expression and privacy into both business practice and corporate culture. For its part,
in 2008, Yahoo! created the Business and Human Rights Program, supported by corporate leadership, guided by principles and internal process, staffed by cross-functional
teams, tracking an inventory of rights issues, informed by stakeholder engagement,
and subject to outside monitoring and accountability. 6 These internal developments
are complemented, informed, and reinforced by Yahoo!’s participation in the GNI.
From recent postelection violence in Kenya and Moldova facilitated by mobile
devices to vibrant online expression in Vietnam, ongoing battles over culturally sensitive (and legally prohibited) imagery online in Turkey and Thailand, and the record
proportion of online journalists detained worldwide in 2008, digital tools are associated with voice and power, and governments realize it. Whether as part of the normal
sociopolitical milieu or in a moment of crisis, they are increasingly aware not only of
the power of new media, but also of the role of private companies in providing—and
potentially limiting—that power.
Governments also seem to be more cognizant of the unique characteristics of the Net
as compared to traditional media, not only in terms of how these traits might allow it
to threaten the status quo, but also where associated weaknesses can lie. However mistakenly, many people have come to understand this vulnerability of information and
communication technologies (ICT) companies to government interference as the China
Problem, owing in large measure to publicized instances in which Microsoft, Yahoo!,
and Google have failed to adequately protect their users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Unfortunately, similar challenges are emerging around the world,
oftentimes at the hands of democratic governments, and not only in the Global South,
but also in the West. 7
In response to these tensions and understanding the complexity of resolving them, a
group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics spent over
two years creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector, and formed an initiative to take this work forward.
Proposed by my colleagues John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain in the book Access
Denied and elsewhere, 8 the GNI released foundational documents in October 2008
and publicly launched in December 2008 on the 60th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. The group includes Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!,
along with numerous noncompany participants, such as Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China, Committee to Project Journalists, Human Rights First, Calvert
Investments, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the Berkman Center
for Internet and Society, where I work.
The process has been rewarding and challenging, seeking to move beyond mistrust,
hostility, and competition, drawing upon human rights experiences in sectors as far
afield as labor and security, and balancing the perspectives and needs of the diverse
participants. It began as three separate processes, driven respectively by companies,
88
Colin M. Maclay
in 2008, Yahoo! created the Business and Human Rights Program, supported by corporate leadership, guided by principles and internal process, staffed by cross-functional
teams, tracking an inventory of rights issues, informed by stakeholder engagement,
and subject to outside monitoring and accountability. 6 These internal developments
are complemented, informed, and reinforced by Yahoo!’s participation in the GNI.
From recent postelection violence in Kenya and Moldova facilitated by mobile
devices to vibrant online expression in Vietnam, ongoing battles over culturally sensitive (and legally prohibited) imagery online in Turkey and Thailand, and the record
proportion of online journalists detained worldwide in 2008, digital tools are associated with voice and power, and governments realize it. Whether as part of the normal
sociopolitical milieu or in a moment of crisis, they are increasingly aware not only of
the power of new media, but also of the role of private companies in providing—and
potentially limiting—that power.
Governments also seem to be more cognizant of the unique characteristics of the Net
as compared to traditional media, not only in terms of how these traits might allow it
to threaten the status quo, but also where associated weaknesses can lie. However mistakenly, many people have come to understand this vulnerability of information and
communication technologies (ICT) companies to government interference as the China
Problem, owing in large measure to publicized instances in which Microsoft, Yahoo!,
and Google have failed to adequately protect their users’ rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Unfortunately, similar challenges are emerging around the world,
oftentimes at the hands of democratic governments, and not only in the Global South,
but also in the West. 7
In response to these tensions and understanding the complexity of resolving them, a
group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics spent over
two years creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector, and formed an initiative to take this work forward.
Proposed by my colleagues John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain in the book Access
Denied and elsewhere, 8 the GNI released foundational documents in October 2008
and publicly launched in December 2008 on the 60th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. The group includes Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!,
along with numerous noncompany participants, such as Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China, Committee to Project Journalists, Human Rights First, Calvert
Investments, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the Berkman Center
for Internet and Society, where I work.
The process has been rewarding and challenging, seeking to move beyond mistrust,
hostility, and competition, drawing upon human rights experiences in sectors as far
afield as labor and security, and balancing the perspectives and needs of the diverse
participants. It began as three separate processes, driven respectively by companies,
88
Colin M. Maclay