Corporate Engagement: Freedom of Expresssion and Privacy

Freedom of expression.

Privacy.

They are two of the most cherished human rights of citizens in countries all around the globe.

And yet, when it comes to guaranteeing those rights to Internet users, the rules and regulations – and the processes for deciding the rules and regulations – are often vague.   The Internet is a vast and dynamic public network controlled in many respects by private companies with a mandate to maximize profit and shareholder value.  Rights such as freedom of expression and privacy can frequently clash with the bottom line imperatives of 21st century media and telecommunications enterprises.

In an effort to address those issues, Open MIC has been working to organize a coalition of shareholders of the publicly-held Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the U.S., with the aim of persuading those companies to consider the profound impact their network management practices can have on public expectations of freedom of expression and privacy.   We expect to report soon on our progress.   Meanwhile, we’re heartened by two recently-announced independent initiatives that engage companies in public dialogue regarding principles and policies affecting consumer use of the Internet globally.

The first of these efforts is the Global Network Initiative, or GNI, which describes itself as “a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics” that have spent the last two years examining government threats to freedom of expression and privacy on the Internet.

The GNI grew out of a series of incidents in 2005, when Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! were widely criticized for alleged collusion with the Chinese government in suppressing domestic dissent.   Under pressure from Congressional critic and others, the companies enlisted the assistance of the non-profit Center for Democracy and Technology and Business for Social Responsibility, along with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, in an elaborate multi-stakeholder dialogue.

GNI’s output has beeen a set of “principles” and “implementation guidelines” that focus on how companies should interact with governments on issues of Internet freedom of expression and privacy.  While the GNI documents have already been criticized for not being bold enough, the signatory companies acknowledge and accept some important corporate responsibilities.

The GNI implementation guidelines, for example, include a requirement that corporate boards “will incorporate the impact of company operations on freedom of expression and privacy into the Board’s review of the business” and will:

• Receive and evaluate regular reports from management on how the commitments laid out in the Principles are being implemented.
• Review freedom of expression and privacy risk within the overall risk management review process.
• Participate in freedom of expression and privacy risk training as part of overall Board education.
  

GNI’s challenge is to broaden the pool of corporate supporters – Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! are the only information and communications technology firms to sign up as yet.  None of the U.S. ISPs (including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner) have jumped on board.  Nor have non-U.S. companies.   GNI is launching a major international effort to enlist support.

Having more luck enlisting corporate support is a second initiative, the Future of Privacy Forum, or FPF, a Washington, D.C.-based organization which says its mission is to “to bring transparency to online data practices.”  At launch, the Forum attracted sponsorship support from AT&T; its Advisory Board includes top level privacy executives at companies such as GE, Walmart, Intel, Microsoft, IBM and Facebook as well as NGOs such as the Center for Democracy and Technology.

FPF is headed by Christopher Wolf (a partner in the D.C. office of law firm Proskauer Rose) and Jules Polonetsky (former chief privacy officer at AOL).  FPF says its plan “is to document practices, produce multi-media educational materials, and commission reports and studies that provide consumers and policy makers the real story about how their data is used.  FPF will seek to bring true transparency and user control to behavioral targeting and will broaden the discussion of the ethics of what the online norms can be with regard to use of web browsing.”

“We believe,” FPF says, “that if dedicated technologists, policymakers, industry groups and advocates focus on advancing privacy in a manner that businesses can achieve, then privacy, profits and personalization are all possible.”

FPF’s launch has engendered skepticism in some quarters, in part because of the sponsorship of AT&T.  It’s also unclear to what degree AT&T and other FPF advisors will engage in discussion on issues other than behavioral targeting.   But the process has been initiated, and the organization (and AT&T) will be judged on its outcomes.

Open MIC is greatly encouraged that senior executives from some media and telecommunications companies are willing to engage in dialogue regarding privacy and the Internet.  That’s why we’ve been working with a number of socially responsible investment firms and other investors to propose shareholder resolutions encouraging the boards of major Internet Service Providers to assess the impact of their network management practices on privacy and freedom of expression.

We expect to soon have initial reactions from the companies, and we’re looking forward to sharing them with you.   There’s a lot at stake – freedom of expression and privacy - and we all deserve to know how the powerful companies that provide Americans with access to the Internet view their roles in protecting those important rights.