The popular search engine Google has been in the news for various reasons for a while now. But the most recent and controversial has been its decision to put up a filtered Chinese language version of its search engine, www.google.cn, which meets the censored conditions of the Chinese government. As such, it has agreed to expunge all references to democracy, human rights, one-child norm, the Dalai Lama and Tibetan issues, Taiwan independence and the 1989 Tiananmen Square killings. But this is not all. Google has gone even further in propping up Chinese government propaganda for search requests on those controversial issues.
This incident has attracted strong criticism from various quarters about the smothering of freedom of expression on the internet. It has also led to calls for formulating 'guiding principles' on openness and freedom of speech and content on the internet. Earlier Yahoo! and Microsoft also agreed to similar censorship. Yahoo provided the identities of email account holders and this helped Chinese authorities to imprison journalist Shi Tao last year. Similarly, Microsoft cut off access to Zhao Jing's blog-spot on MSN on the instructions of Chinese government.
Google's decision for self-censorship is not the first instance of commercial interests being given precedence to social values and human rights. It is, however, the most glaring instance of such misdemeanour as it falls flat on the philosophy that Google itself espouses. It overturns three of the ten principles that are listed in its website: 'Democracy on the web works'; 'You can make money without doing evil'; and 'The need for information crosses all borders'. Google's decision is also different from the stand it had taken recently on the US government's demand for search history records, when it cited privacy concerns.
There is no question that these large companies have a larger responsibility in upholding freedom of expression on the internet. The global community of internet users will naturally take strong objection to them succumbing to Chinese pressure. There is no doubt that China offers a big market — it already has 100 million internet users, which is expected to soar to 187 million in the next two years. This offers immense business prospects for Google as well as Yahoo and Microsoft. But while addressing this market, these corporations should also adhere to prudent social norms. Instead, these companies have tried to argue that this was the cost of doing business in China and they could not afford to be out of the Chinese market given its potential. The Chinese government's track record on freedom should, in particular, have been a clear signal to them to build up pressure and work on just terms. There are examples of locked cyber cafes doing business in the alleys, showing how the Chinese were actually enjoying the advantages of the internet. What these companies have failed to understand is that the internet could have been a great opportunity to help millions of Chinese users to freely express themselves.
{{/usCountry}}There is no question that these large companies have a larger responsibility in upholding freedom of expression on the internet. The global community of internet users will naturally take strong objection to them succumbing to Chinese pressure. There is no doubt that China offers a big market — it already has 100 million internet users, which is expected to soar to 187 million in the next two years. This offers immense business prospects for Google as well as Yahoo and Microsoft. But while addressing this market, these corporations should also adhere to prudent social norms. Instead, these companies have tried to argue that this was the cost of doing business in China and they could not afford to be out of the Chinese market given its potential. The Chinese government's track record on freedom should, in particular, have been a clear signal to them to build up pressure and work on just terms. There are examples of locked cyber cafes doing business in the alleys, showing how the Chinese were actually enjoying the advantages of the internet. What these companies have failed to understand is that the internet could have been a great opportunity to help millions of Chinese users to freely express themselves.
{{/usCountry}}Should these companies be left to themselves to decide how they do business in different regimes, by giving all norms a go-by as it suits them? Should there be regulations in the light of the failure of self-regulations? If so, who decides on such regulations? The role of industry bodies and governments will have to be sorted out. Otherwise, every company that goes to China may succumb to the same repressive tactics.
Now that efforts are on, at the instance of the UN, to arrive at some form of internet governance on a global scale, the issue of freedom of expression on the internet has to be of special focus. A working group appointed in 2004 by the UN Secretary General has already highlighted this as an important issue in its report last year. And, on the basis of decisions taken in the World Summit of the Information Society in November last year, an Internet Governance Forum will be notified shortly to look into all policy issues related to the internet. As this forum will have representation from all the stakeholders, it will be the best place to deliberate on the extent of freedom of expression on the internet. The role of service providers and governments will have to defined and the focus has to be on keeping the internet free.
With cyberspace growing exponentially and becoming an essential medium of communication and governance, it is imperative to keep it free and out of surveillance so that basic human rights are guaranteed. At the same time, nations also need to look into their legal provisions to see that companies incorporated in their soils do not adopt different yardsticks in other countries when it comes to compromising on basic principles of human freedom.