"Google's Gatekeepers" raises concerns and questions

There's a lot to say about Jeffrey Rosen's piece on "Google's Gatekeepers" in the Times Magazine on Sunday. Rosen shines much-needed light on the internal process for making decisions about removing content and responding to user and government requests for censorship at Google. Many have commented on the risks of entrusting so few people at a relatively small number of companies with so much power to determine what we see and don't see on the Internet, so I'll limit my comments to three areas of concern:

The role of government: Rosen pushes Michelle Wong, deputy general counsel and chief "decider" on content removal issues at Google, on what her ideal model for controlling content would look like. Wong and her colleagues respond by saying that

"they would be happiest, of course, if more countries would adopt U.S.-style free-speech protections. Knowing that that is unlikely, they said they would prefer that countries around the world set up accountable bodies that provide direct guidance about what controversial content to restrict."

In an ideal world, yes, governments would act in the interests of free speech and protecting human rights. But the reality of many governments around the world is a trend toward increased repression, decreased freedom and the use of the Internet to identify dissidents who express their views via email, VOIP, instant messaging, and social networking sites. Framing the debate as a choice between a system of ad hoc decision-making by a few individuals in companies on the one hand and decisions by democratic governmental institutions that will regulate content while protecting fundamental freedoms on the other, ignores the vast reality that exists between these two poles.

It's in this middle ground where new initiatives like the multi-stakeholder Global Network Initiative (GNI) and the proposed Global Online Freedom Act seek to increase accountability, transparency and reporting by companies. These new efforts are aimed at moving us closer to a global system that protects free speech to the greatest extent possible.

The development of the newly announced GNI is at a crucial moment. The next step of the initiative will focus on developing concrete benchmarks for company compliance with GNI principles and a governance structure for decision-making among the group's members. The measure of GNI's success will be whether it moves the industry toward greater transparency and accountability in the kinds of situations Rosen describes in this article.

Benevolent users: Rosen quotes Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of global public policy, as expressing confidence in the power of global networks of millions of users "to agitate against censorship as they experienc[e] the benefits of free speech." Rosen cites evidence from Turkey, where bloggers have rallied against censorship efforts, as supporting McLaughlin's vision of widespread counter-censorship movements among users.

But not all users have the same perspective on free speech on the Internet or the political space in their own societies to make these challenges without serious retaliation for doing so. There's a new study out from the National Bureau of Economic Research, "Regulation and Distrust," which finds that people living under corrupt governments tend to want increased regulation. The study suggests a cycle of corruption, distrust and demand for more regulation from government, even when the government is widely viewed as corrupt.

Along the same lines, Deborah Fallows at the Pew Research Center published a study in 2007 which found that Chinese citizens actually desire more censorship of the Internet. The study argues that Chinese users distrust much of the information available on the Internet and also fear societal degradation through unregulated Internet access to things like child pornography.

So while examples like Turkey are heartening, they don't tell the whole story. We can't rely on a vision of benevolent governments and benevolent users to get us to a place where companies respect fundamental freedoms in a transparent and accountable way.

Decision-making processes: Throughout the piece, Rosen highlights the extremely informal nature of decision-making within Google. The process seems ultimately to be based on the "best guess" of Wong and her colleagues in each situation as it arises. To be sure, Wong, McLaughlin and Kent Walker, Google's general counsel, appear in Rosen's portrayal as qualified, competent and interested in expanding freedoms on the Internet.

But we have to wonder about those facts we don't know--Google granted Rosen significant access and information about their process for addressing censorship issues, but the company controlled what Rosen saw and heard, especially from Google employees. Entrusting a small group of people within a company to make the right decisions without mechanisms for transparency, reporting and accountability to other stakeholders simply does not go far enough.

Rosen gives us a brief glimpse into Yahoo! through an excerpt from an interview with Michael Samway, deputy general counsel and head of the company's Business & Human Rights Program (full disclosure: I was an intern in this program from June to August this year). Yahoo! has implemented a system to address challenges to human rights and as Rosen points out in the article, is adjusting its business model to locate communications data and search queries outside of repressive countries to limit their jurisdiction over sensitive information.

Though the company is struggling financially right now, its Business & Human Rights Program provides an interesting and ambitious model for a more predictable and structured approach to censorship and freedom of expression issues.

Rosen's piece is valuable because it gives users insight into what decision-making looks like at the biggest of the Internet companies. We should be looking for more information like this, and pushing for greater transparency on issues of censorship and freedom of expression not only at Google, but at Yahoo!, Microsoft, Cisco, Verizon, Comcast, Vodafone, French Telecom and other companies that influence control over information and data on the Internet.

Human Rights First Joins With Internet Companies in Adopting Principles on Free Expression and Privacy

A key to implementation is a strong system of accountability

As the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and others are reporting, the group of companies, human rights organizations, academics and investors that have been working to develop a code of conduct for the Internet industry announced yesterday that the effort is going forward as the Global Network Initiative (GNI). A website (www.globalnetworkinitiative.org) will soon be up and running where the public will be able to view the agreed-upon documents that provide a general framework for the activities of the initiative going forward.

Since 2006, Human Rights First has been at the table in the discussions leading to the launching of this initiative. We are committed to continuing to press companies to take a more assertive stand, individually and collectively, to challenge intrusive practices by governments that mute dissent and persecute individuals who speak out against government policies and practices.

Much of the media attention relating to this initiative has focused on the need for a strong accountability framework to ensure that companies are living up to the commitments they’ve made through GNI to protect their users. Human Rights First believes that a key measure of the initiative’s success will be the extent to which companies’ statements about freedom of expression and privacy can be verified through transparent reporting and independent monitoring and evaluation. We will press for a strong system of accountability in the negotiations relating to the drafting of a governance charter, reporting requirements and an assessment model going forward.

In addition to the company members of GNI—Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google—we’re pleased to be working with our colleagues at Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Human Rights in China and others. Human rights organizations have an important role to play in ensuring that GNI is a credible and effective means to protecting Internet freedom. We also will continue to work with other human rights organizations that are not at the table, looking to them for external advice, insight and advocacy as we move forward.

Throughout this process, we have been driven to pursue this important initiative by the stories of journalists and activists fighting to report stories, expressing ideas and rallying support for human rights using the Internet, whether on online newspapers, blogs, email or websites. Just this week, the government in Burma is reportedly increasing its already high degree of Internet censorship to prevent web-based advocacy and reporting in advance of the 20th anniversary of the pro-democracy uprising in Burma. The government’s desire to repress activism and the free exchange of ideas captures the tension that will be at the heart of GNI’s efforts—balancing the unprecedented capacity of the Internet to facilitate the free flow of information and the protection of individuals who seek to employ its power to make their voices heard.