208
Rebecca MacKinnon
Dunstan Hope point out that the issues of free expression and privacy involve relationships between citizens, companies, governments, and laws that are different
from “ traditional ” CSR issues. In the case of environmental and labor practices, for
instance, citizens often work with governments to force companies to stop polluting
or improve treatment of workers, through the passage and enforcement of laws.
However when it comes to government-driven incursions on free expression and
privacy by means of censorship and surveillance, the problem lies with domestic
laws, regulations, or law enforcement practices that are not in line with international
human rights norms. Thus a “ common cause ” between citizens and companies is
necessary in order to achieve the desired goal of protecting citizens ’ rights from the
potential abuse of government power. “ What we are witnessing, ” they observe, “ is
an intriguing alliance between the user and the company in defense of human
rights. ”
87
Environmental-protection and labor rights groups in countries such as South Korea
and India have historically had good reason to view corporations as adversaries whose
pursuit of profi t has resulted in environmental degradation and human exploitation.
Democratically elected government is won over by civil society as an ally in imposing
standards and rules on the private sector. When it comes to Internet surveillance and
censorship, however, interests are aligned in a different way so that citizens need
corporate-owned digital intermediaries to help shield them from abuses of government power. Companies can do this by challenging — or at the very least publicly
exposing — government demands for censorship and surveillance, which, if not arguably unconstitutional or illegal according to domestic law, clearly infringe on rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international
covenants.
Finding common cause with the private sector against government abuse of citizen
rights does not come naturally to many civil society activists in Asia ’ s democracies,
many of which have only recently emerged either from corporatist-authoritarian pasts
or from centralized systems of economic planning. As digital rights activists quoted
earlier in this chapter pointed out, joining forces with the business community is not
consistent with the anticapitalist culture of many Indian civil society groups. Similarly,
South Korean civil society groups came of age in a culture of often-violent labor protest
against corporate chaebols with close ties to the regime. Corporate managers have
equally large cultural and mental barriers preventing them from tapping the moral
force of civil society groups, who can potentially be powerful allies in helping companies stave off government interference of the sort that is likely to hamper their
ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.
Achieving common cause between civil society and business thus requires new
thinking, new attitudes, and new strategies on all sides. While these innovations will
not be accomplished easily, in countries where civil society and business succeed in
Rebecca MacKinnon
Dunstan Hope point out that the issues of free expression and privacy involve relationships between citizens, companies, governments, and laws that are different
from “ traditional ” CSR issues. In the case of environmental and labor practices, for
instance, citizens often work with governments to force companies to stop polluting
or improve treatment of workers, through the passage and enforcement of laws.
However when it comes to government-driven incursions on free expression and
privacy by means of censorship and surveillance, the problem lies with domestic
laws, regulations, or law enforcement practices that are not in line with international
human rights norms. Thus a “ common cause ” between citizens and companies is
necessary in order to achieve the desired goal of protecting citizens ’ rights from the
potential abuse of government power. “ What we are witnessing, ” they observe, “ is
an intriguing alliance between the user and the company in defense of human
rights. ”
87
Environmental-protection and labor rights groups in countries such as South Korea
and India have historically had good reason to view corporations as adversaries whose
pursuit of profi t has resulted in environmental degradation and human exploitation.
Democratically elected government is won over by civil society as an ally in imposing
standards and rules on the private sector. When it comes to Internet surveillance and
censorship, however, interests are aligned in a different way so that citizens need
corporate-owned digital intermediaries to help shield them from abuses of government power. Companies can do this by challenging — or at the very least publicly
exposing — government demands for censorship and surveillance, which, if not arguably unconstitutional or illegal according to domestic law, clearly infringe on rights
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international
covenants.
Finding common cause with the private sector against government abuse of citizen
rights does not come naturally to many civil society activists in Asia ’ s democracies,
many of which have only recently emerged either from corporatist-authoritarian pasts
or from centralized systems of economic planning. As digital rights activists quoted
earlier in this chapter pointed out, joining forces with the business community is not
consistent with the anticapitalist culture of many Indian civil society groups. Similarly,
South Korean civil society groups came of age in a culture of often-violent labor protest
against corporate chaebols with close ties to the regime. Corporate managers have
equally large cultural and mental barriers preventing them from tapping the moral
force of civil society groups, who can potentially be powerful allies in helping companies stave off government interference of the sort that is likely to hamper their
ability to innovate and compete on a global scale.
Achieving common cause between civil society and business thus requires new
thinking, new attitudes, and new strategies on all sides. While these innovations will
not be accomplished easily, in countries where civil society and business succeed in