Through the Global Network Initiative, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have pledged to stand up to governments that seek to curb online freedom of speech and user privacy. Will the new group succeed?

Google, Microsoft and Yahoo – the three most powerful internet companies and fierce competitors – have taken the lead to collectively deal with growing incidents of government censorship of online content around the world, particularly by repressive regimes.

The three companies are part of the Global Network Initiative, a new multi-stakeholder group formed to protect and advance online freedom of expression and privacy in the information and communication technology sector.

The initiative was launched in October 2008. Two and a half years earlier, in February 2006, the three companies and another US tech giant, Cisco, had been hauled before the US Congress for their alleged complicity in human rights violations in China. The firms were accused of bending to the wishes of China’s censors by handing over user data to the authorities.

A humiliating congressional hearing was followed by the global online freedom bill, an attempt to prohibit US companies from cooperating with internet-restricting countries in the censorship of online content. The bill failed in the absence of support from the Bush administration. But it was re-introduced in May this year, and is currently being reviewed by two congressional committees.

A growing fear of losing user trust, reputational risks and potential legislative controls prompted Microsoft, Google and Yahoo to adopt a voluntary set of guidelines. Non-corporate members of GNI, which was launched after two years of consultations with a range of stakeholders, include human rights activists, press freedom groups, investors and academics.

Ebele Okobi-Harris, director of the business and human rights programme at Yahoo, says: “Given governments’ interest in controlling the type of information that gets to the population, we thought the best way to address this is to do it collectively.”

Principles

GNI companies commit to a set of “principles on freedom of expression and privacy”. The standards require participating companies to put in place policies, procedures and processes for responsible decision-making to protect users.

The initiative has also released a set of detailed guidelines for implementing the principles. They recommend that boards of directors take responsibility for overseeing business impact on freedom of expression and privacy. Companies are asked to conduct human rights impact assessments that cover the collection, storage and retention of personal information in countries where they operate. Signatories are also expected to train staff, suppliers and business partners on human rights.

Crucially, GNI companies pledge to be much tougher with governments demanding user data in a way that would restrict an individual’s online freedom or compromise their privacy. As a last resort, companies say they would even challenge governments in domestic courts when faced with restrictions that appear inconsistent with domestic laws or international standards on freedom of expression. Companies say they may also seek the assistance of relevant government authorities, international human rights bodies or non-governmental organisations to resolve censorship cases.

GNI companies have two years, or until October 2010, to establish the internal policies and procedures to implement the principles. This marks the first phase of the initiative. At the same time, the GNI board will decide on criteria for appointing independent assessors to check whether companies are meeting their commitments.

During the second phase, in 2011, approved independent assessors will evaluate each participating company’s internal systems for implementing the principles. In the third phase, from 2012 onwards, GNI will accredit a pool of independent assessors for subsequent evaluations. These will include a review of company responses to specific government demands that potentially impinge on user freedom of expression or privacy.

All three internet companies signed up to GNI are starting to implement the principles.

Yahoo’s business and human rights programme has been set up since the company joined GNI. The company has also created a cross-functional team to work on implementing the principles. It has started training staff on the company’s role in protecting freedom of expression and privacy. In May, it invited human rights groups and citizen journalists to speak to its employees about the issues.

Human rights assessment

Yahoo has started conducting human rights assessments before it enters new markets or launches new products. This practice has changed the way it does business, according to Rebecca Mackinnon, a GNI member and an expert in online media and censorship at the University of Hong Kong. She says that when Yahoo started a Vietnamese language service recently, it decided to host the data in Singapore rather than in Vietnam to avoid the communist regime’s jurisdiction. The Vietnam government has faced repeated criticism for censorship of online information.

“This is a very different approach than what they did when entering China a few years ago,” Mackinnon says. Yahoo was accused of helping the Chinese authorities by disclosing user information that led to jailing of a local dissident for 10 years.

In a similar action, Google decided to disable video uploads and comments on the Korean version of YouTube in South Korea after the country passed a law this year requiring collection of users’ real names and personal information and handover of such information to the government authorities upon request. Google is recommending South Korean users use other international versions of YouTube that are not under the country’s jurisdiction.

Okobi-Harris says Yahoo plans to publish an annual report in a couple of years on its human rights progress. The company will also appoint an independent third party with whom users can raise concerns if they suspect their online freedom or privacy has been compromised.

Microsoft’s senior policy counsel, Chuck Cosson, says the GNI principles are helping the company to strengthen internal policies and procedures. He also points to the company’s Trustworthy Computing initiative, launched in 2002, which has helped the company continuously boost the security and privacy features of products it sells.

Microsoft, which runs blogging service MSN Space, announced in January 2006 a policy to deal with government orders related to blog content. It said the company would remove access to blog content only when it received a legally binding notice from the government indicating that the material violated local laws. According to the policy, the company will remove the access to content only in the country where the order has been issued. The rest of the world will continue to have access to the content. The policy also includes notifying affected users to tell them why their content was removed. But Microsoft has not publicised its use of this policy.

Expansion needed

GNI must overcome significant challenges in the coming months and years to be successful. After 10 months, GNI’s inability to secure an office, appoint a director and recruit more companies has caused some observers to question its future effectiveness.

Bennett Freeman, senior vice-president for social research and policy at Calvert Investments, which is a member of GNI, expects that the governance structure will be finalised by October and a board will be in place. He says GNI as an organisation will be fully operational in 2010.

Alexis Krajeski, associate director for governance and sustainable investment at F&C Management, an investment firm and a GNI member, says that many non-US companies have been concerned that this is a US-initiative related to companies operating in China. “We have been making the point over and over again that actually the issues addressed by the GNI are relevant for companies around the world, not just in China,” he says.

In addition to China, countries accused of heavy internet censorship include Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Burma, North Korea, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. And developed countries such as Australia and Germany have been criticised for proposals to censor online content, ostensibly to tackle pornography, that could affect user privacy.

European companies such as Vodafone, France Telecom and Norway’s Telenor were involved in early discussions that led to the launch of GNI, but later decided to opt out of the initiative. Vodafone says it will continue to engage with GNI and other telecom companies to develop an industry approach. Vodafone says it will have its own policy on assisting law enforcement by March 2010.

Observers say GNI principles narrowly focus on internet users and online content some of which may not be applicable to telecommunications companies and equipment and hardware manufacturers, for example.

Krajeski says the GNI is aware of the challenge and is developing a solution that may involve having more flexibility in the implementation guidelines or having additional guidelines for companies in telecommunication, hardware and software.

Freeman says: “We would also be doing a significant outreach to a number of companies particularly the ones based outside the US and we expect we will have additional companies joining by the next year.”

Censorship rise

A key reason for internet and telecom companies to take note of GNI is the expected spread of online censorship, say supporters. This represents relatively new territory for the companies who will have to deal with this threat to their business.

Yahoo’s Okobi-Harris says: “The area of online freedom and public policy is very new and still evolving. What we will be able to learn from a truly multi-stakeholder initiative is very valuable.”

She says that as more governments understand the power of the internet, there will be more requests for user information from internet companies that may violate human rights. A collective approach will be much more effective in dealing with such requests than a company trying to act alone, she adds.

Microsoft’s Cosson says that many companies that are not in the GNI want to have good practices and processes in the area of online freedom of expression and privacy. “GNI will help them build those systems,” he says.

The recent examples of Nokia in Iran and Skype in China prove his point. Nokia and Siemens were caught off guard recently when they attracted bitter criticism for a perceived role in assisting the Iranian government in tracking down dissidents. Political activists say Nokia Siemens Network, a joint venture between Nokia and Siemens in Iran, provided the government with a mobile communications monitoring system that helped the government track those questioning the legitimacy of recent elections.

Nokia and Siemens confirmed they supplied the monitoring centre to Iran but said it was standard equipment sold to several other countries and which the world’s governments use for lawful intercept. Iranian activists also attacked Siemens over its supply of an internet filter called Webwasher to Iran.

Skype was criticised in October 2008 when human rights activists discovered a serious privacy breach in the operations of the company’s China joint venture Tom-Skype Network.

Tom-Skype was storing user data including personal information, logs of their conversations and details of Skype users outside of China who had communicated with Chinese users on publicly accessible unsecured web servers. Before this, Tom was found to be using a text filter in 2006 that blocked certain words in chat messages.

“By joining the GNI, companies like Nokia and Skype can avoid finding themselves in this kind of situation where their users and potential customers cease to trust them,” Mackinnon says.

Investors push

While companies appear to be slow in understanding the business risks of ignoring online freedom of expression and privacy, socially responsible investors are convinced that reputational damage can destroy the long-term value of their investments in technology companies. Five leading investors are members of GNI: Calvert Investments, F&C Management, Domini Social Investments, Boston Common Asset Management and Trillium Asset Management.

“The internet has changed the world and people’s expectations of their rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Internet companies that do not respect the rights of their users do so at their business peril, not just a moral peril,” says Calvert’s Freeman, who has played a key role in developing the GNI principles and frameworks.

He adds: “Investors therefore have a strong interest in helping and encouraging the Yahoos, the Googles and the Microsofts of the world to be able to operate in countries such as China in ways that are responsible for keeping the faith and trust of users and stakeholders.”

F&C Management’s Krajeski says: “We feel that the issues of freedom of expression and privacy present significant risks to the information and communication technology companies that we have invested in.”

F&C is asking ICT companies in which it has invested to evaluate their practices against the GNI principles and put in place strategies if there are gaps. “In the long run, we actually hope to see the companies to sign up to the GNI,” Krajeski says.

As companies sitting on the fence wait and watch, existing GNI members will have to demonstrate they are living up to the principles and how this better protects users’ rights if the initiative is to gain corporate supporters.

A key challenge for existing corporate members will be to demonstrate how their foreign joint ventures, such as that between Yahoo and the leading search engine in China, Alibaba, live up to the principles. Alibaba is 40% owned by Yahoo. Such joint ventures will be under scrutiny by human rights activists.

Some critics do not agree with the GNI approach of careful risk assessment of a market to develop mitigation strategies and maintaining transparency with users. Amnesty International, for example, participated in the development of GNI principles but decided to quit discussions when it received the final draft, saying the principles were not strong enough. Such critics want companies to totally boycott markets governed by repressive regimes or defy local laws.

But human rights groups supporting the GNI have a different view. “We are not asking companies to just pack up and leave. We believe the value of their services in support of human rights is well understood,” says Leslie Harris, chief executive of Washington-based advocacy group Centre for Democracy and Technology, a GNI member. “Ultimately, we are going to have to get countries to change their policies on users’ rights. But, in the absence of that, we are asking companies to be transparent and resist censorship demands.”

GNI supporters argue that the internet has played a significant role in exposing human rights abuses in various countries by empowering people to connect to the world and freely share information. For example, the outside world was getting a real-time account of the Iranian government’s crackdown on opposition leaders after the disputed presidential elections as Iranians used Twitter and Facebook to send out messages. Shutting down the internet in these countries will only strengthen the hands of repressive rulers, they say.

In view of the criticism, GNI faces a challenge of quickly building credibility to succeed. “[For companies] the GNI initiative is going to succeed or fail based on its ability to credibly show to customers that their rights are better protected after their service provider signed on to the principles than before it signed on,” Ganesan says.

Stakeholders will be closely watching the actions of GNI companies in the coming months. As the initiative’s first anniversary approaches in October, stakeholders will expect a report on the progress made by the GNI itself, and its three technology members specifically, sharing how their actions have promoted and protected online freedom and privacy.

GNI members

ICT companies:

• Google
• Microsoft
• Yahoo

Investors/funds:

• Calvert Investments
• F&C Asset Management
• Domini Social Investments
• Boston Common Asset Management
• Trillium Asset Management

Advocacy groups:

• Human Rights Watch
• Human Rights in China
• Human Rights First
• Centre for Democracy & Technology
• Committee to Protect Journalists
• World Press Freedom Committee
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Internews

Academic institutes:

• Berkman Centre for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School
• University of California, Berkley School of Information
• University of Southern California, Annenberg School for Communication
• Rebecca MacKinnon Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong
• Research Centre for Information Law, University of St Gallen

Others:

• International Business Leaders Forum
• KLD Research & Analytics
• United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary-General on Business and Human Rights (observer status)
• World Press Freedom Committee

Source: The Global Network Initiative

How will companies implement GNI principles?

• Employing human rights impact assessments to identify circumstances when freedom of expression and privacy may be jeopardised.
• Forming cross-functional, internal teams to lead the implementation of the principles.
• Training employees about procedures to protect freedom of expression and privacy when faced with government demands and restrictions.
• Providing whistle-blowing mechanisms through which employees and other stakeholders can confidentially or anonymously report violations of the principles.
• Encouraging relevant business partners, industry colleagues, suppliers and distributors to follow the principles and implementation guidelines.
• Requesting that government demands to limit freedom of expression or privacy and the legal basis for such demands are made in writing.
• Establishing high-level of transparency with users when required by governments to remove content or limit access to information and ideas and the circumstances where they may be required to disclose personal information.
• Considering challenging governments in courts or other formal forums when faced with restrictions that appear inconsistent with domestic law or international human rights laws and standards on freedom of expression and privacy.

Source: The Global Network Initiative

Green Dam broken

Online freedom and privacy is no longer an issue solely for internet companies. Hardware and software makers are also increasingly feeling the heat.

In May, the Chinese government told global makers of personal computers that all machines sold in the country would have to include software called Green Dam Youth Escort. The software blocks access to certain websites. It has been developed by two little-known software firms in China and has been funded by the government.

China said it wanted the software in all computers to protect children from pornographic websites. But critics feared that the government would use it to track dissidents and censor discussions on Tibet, Taiwan and human rights in the country.

The Chinese government has postponed the plan after a huge public outcry and pressure from international trade groups that included US, European and Japanese chambers of commerce and the US National Association of Manufacturers.

US-based PC-makers HP and Dell, the second and third largest-selling computer brands in China after domestic giant Lenovo, are not yet members of GNI.