In the news, we read about a Chinese blogger whose site was removed from MSN by Microsoft when the Chinese government requested it.
An Ti, the blogger (his real name is Zhao Jing), wrote about a strike at a newspaper in support of a popular editor who had been fired. “I didn’t even say I supported the strike,” he told The New York Times (Zhao happens to work in The Times’ Beijing bureau office).
OK, that’s worrisome on its face. Dictators get to dictate not just what you say or think about the government, or any sensitive issue, but even whether you’re allowed to mention it at all. That Microsoft acquiesced in this act is despicable.
But there’s more. Microsoft did something even worse.
The company justifies its action as part of a balancing act between Chinese laws (including its unwritten laws) and American mores. The Times reported, “The company said Thursday that it must ‘comply with global and local laws.’ ” Added a Microsoft representative, “We think it’s better to be there with our services than not be there.”
Because Microsoft is a private corporation, it doesn’t have to do anything more than look out for its private interests. And that’s why, when the Chinese authorities claimed a legal violation, Microsoft swiftly did their bidding. As The Times reported, the company simply shut An Ti off. Did they confirm a violation? Did they provide An Ti with an opportunity to deny the charge? Did they notify him that the government’s claim would force them to suspend the blog? Did they give him an opportunity to back up his files? Did they care whether the charge was false?
Of course not. No, No, No, No, No — the answer to all these questions. Microsoft is comfortable with dictating. It doesn’t like to consult with others; its attitude is that whatever it decides is fine, and you like it or lump it. What happens isn’t up to you in the slightest — you don’t have any say in the matter at all. Microsoft is the dictator of your content, if it wants, no different in character or approach than the Chinese dictators.
If we let Microsoft in to the living room as it wants, let all kinds of content pass through its hands, will it act any different if, say, a Sony or a Bertelsmann or an RIAA trumps up a charge against an individual as the Chinese did? Why would anyone think so?
It’s not a very big stretch from this incident to companies abusing DRM to restrict our content, ranging from the RIAA’s atrocious lawsuits to Sony’s rootlist.
In 2002, to its everlasting shame, Adobe blatantly lied three times to three different ISPs concerning a Russian company, falsing claiming it was violating Adobe copyrights. In fact, the company had no Adobe software anywhere on its site and never did, but all three ISPs pulled its site off the internet without hesitation lest they be sued by Adobe.
Adobe claimed its software was involved to bring in the DMCA, which cedes so much of the enforcement power to the complaining company. Instead of settling a copyright violation in court, as in the past, now a complainant can disrupt a company’s business and, as Adobe did, have the FBI arrest and jail an employee of the company (who was, in any case, a researcher and not a company manager).
Yes, he was thrown in jail because Adobe had a commercial dispute with the company he worked for and manipulated copyright law to get its way. Copyright law!
In that case and in this one, Microsoft and Adobe both acted against the best interests of users, of individuals, of purchasers of their products, of Americans, but in what they saw as their commercial interests. And how should we treat them if only money rules, if no truth is required to squelch an inconvenient voice or shut down an annoyance, if we don’t hold them to a higher standard as we do our government?
We can see here that Microsoft holds no more consideration for individual rights or due process than China’s dictators. We’ve seen “copyright” and “DMCA” shrilly yelled out to literally handcuff someone disagreeing with Adobe and, in other cases, to seize computers that might have (but didn’t) contain unpurchased copyrighted content. And we have to ask ourselves, If we permit this behavior now, what will prevent similar behavior for falsely alleged DRM violations in the future?
That would be against you or me, of course. Will we get a chance to contest false claims, or will our content be as abruptly pulled offline or confiscated as An Ti’s?
Oh, yes, I’d say Microsoft did something far worse than acquiesce to the Chinese. It revealed its true nature. Sure, it’s always been willing to shaft its customers. But when it sided with the dictator against the individual, it didn’t meekly acquiesce to the laws in China: Microsoft adopted the dictator’s methods.
There can be no mistaking it now: whatever the company’s claims to the contrary, that reveals unmistakably its true nature.
Amen, Roger! Needless to say, what applies to Microsoft can apply to Sony in an e-book context–yet another argument for open standards! – David
I’m with you on that, David. After posting the first version of this piece, I added the last two sections because the connection from this action to DRM and big-corporations-interests vs. individuals-interests seemed to be made more explicit.
“Oh, yes, I’d say Microsoft did something far worse than acquiesce to the Chinese. It revealed its true nature.”
“Revealed”? Many of us have known Microsoft’s true nature for years.
The only difference is that now it’s getting so bad that even the Microsoft apologists and cheerleaders can’t ignore it.
I didn’t mean to imply that other acts haven’t shown this same side of Microsoft; I’ve rewritten the conclusion to make that clear, which, as you say, can’t be ignored.
Before you get too hot under the collar about Microsoft, you should line up to beat on Yahoo as well, and the number of American companies who produce internet filtering software used by countries like China and Saudi Arabia to control their citizen’s access to content. This is not new, and Microsoft is not the worst offender here.
And this is also my reason for being ultra-skeptical about Yahoo’s “content delivery” attempt (Go) unveiled today at CES. There is NO WAY I want to allow a content provider to archive my personal preferences any more than necessary to fulfill delivery of what I want. Note I do recognize if I want content (do I REALLY, and if so, at what cost of pricacy???) I must be willing to allow SOME compromise of my privacy. However, I believe people should be educated as to what aspect of their privacy they are giving up when they engage this kind of service – I suspect most people who do sign up for Go will be totally ignorant of how much power they are providing to the provider.