Spaces operated differently in China than it did in the United States, however. If a blogger
using the U.S.-branded version of the service decided to type democracy into the title of a
blog post, there is no problem. In China, that same blogger is presented with an error message: ‘‘You must enter a title for your space. The title must not contain prohibited language,
such as profanity. Please type a different title.’’ Automated screening of content is also
coupled with specific interventions: in 2006, MSN abruptly pulled the blog of a Chinese-based
journalist using the pseudonym Michael Anti, apparently at the behest of Chinese authorities.
4
Corporations hosting blogs told ONI researchers in interviews of the persistent fear of being
asked to perform one-off censorship tasks of this sort. It is plain that these firms do not relish
this job, but fear retribution if they do not comply with the local mandates.
An Internet service provider might be required to keep records of the online activity of all or
some of its subscribers, or to monitor who seeks to access certain kinds of content. The provider of a Web-based e-mail service might be required to turn over the e-mail messages of a
user identified by the government. Yahoo! has been faced with this dilemma several times. In
the United States, Yahoo!’s lawyers routinely respond to law enforcement requests for information about subscribers, pairing an IP address or an e-mail name with other subscriber information. But in China, the stakes are different for the same activity: in at least two instances,
Yahoo!’s local affiliate, now Alibaba, has turned over information about users of its e-mail service that allegedly has landed journalists in jail. The crime involved, related apparently to political dissent, would be no crime at all if committed in the state where Yahoo! is chartered.
Though less of a concern to multinational firms, cybercafe ´s can be required to maintain
logs of who uses their computers. The cybercafe ´ owner can be called upon to report on the
identity of a certain Web surfer who used a given PC during a given time interval. Some are
asked to call a special number on the fly if the online activity of a customer sets off certain
alarms bells.
5 As Internet connectivity increases, often through broad access at shared terminals, this mode of control continues to become more effective over time.
Two Taxonomies of Private Actors Facing This Quandary
Different technology firms are called upon by states to carry out quite different online censorship and surveillance tasks. In seeking to fashion a policy response, it helps to disaggregate
the firms implicated in this matter. Two taxonomies, one more helpful than the other, offer
ways to disaggregate these firms and those firms that may soon join them in this awkward
position.
The first approach is to consider the nature of the firms’ business, which is most useful for
determining the firms that might get drawn into an ethical controversy of this sort. We include
this taxonomy primarily as it is the orientation that casual observers ordinarily bring to the
issue. While useful for the purpose of determining to whom this issue is relevant, this taxonomy is far less helpful in terms of informing what to do about it.
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
109
using the U.S.-branded version of the service decided to type democracy into the title of a
blog post, there is no problem. In China, that same blogger is presented with an error message: ‘‘You must enter a title for your space. The title must not contain prohibited language,
such as profanity. Please type a different title.’’ Automated screening of content is also
coupled with specific interventions: in 2006, MSN abruptly pulled the blog of a Chinese-based
journalist using the pseudonym Michael Anti, apparently at the behest of Chinese authorities.
4
Corporations hosting blogs told ONI researchers in interviews of the persistent fear of being
asked to perform one-off censorship tasks of this sort. It is plain that these firms do not relish
this job, but fear retribution if they do not comply with the local mandates.
An Internet service provider might be required to keep records of the online activity of all or
some of its subscribers, or to monitor who seeks to access certain kinds of content. The provider of a Web-based e-mail service might be required to turn over the e-mail messages of a
user identified by the government. Yahoo! has been faced with this dilemma several times. In
the United States, Yahoo!’s lawyers routinely respond to law enforcement requests for information about subscribers, pairing an IP address or an e-mail name with other subscriber information. But in China, the stakes are different for the same activity: in at least two instances,
Yahoo!’s local affiliate, now Alibaba, has turned over information about users of its e-mail service that allegedly has landed journalists in jail. The crime involved, related apparently to political dissent, would be no crime at all if committed in the state where Yahoo! is chartered.
Though less of a concern to multinational firms, cybercafe ´s can be required to maintain
logs of who uses their computers. The cybercafe ´ owner can be called upon to report on the
identity of a certain Web surfer who used a given PC during a given time interval. Some are
asked to call a special number on the fly if the online activity of a customer sets off certain
alarms bells.
5 As Internet connectivity increases, often through broad access at shared terminals, this mode of control continues to become more effective over time.
Two Taxonomies of Private Actors Facing This Quandary
Different technology firms are called upon by states to carry out quite different online censorship and surveillance tasks. In seeking to fashion a policy response, it helps to disaggregate
the firms implicated in this matter. Two taxonomies, one more helpful than the other, offer
ways to disaggregate these firms and those firms that may soon join them in this awkward
position.
The first approach is to consider the nature of the firms’ business, which is most useful for
determining the firms that might get drawn into an ethical controversy of this sort. We include
this taxonomy primarily as it is the orientation that casual observers ordinarily bring to the
issue. While useful for the purpose of determining to whom this issue is relevant, this taxonomy is far less helpful in terms of informing what to do about it.
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
109