The China Problem

The Chinese government is oppressive, abusive and prevents the exercise of free speech. The country is also an economic powerhouse and everyone knows that while the world is chock full of jerks, there’s nothing worse than a jerk with money. The entry of American internet companies into China raises several distinct problems. Two issues in particular make me uneasy. Specifically, The Censorship Issue and The Privacy Issue. Solving these two distinct problems is complicated because the solution lies in addressing a broader, overarching question: Who’s Law Is The Law of The Land? The Censorship Issue Censorship is one of the most powerful tools in the Oppression Toolbox. It not only limits free speech but suffocates investigation of the thoughts and ideas that lead to the growth and transformation of individuals, communities and nations. The Internet, as potential repository of those thoughts and ideas, poses a massive threat to oppression. However, the economic viability of any nation without access to the internet is certainly questionable.

 More important than mere access to the Internet is the ability to locate what you are looking for in that vast repository of information. A library without a catalog is just pulp and ink. The catalog converts that pulp and ink to information. Freely discussing that pulp and ink can convert the information to knowledge. As such, the catalog is the first step to deriving knowledge from the internet.

 Today, there are seemingly dozens of internet catalogs with Yahoo!, Google, MSN, AOL and Amazon among the more popular. I recognize that there is a huge difference between a catalog and a search engine but I don't have the depth of knowledge or interest, at least right now, to speak to that difference. Suffice it to say that there are dozens of ways to find what you are looking for on the internet.

 Despite these dozens of ways, a handful of companies have come to dominate the search engine market (Yahoo!, Google, MS and Amazon). The ability to find information on the internet is becoming increasingly reliant on these search engines. Search is driving much of the internet and without access to these tools, the internet looses some of its (economic, social, etc) promise.

 With search being the key to the internet and the internet being an obstacle to censorship, it would seem that an oppressive nation such as China would have to decide between economic viability or censorship. Unfortunately, China never needed to make that decision. <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15530">As early as 2002 it was clear that Yahoo! was all-too-willing to modify their search tool to meet the censorship needs of the Chinese government</a>. While some groups like the EFF and RWB raised flags, it wasn't until Google's recent entry into China that the issue of American companies bending to the censorship mandates of the Chinese government hit the mainstream media.

 Google found itself the lightening rod for this issue because <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html">listed at number six of their ten corporate principals is: You can make money without doing evil.</a> The message here is clear: if you never claim that you're not a jerk, you can act like one and get off scott free. But woe to the jerk who claims he isn't one. This of course assumes that you hold the belief that Google has done evil by following China's laws.

The Privacy Issue

 Some environments are so hostile to truth that the messengers of truth require protection. Protection can be achieved through anonymity. Anonymity, or the ability to keep one's identity private, can be a powerful way for truth to flourish in environments that are hostile to truth. Privacy can spread truth like a cancer through the body of oppression. In America we recognize the power of anonymity through a myriad of laws and social conventions. China, as an environment hostile to truth, does not recognize this right to privacy. 

 <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884&amp;var_recherche=Yahoo">In November of 2004, a Chinese reporter, Shi Tao, was arrested for sending an email to foreign countries.</a> The email contained a message from Chinese authorities warning Chinese journalists of the dangers of social destabilization and risks resulting from the return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. [An aside, but briefly, that the Chinese propaganda seems eerily similar to the rhetoric of the American right  which warns that failing to support the war in Iraq empowers terrorists.] The reporter forwarded this email to foreign journalists, presumably, to raise awareness of the Chinese government's suppression of historical accuracy, among other things.

 The email was sent anonymously from huoyan-1989 @ yahoo.com.cn. When the Chinese authorities asked Yahoo! to turn over the owner of the email address, Yahoo! obliged, Shi Tao was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for sharing national secrets with foreign governments.

 In an environment as hostile to truth as China, privacy can be a matter of life or death. In this case, it is impossible to view Yahoo!'s lack of regard for its customers' privacy as anything but an indefensible drive for profit.

Who’s Law Is the Law of The Land?

 As a defense of their collective behavior in the Censorship Issue and the Privacy Issue, Yahoo! and Google have both indicated that they are simply foreigners following local law. Their are strong arguments both for and against following the law of the land. A flagrant disregard for local laws by American companies is nothing short of arrogant imperialism. A flagrant disregard for ethical principals under the guise of following local laws is plain and simple greed.

 There are multiple paths that American companies can pursue regarding the China problem.

1. Do business with China, comply with local laws while giving up any/all principals.
2. Do business with China, comply with local laws while maintaining some principals.
3. The Law of the Land is so egregiously against your core principals that you do not do business with China at all.
4. Do business with China but maintain all principals.

Yahoo! has clearly taken door number one. The founders, shareholders and management of Yahoo! are all complicit in the imprisonment of Shi Tao. The company has chosen to trade any semblance of ethical principals for profit. For this reason, I’m writing a letter to Yahoo! (text to follow) and will not renew my Yahoo! email account when it expires in a few months. It’s important to note that Yahoo!’s relinquishing of principals is tied not to its filtered search but to its lack of regard for its customers privacy.

 Google's launch in China seems to me as an entry into the country through door #2.  My justification may sound thin but I've thought deeply on it and I feel it is sound reasoning. Google's presence in China, albeit censored, does more good than harm.

 As someone who hacks snippets of found code together to do questionably useful things, I have an unshakeable faith in the ability of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker">hackers</a> [pls. read definition of term] to solve problems. I believe it is an exercise in futility to attempt to obsfucate information that should be free. This has been proven again and again and again. I believe that Google knows this, too. I believe that while <em>Tiananmen</em> may pull up filtered results, <em><a href="http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;q=anonymous+proxy&amp;btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&amp;meta=">Anonymous Proxy</a></em> returns more than 8 million records, each one of which is a potential door to unfiltered results on <em>Tiananmen</em> that would be difficult to find in a Google-less China.

 Additionally, Google's launch in China does not include its email, blogging or messaging services "because of concerns the government could demand users' personal information."

 There is a difference between the evil committed by Yahoo! and the questionable evil done by Google. In a perfect world, such questionable compromises would not be necessary. As such, while I think about what to do with my gmail account and my Flickr and del.icio.us data, I will send an email to Google, Flickr and del.icio.us urging them to support the <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16110">RWB proposal</a> which reads:

Reporters Without Borders is convinced that a law regulating the activities of Internet companies should only be drafted as a last resort, and we therefore recommend a two-step approach. Initially, a group of congressmen should formally ask Internet corporations to reach an agreement among themselves on a code of conduct . . .In the event that no satisfactory code of conduct has been drawn up when the deadline expires, or the proposed code has not been accepted by a sufficient number of representative companies, the congressmen would set about drafting a law that would aim to ensure that US companies respect freedom of expression when they are operating in repressive countries and elsewhere.

The RWB solution seems to me to be strong enough to allow the American internet companies to hold on to some of their principals while doing business in China. Moreover, because the code of conduct speaks to internationally recognized principals regarding freedom of expression it would be difficult to be written off as just another case of arrogant imperialism.

As I write the various emails to the companies I mention above, I’ll be sure to post them as comments.