Direct Sales of Dual-use Technology Used in Filtering Online Content This category
includes those firms that seek to profit from the sale of Internet-related hardware, including related software and services, that states use to implement their online censorship regime.
Direct Sales of Dual-use Technology Used in Online Surveillance This category
includes those firms that seek to profit from the sale of Internet-related hardware, including
related software and services, that states use to implement their online surveillance regime.
Often, this hardware is sold with related software and services, such as training and support.
The more the hardware provider is aware of the usage of the equipment and the more the
revenues from services are recurring (rather than a one-time sale of hardware), the more complex the ethical posture the company faces.
Offering a Service that Is Subject to Censorship This category includes those firms that
seek to profit from the provision of online services that result in a citizen of a state accessing information in a manner that is censored, such as through a search engine with results
omitted or an ISP that refuses access to certain parts of the Internet.
Offering a Service that Censors Publication This category includes those firms that seek
to profit from the provision of online services that disallow a citizen of a state from publishing
certain information online or that takes down published information at the behest of a state.
Offering a Service with Personally Identifiable Information, Subject to Surveillance
This category includes those firms that seek to profit from the provision of online services that
capture personally identifiable information about a citizen of a state and where that information
may be monitored, searched, or turned over to state authorities upon request.
In certain contexts, the executives of a firm in any of these categories might argue that they do
not face a hard ethical question. For instance, in the case of an e-mail service provider that
turns over information to a law enforcement officer about a subscriber in a manner that prevents commission of a crime—or, in the most extreme example, an act of terrorism—the corporation may not only have no qualms about its actions, but in fact be proud of its role. By
contrast, when the information sought by the state is related to a political dissident whose
every action is lawful, or protected by international norms, the ethical landscape is transformed. The same is true with respect to censorship: the blocking or taking down of hate
speech, in the context of Germany and France, may well be viewed differently than the blocking or taking down of the expression of certain religious beliefs, for instance. The ethical question in any given instance may ultimately turn less on the precise role of the corporation in the
digital ecosystem and more on the nature of the information or the manner in which it is
requested of the corporation.
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
113
includes those firms that seek to profit from the sale of Internet-related hardware, including related software and services, that states use to implement their online censorship regime.
Direct Sales of Dual-use Technology Used in Online Surveillance This category
includes those firms that seek to profit from the sale of Internet-related hardware, including
related software and services, that states use to implement their online surveillance regime.
Often, this hardware is sold with related software and services, such as training and support.
The more the hardware provider is aware of the usage of the equipment and the more the
revenues from services are recurring (rather than a one-time sale of hardware), the more complex the ethical posture the company faces.
Offering a Service that Is Subject to Censorship This category includes those firms that
seek to profit from the provision of online services that result in a citizen of a state accessing information in a manner that is censored, such as through a search engine with results
omitted or an ISP that refuses access to certain parts of the Internet.
Offering a Service that Censors Publication This category includes those firms that seek
to profit from the provision of online services that disallow a citizen of a state from publishing
certain information online or that takes down published information at the behest of a state.
Offering a Service with Personally Identifiable Information, Subject to Surveillance
This category includes those firms that seek to profit from the provision of online services that
capture personally identifiable information about a citizen of a state and where that information
may be monitored, searched, or turned over to state authorities upon request.
In certain contexts, the executives of a firm in any of these categories might argue that they do
not face a hard ethical question. For instance, in the case of an e-mail service provider that
turns over information to a law enforcement officer about a subscriber in a manner that prevents commission of a crime—or, in the most extreme example, an act of terrorism—the corporation may not only have no qualms about its actions, but in fact be proud of its role. By
contrast, when the information sought by the state is related to a political dissident whose
every action is lawful, or protected by international norms, the ethical landscape is transformed. The same is true with respect to censorship: the blocking or taking down of hate
speech, in the context of Germany and France, may well be viewed differently than the blocking or taking down of the expression of certain religious beliefs, for instance. The ethical question in any given instance may ultimately turn less on the precise role of the corporation in the
digital ecosystem and more on the nature of the information or the manner in which it is
requested of the corporation.
Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
113