GFW BLOG（功夫网与翻墙）

Microsoft must allow online freedom in China

2008-07-08T00:03:00.000-07:00

来源：Uncensor

Microsoft is aiding the repression of freedom of expression and information in China through complying with requests by the Chinese government that has resulted in censorship of the internet.

Microsoft’s action have included filtering the results of searches for politically sensitive terms and displaying the message “Certain content was removed from the results of this search”. Microsoft have also restricted users of MSN Spaces from including particular terms in their account names and titles. As the list of restricted terms have not been released, the extent of censorship is unkown and may result in excessive self-censorship by its Chinese users.

Microsoft have also removed blogs that are critical of the Chinese administration, such as the blog by Zhao Jing which criticised the authorities crackdown on a Beijing tabloid which exposed official corruption.

In addition, Microsoft have voluntarily signed the ‘Public Pledge of Self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry’ which requires Microsoft to 'refrain from producing, posting or disseminating harmful information that may jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability'.

This censorship contradicts the very principles and values that Microsoft was founded upon. It also contravenes the rights enshrined in constitution of the People's Republic of China to freedom of expression and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which China has signed.

Act now by printing out the following letter by clicking on the Act Now button and mail it to the address below.

The difference between politics and pornography is a social one

2008-06-03T03:07:00.000-07:00

作者: Seth Finkelstein 来源: The Guardian

Censorship in China was one of the "opportunities" seen by network router corporation Cisco Systems, according to a presentation leaked just before a hearing of the US Senate Subcommittee on Human Rights. The document (a series of slides from 2002) describes in part the Chinese government's Golden Shield project. One slide lists its goals of stopping network crime, guaranteeing security and services, and to "combat 'Falun Gong' evil religion and other hostiles". The next slide notes "Cisco Opportunities" in planning, construction, training and operational maintenance (see PDF of Cisco presentation).

There has been a longstanding controversy over western corporations collaborating with censorship by authoritarian regimes. Cisco Systems in particular has faced accusations of providing custom hardware for the "Great Firewall of China", charges it has repeatedly denied. So any new evidence of an association between Cisco and China censorship will reopen suspicions about its possible role in enabling repression.

But too much emphasis on investigating the worst possible case can be a distraction. In testimony, Mark Chandler, senior vice-president and general counsel of Cisco, said: "Cisco, however, has not and does not design products to accommodate political censorship. The tools built into our products that enable site filtering are the same the world over, whether sold to governments, companies or network operators."

And the irony of his statement is that to the extent it matters, he's right. That is, whether or not there was ever a special order of censorship machines is a historical curiosity. That question holds on to the view that mass-censorship requires equipment which is extraordinary, atypical, specially made for foreign dictatorships. It would be comforting to believe it wouldn't be like what's used in democracies. But, as Cisco's executive says himself, censorware is "the same the world over".

The tools sold for companies to control workers serve equally well for governments to combat "evil religion". And all can be a lucrative market. So it's understandable that a civil liberties firestorm was created by the revelation of a company viewing government censorship as merely one more customer use case. But from a different angle, what did people expect?

For more than a decade, censorware has been promoted as a way for authorities to restrict the information available to people under their control.

Those prohibitions have been argued to be a market opportunity. However, what's regarded as legitimate authority among parents, employers, or governments, is a social question, not a technological distinction. In reaction to what democracies regard as illegitimate information prohibitions, there have been calls in the US for legislation to restrict corporate sales of technology to governments which have extensive records of violating human rights. The hearing above was even titled Global Internet Freedom: Corporate Responsibility and the Rule of Law. But it's a very complex topic. Businesses based in other countries could rush in to capture the China censorship market, or China's own networking industry might step in.

This is not to claim that no action could be useful. Indeed, the publicity generated by various proposed corporate responsibility laws has raised awareness of the issues. If nothing else, widespread knowledge of how censorware is used in repressing dissent provides moral support for the development and dissemination of anti-censorware systems (in which the difference between uses for politics and for pornography is similarly a social question, and not a technological distinction). Further, scandals where corporations are shown to be working with government censors indicate that battles over internet censorship can be big business. Which then means that the subject is taken far more seriously than shouting matches between activists and moralists.

Moreover, large amounts of money changing hands are a good indication that at least one party is willing to devote extensive resources towards achieving the goal (ie, internet censorship of a country). There's a famous quote by John Gilmore dismissing the possibility of censoring the internet: "The net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it." But what if censorship is in the router? With Cisco's actions, we can now see censorship being sold literally in the routers.

sethf.com/infothought/blog

Freedom House Urges Vote on Global Online Freedom Act

2008-06-03T02:55:00.000-07:00

来源: Freedom House

Washington
May 29, 2008

Freedom House urges the United States House of Representatives to adopt a bill that would help American technology companies resist pressure to cooperate with repressive regimes.

In a letter Tuesday, Freedom House called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA), HR 275, to a vote on the floor of the House. The bill is critical to U.S. efforts to combat internet censorship and to promote freedom of expression worldwide.

"Dozens of repressive regimes restrict freedom of expression by deploying censorship technologies," said Freedom House Executive Director Jennifer Windsor in the letter. "As congressional hearings and human rights reports have amply documented, some of these technologies originated from U.S. companies, and China has exploited personal data on internet users provided by a U.S. company to commit human rights abuses."

Although the U.S. technology industry is developing voluntary standards for conduct, Freedom House believes a federal law is necessary to protect U.S. companies from becoming involved in censorship and surveillance efforts.

The text of the letter is below:

May 27, 2008

Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Room H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

I am writing to urge you to bring the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA), HR 275, to a vote on the floor of the House. GOFA is critical for U.S. efforts to combat internet censorship and to promote freedom of expression online.

Dozens of repressive regimes restrict freedom of expression by deploying censorship technologies, conducting surveillance on internet users, and collecting personal data online to intimidate and prosecute their critics. As congressional hearings and human rights reports have amply documented, some of these technologies originated from U.S. companies, and China has exploited personal data on internet users provided by a U.S. company to commit human rights abuses.

U.S. technology companies have introduced internal codes of conduct and engaged in a multi-stakeholder dialogue to draft voluntary global principles for the protection of privacy and free expression. However, this dialogue has dragged on for about two years, and even if it produces a consensus, there is little reason to believe that voluntary principles will suffice to shield U.S. companies from pressure to collaborate in internet censorship and surveillance. GOFA will provide strong protection to U.S. companies against such pressure, because they will be able to point to the penalties contained in GOFA as reason to rebuff demands for collaboration with internet censors and other violators of human rights.

Critics raise the concern that GOFA may lead repressive governments to retaliate and to drive U.S. technology companies out of foreign markets. This concern is greatly exaggerated. The products and services of U.S. technology companies are far superior to those developed elsewhere, and countries that drive out U.S. technology companies will become less competitive economically. Rather than put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage, GOFA is likely to raise international standards for business to protect and advance internet freedom, much as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act led to the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. The European Parliament already is expected to consider a bill similar to GOFA.

Moreover, if U.S. companies are open to collaboration in online censorship and surveillance, their presence in internet-restricting countries will do more to harm than to promote internet freedom. U.S. companies can only do more to promote than to harm internet freedom if they are required to resist pressure from repressive governments to infringe on privacy protections and free expression online.

Freedom House rarely takes a position on draft legislation before the U.S. Congress. When it has done so, Freedom House has supported bills that were critical to the advancement of human rights globally. The Global Online Freedom Act is such a bill.

You have spoken eloquently on numerous occasions about the need for governments around the world to respect the fundamental freedoms of their citizens and to uphold the basic human rights and dignity to which all people of the world are entitled. A vote on GOFA would present a historic opportunity to advance those rights and freedoms.

I strongly urge you to bring the Global Online Freedom Act to a vote in the House.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Windsor
Executive Director

Cisco presentation

2008-05-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

Cisco presentation - Upload a doc

Business and human rights

2008-05-11T02:44:00.000-07:00

作者: Michael Samway 来源:ycorpblog.com

We’re acutely aware Yahoo!’s products, technology, and operating footprint increasingly have potential to intersect human rights issues — in particular freedom of expression and privacy — around the world.

Today we’re announcing the launch of our Business & Human Rights Program, and through it we hope to help define ourselves as an industry leader in this important field. It’s no secret that certain governments around the world don’t live up to widely recognized standards for protecting the free expression and privacy rights of their own citizens. While the root causes of these threats clearly lie with governments, we also know corporations have important obligations in the field of human rights.

The Yahoo! Business & Human Rights Program represents another step forward in our commitment to human rights, and a number of pillars support this program:

Executive Commitment. We’ve got it. For those of us who’ve been with Jerry in meetings on Capitol Hill, at the State Department, or with human rights activists, the long-term commitment is clear.
Dedicated and Cross-Functional Teams. The Program will expand our core team and continue centralized leadership on global strategy, industry initiatives, business decision-making, and internal and external stakeholder engagement.
Guiding Principles and Operational Guidelines. We’re committed to the international foundations of freedom of expression and privacy, and we’ll continue translating those principles into practical steps to be followed by our employees.
Human Rights Touch-Point Inventory + Clearinghouse. We’ll constantly review the intersection points of our business with potential human rights issues and ensure risks are routed to the right teams.
Human Rights Impact Assessments. We’re committed to exploring risks to freedom of expression and privacy in challenging markets, engaging with external stakeholders, and designing risk mitigation strategies.
Internal and External Stakeholder Engagement. The single most important stakeholders are our users. We also must stay closely connected to our employees and maintain our strong relationships with industry peers, human rights groups, academics, and governments, including our own State Department.
Accountability Framework. We also believe in designing an effective system to assess our own performance in meeting our overall goals and our operational steps relating to human rights issues.

We’re a company built on open access to information and user trust . We’ve encouraged scholarship on technology and human rights, funding two university fellowships so far. We’ve also teamed up with a noted human rights activist to create the Yahoo! Human Rights Fund. We’re deeply committed to the current collective initiative with industry peers, human rights groups, academics, and socially responsible investors to design standards to guide companies in challenging markets.

We believe companies can move forward today to integrate human rights decision-making into their business operations, and we intend to show our own leadership and commitment to freedom of expression and privacy through the creation of the Yahoo! Business & Human Rights Program.

Michael Samway
VP & Deputy General Counsel

Censorship as trade barrier

2008-04-10T02:32:00.000-07:00

作者: Andrew McLaughlin 来源: Google Public Policy Blog

The Associated Press is running a story headlined “Google Asks Government to Fight Censorship." The story highlights some (until now) fairly quiet discussions we’ve been having with various parts of the U.S. government, including the Departments of State and Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and various House and Senate committees.

We’ve been making the following case:

The information industries –- broadly understood to mean Internet companies, book and periodical publishers, broadcasters, and the music and film industries –- together comprise a critical and growing component of the U.S. economy. They create jobs, spur economic growth, and bring to the world the best of American ideals about freedom of expression, creativity, and innovation.

To industries that depend upon free flows of information to deliver their services across borders, censorship is a fundamental barrier to trade. For Google, it is fair to say that censorship constitutes the single greatest trade barrier we currently face.
Some forms of censorship are entirely justifiable: the worldwide prohibitions on child pornography and copyright infringement, for example. Others, however, are overbroad and unwarranted. When a government blocks the entire YouTube service due to a handful of user-generated videos that violate local sensibilities –- despite our willingness to IP-block illegal videos from that country –- it affects us as a non-tariff trade barrier.
Just as the U.S. government has, in decades past, utilized its trade negotiation powers to advance the interests of other U.S. industries, we would like to see the federal government take to heart the interests of the information industries and treat the elimination of unwarranted censorship as a central objective of our bilateral and multilateral trade agendas in the years to come.

It’s important to stress that this isn’t a political thing –- we’re not interested in forcing the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment on other countries. Rather, we’re seeking to ensure that our information-based industry can thrive and flourish in all corners of the world. We take seriously Google’s mission "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." To accomplish that for individuals everywhere, we need the assistance of the U.S. and other like-minded governments in combating unwarranted censorship. (We’ve started to make the same case, by the way, to other governments, such as the member states of the European Union.)

The good news is that the uniform reaction to this argument in Washington has been the nodding of heads, typically coupled with a request to hear more about how this can practically be done. Clearly, it isn’t going to happen overnight. But my hope is that the U.S. government can begin to move – incrementally, agreement-by-agreement, over the coming decade and beyond – to include in our bilateral and, eventually, multilateral trade agreements the notion that trade in information services should presumptively be free, absent some good reason to the contrary.

We’ll have more to say about this as we refine our thinking and apply it to specific issues and situations. Feedback & ideas are, as always, welcome.

中国公民郭泉致全世界媒体的公开信——正式起诉美国Google公司、美国yahoo公司

2008-02-04T19:24:00.000-08:00

转自：阿波罗网论坛

自2007年11月14日我向中国人民和国家主席胡锦涛、政府总理温家宝以及其他领导人发出了八封公开信后，美国Google公司的Google.cn（谷歌）和美国yahoo公司的cn.yahoo.com（中国雅虎）就把我的名字“郭泉”封杀了。

在Google（谷歌）的搜索栏里输入“郭泉”这两个字，Google（谷歌）显示是 “无法访问您所搜索的信息，请返回 google.cn 查询其它信息”。

在cn.yahoo.com（中国雅虎）的搜索栏里输入“郭泉”这两个字，cn.yahoo.com（中国雅虎）的显示是“您输入的关键词可能涉及不符合相关法律法规的内容”。

最近，我在美国的代理人郑存柱先生将携当地人权律师在美国洛杉矶召开记者发布会，正式向全世界媒体发布我起诉美国Google公司、美国yahoo公司的消息。

现将本人的诉讼请求和美国Google公司、美国yahoo公司在中国危害中国人民的民主事业的行为简单介绍如下：

首先，我要美国Google公司向我和其他千百与我同名同姓的“郭泉们”出示封我的姓名（郭泉）的法律依据是什么？

我知道美国Google公司的Google.cn（谷歌）和美国yahoo公司的cn.yahoo.com与中共政府在有些协议，即协助中共在这两家的中国网络上封锁中共不喜欢的讯息，例如自动过滤和一律封杀那些中共所谓的“有害国家安全和社会稳定的信息”。但是，我要求终结独裁统治，提倡人民有权选择执政党，倡导在中国建立“全民福利条件下的多党竞选的民主政体中国”的思想并非“有害国家安全和社会稳定的信息”，美国Google公司的Google.cn（谷歌）和美国yahoo公司的cn.yahoo.com认为我的言论有问题，请出示你们的法律依据。

以上只是我起诉美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司的一个原因，另一个重要的原因是，本人还是南京郭泉服装贸易有限公司的董事长兼总经理，美国 Google公司和美国yahoo公司封杀“郭泉”这两个字还侵犯了我的公司利益。美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司必须对本公司及本人造成的一切损失进行赔偿和公开道歉。

本人及本公司起诉美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司的各项在美国的法律事务，我已经委托我在美国的好朋友郑存柱先生代理。郑存柱先生是中国民主党地方委员会的负责人，他在中共十七大之后，致信国家主席胡锦涛和政府总理温家宝要求实行县市级宪政改制。我另外还会指定其他在美的朋友协助郑先生进行这项工作。

美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司的中国网站先后协助中共政府封锁民主消息和人权消息。

美国Google公司的企业宗旨为：Google是全球驰名的搜索引擎技术开发商和高效的广告宣传媒介。Google 的使命是整合全球信息，使人人皆可访问并从中受益。

Google的创始人是斯坦福大学的两个大学生拉里-佩奇（Larry Page）和谢尔盖-布林（Sergey Brin），他们在学生宿舍内共同开发了全新的在线搜索引擎，然后迅速传播给全球的信息搜索者。Larry Page说：“我们的任务就是要对世界上的信息编组”。美国Google公司的公开招股说明书里这样写到：

“Google现在是时候成为一个公众所有的公司了。这一改变将为我们的雇员、现在和未来的股东以及客户产生巨大的好处，而最大的受益者是Google 用户”。“在将Goolgle转变为公众持股的公司过程中，我们已经建立起一个企业结构，其它外部组织要想控制或者影响Google都会更加困难”。“我们立志将Google建成一个让世界更美好的机构”。

Google公司的CEO施密特对Google的行为准则的说明是： Google's code of conduct can be boiled down to a mere three words: Don't be evil.（Google的行为准则，可以归结为仅仅3个字：不要作恶。）

但是，美国Google公司的企业宗旨，到了中国却完全变了一副面孔。2006年，美国Google公司向中国市场提供了Google.cn（谷歌）搜索，但是Google.cn（谷歌）与中共政府的丑恶合作，使得所有正直善良的中国从Google.cn（谷歌）的所作所为里一点看不到Google “Don't Be Evil（不作恶）”的丝毫表现。

美国Google公司从“Don't Be Evil”堕落为中共独裁统治的帮凶走狗只用了2年。

Google在2002年是被中共封杀的，当时Google表现出不屈的态度，冷静对应，一面与中共交涉，一面推出动态网，迎战中国网络警察，得到了中国人民的爱戴。当时，雅虎（Yahoo）已经屈服于中共压力，连同微软（Microsoft）在内的130多家网络公司，都签字同意在他们的网站上，自动过滤那些中共所谓的“有害国家安全和社会稳定的信息”，把包括“人权”、“六四”等字眼的信息，一律封杀。当时，社会上把Google拿来与雅虎对照，说 “古狗颈硬、雅虎脚软”，称誉这只英勇的义犬。

但是，好景不长。2004年这条古狗一改初衷，竟也屈服于中共，在中国的网络上封锁中共不喜欢的讯息。真是“良心难敌金钱诱惑”，一想到13亿人的市场，Google就从天使变成了魔鬼。当然，一个人想要做违背良心的事，也都可以找到借口。Google封锁讯息的借口之一，就是“争夺中国市场”。其实，明眼人都知道，随便Google怎么解释，都绕不开一个字：“钱”。 Google从此为了钱，成了中共脚边的一条摇尾乞怜的哈巴狗了。

现在，美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司已经完全违背了自己最初的原则而走到恶的极端上去了，美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司只提供符合中共的邪恶信息，而屏蔽所有正义的信息，美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司的网站和中共邪恶的中央电视台（cctv）一样完全是一个邪恶的工具了。这事关中国如此庞大人口的国家，决定了这巨大人群的意识形态导向，所以这问题严重程度非同小可。美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司在中国的政策对中国人民和中国人权、民主事业来说，完全是个大灾难。这一错误行动帮助强化中共邪党的对民众的欺骗和邪恶统治已经完全阻碍了世界和平民主进程。

美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司必须立即停止对中国人民的侵害，并赔偿由于封锁消息而给中国人民带来的一切经济损失。

针对美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司的屏蔽中国政府认为敏感信息的行为，中国人民早已开始愤怒了。为了在中国获得营业许可，美国Google 公司和美国yahoo公司先后同意在搜索结果中省略中共政府所反感的信息。美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司让许许多多的中国人在做出判断之前，不能够得到有关当今世界和中国发生的民主和人权资讯。

值得所有正直善良的中国人高度重视的是，不只是美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司这两家公司接受中国政府要求对中国民众封锁信息。微软和思科等公司为了在中国营业也都做出了与美国Google公司和美国yahoo公司完全一样的妥协。这些公司在明知道中国政府限制言论自由的做法引起了世界人民的反对的情况下，仍然象个精明的小商贩一样一心只考虑中国增长迅速的经济以及一亿多的互联网用户市场，从而服从了中国政府的要求，抛弃了正义、良知和道义责任，协助中共对中国人民犯下了严重的罪行。

这些公司都是唯利是图的罪犯。

郭泉：手机13151423196、 QQ115659144，Skype：gwnguoquan Msn:duidui63900@hotmail.com
邮箱：duidui6390@sina.com 博客http://cndp.huarenblog.cn

谷歌因屏蔽搜索结果而面临诉讼

2008-02-03T04:05:00.000-08:00

作者：王明(Mure Dickie) 翻译：何黎来源：金融时报

英国《金融时报》王明(Mure Dickie)北京报道
2008年2月3日星期日

一位中国学者宣布起诉美国互联网公司谷歌(Google)，指其在当地搜索结果中去掉了自己的名字。郭泉曾创立一个民主反对党，挑战共产党政府。

郭泉（Guo Quan）谴责谷歌，正值中国当局在北京奥运会前采取新一轮行动、以压制不同意见之际。其中包括逮捕中国著名人权活动人士胡佳（Hu Jia）。

郭泉威胁起诉一事突出表明，对于外国公司为进入中国管制严格的互联网市场而愿意屈从于审查制度的现象，一些具有改革思想的中国人感到气愤。郭泉曾是南京一所大学的教授。

郭泉在宣布自己打算起诉的公开信中写道：“Google …… 为了钱，成了中共脚边的一条摇尾乞怜的哈巴狗了。”

从谷歌中国网站（google.cn）去掉郭泉名字的做法，也引发外界质疑谷歌对google.cn的审查政策（谷歌中国网站已成立两年）。谷歌曾承诺，在审查搜索结果时，会用一行字通知用户，说明某些结果“根据当地法律法规与政策”已被删除。但日前在谷歌网站输入郭泉姓名后，出现的页面只有这样的信息： “无法访问您所搜索的信息。请返回google.cn查询其它信息。”

谷歌中国公司日前通过一家公关代表表示，其对政治或审查制度问题不予置评。

针对郭泉姓名采取的特别行动，是在去年年末他宣布创立新民主党(New Democracy party)、致力于结束中国“一党专政”后展开的。

在纳斯达克上市的中国搜索公司百度(Baidu)，和当地人控股的美国门户网站雅虎(Yahoo)中文网，也屏蔽了所有关于郭泉姓名的搜索。

“百度是中国公司，受中国共产党的胁迫我可以理解。”郭泉写道：“但是Google(谷歌)是美国公司却也如此受中国共产党的摆布，我就要起诉了。”

郭泉在信中声称，谷歌的行动损害了他担任董事长的同名服装公司，以及中国很多跟他同名同姓的人。他写道，已委托一位在美国的朋友代理与起诉相关的法律事务，但郭泉并未予以具体说明。

分析人士指出，近来中国政府一直在强化对当地媒体和互联网的管控，显然是为了在8月份奥运会开幕前确保政治稳定。

译者/何黎

Degrading Transparency: Comparing Google, Yahoo and Microsoft

2008-01-26T01:51:00.000-08:00

作者：Nart Villeneuve 来源：www.nartv.org

Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft all maintain versions of their search engines for the Chinese market that censor political content. One of the key issues that emerged concerned transparency. In 2006, all three search engines, following Google’s lead, introduced a message that informed user when the results of their searches were censored. The presence of a mechanism of notification is a critical component of transparency. This notification informs users that their search results have been censored and indicates, to a certain degree, the reason (often unspecified “local law”) why based on what the user searched for. The message appeared only when the user’s results were censored and thus it was possible to connect the censorship to specific keywords or websites.

By 2008 the level of transparency has decreased. While Google’s censorship notification has remained essentially the same as it was in 2006, Yahoo! and Microsoft have altered the way in which users are notified of censorship. Yahoo! has put its censorship message at the bottom of every page regardless of whether results are censored or not, in effect de-linking the censorship notification from the results. Microsoft has removed the text completely and buried the censorship notification with a separate “help” page. These developments represent a significant degrading of transparency and accountability.

By removing or hiding the placement of the censorship message, which is vague to begin with, users may be unaware that their results have been censored and by de-linking the censor message from what the user actually searched for the topics and websites that are censored remain hidden from the user. The de-linking of the censorship message from the search results impacts the ability to determine what precise sites and “key words” are being censored.

The presence and placement of a censorship notification, along with the specificity of its content and its connection to the results, is an integral component of transparency. The specificity of the reason why content has been removed is an important component that is lacking in the case of China. In other cases, Google has cited specific laws, such as the DMCA, and other legal documents with which they must comply and reported the information, to some degree, to Chilling Effects.org. Yahoo maintains a list of sites its censored for copyright violations. However, in the case of censored political content in the case China nothing other than a reference to “local law” has been provided.

The presence of a notification that is directly connected to the results (notification appears only when content is actually removed in relation to what the user searches for) positively impacts the ability to accurately identify censored website and restricted keywords. When such notifications are either absent or disconnected from the results (for example, a notification that appears on every page regardless of whether results are censored or not) the ability to determine censored sites with a high degree of confidence diminishes as sites may simply not be indexed by the search engine. Therefore the notification is critical not only for informing users but also for the monitoring process.

June 26, 2006
Engine	Presence	Placement	Specificity	Connection	Screenshot
Google	Yes	High Notification is placed under results	Low Results removed to comply with local law	Yes Notification only appears when results are censored	screenshot
Yahoo	Yes	High* Notification is placed under results	Low Results removed	Yes*	screenshot
Microsoft	Yes	High Notification is placed under results	Low Results removed, link to “help” page that mentions local law	Yes	screenshot

* Yahoo China’s web crawlers operate from within China, behind the GFW, therefore sites that are blocked by China are not indexed by Yahoo (and thus do not need to be censored by Yahoo) leaving only sites that are either not blocked by China or are indexed during periods when there is variation in the capacity of China’s filtering system to actually be censored by Yahoo. The behaviour documented here refers to sites indexed by Yahoo but subsequently censored, not sites that are not indexed by Yahoo at all.

January 25, 2008
Engine	Presence	Placement	Specificity	Connection	Screenshot
Google	Yes	High Notification is placed under results	Low Mentions “local law”	Yes Notification only appears when results are censored	screenshot
Yahoo	Yes	Medium Notification is placed at the bottom of every page	Low Mentions “local law”	No	screenshot
Microsoft	Yes**	Low A link to a separate “help” page which contains a link to section that contains the notification	Low A link to a separate “help” page which contains a link to section that mentions “local law”	No	screenshot

** There is no notification on the actual page that results the search results. The user must click a “help” page and then navigate to yet another section that state that results may be removed in compliance with local law. the notification mentions pornography as a possible reason, no mention is made of political content.

Presence: The presence of a form of notification that informs users that results may be censored.
Placement: The location of the censorship notification message, particularly its placement in relation to the results.
Specificity: The extent to which users are informed about specific laws, orders and/or regulations leading to censored results.
Connection: Notification appears only when content is actually removed in relation to what the user searches for making it possible to determine which specific web sites and keywords have actually been censored.

(The versions of the search engines tested are the specific version for China. Google (www.google.cn) and Microsoft (www.live.com/?mkt=zh-cn) have their servers located outside of China and are tested directly while Yahoo’s (www.yahoo.cn) servers are hosted in China and are tested from inside China. This is necessary to test the search engines without interference from China’s filtering system.)

This is the start of an effort to more systematically monitor transparency over time so I am asking for feedback. Is this information useful? In what ways can it be improved?

Companies, Human Rights Groups, Investors, Academics and Technology Leaders to Address International Free Expression and Privacy Challenges

2007-06-10T02:29:00.000-07:00

转自: Center for Democracy and Technology

A diverse group of companies, academics, investors, technology leaders and human rights organizations announced today its intention to seek solutions to the free expression and privacy challenges faced by technology and communications companies doing business internationally.

The process - which aims to produce a set of principles guiding company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with the achievement of human rights – marks a new phase in efforts that these groups began in 2006.

Last year, Google, Microsoft, Vodafone and Yahoo!, with the facilitation of Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and advice from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, initiated a series of dialogues to gain a fuller understanding of free expression and privacy as they relate to the use of technology worldwide.

At the same time, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) was also convening technology leaders, investors and human rights advocates to discuss how to advance civil liberties on the Internet in the face of laws that run contrary to international standards for human rights.

Both processes benefited from dialogue, research and policy expertise on internet filtering and surveillance practices from the OpenNet Consensus, a coalition of academic institutions including the University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism and School of Law-Boalt Hall, the Berkman Center and others.

The new combined group, in addition to developing the principles, seeks to advance their effectiveness by establishing a framework to implement the principles, hold signatories accountable and provide for ongoing learning.

"Technology companies have played a vital role building the economy and providing tools important for democratic reform in developing countries. But many governments have found ways to turn technology against their citizens -- monitoring legitimate online activities and censoring democratic material," CDT Executive Director Leslie Harris said. "It is vital that we identify solutions that preserve the enormous democratic value provided by technological development, while at the same time protecting the human rights and civil liberties of those who stand to benefit from that expansion."

BSR CEO Aron Cramer said that the discussions over the past year have already proven valuable.

"Thanks to the extraordinary commitment of the companies and other participants in this process we've already learned a great deal about the obstacles we face and the ways business and other stakeholders can join forces to address those challenges," Cramer said. “This important dialogue reflects a shared commitment to maximize the information available via the internet on the basis of global principles protecting free expression and privacy. This dialogue could prove a key step in unlocking the communications potential of the internet.”

Members of the group plan to complete the process in 2007. The following companies and stakeholders have agreed to participate:

Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
Boston Common Asset Management
Business for Social Responsibility (Facilitator)
Calvert Group
Center for Democracy and Technology (Facilitator)
Committee to Protect Journalists
Domini Social Investments LLC
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Enterprise Privacy Group
F&C Asset Management
Google, Inc.
Human Rights First
Human Rights in China
Human Rights Watch
International Business Leaders Forum
International Council on Human Rights Policy
Microsoft
Reporters Without Borders
Trillium Asset Management
United Nations Special Representative to the Secretary-General on business & human rights (Observer status)
University of California, Berkeley School of Law-Boalt Hall
Vodafone
Yahoo! Inc.

About Business for Social Responsibility:

Since 1992, Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) has been providing socially responsible business solutions to many of the world’s leading corporations. Headquartered in San Francisco and with offices in Europe and China, BSR is a nonprofit business association that serves its 250 member companies and other Global 1000 enterprises. Through advisory services, convenings and research, BSR works with corporations and concerned stakeholders of all types to create a more just and sustainable global economy. For more information, visit http://www.bsr.org.

About Center for Democracy and Technology:

The Center for Democracy and Technology works to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age. With expertise in law, technology, and policy, CDT seeks practical solutions to enhance free expression and privacy in global communications technologies. CDT is dedicated to building consensus among all parties interested in the future of the Internet and other new communications media. For more information, visit http://www.cdt.org.

Microsoft and Yahoo! Inc. Joint Statement to U.S. Congress Human Rights Caucus on Policies Related to Access to Internet Content

2007-06-06T04:41:00.000-07:00

来源：Microsoft、Yahoo

February 1, 2006

As leading global providers of Internet-based services, we are deeply concerned about recent developments in China that have prompted this meeting of the Caucus. We are actively exploring whether there are potential approaches to guide the practices of our industry on these matters, not only in China, but also in other countries where Internet content is treated more restrictively than in the United States. As these efforts continue, we hope to benefit from the views of members of this Caucus and other Members of Congress, other companies in our industry, and major non-governmental organizations, as well as key departments of the Executive Branch and the Chinese government itself. While we believe that companies have a responsibility to identify appropriate practices in each market in which they do business, we think there is a vital role for government-to-government discussion of the larger issues involved. We urge the United States government to take a leadership role in this regard and have initiated a dialogue with relevant U.S. officials to encourage such government-to-government engagement.

We want to assure members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, and the public at large, that we do not consider the Internet situation in China to be one of "business-as usual". Beyond commercial considerations, we believe that our services have promoted personal expression and enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere in the world. While we will actively work to encourage governments around the world to embrace policies on Internet content that foster the freer exchange of ideas and promote maximum access to information, we also recognize that, acting alone, our leverage and ability to influence government policies in various countries is severely limited. Indeed, there are undoubtedly officials and domestic competitors in most markets who would see great advantage in our withdrawal from their countries. We think such a decision would not be in the best interests of the people we serve there. The presence of multiple Internet information providers, particularly from companies with the most comprehensive search capabilities and the richest mixture of content and services, has been a powerful force for openness and reform in all countries, including China. We want to continue to make those services available, while working with governments to find better ways of protecting the interests of all users of our services.

Rick Justice, Senior Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations Discusses how Cisco Products are Marketed and Sold Globally

2007-06-05T00:15:00.000-07:00

来源：Cisco网站

July 25, 2005

As a global company, Cisco adheres to the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates. To talk more about how Cisco products are marketed and sold globally, News@Cisco sat down with Cisco's Senior Vice President of Worldwide Field Operations Rick Justice.

There have been reports that networking products are used by some governments to censor Internet content. Does Cisco's technology have functionality that enables users to block or monitor Internet content?

Rick Justice: Beyond basic Internet protocol (IP)-based data, voice and video connectivity, Cisco's products provide important network management functions, such as preventing unauthorized access to networks, helping to prevent and mitigate denial of service attacks, and protecting intellectual property. Cisco technologies also address important security functions such as blocking viruses from infecting a network, preventing hackers from stealing credit card numbers, protecting access to confidential medical information, helping Internet service providers administer billing, and allowing public libraries and parents block young children's access to particular websites.

Does Cisco sell and market products to be used specifically for governments to censor Internet content?

Rick Justice: No. While a range of functions can be implemented on our products, it is the customer, not Cisco Systems, who determines how the capabilities will be specifically used. Cisco sells identical products worldwide. The products Cisco sells in countries such as the U.S., China, India, Pakistan and France are the same products that we sell in other countries.

Does Cisco sell products and services to law enforcement agencies?

Rick Justice: Yes, Cisco does sell to police agencies around the world, as our products offer valuable benefits that aid in the effectiveness and timeliness of law enforcement. For example, police officers patrolling communities can often spend a significant portion of their shift in a police station, partly because it's historically the only way to access police records and other computer-based information. This takes time away from their ability to be engaged with what's happening on the street. Mobile wireless technologies and associated networking infrastructures support applications and services that allow officers to be fully connected while in the field-literally from their patrol cars.

Cisco sells and supports much of its products through distributors/systems integrators. Do you monitor these licensed third parties for how they market/configure your products for customers?

Rick Justice: All Cisco customers globally have access to Cisco training and support. We provide service and support, either directly by Cisco or, in many cases, through systems integration partners for our equipment. However, these services do not entail the day to day management of networks. Cisco service and post-sales support is designed to replace faulty or defective products, and to provide training for the proper operation and configuration of network hardware.

What is your position on how some governments are using networking products to censor access to the Internet?

Rick Justice: Some countries have chosen, as a matter of national policy, to restrict or limit access to information on the Internet to its citizens. The router functionality that may be employed by such nations to restrict this access is the same functionality that libraries use to block sites in accordance with policies that they establish. Whereas this functionality can be used for many different purposes, Cisco has not specially designed or marketed products for any government, or any regional market, to censor Internet content from citizens. Cisco cannot determine what sovereign nations regulate and don't regulate in their own countries. Even within nations that have signed the United Nations Global Compact there is rich debate in the courts and in society, about access to the Internet, lines between commercial speech and political speech, and related issues. Cisco supports transparency in the way the Internet is used and complies with applicable regulations.