Censorship in China


Public Pressure Increases

At a further Congressional hearing held on February 15, 2006, Yahoo! (YHOO) 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 (GOOG), Microsoft (MSFT) and Cisco Systems (CSCO) also presented testimony. Overall, the 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. The full hearing can be downloaded online.

Despite being faced with the tragic reality of the company's role in Shi Tao's arrest and detention, and possibly similar past detentions of other internet dissidents, in their recent testimony Yahoo essentially denied any responsibility for investigating how email user information was being utilized by the Chinese government. The company has only taken minimal steps to demonstrate a serious commitment to addressing the root causes of these issues, and still has not explicitly called for Shi Tao's release or established a comprehensive human rights policy.

Furthermore, it remains to be seen to what degree Yahoo! (YHOO) is benefiting Chinese citizens, since all of their services in China 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 have contributed to at least one extremely severe case of human rights abuse. 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. Yahoo!'s letter does not respond to all of the concerns raised by Amnesty, nor do they address the additional "choices" that Yahoo! (YHOO) does indeed have in China, as detailed in our letter.

However there have been some small steps recently which indicate that Yahoo! (YHOO) is responding to pressure. In February 2006, in advance of the US Congressional hearing mentioned above, Yahoo! (YHOO) released a statement expressing that they are "deeply concerned by efforts of governments to restrict and control open access to information and communication." Furthermore, they have 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."

While Amnesty welcomes such a process, we want to ensure that it is open and transparent, and leads not only to a set of principles, but explicit guidelines for implementation and evaluation. We agree with Yahoo! (YHOO) 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 call for legislation 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.

Lastly, Yahoo has also 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 are pleased that Yahoo has stopped diminishing their important role in relationship to foreign governments, and hope that their first step will 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.

Google and Microsoft have also come out publicly to defend themselves and promote the small efforts they have made to respond to concerns.

For instance, Microsoft, also in connection with their testimony before Congress, announced a new policy under which it will:

Although this initiative is a first step, we remain concerned that the policy 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. 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.

For its part, Google has attempted to claim the moral high ground because (so far) they have not introduced e-mail or blogging, 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.

In an additional effort to respond to criticism levied by Amnesty and others, both Microsoft and Google have announced that they will provide some disclosure to their users about the fact that their content had been censored "according to local laws and regulations." As reported in The New York Times, this new policy would not have prevented Microsoft from censoring of the Chinese blogger, Zhao Jing. So 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. One thing the companies claim is true: each time the disclosure pops up the Chinese users receive a reminder that their government is the primary agent of that censorship. But the message they receive even more clearly is that now America's most prominent IT companies are partners in that repression, and that they find it acceptable. This is a huge blow for human rights, and for the perception of American values abroad.

US-based technology companies like Yahoo, Microsoft and 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 norms, the company's mission or standards, 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. 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.

Another argument we often hear from US technology companies operating in China is that the Government will eventually ease its censorship, and that they need to be poised for this imminent change. But there is absolutely no evidence that this is likely to happen. In fact, there is significantly more evidence to the contrary. Though US-based IT companies like to pretend that there is no stopping the swift march of information in China, we should not underestimate the state machinery of repression so deeply embedded in China's infrastructure. The Chinese Government's investments in Internet controls appear to be keeping pace with technological developments, and for companies to claim that such control is not sustainable for the Chinese is both naïve and dangerous. Further, a change of heart in China is even less likely to occur when foreign investors and companies continue to develop the country's economy while showing no signs of resistance to complying with human rights violations. If we permit American companies to give in to the Chinese on censorship, their infrastructure for control only becomes more powerful.

An extremely important outcome of the Congressional hearing is a proposed bill called the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, introduced by New Jersey Representative Chris Smith. The bill 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.

In the meantime, while it is encouraging that these companies have undertaken some small steps, there is still much to be done. You can join us in sending messages to Yahoo, Microsoft and Google that they must take more steps to ensure they are not aiding human rights abuses in China.

Representative Smith has reintroduced his bill in the new Congress this year as the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007. Your Member of Congress is key to ensuring this Bill helps preserve freedom of expression and open access to information on the Internet. If your representative is a member of the House International Relations Committee, call on them to support this bill today.

Next »