Tarnished tech firms to adopt code of conduct Verne Kopytoff, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, October 25, 2008 Criticized for their human rights records, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft plan to adopt voluntary guidelines that will govern their business practices in nations like China that restrict free speech, according to people who participated in drafting the rules. The code of conduct, a copy of which was obtained by The Chronicle before its scheduled release next week, spells out that the technology titans should, for instance, carefully scrutinize demands by authorities for information about users and requests that online material be censored. By agreeing to the rules, the companies hope to counter unflattering (critical) publicity in recent years over their cooperation with China's efforts to crack down on dissidents and block Web sites considered to be subversive. It also might be a way to fend off U.S. legislation that could hamstring their business in some potentially profitable markets. But critics complained that some of the rules fail to go far enough. Loopholes make it possible for companies to continue some of their most egregious behavior, they said. The code, written over the past two years by technology companies, public interest groups, academics and socially conscious investment funds, covers an array of human rights issues that Internet firms might encounter in repressive countries. The guidelines represent the industry's first set of uniform standards for what to do before, during and after authorities seek to limit free speech. Rather than following officials' orders blindly, companies are to ensure that they comply with local law, narrowly interpret what is sought and seek to limit requests that seem too broad. The three major Internet companies agreeing to the code have shared public thrashings over their behavior in the past, including a series of congressional hearings at which members called executives a "disgrace." All of the companies have responded by voicing support for freedom of expression but insist that they have no choice but to follow local laws. Google, in Mountain View, gets grief for censoring its search engine in China, for instance. Yahoo, in Sunnyvale, and its Chinese partner are routinely chastised for complying with court orders in China asking for e-mails sent by users, several of whom were later jailed for their political views. In addition to abiding by the guidelines internally, companies are required to "use best efforts" to get business partners, distributors and suppliers to do so too. The focus should be on partners with which the companies exercise the most influence and that pose the greatest risk to freedom of expression and privacy, the code says. The issue comes up frequently with Yahoo, which says that it is no longer responsible for human rights issues involving Yahoo China after selling most of the Web site to a local company, Alibaba, while retaining a minority stake. Last month, eBay's Skype service got a black eye after Canadian researchers discovered that its Chinese partner, Tom Online, filtered instant messages containing politically sensitive words sent to its Chinese users and then stored them on unsecured servers. Work on the code was led by the Center for Democracy & Technology, a digital rights group in Washington, D.C., and Business for Social Responsibility, a nonprofit organization in San

Francisco. All participants in the initiative contacted by The Chronicle declined to comment prior to its official release. The precise number of companies, human rights groups and others that have signed the code is still in flux, according to sources familiar with the matter who cannot speak publicly because they signed confidentiality agreements. More may join in the months and years after the code is officially released and potentially refined. Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization of Human Rights USA, who didn't participate in the initiative but has seen a copy of the code, said he was disappointed with the outcome. Little in it addressed companies like Cisco Systems that sell hardware to repressive nations for filtering the Internet or policies that would prevent past human rights issues from happening again, he said. For instance, after fulfilling its requirement to vet court orders, Yahoo China - assuming its Chinese owner signs the code - would still be free to turn over user information to authorities there, said Sklar, who represented two Chinese dissidents and their families in a suit against Yahoo that was settled last year. Moreover, language that companies "use best efforts" to get partners to follow the code is so vague that it seems like a suggestion that partners can ignore. "It's an expression of general support for freedom of expression on the Internet, but doesn't go beyond that to provide the specifics," Sklar said of the code. By failing to act, Internet companies face the added risk of legislation that would impose laws on how they behave. A House bill called the Global Online Freedom Act passed a committee earlier this year but is expected to die given the upcoming elections. Several participants in the code and outsiders following its progress said the code's success will hinge on a monitoring program to be set up in the years ahead. Without thorough evaluations based on full access to necessary information, the entire program will suffer from questions about credibility, they said. Companies will choose their own monitors, who have to meet certain criteria for independence set by an organization created to oversee the code of conduct. The companies are required to give the monitors access to internal records and data to make their evaluations. Eventually, the organization overseeing the code will issue reports on whether individual companies are complying with the guidelines. However, companies will be given a chance to fix any shortcomings before the information is made public. "I do think they are trying to do the right thing," said Jason Schultz, acting director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley. "But the devil is in the details."