Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and others have agreed to a common set of principles for dealing with foreign governments that restrict speech, limit privacy protections, and sensor search results. The principles, which spell out “best practices” for American technology companies doing business in China, Vietnam and other foreign countries that censor the Internet, were adopted in the shadow of Congressional threats to impose standards by law.
Wall Street Journal
By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
Oct. 28–Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. will announce Tuesday that they have agreed to a common set of principles for how to do business in nations that restrict free speech and expression, as the companies seek to combat criticism that they have helped enable censorship in those countries.
Under the new principles, which were crafted over two years, the technology titans promise to protect the personal information of their users wherever they do business and to “narrowly interpret and implement government demands that compromise privacy,” according to the code. They also commit to scrutinizing a country’s track record of jeopardizing personal information and freedom of expression before launching new businesses in a country and to discussing the risks widely with their executives and board members.
The document — introduced under an entity known as the Global Network Initiative — was crafted by a group of participants including human rights groups like Human Rights First and Committee to Protect Journalists. Nonprofits the Center for Democracy and Technology and Business for Social Responsibility also participated. The companies agreed to have their compliance with the new principles monitored by independent experts.
“Common action by these diverse groups is more likely to bring about change in government policy than the efforts of any one company or group acting alone,” said Robert Boorstin, director of corporate and policy communications at Google.”
At least one human rights organization that didn’t sign onto the plan said it doesn’t go far enough. “More serious questions have to be asked about these company’s legal obligations,” said Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA. For instance, he said he would have liked the document to address whether Internet companies are violating U.S. or international laws by complying with requests from certain governments.
The plan has yet to receive the support of Internet companies in China and other countries whose policies it implicitly attacks. A spokesman for Internet giant eBay Inc. said the company has yet to see the plan but would “like to learn more about it and hear more of the details.”
The new code comes after leading Web companies have come under fire from Congress and shareholders for turning over personal information to governments that lack well-established privacy protections. Yahoo, for instance, faced questioning by Congress last year for turning over emails that led to the imprisonment of Chinese dissidents. In a statement, Yahoo Chief Executive Jerry Yang called the new principles “a valuable roadmap” that will help ensure that technology and the Internet continue to help “improve people’s lives”.
Google executives have also drawn criticism for censoring their search results in China. Earlier this year, Canadian researchers uncovered that a Skype joint venture in China had been monitoring its users’ communications, prompting Skype, owned by eBay Inc, to apologize for the breach
Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have maintained their legal obligation to abide by a country’s local laws. The new code doesn’t fundamentally change that approach because it acknowledges that companies still must obey local laws in the countries where they operate. It also stops short of stipulating some specific behaviors to avoid ethically challenging situations, such as hosting servers in countries without restrictions. But the companies promise to resist government demands to the greatest extent possible and to carefully assess the human rights impact of their decisions.
—Geoffrey A. Fowler and Christopher Lawton contributed to this article.
Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com
Copyright Wall Street Journal, 2008