Business ethics for technology companies operating in countries
with repressive regimes are not clear cut.
Yahoo has released user identities to Chinese authorities that
have led to the jailing of dissidents; Google censors results in
its China search engine; Microsoft has removed blogs written by
Chinese journalists in MSN Spaces; and Cisco helps the Chinese
government block access to Web sites by selling it network
management gear.
While Canada has been spared such incidents - so far at least -
industry observers here have different perspectives on the role of
censorship and the position that IT companies should adopt on this
issue.
As a general policy, companies have to obey the laws of the
land, says Bernard Courtois, president and CEO of the Information
Technology Association of Canada (ITAC), an Ottawa-based industry
association for the IT sector. "If countries have laws that censor
information, technology companies don't generally drive that. They
aren't there to impose one culture on another."
Courtois says the more people have access to technology, the
more likely is the development of an advanced economy. Attempts by
governments to police a global medium such as the
Internet are unlikely to succeed in any case, he says. "Industry
insiders know you can't keep people out entirely. Whatever we
contribute helps improve these societies, but change for more open
access to information will have to come from within."
In Courtois' view, censorship is not on the same moral plane as
the human rights issues. "If a government censors Web sites - and
everyone wonders how really effective that is - it's a far cry from
people being tortured and killed."
Those actions, he said, would be considered crimes by anyone,
and are clearly violations of international human rights that
supersede a country's laws, he says. "If companies are helping
build torture chambers, then they are implicated. But if they're
building a telecom infrastructure, they are not implicated at
all."
He says he sympathizes with companies such as Google, as they
face a difficult dilemma. "They are helping the Chinese people but
they must go through the necessary evil of complying with the
government. You want to be part of an effort that promotes
development that will eventually force a more open system, but in
the meantime, if you put access to the Web in people's hands, they
will find a way."
But Gary Elijah Dann, who teaches business ethics and philosophy
courses at the University of Toronto, disagrees with the logic of
that position, pointing out that the idea at the core is the ends
justifies the means.
"Most people are apprehensive about sacrificing the lives of
innocent people for an end that isn't even necessary," he says.
"Here, there's some undefined good that may be realized if we give
up 50 people jailed for posting dissident views. That kind of moral
reasoning is questionable whether you're stealing chocolate bars
for the homeless guy outside, or a Yahoo pretending to do it for
the greater good of the Chinese people."
Dann also disagrees that a company must comply with the laws of
the land. "On what basis should Yahoo, a company not based in
China, be forced to comply with Chinese ideology?
According to the UN's declaration of human rights, most
countries believe there is a responsibility not to be complicit
with a rogue country's laws, for example, the Nazis."
Nor does he buy the argument that U.S. technology companies
operating in China are doing more good than harm by being there,
and are motivated by a desire to help the Chinese people.
"Let's cut away the bluster. Because of the financial issues at
stake, Yahoo and the other companies are ready to out those
dissidents. That's morally reprehensible."
The American public is sharply divided over the censorship
issue, according to a recent survey conducted by the Ponemon
Institute, a privacy and reputation think-tank based in Elk Rapids,
Mich.
About 47 per cent of respondents said they believe content
companies should not allow such censorship, while 40 per cent
believed companies should comply with restrictions.
Moreover, a significant percentage appears to agree with the
"ends justifies the means" argument. And 54 per agreed that it is
better for the Chinese people to have access to information from
Google, Yahoo and MSN, even if they're subject to government
censorship.
"We put that question in our survey because it is an argument
that is often raised, but I don't agree with that position at all.
It is a slippery slope that may wind up legitimizing unethical
practices," says Larry Ponemon, chairman of the Ponemon Institute.
"If you espouse an ethical principle for one country, then apply
another one in other countries, that's unethical practice in my
view. You must be morally consistent in order to be moral."
To whatever extent respondents were willing to bend moral codes
to achieve an end, the vast majority also drew lines in the sand.
About 77 per cent agreed that compliance with censorship rules does
not mean that companies should help identify individuals who access
banned content.
Ponemon believes this finding reveals an implicit condemnation
of Yahoo, which has provided identifying information to Chinese
authorities that has led to jailings.
Google's position is more nuanced by comparison. The company
says it is offering Internet search only in China, and not e-mail,
blogging, messaging or other services that might put it in the
position of having to provide personally identifiable information
to authorities. In addition, the company does not keep any search
logs in China, and stores all other information in the U.S.
The Ponemon Institute is conducting another tracking study to
determine if technology companies involved in China are suffering
losses in reputation and stock value in the wake of the
controversy. "The results are not all in yet, but from what I'm
seeing thus far, Google is being viewed more favorably than the
others, and is perceived as more ethical," says Ponemon.
But he adds that all three have suffered some loss of
standing.
The preliminary findings show that people place the two
companies' positions and actions on different moral planes.
"It is one thing to put content filtering in that doesn't return
results for banned search terms, and another when results are
provided but in doing so, the user may be revealed to
authorities.
Ethically, these are two issues and worlds apart in terms of
consequences to human beings," says Ponemon.
He believes people were impressed that Google refused to give up
search information subpoenaed by the U.S. Justice Department
earlier this year to buttress a defense of a federal
Internet pornography law that had been overturned by an appeals
court. "While that may not play well with the religious right, it
is a consistent position," he says.
Ponemon believes the censorship debacle is the start of a larger
and more important discussion.
Decisions made today about the Internet will have far-ranging
consequences in the future.
Universal tenets are needed because they will truly apply to
everyone on the globe, since virtually everyone will be able to
access the Web in the near future.
"I don't think this is about Google or Yahoo, it's about coming
up with a framework for dealing with these issues," says Ponemon.
"Do we want to create universal ethical standards for all the
organizations in the technology industry? Is it better to have a
version of Google that's less bad than what the Chinese government
would come up with? Which country's rules are better? I'm not sure
what the answers are, but we should be thinking about this."
icon.
