Yahoo!, Shi Tao, and the lessons for corporate social responsibility Rebecca MacKinnon Assistant Professor, Journalism & Media Studies Ctr, University of Hong Kong Email: [email_address] Weblog: http://rconversation.blogs.com This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

Facts of Shi Tao’s case (1) April 20, 2004: attended meeting, took notes on internal document about how press should prevent unrest during June 4th anniversary period That night, he writes up his notes on his office computer and sends them to a New York-based editor of Minzhu Luntan , using the e-mail account [email_address] At his request, his summary of the internal directive is published on Minzhu Luntan , under the name “198964”

April 20, 2004: attended meeting, took notes on internal document about how press should prevent unrest during June 4th anniversary period

That night, he writes up his notes on his office computer and sends them to a New York-based editor of Minzhu Luntan , using the e-mail account [email_address]

At his request, his summary of the internal directive is published on Minzhu Luntan , under the name “198964”

Facts of Shi Tao’s case (2) On April 22nd: Beijing State Security Bureau requests all e-mail account information and e-mail contents for [email_address] Yahoo! Beijing office provides all requested information immediately. November 23, 2004: Shi is detained December 14: Shi is formally arrested

On April 22nd: Beijing State Security Bureau requests all e-mail account information and e-mail contents for [email_address]

Yahoo! Beijing office provides all requested information immediately.

November 23, 2004: Shi is detained

December 14: Shi is formally arrested

Facts of Shi Tao’s Case (3) March 11, 2005: two-hour trial April 27, 2005: sentenced to 10 years in prison for providing state secrets overseas. June 2, 2005: Shi Tao’s appeal rejected September 6, 2005: copy of verdict, including mention of evidence supplied by Yahoo!, published on the Internet by Reporters Without Borders. Public condemnation of Yahoo! doesn’t stop after that…

March 11, 2005: two-hour trial

April 27, 2005: sentenced to 10 years in prison for providing state secrets overseas.

June 2, 2005: Shi Tao’s appeal rejected

September 6, 2005: copy of verdict, including mention of evidence supplied by Yahoo!, published on the Internet by Reporters Without Borders.

Public condemnation of Yahoo! doesn’t stop after that…

Yahoo’s response: Following Chinese law - had no choice “ No knowledge” of the nature of the case under investigation when asked for info (later acknowledged had known it was a “state secrets” investigation) In the long run, more Chinese people benefit from Yahoo!’s engagement than are hurt (collateral damage argument)

Following Chinese law - had no choice

“ No knowledge” of the nature of the case under investigation when asked for info (later acknowledged had known it was a “state secrets” investigation)

In the long run, more Chinese people benefit from Yahoo!’s engagement than are hurt (collateral damage argument)

CONDEMNATION: Amnesty International Human Rights Watch Reporters Without Borders Shi Tao: Jailed 10 years with Yahoo!’s help.

CONDEMNATION:

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Reporters Without Borders

Yahoo! legally “off the hook” Shi Tao “agreed” to terms of service Yahoo! is required to follow local law in local jurisdiction

Shi Tao “agreed” to terms of service

Yahoo! is required to follow local law in local jurisdiction

What could Yahoo! have done differently? Option 1: Corporate “civil disobedience” in cases that seem to involve dissidents (choice: risk local employees or leave); Option 2: Don’t put user e-mail data on servers inside PRC; Option 3: Moral obligation to go beyond legalistic terms of service: Better inform users about risks.

Option 1: Corporate “civil disobedience” in cases that seem to involve dissidents (choice: risk local employees or leave);

Option 2: Don’t put user e-mail data on servers inside PRC;

Option 3: Moral obligation to go beyond legalistic terms of service: Better inform users about risks.

Different companies, different choices Yahoo!: e-mail, blogs, and search in PRC MSN: blogs and search, no e-mail Google: search only, no e-mail or blogs

Yahoo!: e-mail, blogs, and search in PRC

MSN: blogs and search, no e-mail

Google: search only, no e-mail or blogs

Some highlights of proposed Global Online Freedom Act State Dept “Office of Internet Freedom” makes list of “Internet Restricting Countries” US Companies prohibited from disclosing user info to authorities in those countries except for “legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes” (as determined by D.O.J.) Companies must report all the terms they are required to censor and other requirements given to them by foreign governments, etc.

State Dept “Office of Internet Freedom” makes list of “Internet Restricting Countries”

US Companies prohibited from disclosing user info to authorities in those countries except for “legitimate foreign law enforcement purposes” (as determined by D.O.J.)

Companies must report all the terms they are required to censor and other requirements given to them by foreign governments, etc.

Shareholder activism growing Cisco - Boston Common Yahoo! - New York City pension funds Google - New York City pension funds 2005 pledge by socially responsible investment funds

Cisco - Boston Common

Yahoo! - New York City pension funds

Google - New York City pension funds

2005 pledge by socially responsible investment funds

“Corporate Social Responsibility” Environment Labor Community support NEW: privacy and free expression

Environment

Labor

Community support

NEW: privacy and free expression

What do companies do… when users’ rights & interests… and host government demands conflict? Government Company User

Alternative: Global voluntary corporate code of conduct Maximum possible transparency with users about how and why material is being censored, and under what circumstances information could be shared with authorities Agree to follow common set of procedures when faced with laws, regulations, and government requests for censorship or handover of user information

Maximum possible transparency with users about how and why material is being censored, and under what circumstances information could be shared with authorities

Agree to follow common set of procedures when faced with laws, regulations, and government requests for censorship or handover of user information

Lessons for Civil Society? PUBLIC EDUCATION: We must do a much better job at educating ourselves and the public so people can make informed choices when using information services GRASSROOTS SPACES: Perhaps we must never rely on commercial IT services alone if we want to make sure that some spaces for free speech and privacy are always preserved for those who need them most.

PUBLIC EDUCATION: We must do a much better job at educating ourselves and the public so people can make informed choices when using information services

GRASSROOTS SPACES: Perhaps we must never rely on commercial IT services alone if we want to make sure that some spaces for free speech and privacy are always preserved for those who need them most.