204
Rebecca MacKinnon
Google has demonstrated that while companies are not in a position to commit
civil disobedience if they want to stay in a market, they may be able to contribute to
greater accountability by releasing more information about the demands that government authorities are making and whether they have been complied with. In September
2010, Google released a transparency report showing that from January through June,
the Indian government made 30 content-removal requests (totaling 125 items), 53.3
percent of which Google claims to have “ fully or partially complied with. ” Fourteen
hundred and thirty Indian government requests to Google for user data ranked India
the third highest in the world (behind 2,435 by Brazil and 4,287 by the United
States) — not counting China.
66 The number of requests made by the Indian government to other foreign or domestic operators is unknown.
The Google Transparency Report has brought up some interesting questions. What
if other multinational companies operating in India, along with Indian companies,
all released similar data? Would that provide concerned citizens with at least some of
the ammunition they need to hold their government accountable and ensure that
censorship and surveillance in a democracy are restricted to the absolute minimum
needed to protect innocent citizens ’ lives when they are clearly endangered by specifi c
online activities by specifi c individuals, and that these tactics are not being abused for
broader political purposes? Should India ’ s vibrant activist community mount a campaign demanding that all companies operating in India must release similar transparency reports? Might they even lobby for the passage of a law requiring it? Might that
at least be a fi rst step toward necessary accountability?
Indian digital rights activists worry that India ’ s vibrant nongovernmental sector
has failed to mobilize on issues of digital free expression and privacy. In 2003, Supreme
Court advocate Pavan Duggal wrote, “ There is a need to change people ’ s mindset
[where most] view IT in isolation to democracy. ”
67 The problem does not seem to have
improved over the decade. In 2007 lawyer Raman Jit Singh Chima lamented an “ apparent lack of interest amongst traditional Indian civil liberties organizations in anything
to do with the Internet or digital civil liberties in general. ”
68 In a 2009 report summarizing the state of Internet rights in India, activists Gurumurthy Kasinathan and
Parminder Jeet Singh concluded that “ unfortunately, in India, while different groups
engage with some of the issues . . . in a piecemeal manner, there is little recognition
of how they connect and reinforce each other in the building of a new social paradigm — euphemistically called an information society — that may require a set of coordinated civil society responses. ”
69
Even in China, business leaders have expressed concern in private and semipublic
forums that excessive burdens imposed on companies by governments can adversely
impact innovation, which ultimately hurts national competitiveness.
70 The nature of
China ’ s legal and political system, however, makes it nearly impossible for Chinese
companies to challenge government demands in the courts, take the debate to the
Rebecca MacKinnon
Google has demonstrated that while companies are not in a position to commit
civil disobedience if they want to stay in a market, they may be able to contribute to
greater accountability by releasing more information about the demands that government authorities are making and whether they have been complied with. In September
2010, Google released a transparency report showing that from January through June,
the Indian government made 30 content-removal requests (totaling 125 items), 53.3
percent of which Google claims to have “ fully or partially complied with. ” Fourteen
hundred and thirty Indian government requests to Google for user data ranked India
the third highest in the world (behind 2,435 by Brazil and 4,287 by the United
States) — not counting China.
66 The number of requests made by the Indian government to other foreign or domestic operators is unknown.
The Google Transparency Report has brought up some interesting questions. What
if other multinational companies operating in India, along with Indian companies,
all released similar data? Would that provide concerned citizens with at least some of
the ammunition they need to hold their government accountable and ensure that
censorship and surveillance in a democracy are restricted to the absolute minimum
needed to protect innocent citizens ’ lives when they are clearly endangered by specifi c
online activities by specifi c individuals, and that these tactics are not being abused for
broader political purposes? Should India ’ s vibrant activist community mount a campaign demanding that all companies operating in India must release similar transparency reports? Might they even lobby for the passage of a law requiring it? Might that
at least be a fi rst step toward necessary accountability?
Indian digital rights activists worry that India ’ s vibrant nongovernmental sector
has failed to mobilize on issues of digital free expression and privacy. In 2003, Supreme
Court advocate Pavan Duggal wrote, “ There is a need to change people ’ s mindset
[where most] view IT in isolation to democracy. ”
67 The problem does not seem to have
improved over the decade. In 2007 lawyer Raman Jit Singh Chima lamented an “ apparent lack of interest amongst traditional Indian civil liberties organizations in anything
to do with the Internet or digital civil liberties in general. ”
68 In a 2009 report summarizing the state of Internet rights in India, activists Gurumurthy Kasinathan and
Parminder Jeet Singh concluded that “ unfortunately, in India, while different groups
engage with some of the issues . . . in a piecemeal manner, there is little recognition
of how they connect and reinforce each other in the building of a new social paradigm — euphemistically called an information society — that may require a set of coordinated civil society responses. ”
69
Even in China, business leaders have expressed concern in private and semipublic
forums that excessive burdens imposed on companies by governments can adversely
impact innovation, which ultimately hurts national competitiveness.
70 The nature of
China ’ s legal and political system, however, makes it nearly impossible for Chinese
companies to challenge government demands in the courts, take the debate to the