November 3, 2006 at 2:42 am | Posted in digital rights | Leave a comment

Καθώς στο παρελθόν έχω αναφερθεί στη λογοκρισία στο διαδίκτυο στην ηπειρωτική Κίνα οφείλω να παραθέσω ένα απόσπασμα από αυτά που είπε ο Κινέζος εκπρόσωπος διαψεύδοντας μεταξύ άλλων τη νομική σχολή του Harvard, το Openinitiative, και το Google. παραθέτω το εν λόγω κείμενο… όπως μπορείτε να το βρείτε στο επίσημο δικτυακό τόπο του Internet Governance Forum που γίνεται στην Αθήνα.

Δεν γνωρίζω την επίσημη θέση της Κινεζικής κυβέρνησης πάνω στο θέμα αλλά ο κύριος Γιάνγκ Ζιαοκούν ήταν ξεκάθαρος “Δεν έχουμε περιορισμούς“.



>>NIELS ELGAARD LARSEN: This is Niels. Things like that happen in other

countries, too, and it is just as bad. And that is my question. It seems like

we Europeans are taking the high ground when in fact freedom of expression is

under a lot of attack just in the European Union, and specifically Denmark and

Sweden and so on. I am thinking about the filtering the fight against me

allowing to talk and now the Danish police is going to monitor for IP phone

conversations and so on. So what does that leave Cisco? Are they supposed to

be allowed to sell systems that can assist the Danish police in blocking my

phone call to my wife that is in Canada right now? I don’t want this to be an

excuse for China and so on to do repression. It’s bad where it happens.

>> NIK GOWING: You are talking about double standards. Please, there is an

intervention here. Can you introduce yourself, please. We can hear you, yes.

>>YANG XIAOKUN: Good.

>> NIK GOWING: Are we getting translation? No. Could you just wait one

moment. Is there a Chinese translator in there? Is anyone hearing the Chinese

or English translation? No. We are not hearing you. They can hear you now,

yes.

>>YANG XIAOKUN: First of all, I have to say that today we have talked a lot

about China, and think that’s rather strange because if we participate in

forums like this, I think that we should spend more time reflecting on the

issues that have been raised. And — Perhaps we have talked a lot about China.

There are lots of millions of Chinese that have no access to the Internet and

our deepest hope is that everyone will have access in the future, so that they

will be able to communicate and take part in these exchanges. We are here

because we would like to promote openness. But we have not really raised the

issue of how we could participate more fully and how we could have better

access to the Internet. My second point is that I heard what various people

here said, and collusion and collaboration and cooperation with China. The

Cisco example was given. Everyone knows that there is a lot of tourism in

China, and towards China. I hope that everyone will be visiting us soon. But

I think that we need to also protect tourists in our country. And I have to

say that I am a Chinese citizen and I feel that I need to be protected. For

example, we are threatened by terrorism. We do need protection. So we should

make sure that everybody can come to China, enjoy our beautiful country. And I

heard with great interest what our Pakistani colleague said. Now, on the

equipment use and the software in China, I don’t think that we should be using

different standards to judge China. In China, we don’t have software blocking

Internet sites. Sometimes we have trouble accessing them. But that’s a

different problem. And I know that some colleagues listen to the BBC in their

offices from the Webcast. And I’ve heard people say that the BBC is not

available in China or that it’s blocked. I’m sure I don’t know why people say

this kind of thing. I work in Geneva. I am part of the Chinese mission to the

U.N. And I listen to the BBC in my office.

>> NIK GOWING: (inaudible).

>>YANG XIAOKUN: I still have several points to make.

>> NIK GOWING: Could I — may I ask you a question? How would you define, for

those who are not familiar with your government’s policy and the detail of it,

what is the principle on restrictions of openness in China?

>>YANG XIAOKUN: We do not have restriction at all.

>> Come on! (Shouting out from audience).

>> NIK GOWING: All right. Do you want to answer — would you like to

elaborate on that? None at all?

>>YANG XIAOKUN: How can I elaborate on it if we don’t have any restriction?

>> NIK GOWING: Okay. What are the other points you wanted to make, quickly?

>>YANG XIAOKUN: Yes. Somebody talked about the — okay. Well, some people

say that there are journalists in China that have been arrested. We have

hundreds of journalists in China, very few have been arrested. But there are

criminals in all societies and we have to arrest them. But these are legal

problems. It has nothing to do with freedom of expression.

>> NIK GOWING: What was said from the Chinese representative that the BBC is

not blocked, can you clarify the BBC’s position on that?

>>RICHARD SAMBROOK: I’m glad he listens and reads us in Geneva, but he if he

was in China he would not be able to listen to our Mandarin service on short

wave radio and not be able to read our Mandarin news site on the website. And

this is now very well established and it is very effectively blocked on both

the Internet and shortwave radio and has been for many years.

>>NIK GOWING: I said I would come back to both Microsoft and Cisco and I have

to keep moving forward. There are a number of questions. I am not requesting

to ask you to stand up, because they are quite similar about corporate

responsibility in promoting free speech, and we heard that suggestion. Are

corporations meant to be involved in securing openness and freedom to speak.

Could we round off this section with your view and some of your responses to

some of the things you have heard, but about particularly, not least what we

heard from Vint about the limits to corporate responsibility in this particular

area. Art.

>>ART REILLY: Going back to the point at which I entered the queue, the

question was what do we have the ability to audit progress within China or the

situation within China, and I wanted to mention one metric. Cisco entered the

market in China in 1994 and in 1995 there were about 80,000 users on the

Internet in China. In 2005, so ten years later, they had gone from 80,000 to

130 million. So substantial increase in the use and the ability for the

information to flow within China as well as to across borders into other

locations and to get access to information in other locations. And as you can

imagine, with issues such as worms and denial of service attacks, these are not

unique to one part of the world and so the issues I raised before relative to

the need for capabilities to protect against the threats from viruses and worms

and denial of service attacks exist and so the equipment that’s provided in

China is the same as elsewhere. I very much agree with Vint on the issue of the

power of a company like Cisco or perhaps others to, in fact, exert influence.

The market in which Cisco is involved is a very competitive market. In fact,

it is a competitive global market and as many of you may know there are, in

fact, significant manufacturers of equipment that, as I mentioned before,

provide similar capabilities for the same purposes I mentioned, security and

network management to in fact ensure and promote the free flow of information.

So the actions that we are taking with regard to this technology is to allow

that free flow, not to impede it. Thank you.

>> NIK GOWING: But the word he used was persuasion being probably best you

could hope for. Do you agree?

>>ART REILLY: Yes.

>> NIK GOWING: Fred.

>>FRED TIPSON: Yes, and I do also, Nik. I think massive bargaining power is

an exaggeration, although we are actively exploring within the industry how we

can better exercise our joint persuasive abilities in these areas. But I think

it’s critical for the forum and in the entirety that we not portray the

Internet as a threat to governments. That that not be the theme that comes out

of this discussion, because the reality, take a country like China, the

Internet is transforming the political culture of China. There is no question

about it. And for someone who has worked in and around China for 20 years, it’s

incredible to me how much is available when you search for it, how widely

people are expressing their political views, often at great personal risk, on

blogs in China and chat rooms and all sorts of other places. There are

courageous people who are pushing the envelope of politics, but there are also

courageous people in the Chinese government who believe in the importance of

the importance of the Internet as a modernizing, educating force. There is not

a monolithic determination to suppress the Internet in a country like China.

But that’s obviously a much longer discussion. The point I really want to make

is if we are serious about human rights, if we really want to advance the cause

of human rights for users in China we must be specific about what it is we are

concerned with. The Yahoo! case is a classic example. First of all we need to

get the company right, but secondly, the Yahoo! case involved a situation where

the police came to Yahoo! and said, “We believe that there’s a criminal sending

e-mails across your service. We want to know who he is.” Yahoo! servers were

located in China. If they had turned them down, all the people would have been

arrested, they probably would have been thrown out of China. Now, it could be

the position of human rights organizations legitimately to say that should be

the result for Yahoo!. They should not be doing business in China if it means

they put users at risk. The fact of the matter is Yahoo! didn’t know this was a

journalist. Yahoo! didn’t even know he had gone to prison. I didn’t know what

Yahoo! didn’t know. Let’s talk about hypotheticals but the clear situation is

you don’t know when the police come in the door whether they are after a

journalist, a pedophile, an IP polluter. And no country in the world gives you

that information. In fact, you are required in the United States and I believe

in the UK not to inform the person the police are looking for when they come in

seeking information about that person. Now, we, and Microsoft, our services are

basically — our servers and the information relating to customers has been in

the United States and, therefore, is not as easily accessible by police

authorities outside the United States. But China and virtually every country in

the world is headed toward the situation where they are going to require that

personally identifying information is available to the police authorities in

that society as a condition of doing business with their citizens. So that is

the trend of the situation we’re watching. Not only that, the trend is for

governments to say you must retain this data in available form for at least two

years in the case of some of the discussions that are going on in the United

States, to make it even easier for the government under legitimate

circumstances and due process and so forth to get access to this information.

Now, that’s the reality of the kinds of human rights challenge that companies

have in trying to do business not only in restrictive societies. Arguably, in

virtually every country in the world, including my own. There are balances

being struck and challenges that we need to address. Obviously there are in

certain countries the effort that’s going towards restrictiveness is much

greater than in others. But that’s a conversation we need to have, because you

would be surprised when you look country by country at what’s restricted how

many subjects and how many countries have restrictive regulations. So I do — I

don’t want to monopolize this conversation at all but I think if we really are

serious about talking about human rights we need to talk about the rights that

we want to protect and how best to protect them and not broad brush condemn

nations of this government or that government without reference to the facts.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: