developed and compiled in the United States. These firms make similar arguments to those of
the hardware providers: their technologies and services are dual-use in nature. The tool that
can protect a child from seeing a harmful image can also keep a citizenry away from politically
or culturally sensitive information online. The human rights critique, the firms argue, should be
trained on the regimes that apply the services in a manner that violates laws and norms, not at
the service providers who make the tools and update the lists. But the lists of banned sites
include some nongovernmental organizations that observers suggest have no place there, if
in fact, for instance, the notion is just to protect children.
Online Service Providers Most recently, the providers of Internet-based applications have
found themselves facing hard questions about their activities in such regimes. A wide range of
firms fall in this category: ISPs, e-mail service providers, blog-hosting firms, search engines,
and others. ISPs are asked to route traffic in certain ways to prevent citizens from accessing
or publishing certain content; likewise, ISP data retention policies are a hot topic of debate in
many jurisdictions, as the personal data they keep about citizens is at once sensitive and potentially useful in the context of law enforcement activities. E-mail service providers, such as
Yahoo!’s local partner in the Chinese context, are routinely asked to turn over information related to subscribers. The makers of Weblog software and hosting services, such as Microsoft’s MSN unit, are asked to block certain information from being published and told to take
down the postings or entire blogs of subscribers. Search engines, including Google, are
required to limit the results that appear in response to certain queries entered by citizens.
The nature of the ethical questions each of these types of firms face varies with the nature
of the service they provide and the type of participation the state asks of them. In most instances, corporations respond that they have an obligation to obey local law with respect to
services they offer in all jurisdictions.
Corporations often perceive that they do not have the option of resisting the demands of
law enforcement officials, for fear that the corporation or their local employees will face sanctions or that their license to operate will be revoked. Some corporations, recognizing the risks
inherent in doing business in certain regimes, have limited the types of services that they offer
in those contexts to avoid being placed in an uncomfortable role. Google, for instance, decided not to introduce its popular blogging and e-mail tools in the Chinese markets to avoid
the possibility of being forced to turn over much information about subscribers, other than
possibly basic search query data. In an ironic twist, in Iran, Google has been accused locally
of ‘‘censorship’’ for failing to bring all of its services into the Iranian market.
Online Publishers Corporations that publish information online are also caught up in this
issue, though their situation is somewhat more straightforward. As a general matter, online
publishers are treated as other publishers in the states in which they operate, so the ordinary
media restrictions that attach to newspapers and other traditional media also attach in the online space. The notion of providing a single news or information service from one place in the
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
111
the hardware providers: their technologies and services are dual-use in nature. The tool that
can protect a child from seeing a harmful image can also keep a citizenry away from politically
or culturally sensitive information online. The human rights critique, the firms argue, should be
trained on the regimes that apply the services in a manner that violates laws and norms, not at
the service providers who make the tools and update the lists. But the lists of banned sites
include some nongovernmental organizations that observers suggest have no place there, if
in fact, for instance, the notion is just to protect children.
Online Service Providers Most recently, the providers of Internet-based applications have
found themselves facing hard questions about their activities in such regimes. A wide range of
firms fall in this category: ISPs, e-mail service providers, blog-hosting firms, search engines,
and others. ISPs are asked to route traffic in certain ways to prevent citizens from accessing
or publishing certain content; likewise, ISP data retention policies are a hot topic of debate in
many jurisdictions, as the personal data they keep about citizens is at once sensitive and potentially useful in the context of law enforcement activities. E-mail service providers, such as
Yahoo!’s local partner in the Chinese context, are routinely asked to turn over information related to subscribers. The makers of Weblog software and hosting services, such as Microsoft’s MSN unit, are asked to block certain information from being published and told to take
down the postings or entire blogs of subscribers. Search engines, including Google, are
required to limit the results that appear in response to certain queries entered by citizens.
The nature of the ethical questions each of these types of firms face varies with the nature
of the service they provide and the type of participation the state asks of them. In most instances, corporations respond that they have an obligation to obey local law with respect to
services they offer in all jurisdictions.
Corporations often perceive that they do not have the option of resisting the demands of
law enforcement officials, for fear that the corporation or their local employees will face sanctions or that their license to operate will be revoked. Some corporations, recognizing the risks
inherent in doing business in certain regimes, have limited the types of services that they offer
in those contexts to avoid being placed in an uncomfortable role. Google, for instance, decided not to introduce its popular blogging and e-mail tools in the Chinese markets to avoid
the possibility of being forced to turn over much information about subscribers, other than
possibly basic search query data. In an ironic twist, in Iran, Google has been accused locally
of ‘‘censorship’’ for failing to bring all of its services into the Iranian market.
Online Publishers Corporations that publish information online are also caught up in this
issue, though their situation is somewhat more straightforward. As a general matter, online
publishers are treated as other publishers in the states in which they operate, so the ordinary
media restrictions that attach to newspapers and other traditional media also attach in the online space. The notion of providing a single news or information service from one place in the
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
111