Tech Giants In Human Rights Deal

Ostracus writes "Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have signed a global a code of conduct promising to offer better protection for online free speech and against official intrusion." Anyone want to know what this means for China & Australia? I bet it means even less to all of us in America where every major data center has a secret room where the government sniffs our packets.

Comments

Talk is cheap

[elrous0]

Unless these companies are willing to stand up and pull out of countries like China if their governments refuse to back down, then this agreement is as worthless as the paper it's written on. The same advice applies to business PR spin as applies to political PR spin: "Look at actions, not words, for the REAL story."

And yes, this privacy policy should apply to the U.S. government as well. No special exception should be made just because the U.S. President runs around yelling "9-11!"

Good news, but

[aproposofwhat]

I'll bet there's something in there 'respecting local laws' or similar, so the code will have no teeth.

As soon as the Chinese say 'this AC is suspected of being Falun Gong', or the French say 'this AC has a SS dagger for sale', or the Australians say 'this AC has offended Family First', each and every signatory to the code will lube up and bend over.

Sorry, but I don't think Google, Microsoft or Yahoo have the balls to stand up for free speech when faced with a lawsuit.

except ... morals

[Meneth]

The "principles" they've signed can be disregarded if necessary to protect "national security or public order, or public health or morals".

This is, of course, interpreted so broadly by those in power that the declaration becomes essentially useless.

Re:Paranoia

[FourthAge]

It's not far off reality. There isn't an NSA room in every data centre, but there might as well be, since their placement at major Internet hubs throughout the USA is equivalent. The story is quite well known.

It doesn't matter what they say...

[gillbates]

Any contract or promise contrary to the law is null and void.

"It is very little more than a broad statement of support for a general principle without any concrete backup mechanism to ensure that the guidelines will be followed."

This is little more than a PR stunt used to shore up their public image. The agreement language is vague, and there are questions about if it is even binding. It can probably not even be enforced, because in most countries, conspiracy is a crime. So if a company should do anything which would hinder prosecution, they could be charged with:

• Conspiracy, if it can be shown that they knew, or should have known, of illegal activity using their systems.
• Obstruction of justice (USA) if it can be shown that they destroyed evidence of illegal activity, or failed to comply with mandatory logging requirements.
• In the US, their assets could be seized under RICO... While this might sound like a stretch, RICO has been used against political protesters in the past.
• In the US, the ability to wiretap voice communications is required under CALEA. The government has made no secret of the fact that even following the law need not be a hindrance when there's a question of terrorism involved, and has punished companies which refused to break the laws regarding limits on surveillance.
• Given that there is legislation pending, or perhaps even signed into law, which allows civil forfeiture for copyright violations, trumping up "probable cause" to seize a company's assets is little more than a paper shuffle these days. If the war on drugs is any indication, the government will use laws such as these to ensure that companies are "cooperative" with its surveillance efforts, legal or not.

I'm not counting on this having any effect other than people saying, "Look, Google really isn't evil!". Which is exactly the intended effect.

Re:Paranoia

[krappie]

I used to work as a sysadmin for a major datacenter. There was no room as far as I knew. If there was, it was pretty hidden from everyone.

We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.

Also, it seems obvious that if the government wanted to spy on traffic, they wouldn't do it at endpoints like datacenters. They would do it at major routers.

Re:Paranoia

[Bender0x7D1]

We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.

Did you make sure they had the proper warrants? Did you inform the customers of the real reason for the problems if they didn't have warrants, or if they didn't have gag orders? If you didn't protect your customers from federal agents overstepping their bounds, or informing them of the actions of the federal agents, you are part of the problem.

Now, if they had the proper warrants and court orders, then, by all means, you should help them out. If not, then you should tell them to read the Constitution and get back to you when they have done their job properly.