US Congress grills Internet firms over China clampdown

WASHINGTON: US Internet giants will come under unprecedented grilling in Congress this week for joining hands with China to censor the Internet, despite the proud American tradition of free speech.

Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco Systems have agreed to appear on Wednesday before a House of Representatives human-rights panel, which summoned them following public outcry over their compliance with Beijing.

By complying with China’s demand for censorship to enter the booming Chinese market, some of the top American Internet firms in essence have become “a megaphone for communist propaganda and a tool for controlling public opinion,” said Chris Smith, who will co-chair the hearing.

The Republican Representative from New Jersey, who heads the House subcommittee on global human rights and international operations, is drafting legislation imposing curbs on Internet companies seeking to expand into China.

“I think a lot of members will be supportive of the legislation,” Smith’s spokesman Brad Dayspring told Agence France-Presse.

Some lawmakers accused the American firms of helping Beijing build the “Great Firewall of China.”

“Our message to the Chinese is, ‘When you build a wall to oppress your people, can we sell you some bricks?’” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who introduced legislation last week to downgrade US trade ties with China.

This is the first time the companies will testify at Capitol Hill over the muzzling of Internet information in China. Two weeks ago, they snubbed a Congressional caucus meeting, which had no subpoena power.

State Department officials have also been summoned to explain Washington’s stand on the issue at the one-day hearing, entitled “The Internet in China: A tool for freedom or suppression?”

Search giant Google and top computer software maker Microsoft have admitted cooperating with Beijing to censor websites.

Leading portal operator Yahoo allegedly assisted Beijing authorities to track down and jail a journalist and cyber dissident, while Cisco’s technology-savvy machinery is reportedly used to censor Internet messages and track cyber dissidents.

The companies have defended their decisions as being for the public good, saying that reform will come more quickly in the communist nation if they are able to continue doing business there.

Google said it had to strike a balance between compliance with local laws and its corporate mission to make information accessible.

“While removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information [or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information] is more inconsistent with our mission,” Google senior policy counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, said.

“Many agree that there is truth to what the Internet companies are saying,” said Bart Mongoven of Strategic Forecasting Inc. (Stratfor), a private US intelligence firm.

First, he said, the companies already faced local competition from a home-grown Internet search engine/portal, which blocked content or exposed user-account details at government request without a fight over civil liberties.

But in order to get the same compliance from a Western Internet company, Beijing has to coax, cajole or threaten it, and the resulting controversy in the West is not in China’s interests, Mongoven said.

“At the very least, the presence of American web companies irritates the Chinese government, because it places its political tactics on public display,” he said.

The congressional hearing could set the pace for legislation compelling Internet companies to locate e-mail servers outside “repressive countries” and prohibit the export of Internet technology to these countries.

“The hearing is going to give Internet companies a chance to testify before Congressman Smith puts the final touches to the legislation,” Dayspring said.

But laws regulating the activities of Internet companies should only be a last resort, cautioned media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, suggesting instead a code of ethics that upholds freedom of expression.

For example, if US companies sell Internet censorship software to repressive states, they would have to incorporate a list of “protected” keywords rendered technically impossible to censor, said Lucie Morillon, the group’s Washington director. --AFP