Round Table Discussion
Sharon HOM, Human Rights in China
Leslie HARRIS, Center for Democracy and Technology
Bob BOORSTIN, Google
Ang PENG-HWA, School of Communication Studies, Nanyang Technological University
Colin MACLAY, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University
Isaac MAO, Co-founder of cnblog.org
Moderator: Rebecca MACKINNON, University of Hong Kong’s Journalism and Media Studies Centre
Liveblogging begins at 10:45. Also, keep an eye on Ethan Zuckerman’s blog, who is here and has marathon liveblogged many a conference.
Sharon Hom could not make it.
The Global Network Initiative is a cooperative effort between NGOs and the private sector devoted to “creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector”.
Colin MacLay focuses on corporate responsibility, and invites us to examine the issues of free expression and privacy in terms of Lessig’s four forces (law, infrastructure, commerce and norms). The problems of censorship and freedom of expression is not a China-specific problem but a global one. Governments are all recognizing the impact of Internet users, the role companies can play in furthering government interests. The goal of the initiative is that by learning from one another in creating a code of conduct, the groups involved could collectively move forward effectively. They found that no single sector alone, investors, companies, academics or human rights groups, could make things happen and so you found competitors and opposing groups sitting together discussing these issues.
Rebecca MacKinnon asks Leslie Harris what her response is to the assertion that GNI is a fig leaf providing cover for participating companies and organizations. Harris says there is always a tension to the group given their disparate interests, but they have struck some balance and would not be participating if they believed the effort was a fig leaf. The Initiative, unlike other multi-stakeholder movements in other areas, is very much focused on government power rather than corporate behavior alone.
Harris is then asked to clarify the nature of the code of conduct, and she says it is not simply a list of what is right and wrong, but rather best practices, internal safeguards, legal guidelines, how best to enter a new market while respecting these issues. It is more a way of doing things, rather than commandments of what can or can’t be done in country X. MacLay adds that no one yet knows precisely what should be done, no static solution, and so rather they created a community, platform and approach for these problems.
MacKinnon asks Bob Boorstin what impact GNI has had on Google and its work in China. Boorstin thanks Annenberg, and also says he’s the proverbial fire hydrant at the dog show – and a “technological idiot”. Boorstin just came back from Google’s China office, but has been there a dozen times since 1979 and appreciates the changes of the past 30 years. Why would Google join GNI? First is the albatross “Don’t Be Evil”. This is a government problem – if governments didn’t ask for censorship, Google wouldn’t bother. Second, there is strength in numbers. GNI is more than the sum of its parts in terms of leverage. Third, Google wants more approaches like The Millenium Challenge under Bush. Fourth, Google is in GNI as a defensive move against critics, though many of those will give no quarter. GNI is the first time that Google has decided at an executive level to allow outsiders to come in two years and judge them. As a non-Silicon Valleyite, Boorstin emphasizes that the Valley tends to say “look at our cool product. Buy it and leave us alone”, and so this is a big step for Google.
What difference has GNI made within Google? Googlers (what employees are called) have very strong opinions, and many would have never gone to China. GNI provides a certain baseline charter by which to discuss these issues internally, and raises the volume of such discussion. GNI language has been incorporated into the employee code of conduct, another difficult step. It also helps regularize Google’s process for dealing with these issues, whether its in China, Thailand, Turkey or Italy.
Boorstin asks why are there no Asian and European members in GNI, and can it expand to other sectors beyond the Internet, such as telecoms which handed over lots of data to the Justice Department.
Isaac Mao once wrote a letter to Google criticizing some of its actions in China. He points out that China is a complex and enormous space with various actors. Google was blocked in China in 2003, before it had a China office. By 2005, the Chinese government was upgrading the filtering and monitoring systems for the Internet. As an MNC, Google has more access to government officials than most of the rest of us. At Mao’s level, he sees more administrators and Internet entrepreneurs struggling to survive when their business model clashes with government restrictions. When doing business in China, Mao has three suggestions. First, when Google was first blocked, Internet users protested and this is even more true now when you could say there is an “Internet Republic of Caonima”. You need to interact more with Internet users. Second, they ought to find better, more creative solutions to satisfy both users and the government – a savvier middle ground. Third, he suggests that Google increase Adsense payments to Chinese bloggers to increase revenue and profile.
In response, Boorstin agrees that it would be great if Google could find more ways to deliver regular services (as found outside China). Google has promised never to have a “Shi Tao” moment. Second, Boorstin asks “how can a U.S. company compete with a Chinese company (in China)?”
MacKinnon asks Ang Peng-Hwa about criticisms that there is no Asian participation in this all-Westerner endeavor, and whether it can be truly global?
Ang: Yes.
GNI is not about what companies must do. What can be done in the U.S. can’t be done in Singapore. Trade is vital to Singapore, being 160% of GDP, so it works differently. So GNI is about process, which produces different results in different countries. You can’t publish Mein Kampf in Germany or step on a coin (with the King’s face) in Thailand, and no set of static rules (as mentioned by MacLay) can encompass this. Ang doesn’t see global censorship, but rather the Internet maturing and the realization that online and offline media function differently, like rules for riding horses would be inappropriate for the car at the turn of the 20th century.
When China censors, it has a strategic aim to support Chinese business, such as undermining Google to strengthen Baidu, says Ang. GNI does not seem appropriate for small business. He suggests that for some of Boorstin’s problems, such as the lawsuit in Italy involving YouTube, laws must be made to address third party liability (or lack thereof).
Colin MacLay points out that GNI is based on various international standards such as the Declaration of Human Rights and related covenants, and is not based only on U.S.-centric laws or platforms. Also, government can be bad, but also be confused and simply do things badly. Do we think we should be regulating the Internet as media, or as expression? Do we need to have a debate on this? Media regulation and human rights seem to be converging (along with privacy and transparency). And yes, there are no small companies in GNI and there should be.
MacKinnon calls on Michael Anti in the audience for a personal experience on blog censorship, as his MSNSpaces blog was shut down in 2005 and he spoke to Congress saying Chinese Internet users are not a doll for Westerners to dress however they want. Anti says that Google products such as Gmail and Google Groups are really vital to those who seek free and secure tools for civil society. Anti feels that Google and other large companies should have a social contract with civil society netizens, where netizens accept Google’s cooperation with the government and Google provides as many tools as possible to them. Boorstin, boringly, agrees. He also points out that Google has a program to give Adwords away for free to NGOs in different countries, including China.
Professor Michael Price asks if Congress has been involved, and other forms of approach. Second, he asks “what is the jurisprudence of the figleaf? What is their function? What is the positive side? They cover what we know is there. We should explore the function of figleafs.” Hilarity ensues.
Leslie Harris explains that GNI has not taken hold in Europe, where these are not seen as problems, while in America it has focused companies attention on the U.S. government, which has also increased the impression that this is a U.S. plan.
Ang Peng-Hwa brings up the movie Red Cliff II, that the generals can’t tell the prime minister about a problem because he’s busy with a woman. In the book, the prime minister is singing, asks an advisors frank opinion and chops off his head when his truthful opinion displeases him. Then the generals approach him – what would you say? Boorstin thinks Chinese netizens know whats under the figleaf and have no illusions.
Isaac Mao is asked what he would do if he ran GNI. He says that an Asian regional group could be formed, as many of these cultures are accustomed to being more controlled, and could find more common ground. But he feels that this should come after a global, universal framework, which could help especially in a country on the scale of China. Ang Peng-Hwa agrees about localization, and wants to start a Singaporean EFF called Committee of IT Experts, because you can’t use the word “freedom” in Singapore without being misunderstood. The stronger the censorship, the weaker the civil society, and so in Asia civil society is unlikely to create such a group.
Li Hongmei asks about skepticism that companies can balance profit-seeking and social responsibility, and why does Boorstin and others think Internet companies can do this while others cannot, especially given the reputation of Chinese companies such as Sanlu?
Boorstin hates the term “social responsibility” because it puts CSR aside and doesn’t integrate it into daily work. MacLay adds that it should not be about “do-gooding”, but about good practices. Boorstin points out that GE pitched its push for green tech as being about making money, not doing good, and that is more realistic, believable and effective.
