Google's good deed

News that Google will stop censoring search results on its Google.cn service in China was warmly welcomed by Amnesty and other campaigners for human rights and corporate responsibility. We have long called for the likes of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! to stop colluding with the Chinese authorities in abusing people’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of information.

Following the 'cyber-attack' on human rights defenders, which for Google seemed to be the last straw, Google's action has helped generate public discussion of censorship in China. Such raised awareness is surely for the good. It’s only a month ago that Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was jailed for eleven years for publishing the 'Charter 08' call for political reform online.

Google’s change of heart, splashed on the front page of the Financial Times, will embarrass the Chinese authorities. Could other companies follow suit? Maybe operating in a country which fails to respect human rights can have a negative impact on companies’ bottom lines, but there are not many precedents. Google’s rivals might try to gain a competitive advantage out of their predicament – a development that the human rights community will be expecting.

Companies are coming under greater scrutiny for their human rights impacts. There is now a UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights with a mandate to clarify the responsibilities of business and to address accountability gaps. The UK’s Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recently published the findings of an enquiry into business and human rights, identifying measures that the UK government should take to improve the conduct of companies, especially in their operations abroad.

There has also been a growth in legal action against companies on behalf of victims of abuse. Recent examples include a case against Shell for complicity in killings in Nigeria, and a case against Trafigura for the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.

Google’s action lays down the gauntlet to other Internet companies operating in China: to be transparent about what filtering and censorship the government requires them to do; to develop a human rights policy; and to stand up for free speech where they can, by challenging state interference in their business using legal appeals and other judicial measures.

The Internet and SMS have become indispensable to human rights campaigners. But technology can never be neutral - governments and companies determine who can use it and for what purposes. Technology's liberating or empowering potential is often counterbalanced by the use of technology for control and repression. The technology industry should take responsibility for the end use of its products. Clauses should be inserted into all sales contracts to ensure that products and services are not used in a way that contributes to human rights abuses. When technology companies collaborate with governments to repress human rights, they will stand accused of collusion.

Whatever Google's motivation, the company has taken a stand against human rights abuse in China and should be applauded for it. I’d like to see other companies follow suit – and we’ll keep campaigning until they do.