Sunday, February 19, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
just read gitu lohhhh
Google and Yahoo face their Congressional critics
Four of America's most powerful high-tech corporations were accused today of collaborating with repression and "enabling dictatorship" by falling in with Chinese censorship of the internet in return for access to the world's fastest-growing market.
Representatives from Microsoft, Yahoo!, Cisco Systems and Google defended themselves at a House of Representatives human rights subcommittee hearing, called to examine the issue of American corporate responsibility in the face of internet censorship.
Google and Yahoo! in particular have been hit by a barrage of criticism for their actions in China: Google's new China-specific search site filters results on politically sensitive terms such as Taiwan, Tibet or Tiananmen Square, and Yahoo! has been blamed for divulging information that has led to the jailing of two dissidents.
The hearing followed a spat two weeks ago when all four companies declined an invitation to send representatives to an information briefing organised by the same subcommittee.
As if to rub salt into the wounds, Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican who heads the human rights subcommittee, even invited a group of bloggers to "live-blog" the hearing, saying that Americans had the right to publish and read "unfiltered news".
Elliot Schrage, Google's vice-president of corporate affairs, told today's hearings that figuring out China's internet market "has been a difficult exercise". But members of the House committee said the companies had only tried to explain their policies in China after a crush of negative media and government attention.
Tom Lantos, the full committee’s leading Democrat, told the company officials that they had amassed great wealth and influence "but apparently very little social responsibility".
"Your abhorrent actions in China are a disgrace," Mr Lantos said. "I simply don’t understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night."
In prepared testimony, the companies appealed for guidance on how to work in what they called a challenging marketplace. Mr Schrage said "the requirements of doing business in China include self-censorship - something that runs counter to Google’s most basic values and commitments as a company."
Still, he said, Google decided to enter China because it thought it "will make a meaningful, though imperfect, contribution to the overall expansion of access to information in China".
Michael Callahan, Yahoo!'s general counsel, testified that "these issues are larger than any one company, or any one industry". He added: "We appeal to the US government to do all it can to help us provide beneficial services to Chinese citizens lawfully and in a way consistent with our shared values."
James Keith, the State Department’s senior adviser on East Asia, told the committee that China’s efforts to manipulate the internet have increased in the last year, "sending a chilling message to internet users". China’s "effort to regulate the political and religious content of the Internet is counter to our interest, to international standards and, we argue, to China’s own long-term modernisation goals," he said.
The hearing has highlighted the dilemma facing US high-tech firms, who cannot afford to miss out on the Chinese market but have little choice but to do so on China's terms. "They are in an extremely dicey position," said John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor.
The potential for profit is great: China is estimated to have more than 110 million Internet users already and the number could soon outstrip that of the US. But to do business, Western companiees must satisfy a government that fiercely polices web content. Filters block objectionable foreign websites and regulations ban subversive or pornographic content, requiring service providers to enforce censorship.
A new survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists calls China’s efforts to control its media unique in the world’s history. "Never have so many lines of communication in the hands of so many people been met with such obsessive resistance from a central authority," it said.
Mr Smith, one of the most vocal Congressional critics of China's human rights record, said that the companies are "enabling dictatorship". "Cooperation with tyranny should not be embraced for the sake of profits," he added.
Cisco, the hardware giant which has been accused of providing technology that allows China to filter internet content, testified that it sells the same equipment in China that it does elsewhere. Robert Dietz, who monitors Asia for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said that other repressive regimes were watching closely how the US internet companies acted in China.
"We sense that people are standing back, watching the technology evolve, watching the attitude evolve, seeing how far countries can go in pushing their ... internet censorship," he told the hearing. "We don’t think this will end in China."
sbr:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2041793,00.html
Four of America's most powerful high-tech corporations were accused today of collaborating with repression and "enabling dictatorship" by falling in with Chinese censorship of the internet in return for access to the world's fastest-growing market.
Representatives from Microsoft, Yahoo!, Cisco Systems and Google defended themselves at a House of Representatives human rights subcommittee hearing, called to examine the issue of American corporate responsibility in the face of internet censorship.
Google and Yahoo! in particular have been hit by a barrage of criticism for their actions in China: Google's new China-specific search site filters results on politically sensitive terms such as Taiwan, Tibet or Tiananmen Square, and Yahoo! has been blamed for divulging information that has led to the jailing of two dissidents.
The hearing followed a spat two weeks ago when all four companies declined an invitation to send representatives to an information briefing organised by the same subcommittee.
As if to rub salt into the wounds, Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican who heads the human rights subcommittee, even invited a group of bloggers to "live-blog" the hearing, saying that Americans had the right to publish and read "unfiltered news".
Elliot Schrage, Google's vice-president of corporate affairs, told today's hearings that figuring out China's internet market "has been a difficult exercise". But members of the House committee said the companies had only tried to explain their policies in China after a crush of negative media and government attention.
Tom Lantos, the full committee’s leading Democrat, told the company officials that they had amassed great wealth and influence "but apparently very little social responsibility".
"Your abhorrent actions in China are a disgrace," Mr Lantos said. "I simply don’t understand how your corporate leadership sleeps at night."
In prepared testimony, the companies appealed for guidance on how to work in what they called a challenging marketplace. Mr Schrage said "the requirements of doing business in China include self-censorship - something that runs counter to Google’s most basic values and commitments as a company."
Still, he said, Google decided to enter China because it thought it "will make a meaningful, though imperfect, contribution to the overall expansion of access to information in China".
Michael Callahan, Yahoo!'s general counsel, testified that "these issues are larger than any one company, or any one industry". He added: "We appeal to the US government to do all it can to help us provide beneficial services to Chinese citizens lawfully and in a way consistent with our shared values."
James Keith, the State Department’s senior adviser on East Asia, told the committee that China’s efforts to manipulate the internet have increased in the last year, "sending a chilling message to internet users". China’s "effort to regulate the political and religious content of the Internet is counter to our interest, to international standards and, we argue, to China’s own long-term modernisation goals," he said.
The hearing has highlighted the dilemma facing US high-tech firms, who cannot afford to miss out on the Chinese market but have little choice but to do so on China's terms. "They are in an extremely dicey position," said John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor.
The potential for profit is great: China is estimated to have more than 110 million Internet users already and the number could soon outstrip that of the US. But to do business, Western companiees must satisfy a government that fiercely polices web content. Filters block objectionable foreign websites and regulations ban subversive or pornographic content, requiring service providers to enforce censorship.
A new survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists calls China’s efforts to control its media unique in the world’s history. "Never have so many lines of communication in the hands of so many people been met with such obsessive resistance from a central authority," it said.
Mr Smith, one of the most vocal Congressional critics of China's human rights record, said that the companies are "enabling dictatorship". "Cooperation with tyranny should not be embraced for the sake of profits," he added.
Cisco, the hardware giant which has been accused of providing technology that allows China to filter internet content, testified that it sells the same equipment in China that it does elsewhere. Robert Dietz, who monitors Asia for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said that other repressive regimes were watching closely how the US internet companies acted in China.
"We sense that people are standing back, watching the technology evolve, watching the attitude evolve, seeing how far countries can go in pushing their ... internet censorship," he told the hearing. "We don’t think this will end in China."
sbr:
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2041793,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
