces does not filter blog content in any way. Amnesty International considers this claim to be at odds with the facts.
When Microsoft launched MSN Spaces in China in June 2005, attempts to create blogs with words including ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and ‘freedom of expression’ were blocked, producing the following error message (in Chinese): ‘You must enter a title for your space. The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity. Please type a different title.’ Tests by AI carried out in June 2006 demonstrated continued blocking of certain terms including ‘Tiananmen incident’ in the title of blogs.
As a result of such actions, Microsoft users in China are denied the ability to access the full range of information available internationally on human rights topics.In January 2006, reports surfaced that Microsoft had cooperated with Chinese authorities to shut down the controversial blog of Zhao Jing, also known as “Michael Anti”, a Beijing-based researcher for the New York Times and an active critic of censorship in China.
The blog, which was hosted on servers located in the United States, was removed and was therefore censored not only in China but globally. Reacting to criticism, Microsoft claims to have implemented a new set of standards to ensure that they will only remove blogs when they receive formal legal notice from the Chinese government and that access will only be denied to users in China.
This censorship contradicts the very principles and values that Microsoft was founded upon, and also goes against the constitution of the People’s Republic of China which guarantees freedom of expression. Furthermore, China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Article 19 clearly states that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference; that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. The restrictions on freedom of expression and information which Microsoft has facilitated in China are inconsistent with international standards.
Amnesty International raised concerns about Microsoft’s support of China’s censorship infrastructure in 2002, in November 2005, and in our 2006 report Undermining Freedom of Expression in China. We have also expressed our significant dismay over Microsoft and other US internet companies' continuing role as agents of censorship in Congressional testimony in 2006 and again in 2008.Microsoft’s response
Microsoft has taken some small steps to respond to criticism about their operations in China and other repressive countries, but overall these efforts have had little impact on users in China.
The company responded to our public call to action, first by posting a message on the Business & Human Rights Resource Center, and soonafter, in a formal letter to Amnesty International. Many activists have also received a similar letter in response to taking our online action. We take issue with the claims Microsoft makes in these responses, as explained below and in this follow up letter from Irene Khan to Bill Gates. A more detailed explanation can be found in the full-length report, Undermining Freedom of Expression in China: the role of Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google.Did you receive a response from Microsoft? Use this sample letter to follow up and keep the pressure on them!
China's self censorship pledge
In their 2006 response, Microsoft claimed to not be a signatory to the Public Pledge of Self Regulation for the Chinese Internet industry, which is a voluntary pledge. In earlier communications, Amnesty International stated that Microsoft had signed China's self-censorship pledge. If we were incorrect in our information at that time, we apologize unreservedly for this mistake. However, In 2007, when presented with another self-censorship pledge, this time focused on blogging, Microsoft signed. In August of that year they released a statement explaining that the self-regulatory code makes some recommendations that Microsoft ostensibly does not support, and that because the code was voluntary that they were free to interpret it as they deemed appropriate. In particular, they claimed they would not plan to implement real-name registration for blogging in their Windows Live Spaces service in China.Microsoft’s willingness to sign a voluntary pledge and then claim it has no intention to uphold its tenets calls seriously into question any voluntary commitments the company makes, including those made within the multistakeholder initiative to develop human rights principles for the Internet industry.
Microsoft’s signing of the 2007 pledge (regardless of reservations) and the case of Michael Anti raises the question whether Microsoft will respond to requests from the government to shut down blogs, or censor information in any other ways, therefore risking complicity with the Chinese government in violating human rights. Microsoft should provide clear evidence of what laws Michael Anti broke and on the basis of what laws the company shut down his blog.
MSN searches engines
Microsoft also claimed that their "MSN search engine in China (currently in beta), does not block searches for particular key words, including "democracy," "freedom," "human rights," and the like. Users ...do receive search results when these keywords are entered, although users who click on these results may find that certain pages are inaccessible due to gateway-level blocking. MSN Search has no role in such gateway-level blocking."
Findings by Amnesty International in May 2008 show that that Microsoft does continue to filter the results of searches for politically sensitive terms. In doing a search on beta.search.msn.com.cn for a term such as "Tiananmen Square," a page came up stating "A portion of the search results have been deleted"". We consider this operation censorship.
MSN blogs
Finally, Microsoft claimed that "Users of MSN Spaces in China are not prohibited from using the words "democracy," "freedom," or "human rights" in blog titles or blog content. Indeed, MSN Spaces does not filter blog content in any way."
Although it appears that MSN Spaces users are not prohibited now from using words like "democracy", "freedom", or "human rights" when creating blogs, as they were when Microsoft launched MSN spaces in China in 2005, recent tests carried out in June 2006 demonstrated the continuing blocking of certain words and terms including "Tiananmen incident" in the title of blogs.
As the list of censored key words appears to have undergone changes, Microsoft should report publicly the list of all words banned at any particular time.
Although we agree with Microsoft that the availability of internet services provided has the potential to increase the ability of Chinese people to engage in free expression, this cannot come at the price of human rights violations. Internet companies have a clear responsibility to avoid playing any role that might support the Chinese government in restricting the fulfillment of human rights.
In 2006, Microsoft announced a new policy under which it will:· Remove blog content only if it receives a legally-binding notice from a government;
· Remove user access only in that country (access will be available elsewhere in the world); and
Notify affected bloggers that their content was blocked due to government restrictions.
Although this policy is a first step, we remain concerned that it does not preclude Microsoft from assisting governments in censoring and removing access to blogs, or in providing information on specific Microsoft users. Such requests, though presented as legally-binding, may result in the violation of the user’s fundamental human rights. As reported in The New York Times, this new policy would not have prevented the censoring of the Chinese blogger, Zhao Jing.
Learn more about how Microsoft is censoring blogs »The fact that a company acts in compliance with a particular, restrictive domestic law does not exempt it from its required compliance with other laws of the country or with international human rights responsibilities. This is particularly true where complying with one domestic law contributes to violations of another, and to human rights violations.
Even with the policy in place, Chinese internet users still cannot freely access information, and they do not learn anything specific about the nature of the censorship, such as which sources were blocked, for what specific aspect of the law. One thing that companies like Microsoft claim is true: each time the disclosure appears on a search result page, if users see it, they are reminded that their government is a primary agent of censorship. But the message they receive even more clearly is that now America’s most prominent IT companies are partners in the repression.Shareholder activism
On November 14, 2006, Larry Dohrs represented Amnesty at the Microsoft (MSFT) shareholder meeting. Dohrs posed a question to the top executives of the company, asking them, "why Microsoft did not support the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, proposed legislation which would have empowered the U.S. government to help our company resist the censorship efforts of governmental authorities, and provide a set of ground rules for how we should operate in repressive regimes?"
Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith delivered a prepared response, vaguely stating that the company supported diplomatic efforts between the US and Chinese governments and acknowledged that undue restriction on freedom of expression is a critical issue in many parts of the world. While the exchange was cordial, once again Microsoft missed an opportunity to make a public commitment to promote and respect human rights.
Moving beyond talk
Along with Yahoo and Google, Microsoft has been participating in the multi-stakeholder initiative (MSI) to help develop a set of principles on freedom of expression and privacy for the industry. Yet we remain concerned that little has changed in the way they operate which would protect Internet freedom in China or other repressive countries.
Take action now! Call on Microsoft to stand up for freedom of expression online
Amnesty International is concerned about the ways Google is aiding the repression of freedom to information and expression in China, and the implications this may have for the way the company operates everywhere in the world.
Early in 2006 Google launched a self-censoring Chinese search engine, google.cn, and since announced that it would continue to expand its investments in China. Called "Gu Ge" in Chinese, google.cn affects Chinese Internet users by blocking and/or filtering search results for topics such as human rights, political reform, Tiananmen Square and Falun Gong, among others.This blocking of search results abuses the right to freedom of expression, which includes the rights to seek and impart information. In addition to interfering with human rights, Google’s search filtering would seem to violate its own organizational mission to make information “universally accessible”.
Small steps by Google
Google has taken some small steps to respond to criticism about their operations in China and other repressive countries, but overall these efforts have had little impact on users in China.
Amnesty International's Secretary General, Irene Khan, released a statement from the 2006 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, saying,
"While acknowledging that Google has taken a number of steps to ensure access of Chinese users to the Internet, Amnesty International is nonetheless dismayed at the growing global trend in the IT industry.
"Whether succumbing to demands from Chinese officials or anticipating government concerns, companies that impose restrictions that infringe on human rights are being extremely short-sighted. The agreements the industry enters into with the Chinese government, whether tacit or written, go against the IT industry's claim that it promotes the right to freedom of information of all people, at all times, everywhere."
Read the full press release. »
Google says that it has tried to lessen the impact of its filtering by informing users that information is being censored. However, the wording of Google’s disclosure message is disconcerting. The message says, "in accordance with local laws, regulations and policies, a portion of the search results are not displayed." By invoking “laws” and “regulations,” Google sends an unclear message about the right to freedom of expression, and its willingness to let the requests of repressive government authorities trump international human rights law and standards.
While improved transparency is a welcomed first step, disclosure must be thorough and backed by efforts to actually lessen restrictions on access to information itself. Otherwise, what is the net benefit of this policy to the Chinese people? They still cannot access information, and they do not learn anything specific about the nature of the censorship, such as which sources were blocked, for what specific aspect of the law. Each time the disclosure appears on a user's screen, people receive a reminder that the Chinese government is a primary agent of censorship. However, the message they receive even more clearly is that now America's most prominent IT companies are willing partners in that repression.
Until January 2006, Google's Support Center claimed that it “does not censor results for any search term,” but removed this claim after reaching its deal with China. Google's willingness to participate in censorship contradicts the very principles it was founded upon. By its own terms, Google's mission is to “organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.” But the company's censoring in China does not make information universally accessible; it does the opposite, creating two worlds, two internets – a free and open one for some people and a closed, censored one for others.
Chinese law guarantees freedom of expression – why doesn’t Google?
Google's chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, has defended Google's decision to cooperate with censors. He has claimed that accepting China's restrictions was unavoidable. Yet the constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of expression and China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which Article 19 clearly states that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference; that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression, and that this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Amnesty has called on Google to rely on the law in the Chinese constitution and the ICCPR that protects freedom of expression, rather than the edicts of local authorities which repress it. Google should at least try to use available legal bases to challenge requests to censor search results. The company has pushed back on government demands in other countries, including in the US, but it appears it hasn't even tried in China.
The restrictions on freedom of expression and information which Google has facilitated in China are inconsistent with international standards.Taking a principled stand?
Faced with mounting pressure by Amnesty and others that Google should, alone or in concert with other companies, use its considerable influence to press the Chinese Government to change their censorship practices, Mr. Schmidt has responded publicly that the company has no plans to lobby the Chinese Government. Such lobbying, he claimed, would be "arrogant."
Companies like Google often claim that the Chinese Government is simply too powerful and that they have no alternatives but to comply with their requests, even those that run counter to international human rights law and standards, the company's mission or values, U.S. law, or even China's own constitution. The fact is, if U.S.-based IT companies are to do business in China (or anywhere else), they ought to apply their business standards universally. Companies cannot justify complying with a particular, restrictive domestic law when to do so means violating other laws of the country or international human rights law and standards.
Google has attempted to claim the moral high ground because (so far) they have not introduced e-mail or blogging in China, they say to avoid demands to turn over personal information on internet dissidents to Chinese government officials (as happened with Yahoo!). But avoiding one form of potential abuse by not offering email or blogging does not erase or even mitigate the very real impacts of their decision to willingly censor, aiding Chinese government repression of the freedom of expression and information. Also, a reported case of Google handing over user information to authorities in India indicates that the company is no better than its competitors that have breached users' rights to privacy and freedom of expression.Shareholder activism
On May 11, 2006, Tony Cruz, AIUSA's California CAN Coordinator, boarded a shuttle bus to head deep into the heart of Google's corporate campus, where he would address the founders of Google in person. At the meeting, Tony had the rare opportunity to engage face-to-face with Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, in a rather heated exchange about internet censorship in China. Listen to a webcast of the event.
Fast forward to around minute 42, where Tony very eloquently stated,"I am here today using the proxy from the New York City Employees Retirement System, which holds about two hundred million dollars worth of Google stock. I am also here representing Amnesty International, the largest human rights organization in the world, with about 1.8 million members worldwide...
First let me say that we understand the significant potential of the Internet to promote human rights and we appreciate how Google can be a part of this positive impact. However, Amnesty is deeply concerned about Google's recent decision to actively censor its flagship search engine in China. Censoring search results for information on human rights or democracy makes Google a partner with one of the world's most repressive regimes, and it is a violation of freedom of expression and information, human rights guaranteed under international standards.
Every day, at Amnesty, we hear from concerned Google customers asking what search engine they can use that isn't abusing human rights. So, to sum it up, my two questions are this: What will Google do to win back customers who have switched to using search engines from companies that do not make what you've called "ugly compromises" with repressive regimes? And 2, Do you think that you should to develop and implement policies to assure your customers that you will no longer take steps that undermine human rights in pursuit of profit?"
Before responding, Sergey Brin tried to derail the discussion by badmouthing Yahoo, drawing attention to the fact that Yahoo has been censoring in China since the 1990's and "recently caused several journalists to go to prison there." Tony got the entire room laughing when he responded, "Believe me, we've got Yahoo lined up!" but then brought to subject back by stating firmly that he was there to talk about Google, not Yahoo. In the end, Brin never addressed what the company would do to win back customers who have switched to other search engines, and did not discuss whether the company would implement a human rights policy. Instead they tried to take cover behind the fact that few Chinese are using Google.cn at this point, and that "/business/uncensored" Google.com is still available in China. As Brin stated, "...we're not yet, in any significant form, providing any kind of censored results to the Chinese people, so I feel good about it." Though technically that may be true, the fact remains that Google.com is subject to the highly restrictive firewall set up by the Chinese Government, so calling it uncensored is a misnomer. Google may not be doing the censoring themselves, but by bending over backward to comply with censorship on Google.cn, they send a clear message to the Chinese Government and the Chinese people that they believe censorship is acceptable.
At Google's 2008 annual shareholder meeting on May 8th, concerned shareholders led by Amnesty International USA called on Google to take a serious stand against Internet censorship and stop aiding the Chinese and other governments in denying the basic right of freedom of expression to its citizens.
AIUSA Member Tony Cruz, using the proxy of the New York City Pension Funds, called on Google shareholders to support a proposal that would require the company to commit to protecting access to information and freedom of expression--much in line with Google's own mantra "Do No Evil".
Coalition partner and socially responsible investor, Harrington Investments, put forward a proposal for a Board Committee on Human Rights (which Amnesty also supported), stating, “The directors at Google have failed to demonstrate that they are able to adapt to the reality that the protection of human rights is a real element of fiduciary responsibility and an obligation for corporate directors… We need more than the morality of materialist self interest to lead us through the 21st century.”
Though the Board of Directors of Google recommended a vote against both proposals, in an interesting turn, Co-founder Sergey Brin opted to abstain from voting, claiming he agreed with their "spirit and intent" and just disagreed with how they were worded. Nevertheless, we'd prefer to see action from Google rather than conversations about semantics.
Toward the end of the meeting, AIUSA Member Robert Rosoff asked why Google was not supporting the Global Online Freedom Act, legislation that could help Google better deal with censorship requests from repressive governments, and why they were not exploring options within Chinese law (which ostensibly protects freedom of expression) to stand up to such requests. While Google responded that they were not opposed to legislation, they fell short of supporting the bill. Google did, however, say they would look into ways of using Chinese law to protect freedom of expression. We intend to hold them to these concessions and will keep you posted on whether they follow through.
Google has misled shareholders and the public into thinking that such proposals seek Google’s withdrawal from China - this is not true, and it is certainly not what Amnesty has requested. What we have requested is rather simple: that Google implement policies to protect the basic human rights of its users and cease from aiding repressive regimes in censoring web material. It is time to end the double talk and corporate misdirection, and to take a stand to protect freedom of expression and access to information online.
You can listen to a webcast of the meeting at http://investor.google.com/webcast.html
So much talking, so little action
Like Yahoo and Microsoft, Google is participating in the multi-stakeholder initiative to develop human rights principles for the Internet industry. In May 2008, Google was again requested to appear before Congress to report on steps they have taken since these concerns first arose. During the hearing, Google’s commitment to addressing censorship was seriously called into question, in particular their apparent unwillingness to agree to independent monitoring and evaluation of the company’s compliance with human rights principles. Independent monitoring is vital to ensure robust and credible systems are in place and operating effectively.Take action now! Tell Google "Don't be evil!" - Help end censorship online
