The GIFT of giving

Posted February 2nd, 2007 at 2:41 pm by Michael Samway, VP & Deputy General Counsel

 2 Comments / Filed in: Trends & News

The crisp January air in Washington, D.C., is filled with the chatter of politics and foreign affairs. Ask a cabbie to drop you at the State Department — that venerable institution founded as the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1789 — and you’ll get an unsolicited, loud, and lengthy opinion on U.S. foreign policy! Over the past year, I’ve visited the State Department a number of times for Yahoo!, principally meeting with Ambassador David Gross, Deputy Assistant Secretary Jeff Krilla, and their expert teams, all of whom are the lead thinkers behind the State Department’s Global Internet Freedom Taskforce (GIFT) created in early 2006.

On Tuesday, I spoke on a GIFT panel on global free expression and the free flow of information. It was a special honor for me since I’d worked as a law clerk at the State Department Legal Adviser’s Office nearly 15 years earlier. Back then as a wide-eyed intern, stepping into the State Department halls I pictured myself as a character in an elaborate John le Carré international mystery. This week’s panel at the State Department was more technical Tom Clancy thriller, a state-of-the-art auditorium and an expertly moderated and sometimes provocative discussion on human rights, censorship, surveillance, encryption technology, data flows, and privacy rights.

A good-sized audience of about 80 people came to observe and participate, with many asking thoughtful and tough questions. In the crowd were technology and media companies, human rights groups, investor groups, academics, government officials, press, and concerned citizens. Despite spending nearly a year focused on this area for Yahoo!, with the diversity of participants and the passionate views on human rights, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the discussion or the audience. Friendly? Hostile? New issues? Re-packaged ones?

On the first panel, a Ph.D. from the Berkman Center for Internet & Society gave a technical view of filtering and censorship challenges globally. A former State Department official and current senior vice president at investor Calvert explained just how an effective multi-stakeholder process can work. An analyst at investor F&C expounded on the findings of a recent study on access, security, and privacy. A senior leader at BSR compared previous voluntary initiatives and showed how complex questions involving sophisticated Internet technology may require new approaches to traditional human rights challenges. The tense moment on the first panel arrived when an Amnesty International representative opened his remarks by directly accusing Yahoo! and the other companies of cooperating with repressive regimes, including handing over information on political dissidents and limiting the free flow of information.

On the second panel, I joined representatives from the Center for Democracy and Technology , Human Rights First, Google, and Microsoft, and we each raised some of the vexing questions we all wrestle with in the field of business and human rights. Partly in response to comments from the first panel, I explained that we condemn the punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression and that the relationship between law enforcement entities and technology companies around the world is more complex than commonly understood. Rarely, if ever, will a company know the name, identity, or occupation of an individual connected to a user ID demanded by a law enforcement agency, whether in Munich, Mexico City, or Mumbai. What we do know is we protect user privacy through rigorous compliance practices and careful adherence to law governing government demands for user information.

In response to questions on challenges companies face where the free flow of information is restricted, I discussed our belief that the presence of companies like Yahoo! in markets abroad can have a transformative effect on peoples’ lives and on local and national economies. Information is power. Access to information, especially through the Internet, has changed what people know about the world around them and about events, people, and issues that directly impact their lives day-to-day. People know more about local public health issues, environmental causes, politics, consumer choices, and job opportunities. They communicate and interact like never before with family, friends, neighbors, and people locally, regionally, and even globally with similar interests. And the Internet drives innovation across sectors, including in science, medicine, business, and journalism to name a few.

In a thoughtful Wall Street Journal piece from January 27, journalist Emily Parker noted that because of virtual assembly, or online gatherings, a democratic consciousness has developed inside places like China, despite broad limitations on free expression and the free flow of information. In short, information is empowering in both ordinary and extraordinary ways. It can be disruptive or even revolutionary. It’s the single greatest reason certain governments fear open use of the Internet and the free flow of information.

The common theme from both panels was that responding to the challenges of restrictions on free expression and privacy globally requires collective action. At Yahoo!, we’re fully committed. The more broad-based the response, the more effective and sustainable. The State Department’s engagement and support through their own complimentary global initiatives, including GIFT, reinforces our belief we’re moving in the right direction on behalf of the global community of Internet users. The positive partnership formed between companies, human rights groups, socially responsible investors, and academics — facilitated by BSR and CDT — makes us cautiously optimistic about the development of guiding principles and operational standards, for companies in our sector and eventually beyond, that will allow us to continue making profits with principle.

Post a Comment Bookmark This Digg This

2 Comments Add your own

John Palfrey | February 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm

It’s great that you and others at Yahoo! (as well as Microsoft, Google, and Vodafone) are stepping up on this issue, Michael, and being open about your work on it. Thanks for your leadership.

Paul Robinson | February 3rd, 2007 at 2:45 am

I’ll bet a large wedge of cash that this never gets approved, but if somebody at Yahoo! reads this and tries to change internal policy, that would be “nice”.

I’m glad you had a nice day out, and that you think Yahoo! is doing something important in helping people change their view of the World.

It doesn’t, however, change the fact that Yahoo! are responsible for handing over information on several dozen democratic reformers in China, who are now rotting to death in jail.

The line “we were just complying with a legitimate governmental request” doesn’t cut it - you guys know you were in the wrong to do it, but you don’t care about doing wrong as long as you are able to keep, and grow, market share.

Yahoo! in China is no different to IBM in Nazi Germany - “we’re not involved, we’re just doing business, our shareholders expect it of us” - but history will judge that Yahoo! were involved in a disgusting chapter of Chinese history and didn’t do a thing to get in the way if it meant it would hurt the bottom line.

I hope you enjoy more cups of coffee with important people, but if you want to make a difference, you have to club together with the rest of civilised society and make a stand that you’re not going to hand over data on people who just want to be able to vote - and take the consequences of loosing market share, or being thrown out of the market. Your shareholders will have more belief in you for doing the right thing, then they will for you doing anything to make a buck.

Until then, I, and many others like me, refuse to use Yahoo! services of any form unless I have no choice. As people hear what it is you guys have done in the past, our numbers will grow. I only hope one day you will realise that helping the Chinese government find and torture democratic ‘dissidents’ hurts your share price more than not being in China.