SFist Tech Labs: Un-American Activities
Cisco, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google — the companies that internet wags are now calling "The Gang of Four" — were subjected to a verbal smack-down on Wednesday in a hearing about those companies' involvement with known Communists. CNet News.com has a transcript of the hearing, in which California Representative Tom Lantos grills a representative from each company, repeatedly asking "are you ashamed."
Fitting in with the internet theme of the proceedings, Lantos invoked Godwin's Law and compared the companies' compliance with the Chinese government with IBM's compliance with Nazi Germany in World War II. (Link to editorial by Edwin Black on CNet News). Almost as crass was Lantos' comment to Google's representative, "I'm asking you a direct question -- I don't want your philosophy."
To us in the labs, it's clear that this wasn't a genuine hearing; this was a case of political grandstanding, a chance for Lantos to publicly state his philosophy. The companies' motivations for their decision was irrelevant, as their only role in the proceedings was to act as scapegoats for a totalitarian regime.
We've already seen the real ramifications of total complicity with the Chinese government, as Yahoo's ethics have come into question for its role in the imprisonment of Chinese journalist Shi Tao. (Amnesty International also provides Yahoo's official response to that incident). It's clear that a company's stated philosophy of providing a service to people can be undermined by the actions of those people's government. But at what point does the speech-making stop and a true plan of action start?
The Tech Labs prove that we have no sense of decency, after the jump
It stops with legislation, apparently. CNet News continues their coverage with news of the proposed Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, which would enact restrictions on companies that do business in China, Iran, Vietnam and "other nations deemed to be overly 'Internet-restricting.'"
We're skeptical that this Internet Embargo would foster freedom for the people of China any more than our trade embargoes have brought peace and prosperity to the people of Cuba. But at least it would establish an overarching code of ethics for American companies doing business in China. There would be no middle ground, no gray area: there is no room for a company to do business with the Chinese people without being complicit in the oppression of the Chinese government, and therefore American companies must pull out completely or face severe penalties.
We've taken Google's word at face value throughout the whole debacle; they made the claim that their motivations were based on providing information to people, not profits for themselves. Google VP Elliot Schrage is quoted in CNet's article: "Is a half-truth better than no truth? Is it better to have results that are misleading than to have no results at all? That is a very appropriate question to ask and one I don't have an answer for you today." That's the philosophy that Lantos didn't want to hear.
As long as we're making comparisons to Nazi Germany, how about this analogy: an American publisher provides books to German citizens during the build-up to WWII. It complies with the government's demands that only certain books may be distributed, and does so by transparently stating to its customers that their access to information is being restricted by their government. It doesn't provide records to local officials when customers are accessing illicit material (as the claims against Yahoo suggest), and it doesn't provide the government with tools to publish their own propaganda (as the claims against Cisco suggest). Is that publisher committing an ethical violation? We'd genuinely like to hear (via the comments) how this analogy to Google's behavior isn't valid.
It would be foolish to fault Lantos' motivations, as we're very impressed with the bulk of his voting record. (A more complete list is available at Project Vote Smart). His philosophy behind making a public show of refusal to cooperate with the Chinese government is a sound one. To ignore that philosophy, dismissing it as nothing more than self-serving political grandstanding, would be as foolish as ignoring the statements of companies who are exploring the ethics of serving people living under an unjust government, as nothing more than greed.
While we hate to spoil the fun of those who like to point fingers and speak out with righteous indignation and design wry parody logos, we'd prefer to see people actually doing something about it. Instead of buying a bumper sticker, support Human Rights in China and Amnesty International and let representatives know that we want to see some real leadership and a true course of action, not just speech-making.
Photo of Congressman Tom Lantos from his website.