Multinational corporations have every incentive to work hard toward an industry-led, collaborative approach to resolving the tension, regardless of how states act. An industry-led
approach could have, at a minimum, the benefit of improved clarity. If the code is well-drafted
and well-implemented, users of Internet-based services would know what to expect in terms
of what their service provider would do when faced with a censorship or surveillance demand.
The benefit of such an approach could well extend further. By working together on a common
code, and harnessing the support of their home states, the NGO community, investors, academics, and others, the ICT industry might well be able to present a united front that would
enable individual firms to resist excessive state demands without having to leave the market
as a result of noncompliance. The ICT industry should strive to provide the best possible services without compromising civil liberties, the generativity of the network, and its democratizing potential.
Notes
1. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999, 2006).
2. See Internet Society of China, ‘‘Public Pledge of Self-Regulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry,’’ http://www.isc.org.cn/20020417/ca102762.htm.
3. See Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003–04); see also
John Palfrey and Robert Rogoyski, ‘‘The Move to the Middle: The Enduring Threat of ‘Harmful’ Speech to Network
Neutrality,’’ 21 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 31 (2006).
4. Robert Scoble, Scobleizer, http://scobleizer.com/2006/01/03/microsoft-takes-down-chinese-blogger-my-opinionson-that/ (accessed January 3, 2007) (for a prominent Microsoft employee’s discussion of his company’s takedown
of the Michael Anti blog). See also Rebecca MacKinnon’s contemporaneous account, http://rconversation.blogs
.com/rconversation/2006/01/microsoft_takes.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
5. Confirmed in multiple interviews by ONI researchers with representatives of U.S. companies doing business in
China.
6. See Jonathan Zittrain, ‘‘Internet Points of Control,’’ 43 B.C. L. Rev 653 (2003) for a taxonomy of Internet points of
control, including conceptions of source and destination filtering.
7. Microsoft Press Pass—Information for Journalists, ‘‘Microsoft Outlines Policy Framework for Dealing with Government Restrictions on Blog Content,’’ January 31, 2006, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan06/
01-31BloggingPR.mspx (accessed January 4, 2007).
8. Ibid.
9. ‘‘H.R. 4780 [109th]: Global Online Freedom Act of 2006,’’ GovTrack.us, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext
.xpd?bill=h109-4780 (accessed January 3, 2007).
10. ‘‘Smith Reintroduces the Global Online Freedom Act,’’ PR Newswire, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories
.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-08-2007/0004502076&EDATE= (accessed February 15, 2007).
11. Andrew McLaughlin, ‘‘Google in China,’’ the Official Google Blog, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/
google-in-china.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
12. Winston P. Nagan, ‘‘An Appraisal of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986,’’ Journal of Law and Religion,
vol. 5, no. 2 (1987): 327–365.
13. ‘‘Role and Work of the Union,’’ International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/
role-work.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
122
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey
approach could have, at a minimum, the benefit of improved clarity. If the code is well-drafted
and well-implemented, users of Internet-based services would know what to expect in terms
of what their service provider would do when faced with a censorship or surveillance demand.
The benefit of such an approach could well extend further. By working together on a common
code, and harnessing the support of their home states, the NGO community, investors, academics, and others, the ICT industry might well be able to present a united front that would
enable individual firms to resist excessive state demands without having to leave the market
as a result of noncompliance. The ICT industry should strive to provide the best possible services without compromising civil liberties, the generativity of the network, and its democratizing potential.
Notes
1. Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (New York: Basic Books, 1999, 2006).
2. See Internet Society of China, ‘‘Public Pledge of Self-Regulation and Professional Ethics for China Internet Industry,’’ http://www.isc.org.cn/20020417/ca102762.htm.
3. See Joel R. Reidenberg, States and Internet Enforcement, 1 U. OTTAWA L. & TECH. J. 213 (2003–04); see also
John Palfrey and Robert Rogoyski, ‘‘The Move to the Middle: The Enduring Threat of ‘Harmful’ Speech to Network
Neutrality,’’ 21 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 31 (2006).
4. Robert Scoble, Scobleizer, http://scobleizer.com/2006/01/03/microsoft-takes-down-chinese-blogger-my-opinionson-that/ (accessed January 3, 2007) (for a prominent Microsoft employee’s discussion of his company’s takedown
of the Michael Anti blog). See also Rebecca MacKinnon’s contemporaneous account, http://rconversation.blogs
.com/rconversation/2006/01/microsoft_takes.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
5. Confirmed in multiple interviews by ONI researchers with representatives of U.S. companies doing business in
China.
6. See Jonathan Zittrain, ‘‘Internet Points of Control,’’ 43 B.C. L. Rev 653 (2003) for a taxonomy of Internet points of
control, including conceptions of source and destination filtering.
7. Microsoft Press Pass—Information for Journalists, ‘‘Microsoft Outlines Policy Framework for Dealing with Government Restrictions on Blog Content,’’ January 31, 2006, http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/jan06/
01-31BloggingPR.mspx (accessed January 4, 2007).
8. Ibid.
9. ‘‘H.R. 4780 [109th]: Global Online Freedom Act of 2006,’’ GovTrack.us, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext
.xpd?bill=h109-4780 (accessed January 3, 2007).
10. ‘‘Smith Reintroduces the Global Online Freedom Act,’’ PR Newswire, http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories
.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-08-2007/0004502076&EDATE= (accessed February 15, 2007).
11. Andrew McLaughlin, ‘‘Google in China,’’ the Official Google Blog, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/
google-in-china.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
12. Winston P. Nagan, ‘‘An Appraisal of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986,’’ Journal of Law and Religion,
vol. 5, no. 2 (1987): 327–365.
13. ‘‘Role and Work of the Union,’’ International Telecommunication Union, http://www.itu.int/aboutitu/overview/
role-work.html (accessed January 3, 2007).
122
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey