Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Freedom Fighters:
The Role of Internet Corporations in
Promoting Digital Freedoms
Abstract
Through its global nature, the Internet has challenged traditional concepts of national
sovereignty and legitimacy. Multinational corporations operating in various legal
jurisdictions face difficult questions of opposing laws and values. These firms state their
preference for American-style protection of speech and privacy, but are beholden to
conflicting laws abroad. The most notable example is China where Google, Microsoft
and Yahoo! operate in a jurisdiction which provides far less individual autonomy than
the United States. This paper examines the mechanisms, both political and
technological, through which these firms can further the values of free expression and
privacy.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction....................................2
1
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
I. Introduction
In April 2007, Chinese journalist Shi Tao was sentenced to ten years in prison for
“leaking state secrets.” His trial, in its entirety only two hours long, hinged upon
Silicon Valley giant Yahoo!. The multinational Internet company had provided to the
Chinese officials personally identifiable information about Shi Tao who used the Yahoo!
by government censors to downplay the anniversary of the June 4th, 1989 political
crackdown. 1 In what would become a widely condemned action, Yahoo! had directly
To many, the saga of Shi Tao was a shock. The Internet was supposed to liberate.
A global, interactive, open medium for communication was believed to advance freedom
of expression and provide checks upon government abuse of power. Many early
observers of the Internet saw cyberspace as beyond the control of government; the rules
architecture of the Internet allegedly supported the libertarian ethic which pervaded
various means, both technical and political, governments can and do exert increasing
control over citizen behavior online. The same network which was supposed to herald a
new era of free expression has become a carefully manicured arena of regulated
1MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Shi Tao, Yahoo!, and the lessons for corporate social repsonsibility."
RConversations. Dec. 2007. University of Hong Kong. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://rconversation.blogs.com/
yahooshitaolessons.pdf>.
2
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
wide range of content is blocked. In this restrictive endeavor, governments have come to
rely on the cooperation of private entities. The practice and policy of Internet filtering
These companies, of course, are required to obey local regulations, but as the
backlash following the case of Shi Tao makes clear, in a global network, values and
norms can differ widely. American Internet companies have both a philosophical and
financial preference for freedom of expression and individual user privacy, but, given
their subservience to Chinese law, their ability to promote these is limited. Recent
efforts, such as the Global Network Initiative, “a collaborative approach to protect and
advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector,” are feasible options, but a
This paper seeks to explain the technical and legal basis for the conflict of values
and to critically assess the Global Network Initiative and other options to protect the
universal human rights of freedom of expression and privacy as they relate to the
Today, the Internet is so pervasive in the developed world that its origins are of
little concern to many; however, it is the birth of the Internet and its subsequent
formation that laid the foundation for many of today’s disputes concerning freedom of
3
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
expression and privacy. Those origins are found in the era of government funded
In the 1960s, with the specter of nuclear war on the minds of many in the
network to connect the various computers which were being used at government and
ARPANet and the subsequent TCP/IP suite of protocols established the technical means
packet networks.” 3 In order to create a network that would allow the US government to
operated by AT&T. 4 The key technological insight which allowed this to happen was
specific location, but packet-switching split individual messages (say, an email) into
smaller packets and sent it through the network. If the data couldn’t pass through a
certain router, or it occurred too slowly, the packet could be rerouted or simply resent. 5
The attraction to the Pentagon officials funding the research was that a destroyed node
on the network wouldn’t block traffic; the packets would just travel a different route,
instead.
3Cerf, Vint. "History of the Internet." All About the Interent. Internet Society. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://
www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml>.
4 Hafner, Katie. Where Wizards Stay up Late : The Origins of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster,
Incorporated, 1998.
5Ruthfield, Scott. "The Internet's History and Development." Sept. 1995. Association of Computing
Machinery. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds2-1/inet-history.html>.
4
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
immutable values inherent in the design. Indeed, there was a uniqueness to the new
medium - as it became more widely deployed, one’s use of it was not constrained like the
AT&T network, nor was there much control of early users. As Jonathan Zittrain notes,
"The design of the Internet reflected not only the financial constraints of its creators, but
also their motives. They had little concern for controlling the network or its users’
behavior."6
Indeed, early observers of the Internet believed there was something uniquely
unregulable about the new medium. It was widely believed that digital content
traditional forms of sovereignty. 7 Legal scholars David Johnson and David Post wrote
that “The rise of the global computer network is destroying the link between
geographical location and... the power of local governments to assert control over online
Barlow wrote, "I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally
independent of the tyrannies [governments] seek to impose on us. You have no moral
right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to
fear."9 Yet, governments very early on attempted to exert control upon the Internet. For
6 Zittrain, Jonathan. The Future of the Internet--and How to Stop It. New York: Yale UP, 2008.
7Post, David G., and David Johnson. "Borders, Spillovers, and Complexity: Rule- making Processes in
Cyberspace (and Elsewhere)." University of Chicago Law Review (1997).
8Post, David G., and David R. Johnson. "Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace." Stanford
Law Review 48 (1996).
9Barlow, John P. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace." 8 Feb. 1997. Electronic Frontier
Foundation. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/declaration-final.html>.
5
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
ISP at the time, for hosting content in violation of their anti-pornography laws.
This filtering, it was believed, would be impossible on the Internet, but as will be
shown below, it is becoming increasingly popular. For example, recalling the built-in
censorship as damage and routes around it."11 To Gilmore, and many others, the
architecture of the Internet would treat censorship the same way as a Soviet bomb.
memory. The nation state has, through both legal and technical means, reasserted itself
as the leading arbiter of online behavior. The CompuServe case mentioned above was an
early indicator of the supremacy of the state, but a far more influential case involved the
Cognizant of the hate-filled past, both French and German law prohibits
trafficking in Nazi-related goods. In other countries, notably America, this would seem
seminal 2000 lawsuit which charged that Yahoo.com’s auction site, through which Nazi
goods were sold, violated French law. Although Yahoo! maintained a French version of
its service, Yahoo.fr, which complied with French law, the American version was still
6
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
To Yahoo!, having French laws regulate its American site was both impossible
and wrongheaded. Founder Jerry Yang said, “Asking us to filter access to our sites
according to the nationality of web surfers is very naive.” 12 The reality, though, was that
simple technical measures could be used to “effectively screen out 90 percent of French
technology called “tracing” packets that determine the routers through which Internet
traffic has traveled. This information is cross-checked against databases that identify the
invention, the judge found against Yahoo and ordered it to start geo-targeting its users
In essence, geo-identification and the Yahoo! case established the technical and
legal basis for a bordered Internet; states could now compel online firms to zone the
Internet and they quickly did so. Once a state could impose borders, it could impose its
12
Wu, Tim, and Jack Goldsmith. Who Controls the Internet? : Illusions of a Borderless World. New York:
Oxford UP, Incorporated, 2006.
13Yahoo! v. LICRA (US District Court Northern California December 21, 2000). Electronic Frontier
Foundation. 4 Dec. 2008 <ttp://www.eff.org/legal/jurisdiction_and_sovereignty/licra_v_yahoo/
20001221_yahoo_us_complaint.pdf>.
14
Wu, Tim, and Jack Goldsmith. Who Controls the Internet? : Illusions of a Borderless World. New York:
Oxford UP, Incorporated, 2006.
7
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Due to its global economic influence, immense domestic market and reputation
for an antagonistic approach to free expression, the role that multinational corporations
take in China’s information economy has been the subject of much deserved attention.
Internet censorship, “China continues to expand the largest and most sophisticated
filtering system in the world, despite the government’s occasional denial that it restricts
any Internet content.” 15 The means through which this is accomplished are a maze of
regulatory agencies, legal requirements, informal norms and technical measures. 16 A key
component though, are the private firms which cooperate with the government: “The
job of online censorship and surveillance is difficult for the state to manage itself, if not
altogether impossible.” 17
The American firms most often cited as complicit in this effort are Google,
Microsoft and Yahoo!. These companies offer a variety of services in the Chinese market
and maintain offices and servers within the jurisdiction of the PRC, making them legally
bound to comply with its laws. Many of these laws have been heavily criticized by
human rights supporters who see them as unjust violations of both the Chinese
Constitution and international human rights law. 18 Still, Internet regulation in China
bans a wide range of content ranging from inciting hatred to “jeopardizing the integrity
15 Palfrey, John G., Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. Access Denied : The Practice and Policy
of Global Internet Filtering. New York: MIT P, 2007.
16 For an extended discussion of the technical means, please see Annex A.
17Zittrain, Jonathan, and John Palfrey. "Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet."
Global Information Technology Report (2006).
18Deva, Surya. "Corporate Complicity in Internet Censorship in China: Who Cares for the Global
Compact or the Global Online Freedom Act?" George Washington International Law Review 39 (2007).
8
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
of national unity,” so that the outcome is to “provide the government with almost
endless authority to control and censor content while discouraging citizens from testing
create shareholder wealth, these firms have compelling reasons to enter the enormous
qualitatively less liberal than those in the rest of the world. ISPs in China are required to
retain personally identifiable information about users for at least sixty days and to
ensure that no illegal content is being hosted on their servers. 21 While such regulation is
not unique to China, the outcomes - jailed political dissidents due to Yahoo’s data and
censored search results on Google.cn - offend the sensibilities of many Westerners who
value privacy and free expression. Those outcomes have also deeply challenged the
The experience of Google within China is a telling one. Prior to 2006, Google did
not operate a Chinese search engine. While its primary service aimed at the USA,
Google.com, could search the Chinese language web, it had failed to gain much traction
within China. Google executives felt that this was “due in large measure to the extensive
measurements, Google.com was entirely blocked in China around 10 percent of the time
19 Palfrey, John G., Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. Access Denied : The Practice and Policy
of Global Internet Filtering. New York: MIT P, 2007.
20 Barboza, David. "China Surpasses U.S. in Number of Internet Users." New York Times 26 July 2008.
21 Palfrey, John G., Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. Access Denied : The Practice and Policy
of Global Internet Filtering. New York: MIT P, 2007.
22McLaughlin, Andrew. "Human Rights and the Internet – The Peopleʼs Republic of China."
Congressional Human Rights Caucus Membersʼ Briefing. US Congress, Washington, DC. 1 Feb. 2006.
9
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
and operated sluggishly when available. Even further, it seemed Chinese ISPs were
competitors who censored their results. 23 So, in early 2006 Google decided to comply
with Chinese self-censorship laws and deploy Google.cn which would remove search
results for politically sensitive results. Determining that limited access was better than
none, Google’s Andrew McLaughlin said, “Filtering our search results clearly
compromises our mission. Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's
multilayered endeavor which includes, among other aspects, both ISP filtering and
online service provider censorship. When Google’s service could not be reached, the
their way to servers around the world. 25 On the other hand, when search results on
Google.cn omit, say, the official website of Students for a Free Tibet, the Google
programmers have written the code to omit individual results based on a list of sensitive
topics. 26 These so-called block-lists are often generated individually by companies due
23 Schrage, Elliot. "Testimony of Google Inc. before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and the
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and International Operations." Hearing of Committee on
International Relations. United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 4 Dec. 2008.
24McLaughlin, Andrew. "Google in China." Weblog post. Official Google Blog. 27 Jan. 2006. 4 Dec. 2008
<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html>.
25 See Annex A for an extended description.
26Zittrain, Jonathan, and Benjamin Edelman. "Localized Google search result exclusions." 22 Oct. 2006.
Berkman Center for Internet and Society. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/>.
10
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
to the lack of clear guidance from the government and can include obviously sensitive
topics like “Dalai Lama” but also more curious phrases like “cat abuse.” 27
The experience of Google is not unique. Yahoo! and Microsoft have had to make
similarly difficult decisions concerning free expression and privacy while operating in
access, Microsoft’s Chinese blogging platform has come under fire for limits on
Indeed, Microsoft once blocked access to a popular but controversial Chinese blog
around the world, instead of just in China proper. 29 Finally, the experience of Yahoo!
provides insight into the implications for privacy when Internet companies are forced to
comply with Chinese law. Shi Tao, the aforementioned jailed reporter, became a cause
célèbre due to the role Yahoo’s information played in his trial. Following a request by
Chinese authorities, Yahoo! presented the unique IP address for the time at which Tao’s
fateful email was sent, along with the address and phone number of the user. 30 Given
this personally identifiable information, Chinese prosecutors were able to easily identify
27Pan, Philip. "What do cat abuse, mascot and cashfiesta have in common?" Washington Post 19 Feb.
2006.
28Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship. PublicationNo. 8. Human
Rights Watch. 2006.
29MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Microsoft takes down Chinese blogger." Weblog post. RConversations. 4 Jan.
2006. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/2006/01/microsoft_takes.html>.
30MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Shi Tao, Yahoo!, and the lessons for corporate social repsonsibility."
RConversations. Dec. 2007. University of Hong Kong. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://rconversation.blogs.com/
yahooshitaolessons.pdf>.
11
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Shi Tao and proceed with his trial. Shi Tao is joined in the ranks of prosecuted cyber-
The future of freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet need not be as
dreary as these cases would suggest. In fact, there are a variety of mechanisms, both
technological and political, that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! can pursue to promote
domestic laws are not without critique. Some of the earliest came from prominent
human rights organizations, but the concerns have resulted in lawsuits, shareholder
advocacy, front page headlines and Congressional hearings. The case of Shi Tao even
brought Yahoo! founder Jerry Yang to publicly apologize to his mother, saying “I want to
say we are committed to doing what we can to secure [the dissidents’] freedom.” 32
Google and Microsoft, too, have had to reverse positions and admit to compromising
These are not just ethical concerns; there are very serious financial
considerations at play. In 2006, the total revenue from Chinese Internet users was 186
billion Yuan and growing at more than 50 percent a year. 33 American firms are under
31Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship. PublicationNo. 8. Human
Rights Watch. 2006.
32MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Shi Tao, Yahoo!, and the lessons for corporate social repsonsibility."
RConversations. Dec. 2007. University of Hong Kong. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://rconversation.blogs.com/
yahooshitaolessons.pdf>.
33Deva, Surya. "Corporate Complicity in Internet Censorship in China: Who Cares for the Global
Compact or the Global Online Freedom Act?" George Washington International Law Review 39 (2007).
12
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
pressure to capture some of this market, but doing so effectively seems to come at a cost.
While it was initially thought that Google would be able to make more money by
maintaining Google.cn, according to Google’s founder Sergey Brin, "On a business level,
that decision to censor... was a net negative."34 Because these companies make money
from selling advertising around online content, they have a financial interest in an
Internet accepting of all content. Also, because the switching cost between services is so
low online, a public relations blunder can result in users simply moving to another
Yahoo! recently joined leading human rights organizations, academics, and socially
protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy. The Global Network Initiative
(GNI) includes a set of principles affirming the importance of freedom of expression and
privacy as fundamental human rights, guidelines on how best to implement these within
members.
In the GNI, both freedom of expression and privacy are recognized as “human
and promote these rights by seriously considering the relevant implications for business
34Martinson, Jane. "China censorship damaged us, Google founders admit." The Guardian 27 June
2007.
13
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
privacy. 35 The effect, according to one of its key creators, Leslie Harris of the Center for
jurisdictions will be forced to consider the best way forward, hopefully to minimize the
negative effects on users’ rights. 36 Some influential groups, such as Reporters without
Borders have critiqued the effort, but it provides a firm foundation from which to
While an important and influential step, the Global Network Initiative does not
comprehensively solve the problems facing Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!. How can they
further improve freedom of expression and privacy in China in order to reap the benefits
human rights? Although their ability is not as broad as governments who could use
trade relations to pressure China, there are a number of independent steps companies
could take.
policies should be tailored to protect users. Although information about users can be
used for a variety of reasons, such as improving advertising revenue and detecting
abuse, “purging data is the best way of protecting privacy and free expression in the
Internet age: it’s the only way of guaranteeing that government officials can’t force
companies like Google and Yahoo to turn over information that allows individuals to be
35
"Global Network Initiative." Global Network Initiative. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://
www.globalnetworkinitiative.org>.
36Jesdanun, Anick. "Internet companies embrace human rights guidelines." Associated Press 27 Oct.
2008.
37"Reporters without Borders is not endorsing the GNI." 28 Oct. 2008. Reporters without Borders. 4 Dec.
2008 <http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29117>.
14
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
identified.” 38 Google recently halved the time they maintained personally identifiable IP
addresses to nine months, but Yahoo! and Microsoft lag behind this decision by four and
nine months, respectively. 39 All companies should make a concerted effort to continue
innovating and maintaining security while working to keep data for the minimal time
Alternatively, the American firms could choose to locate data in areas more
respectful of individual freedoms. A Chinese court order is only effective within its
limits the ability of government to demand compliance. Companies are obviously not
unaware of this option, but choose to not do so due to a preference for speed. 40
This trade-off between privacy and the speed of a service is manifest in another design
choice made by Internet corporations. The Secure Socket Layer (SSL) is a protocol used
entities. This technology is widely used in online commerce where personal information,
such as credit cards numbers, are sent to vendors. However, the downside of this
38 Rosen, Jeffrey. "Google's Gatekeepers." New York Times Magazine 28 Nov. 2008.
39Meller, Paul. "Google cuts time it retains IP address logs to 9 months." IT World. 9 Sept. 2008. 4 Dec.
2008 <http://www.itworld.com/internet/54788/google-cuts-time-it-retains-ip-address-logs-9-months>.
40Kovacevich, Adam. "Eric Schmidt on what's ahead in 2008." Weblog post. Google Public Policy Blog.
18 Nov. 2008. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/11/eric-schmidt-on-whats-
ahead-in-2009.html>.
41 Wu,Tim, and Jack Goldsmith. Who Controls the Internet? : Illusions of a Borderless World. New York:
Oxford UP, Incorporated, 2006.
15
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
security is latency due to the additional processing needed to encrypt and decrypt
packets. Although it would technically be feasible to use SSL in all services, it requires
companies to implement this technology through its properties. Because speed does
matter online, SSL need not be the default setting, but companies cognizant of the
importance of privacy in China should allow users to choose their preferred setting,
However, because SSL only protects a user’s privacy once he has connected to the
third party, sophisticated network surveillance efforts, like those in China, could still
detect from where controversial computing took place by reading the routing
surveillance, but the most promising is The Onion Router (Tor). 43 Tor is a distributed,
anonymous network of volunteered routers through which packets can pass randomly
“so no observer at any single point can tell where the data came from or where it's
going.” 44 Tor is widely used by journalists, dissidents, governments and the intelligence
using Tor on a weekly basis. 45 As an open source project supported by users, its
existence is the product of volunteers, and American Internet companies could establish
42Rideout, Ariel. "Making security easier." Weblog post. GMail Blog. 24 July 2008. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://
gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier.html>.
43 For an extended discussion of Tor, please see Annex B.
44 "Tor: The Onion Router." The Tor Project. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en>.
45Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship. PublicationNo. 8. Human
Rights Watch. 2006.
16
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
their commitment to freedom of expression and privacy by supporting Tor and similar
Less obviously, but perhaps even more importantly, these companies which are
offering censored versions of their search engines should limit the effect of this legal
accountability. In 2006, when Google introduced its censored Chinese search engine, it
included a notice to users whenever a search result had been omitted. This had
previously not been done, but within months competitors, including domestic giant
Baidu, had begun to inform users that their searches had been censored. 47 This
the list of censored words and phrases. These secretive indexes serve as red flags to
search algorithms which omit pages including that content. Leaked lists show that
phrases as varied as “human rights” and “mascot” can result in censorship, but publicly
maintaining constantly updated block-lists would allow Chinese Internet users to better
Finally, and as a result of this previous action, companies should use their
leverage with the government to advocate on behalf of their users. If it is clear what
content is illegal and what is not, a more informed national dialogue about the role of
political speech may occur. Indeed, users should be given the opportunity to challenge
46
Google has provided some support to Tor, but its peer corporations have not. https://
www.torproject.org/sponsors
47 Bambauer, Derek. "Guiding Censor's Scissors: Assessing Online Censorship." (2008).
48Villeneuve, Nart. "Keyword Lists." Weblog post. Internet Censorship Explorer. 25 Nov. 2008. 4 Dec.
2008 <http://www.nartv.org/2008/11/25/keyword-lists/>.
17
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
in the United States. A Chinese version of this might allow citizens to request the
In reality, it is this dialogue that will yield the most change. As the early history
and current standing of political power on the Internet shows, it can quickly result in a
game of cat and mouse between those desirous of more individual freedom and
Microsoft and Yahoo! are placed in a conflict between an interest, both financial and
online censorship and surveillance. They are not powerless, though. As their
privacy are important concepts that they voluntarily deem worth protecting and
promoting. Given this decision, these companies should implement the technical and
49"FAQ About DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions." Chilling Effects. Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#qid130>.
18
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Annex A
Internet Filtering Tools
Figure 1:
The process for
accessing a
website under
normal
conditions
19
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Source: Murdoch, Steven J., and Ross Anderson. "Tools and Technology of Internet Filtering." Access
Denied : The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Ed. John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and
Jonathan Zittrain. New York: MIT P, 2007.
20
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Annex B
The Onion Router (Tor)
Tor grew out of government research into anonymity online but quickly gained
traction from a variety of interested parties including civil liberties advocates, human
rights organizations and individuals invested in digital privacy.
It seeks to close the gap between widely available encryption tools and advancing
Internet surveillance. Encryption provides a secure way to communicate privately, but
because routers along the Internet need to know where to send packets, the header data
must remain unencrypted. As such, intermediaries can analyze header data and learn a
surprising amount about a user’s actions.
Tor consists of a distributed network of routers through which users of Tor can
send their TCP/IP packets. All traffic is securely encrypted except the last leg where the
Tor network sends the packets to the intended recipient. The individual routers on the
network have no way of determining anymore than the directly previous and succeeding
routers. So even if a government surveilled the network, they would come up short.
21
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Works Cited
22
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
<http://rconversation.blogs.com/2006/01/microsoft_takes.html>.
MacKinnon, Rebecca. "Shi Tao, Yahoo!, and the lessons for corporate social
repsonsibility." RConversations. Dec. 2007. University of Hong Kong. 4 Dec.
2008 <http://rconversation.blogs.com/yahooshitaolessons.pdf>.
McLaughlin, Andrew. "Google in China." Weblog post. Official Google Blog. 27 Jan.
2006. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-
china.html>.
McLaughlin, Andrew. "Human Rights and the Internet – The People’s Republic of
China." Congressional Human Rights Caucus Members’ Briefing. US Congress,
Washington, DC. 1 Feb. 2006.
Meller, Paul. "Google cuts time it retains IP address logs to 9 months." IT World. 9 Sept.
2008. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.itworld.com/internet/54788/google-cuts-t...>.
Palfrey, John G., Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. Access Denied : The
Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. New York: MIT P, 2007.
Pan, Philip. "What do cat abuse, mascot and cashfiesta have in common?" Washington
Post 19 Feb. 2006.
Post, David G., and David Johnson. "Borders, Spillovers, and Complexity: Rule- making
Processes in Cyberspace (and Elsewhere)." University of Chicago Law Review
(1997).
Post, David G., and David R. Johnson. "Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in
Cyberspace." Stanford Law Review 48 (1996).
Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship.
PublicationNo. 8. Human Rights Watch. 2006.
"Reporters without Borders is not endorsing the GNI." 28 Oct. 2008. Reporters without
Borders. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29117>.
Rideout, Ariel. "Making security easier." Weblog post. GMail Blog. 24 July 2008. 4 Dec.
2008 <http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/making-security-easier.html>.
Rosen, Jeffrey. "Google's Gatekeepers." New York Times Magazine 28 Nov. 2008.
Ruthfield, Scott. "The Internet's History and Development." Sept. 1995. Association of
Computing Machinery. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.acm.org/crossroads/
xrds2-1/inet-history.html>.
23
Kevin Donovan
STIA-305 Term Paper
Schrage, Elliot. "Testimony of Google Inc. before the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific, and the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights, and
International Operations." Hearing of Committee on International Relations.
United States House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 4 Dec. 2008.
"Tor: The Onion Router." The Tor Project. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.
torproject.org/overview.html.en>.
Villeneuve, Nart. "Keyword Lists." Weblog post. Internet Censorship Explorer. 25 Nov.
2008. 4 Dec. 2008 <http://www.nartv.org/2008/11/25/keyword-lists/>.
Wu, Tim, and Jack Goldsmith. Who Controls the Internet? : Illusions of a Borderless
World. New York: Oxford UP, Incorporated, 2006.
Yahoo! v. LICRA (US District Court Northern California December 21, 2000). Electronic
Frontier Foundation. 4 Dec. 2008 <ttp://www.eff.org/legal/
jurisdiction_and_sovereignty/licra_v_yahoo/
20001221_yahoo_us_complaint.pdf>.
Zittrain, Jonathan, and Benjamin Edelman. "Localized Google search result exclusions."
22 Oct. 2006. Berkman Center for Internet and Society. 4 Dec. 2008
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/google/>.
Zittrain, Jonathan, and John Palfrey. "Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a
Filtered Internet." Global Information Technology Report (2006).
Zittrain, Jonathan. The Future of the Internet--and How to Stop It. New York: Yale UP,
2008.
24