LISTINGS |  EDITOR'S PICKS |  NEWS |  MUSIC |  MOVIES |  DINING |  LIFE |  ARTS |  REC ROOM |  THE BEST |  CLASSIFIED

Little Red ’Net

The battle for Internet freedom will not end with China
March 10, 2006 9:52:14 AM

AS IS OFTEN THE CASE: Those hoping for clear leadership from Washington may be disappointed.February 15 was a very squirmy day for officials at Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and Cisco. A Congress in high moral dudgeon accused them of helping the repressive Chinese regime censor the free flow of information and target dissent.

Addressing an overflow crowd, Republican New Jersey representative Christopher Smith — citing an estimated 81 people imprisoned in China for posting material critical of the regime — called the Internet a “cyber sledgehammer of repression of the government of China.” He added, “For the sake of market share and profits, leading US companies like Google, Yahoo, Cisco, and Microsoft have compromised both the integrity of their product and their duties as responsible corporate citizens.”

Tom Lantos, the senior Democrat on the International Relations Committee and a Holocaust survivor, warned that without Congressional oversight, “these companies would have continued their nauseating collaboration with a regime of repression.” He then asked the corporate executives if they were “ashamed” of their work in China.

Not everyone was impressed with the display of Congressional outrage. Writing for www.TomPaine.com, former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich described the hearings as a “holier-than-thou public condemnation” and a grandstanding “media circus.” But the issue at center stage is a pivotal one. It forces a face-off between capitalism and freedom, and between engagement and confrontation as the Internet emerges as a path for the unprecedented global flow of information. Or a tool for cynical governmental control of citizens. Or both.

Right now, the chief battleground is China, a totalitarian superpower and huge economic prize that already has more than 100 million Internet users. It also boasts a number of US companies that have conformed to repressive Chinese dictates. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. Reporters Without Borders, the Paris-based organization that advocates for freedom of expression, has created a list of “15 enemies of the Internet,” with entries ranging from Burma and Cuba to Tunisia — some of which are also reliant on US technology.

“Of course everybody is focused on China because it’s a powerful country,” says Julien Pain, who runs the organization’s Internet-freedom desk. “What I’m monitoring is [that] it’s now a worldwide problem. Now all dictators on earth are trying to control the Internet.”

“It’s a problem in most repressive regimes,” agrees Danny O’Brien, activism coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “I think the reason why the hearing concentrated on China is that China is a very convenient target for a Congressional investigation. Economically, it’s turning into a powerhouse, and this is the point at which they are trying to build their ‘net.’ ”

Given the intense focus on the issue in Washington, there seems to be a frantic scramble for guidelines and ground rules — with no guarantee of success or even sanity. Looming over the debate is the question of whether, in a complicated world, the US government should treat the export of such potent information technology in much the same fashion as it exports weaponry.

Representative Smith has just introduced the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, while last month the US State Department announced the creation of the new Global Internet Freedom Task Force. Both the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Reporters Without Borders argue that Internet companies should adopt codes of conduct regulating their activities in authoritarian countries. And in statements during the Congressional hearings, the companies themselves seemed to be practically begging for guidance from Washington.

“We appeal to the US government to do all it can to help us provide beneficial services to Chinese citizens lawfully and in a way consistent with our shared values,” declared Michael Callahan, general counsel for Yahoo, which has come under harsh criticism for its cooperation with Chinese authorities.

Chagrined in China
From their public testimony, at least, some Internet companies working in China indicated they are genuinely conflicted about their roles. Not surprisingly, though, they ultimately concluded that conducting business is a better option than withdrawal. Google vice-president Elliot Schrage was honest enough to acknowledge that “there is no question that, as a matter of business, we want to be active in China. It is a huge, rapidly growing, and enormous market.”

“The requirements of doing business in China include self-censorship, something that runs counter to Google’s most basic values and commitments as a company,” Schrage continued in his testimony. “Our decision was based on a judgment that Google.cn will make a meaningful — though imperfect — contribution to the overall access of information in China.”

In order to bolster his company’s contention that its services were beneficial on “human rights and freedom of expression” grounds, Microsoft associate general counsel Jack Krumholtz cited a survey in which 60 percent of Chinese Internet users said that they believed the Internet would allow them more opportunities to criticize the government.


pages: 1 | 2 | 3
COMMENTS

No comments yet. Be the first to start a conversation.

Login to add comments to this article
Email

Password




Register Now  |   Lost password


MOST POPULAR

 VIEWED   EMAILED 

More
ADVERTISEMENT


PHOENIX MEDIA GROUP
CLASSIFIEDS







TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
   
Copyright © 2007 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group