Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Google Agree to NGO Code of Conduct
Aditi.Tuteja writes "Technology companies have come under fire for providing equipment or software that permits governments to censor information or monitor the online or offline activities of their citizens. For example, last year, Google's approach to the China market was criticized over its creation of a censored, local version of its search engine. Microsoft, Google, and two other technology companies will develop a code of conduct with a coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to promote freedom of expression and privacy rights, they announced Friday. The two companies along with Yahoo, and Vodafone Group said the new guidelines are the result of talks with Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School."
Big business not raping & pillaging?
Where's the catch???
does google china still censor it's content? yes? then this is a load of bullshit.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
This code of conduct (CCC) for nongovernmtal organisations (NGOs) is a result of BSR and shows the effectiveness of clear communication and cooperation (CCC). The groups participating in the guidelines (apart from MS and G) are BCISH, BSR, EFF, HRW and RWB. A YS (Yahoo subsidiary) was cited by HRGs to identify PAs who were posting AGOs and O&I online.
Yahoo in particular got in pretty thick with the Chinese Government, helping them find and jail those reporters and bloggers. Jerry Wang was completely unapologetic about it.
e tail.cfm?ReleaseID=187725
Here's several pages of waffle by Yahoo's Media Relations department: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/ReleaseD
So far as I can tell, it says absolutely nothing.
The Hong Kong Journalists association is much more to the point: http://www.fcchk.org/media/FCCToYahoo2.htm
I find it a little hard to believe Yahoo is going to do an about face. Can you imagine Yahoo executives at their next liason with the Chinese Government telling them "Ok, Commies, the rules have just changed. From now on, we're going to insist things are done right around here!" It's a nice thought, but it just isn't going to happen. Walk away from money? Never! (Unless they think they've lost the market to locals anyway?)
If those companies came out together publicly and criticized the Chinese Government, we might see something. But short of that I'm guessing it's just to make us feel better. "Oh Google and Yahoo? That's old hat; They have an NGO Code of Conduct now."
I agree with your assessment of why they are aiming at a uniform agreement between all the major providers. (and I also agree that the parent is probably missing this point)
...and with that, America's drug problems were solved!
But the principle you explained is fundamentally flawed. (Don't worry, I know you didn't think of this principle, and I'm not criticizing you.. I simply want to point out some problems with it)
It is akin to saying, "hey, drugs are bad, so let's all make a rule saying no one will sell drugs anymore. In fact, to deter people, let's make another rule saying you go to jail if you do!"
The point is, it's a matter of supply and demand. If google, msn, yahoo all agree to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth to chinese citizens.. and to refuse to turn in chinese bloggers (etc).. i suspect they will find themselves firewalled. And then one of the lower guys on the totem pole will climb to the top in china. Either an engine with a lower market share, such as Ask/AltaVista/etc will step up, or perhaps google.cn will just magically DNS resolve to a state-run search engine.
I think MSFT/GOOG/Y! are doing the right thing by agreeing to resolve to not do BadThings[tm], but this is only a step, and won't solve the problem that China doesn't want its people to read/see/say certain things. Maybe faced with the efforts involved in bypassing MSFT/GOOG/Y!, this might at least soften China's resistance somewhat (information wants to be free, and they will have to face and accept this at some point), but I don't see the proverbial dam busting anytime soon.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
...shouldn't require them not to censor any content as some people have been suggesting. I actually like the way Google is dealing with China, as I understand it they don't give the full results but do tell you you're not getting the full results. So long as people know that there is more out there but you are not allowed to see the content it should at least;
1) make people aware that their government is doing this to them, maybe making people push for more openess
2) if the government ever does back down and open up it should make the transition a lot easier
People ultimately want to know what they are having withheld from them... Just not telling them and not letting them know you're censoring is the worst of all worlds, and that is what they would get from the state engines that would replace an open google
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
I think the worst isn't the content alone, but the way those companies cooperate with authoritarian regimes in identifying people.
In Brazil, Google has fully cooperated with the government for the most absurd reasons. One recent example: they handed over IP addresses of people who participated in an Orkut community called "Eu sei dirigir bêbado" ("I know how to drive drunk"). The reason was that this was, allegedly, "apology of crime", a felony according to the draconian "liberty of expression" laws in Brazil.
The problem is that no one ever thinks their actions are the evil ones.