code, the more useful, almost certainly, though the reality of getting competing businesses to
agree to detailed business practices of this sort is daunting.
As a substantive matter, the code might address censorship and surveillance together, or
might disaggregate these topics. Sales to governments of technologies that enable censorship and surveillance presents yet another set of problems that might be taken up in such a
code.
By way of example, the framework for such principles on censorship and surveillance might
take the following form:
Censorship: Commitment and Guiding Principles At the core of the censorship framework is a company’s commitment to the right to free expression. Specific elements of such a
commitment might include the following:
1. Formalization. A commitment to establish and carry out formal internal processes for
responding to all requests for censorship, whereby the company will respond to requests to
censor online information only when presented with formal, written requests from state officials
at the appropriate level of authority to make such a demand.
2. Limitation of Scope. Where one state requires that certain online content must be censored, a company will make its best efforts to publish that content in all other markets that
the company serves where the content is permitted to be accessed or published online.
3. Reduction of Collateral Censorship. A commitment to make an active effort to uncover
instances in which online content that is censored does not fit local legal definitions of what
is meant to be censored. A company will work with local authorities to remove from lists of
sites to be censored, or otherwise ensure that customers and employees can access, inadvertently blocked online sites or information. A company will maintain a policy for processing
complaints about overcensored sites and will take action where complaints are determined to
be meritorious.
4. Awareness. The net result of a company’s activities in a given country is greater awareness
of censorship and filtering by users and lawmakers than if the company were not offering its
services in that country. A company seeks to indicate when information that otherwise would
have been available is not made available to a user. When one of the company’s users is a
source of information censored online, the company will seek to inform that user that information they published has been censored. The company will publish, or work with others to publish, information about how censorship works in practice in countries where the company
does business and will share data with researchers who study these matters. The company
is also committed to supporting the efforts of the international community to uphold universal
human rights.
State Demands for User Information: Commitment and Guiding Principles At the core
of the framework related to state demands for user information is a company’s commitment to
the rights of its users to privacy. Specific elements of such a commitment might include the
following:
116
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey
agree to detailed business practices of this sort is daunting.
As a substantive matter, the code might address censorship and surveillance together, or
might disaggregate these topics. Sales to governments of technologies that enable censorship and surveillance presents yet another set of problems that might be taken up in such a
code.
By way of example, the framework for such principles on censorship and surveillance might
take the following form:
Censorship: Commitment and Guiding Principles At the core of the censorship framework is a company’s commitment to the right to free expression. Specific elements of such a
commitment might include the following:
1. Formalization. A commitment to establish and carry out formal internal processes for
responding to all requests for censorship, whereby the company will respond to requests to
censor online information only when presented with formal, written requests from state officials
at the appropriate level of authority to make such a demand.
2. Limitation of Scope. Where one state requires that certain online content must be censored, a company will make its best efforts to publish that content in all other markets that
the company serves where the content is permitted to be accessed or published online.
3. Reduction of Collateral Censorship. A commitment to make an active effort to uncover
instances in which online content that is censored does not fit local legal definitions of what
is meant to be censored. A company will work with local authorities to remove from lists of
sites to be censored, or otherwise ensure that customers and employees can access, inadvertently blocked online sites or information. A company will maintain a policy for processing
complaints about overcensored sites and will take action where complaints are determined to
be meritorious.
4. Awareness. The net result of a company’s activities in a given country is greater awareness
of censorship and filtering by users and lawmakers than if the company were not offering its
services in that country. A company seeks to indicate when information that otherwise would
have been available is not made available to a user. When one of the company’s users is a
source of information censored online, the company will seek to inform that user that information they published has been censored. The company will publish, or work with others to publish, information about how censorship works in practice in countries where the company
does business and will share data with researchers who study these matters. The company
is also committed to supporting the efforts of the international community to uphold universal
human rights.
State Demands for User Information: Commitment and Guiding Principles At the core
of the framework related to state demands for user information is a company’s commitment to
the rights of its users to privacy. Specific elements of such a commitment might include the
following:
116
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey