A Campaign Against Dissent - Human Rights First [PDF]

A Campaign Against Dissent Selective Enforcement of Antipiracy Laws in Russia February 2011

About Human Rights First

About Business and Human Rights

Human Rights First believes that building respect for human rights and the rule of law will help ensure the dignity to which every individual is entitled and will stem tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence.

Human Rights First began to explore the intersections between business and human rights in the mid-1990s, helping develop multistakeholder initiatives that bring together human rights organizations and corporations to address human rights issues that arise in business operations.

Human Rights First protects people at risk: refugees who flee persecution, victims of crimes against humanity or other mass human rights violations, victims of discrimination, those whose rights are eroded in the name of national security, and human rights advocates who are targeted for defending the rights of others. These groups are often the first victims of societal instability and breakdown; their treatment is a harbinger of wider-scale repression. Human Rights First works to prevent violations against these groups and to seek justice and accountability for violations against them. Human Rights First is practical and effective. We advocate for change at the highest levels of national and international policymaking. We seek justice through the courts. We raise awareness and understanding through the media. We build coalitions among those with divergent views. And we mobilize people to act. Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. To maintain our independence, we accept no government funding. © 2011 Human Rights First All Rights Reserved.

New York Office

Washington D.C. Office

333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001-5108

100 Maryland Avenue, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-5625

Tel.: 212.845.5200 Fax: 212.845.5299

Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 202.543.5999

We have partnered with certain members of the business community to develop ways to uphold human rights protections through mechanisms such as codes of conduct, systems of external monitoring, and public reports on findings. Human Rights First helped create three multistakeholder initiatives:

Fair Labor Association (FLA) to promote and safeguard labor rights in apparel and footwear manufacturing.

Global Network Initiative (GNI) to protect freedom of expression and privacy rights in the Internet and communications sector.

Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights to help develop a set of standards to address the right to life and personal security in the extractives sector.

Moving forward, Human Rights First aims to strengthen existing multistakeholder initiatives, expand the model to other industries as appropriate, and shape the ongoing debate and definition of the human rights responsibilities of companies.

www.humanrightsfirst.org

This report is available for free online at www.humanrightsfirst.org

Selective Enforcement of Antipiracy Laws in Russia 1

“This is not a campaign against piracy, it’s a campaign against dissent. … The authorities want to destroy an opposition newspaper. It doesn’t matter if we send more computers to Samara. It doesn’t matter if we show we bought computers legally. It will change nothing.” Sergey Kurt-Adzhiev, Editor-in-Chief, Samarskaya Gazeta, and former editor, Novaya Gazeta v Samare, November 2007 “We unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper personal gain. We are moving swiftly to seek to remove any incentive or ability to engage in such behavior. … Our first step is clear cut. We must accept responsibility and assume accountability for our antipiracy work, including the good and the bad.” Brad Smith, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation, September 2010

Foreword In October 2009, a Russian nonprofit organization promoting tolerance among youth was raided by police and its leader subjected to criminal prosecution under Russia’s antipiracy laws for allegedly using unlicensed Microsoft computer software. The affected group reached out to Human Rights First for help. Our organization had an ongoing relationship with Microsoft as cofounders of the Global Network Initiative. Through that coalition, we were collaborating with Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others to address instances of government pressures to limit freedom of expression through demands on private companies. Human Rights First took a number of steps to help Microsoft address this challenge. We researched the issue, working with Russian NGOs and small independent media targeted by these prosecutions, to establish that

the October case was not an isolated event. Indeed, we found ten cases over a three year period. We recommended that Microsoft: (a) investigate the role of its Russian team, including local lawyers, in facilitating cases of selective enforcement and use the findings to revise its policies and procedures; (b) assist those targeted, to remove the further incentive for prosecution, and consider additional immediate steps to protect NGOs and small media; (c) expand access to the company’s free software program, InfoDonor, to ensure that NGOs and small media could readily participate; and (d) and work with the U.S. government and others to ensure that U.S. efforts to promote intellectual property enforcement abroad remove any incentive for selective enforcement of antipiracy laws. A New York Times story in September 2010 accelerated Microsoft’s response. A day after the article was

2 A Campaign Against Dissent

published, Microsoft announced a plan of action responsive to the concerns we had raised. The company pledged to conduct an investigation, develop a temporary free software license, and work to transition to a permanent software donation program for NGOs and small independent media. We realized that Microsoft’s response would benefit from the advice of Russian NGOs and small media affected by selective enforcement. Among key questions raised—How could license eligibility criteria be drafted to ensure coverage of groups at risk? How would Microsoft communicate this program to ensure NGOs and Russian authorities are fully aware of Microsoft’s new policy? What steps could Microsoft take to clarify who was authorized to represent it in local proceedings and to discourage their facilitation of selective enforcement cases? Would Microsoft headquarters remain engaged to oversee the implementation of this program? Could the company establish an emergency contact in the event of new cases? Human Rights First began consulting with Microsoft on the design of the temporary license, and recommended a face-to-face meeting with Russian NGOs to ensure the program would be responsive to their concerns. In midNovember, senior Microsoft executives joined Human Rights First in New York for meetings with Russian NGO and independent media representatives targeted for selective enforcement. These discussions helped to inform the design and implementation of the license, and to establish an initial working relationship. Once the license was announced, we convened a meeting in Moscow of senior Microsoft representatives from the United States and Russia with Russian civil society representatives. Our goal was to ensure that Microsoft’s license program was well understood, and to identify and answer any immediate questions and concerns. Because Microsoft plans to transition from the temporary license to the free InfoDonor software donation program, we also took the opportunity to highlight the difficulties Russian NGOs have faced in attempting to access that program.

Human Rights First

The U.S. Embassy in Moscow convened a meeting with our group, to learn more about the new Microsoft program, to obtain the Russian NGOs’ perspectives on the challenges of selective enforcement, and to explore ways that the U.S. government could help ensure that efforts to promote intellectual property enforcement also addressed selective enforcement abuse. This issue exemplifies the challenges that Information and Communications Technology (ICT) companies face in responding to government demands aimed at limiting the rights of users, including demands of authoritarian governments with respect to political, human rights and civil society activists. Microsoft’s response, if strengthened and fully implemented, has the potential to curb this practice and establish a new standard for industry facing analogous challenges. Indeed, the selective enforcement issue in Russia is not limited to Microsoft. Allegations against targeted groups have included charges of pirated Adobe, Corel, and local Russian software brands, in addition to Microsoft. Nor is it limited to Russia; there is at least one reported case in Kyrgyzstan. At the time of issuance, Microsoft said that its license covered eleven other countries, including China, Vietnam, and Belarus. ICT companies must anticipate that governments will continue to make demands that infringe users’ free speech and privacy rights or in other ways violate fundamental freedoms. Companies must be prepared in advance with the tools necessary to respond. This report examines in greater detail the issue of selective enforcement of antipiracy law to curb dissent; to better understand how a company can become enmeshed in abusive government enforcement activities; to appreciate how a company can respond in ways that protect its global business operations and the rights of its users; to consider how one company’s approach might provide a useful platform for the entire software industry to adopt; and to identify ways that the U.S. government can help to increase the effectiveness of industry efforts through its own diplomacy.


Introduction On December 6, 2010, police raided the offices of the independent news agency SarInform in the city of Saratov. Citing concerns about software piracy, they spent five hours in the office, seizing papers and an office computer that contained information on sources and stories. The agency’s director and editor offered evidence that the Microsoft software on the computer was legal, but the police officers conducting the raid refused to listen. This was nothing new—Human Rights First has determined that for the past three years authorities in Russia have been using antipiracy laws to silence nongovernmental organizations and small independent media. However, the events did not unfold according to the established pattern, because SarInform’s editor-in-cheif had a valuable ally in fighting this type of abuse—Microsoft. Earlier that very day, the company had announced a new unilateral software license to protect users like SarInform and its editor, Alexandr Urievskiy, from abuse of antipiracy laws. The prosecutor contacted Microsoft’s Moscow office, and Microsoft assured the prosecutor that the unilateral license program was real. Microsoft reached out to the editor to offer assistance with the unilateral license. Microsoft has also followed up in writing with both the prosecutor and the editor. The antipiracy charges against the editor have been dropped, and the authorities have returned the seized materials. This case is an early—and important—sign of progress in combating government abuse of antipiracy laws to curb freedom of expression, and of the new proactive role Microsoft is playing to advance that goal. Consider how a similar case was handled previously. In October 2009, the President of Youth Group for Tolerance (ETHnICS), Anastasia Denisova, was charged with software piracy. Her group, based in the southern city of Krasnodar, promotes ethnic tolerance and combats xenophobia. After Ms. Denisova had successfully defeated

tax charges filed against her in 2007, local authorities resorted to the antipiracy laws to justify confiscating three computers during a raid of space rented by ETHnICS. Ms. Denisova was badly shaken and fled Krasnodar, afraid to return to her own apartment. As a direct result of the raid, the organization lost staff, so ETHnICS could not continue its advocacy. Anastasia Denisova returned to her apartment in January 2010 to find that she was under close watch by the local authorities. Within hours, agents raided her home, seized her boyfriend’s personal computer, flash drive, and external hard drive, and interrogated her. Soon she was facing criminal prosecution, severe fines, and up to six years in jail for the purported use of unlicensed Microsoft software, in violation of Russia’s antipiracy laws. In addition, her ability to travel was restricted due to the criminal charges against her. Appeals to Microsoft’s U.S. headquarters on Ms. Denisova’s behalf went unheeded, and Microsoft’s agent in Krasnodar also declined to help her.1 Instead, he helped Russian authorities, providing damages estimates2 to the Russian police that led to criminal charges being filed against Ms. Denisova, and also assisting the prosecution at the court hearings that followed.3 By the time the criminal charges were dropped in April 2010 for lack of evidence, ETHnICS no longer was a functioning organization.4 Microsoft’s new policy to prevent selective enforcement was first announced in early September 2010, one day after the New York Times made public what Ms. Denisova already knew—that her case was not an isolated incident.5 According to the Times, a number of Russian civil society and media groups have been subjected to raids, interrogations, and confiscations similar to Ms. Denisova’s, which effectively put them out of business for months or longer.6 Some of the targeted organizations


claimed they were using licensed software at the time they were raided and their computers were confiscated. In all of those cases, the charges were dropped or convictions overturned.

identified ten civil society or independent media groups that have been investigated, harassed, or prosecuted since 2007 for allegedly using unlicensed software in violation of Russia’s antipiracy laws.10

Software piracy is a serious problem in Russia, and Microsoft Corporation has a legitimate interest in ensuring enforcement of intellectual property laws. Microsoft has well-developed global strategies to protect its intellectual property and to guard against counterfeiting.7 The company reportedly spends more than $10 million a year on intelligence gathering and an estimated $200 million on developing antipiracy technology.8 It employs dozens of former government intelligence agents from around the world and scientists who rely on high-tech forensics to help find and convict pirates and counterfeiters.9 Working with governments to aggressively enforce local antipiracy laws is a significant part of Microsoft’s legitimate efforts to protect the value of its intellectual property. But in today’s authoritarian Russia, it is well-known that even legitimate laws may be enforced by the government in illegitimate ways, to curtail speech and dissent. This imposes special obligations on companies to identify environments that pose special risks, to develop policies and procedures to ensure that they are able to distinguish legitimate enforcement activities from abusive ones, and to ensure that they do not facilitate those abuses.

The timing and targets of selective enforcement in the cases Human Rights First has studied make clear that they are not random incidents, initiated by one or two rogue local officials. They involve organizations engaged on issues of national importance, and the raids were timed to silence independent voices on those issues. As noted by the New York Times, Baikal Environmental Wave was raided shortly before a planned campaign to protest the reopening of a paper mill championed by Vladimir Putin. The election-monitoring group GOLOS was subjected to a raid and ongoing harassment that prevented election monitoring in four cities. The harassment resumed a year later, one week before the presidential election, inhibiting GOLOS’s work to prevent fraud in that election. A St. Petersburg newsweekly was raided on antipiracy charges and its editor detained until after the 2008 presidential election. The newspaper’s publisher said local authorities had been pressuring the paper to stop publishing pro-opposition articles during the period preceding the parliamentary and presidential elections.

With the announcement of a unilateral license and additional remedial steps and the outreach to Russian NGOs affected by these policies, Microsoft has clearly signaled its intention to make a clean break from past practice. It is critical that they do so. This report analyzes the problem that Microsoft confronted and the steps it is now taking, and offers recommendations for additional measures to curb selective enforcement—by Microsoft, the U.S. software industry, and the U.S. government.

Selective Enforcement of Russian Antipiracy Laws Working closely with Russian human rights and small independent media organizations, Human Rights First has

Human Rights First

The tactics in these cases are consistent with long-term government efforts to narrow the political space for opposition viewpoints and civil society. All told, the ten cases of selective enforcement that Human Rights First has identified had a major impact on civil society: silencing five independent news organizations, effectively shuttering an antixenophobia group and an election monitoring organization, as well as disrupting the work of a prominent environmental organization. How does a company like Microsoft find itself associated with these cases? In environments where the rule of law is weak, corruption is widespread, and civil society is under threat, a company’s policies are only as reliable as its weakest link. In this instance, that weak link appears to have been Microsoft’s local counsels who work closely with Russian officials to enforce antipiracy laws.


Microsoft retains the services of approximately forty outside counsels in Russia to assist in protecting its intellectual property rights.11 Intellectual property attorneys in Russia belong to an association that serves as an accrediting agency. Companies retain members of the association on a nonexclusive basis to represent their local interests. According to Russian civil society representatives, Russian attorneys who represent Microsoft also represent other companies, such as Adobe, Corel, and various Russian software companies. To address the volume of police requests, numbering approximately 1,500 yearly,12 Microsoft’s intellectual property counsel for all of Russia—located in Moscow—has granted these local agents powers of attorney virtually equal to his own.

provides further detail about a number of cases of selective enforcement, and the roles played by local lawyers in support of these charges.

According to Russian civil society representatives interviewed by Human Rights First, these local lawyers may often work in collaboration with local law enforcement authorities to identify targets for investigation. A “tip” may turn into a formal complaint. On this basis, local authorities typically show up at the office of a civil society organization, interrogate employees, search the premises, and seize all the office computers and related equipment.

Microsoft’s General Counsel, Brad Smith, laid out interim steps the company planned to pursue “to prevent nongovernment organizations from falling victim to nefarious actions taken in the guise of antipiracy enforcement.”14 Accepting responsibility for the company’s antipiracy work, he noted, “we want to be clear that we unequivocally abhor any attempt to leverage intellectual property rights to stifle political advocacy or pursue improper political gain. We are moving swiftly to seek to remove any incentive or ability to engage in such behavior.”15 He announced that Microsoft would in the near future offer a free, short-term unilateral license to eligible NGOs and media groups in Russia and other countries.16 He added that the company would work to transition NGOs and small independent media to its free software program by 2012.17

The role of these local lawyers becomes particularly important once an investigation has commenced and computer equipment has been seized. At that point, government authorities will enlist a third party expert to perform a damages assessment, the value of which triggers whether a civil or criminal charge can be brought. Local lawyers representing software companies are then invited to confirm the assessment of damages. (These local lawyers also have the ability to validate the existence of legal software, and to request that charges be dropped, but operate in an environment in which they are under pressure to cooperate with authorities.) Local lawyers have also played an important role in court proceedings, providing testimony, assisting the prosecution with its case, and supporting or refusing to question the accuracy of expert opinions as to the amount of damages and the validity of software. The attached chart (Appendix)

Microsoft’s Response: Addressing the Challenge The day after the New York Times exposé, Microsoft’s corporate headquarters in the United States announced that its teams around the world were gathering advice from human rights advocates on how to address issues related to selective enforcement, and that it was hiring an international law firm to conduct an independent investigation, report on conclusions, and advise the company as to appropriate measures it should take.13

On December 6, 2010, Microsoft made good on that pledge, launching its license together with additional supportive policies and programs.18 The license is available in 12 countries where selective enforcement has occurred or may be a risk: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,19 Malaysia, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.20 Microsoft explained that the new license would cover software already installed on the personal computers of eligible civil society organizations, thus ensuring that

Human Rights First


these groups have legal copies of Microsoft products.21 “Eligible NGOs must operate on a not-for-profit basis and have a mission to benefit the local community. Eligible organizations may also include small independent media, or others that hold a local public communication license, are members of a local media association, or are recognized by an international media organization.”22 In conjunction with the new license, Microsoft has established a Legal Assistance Program to help eligible NGOs document to authorities that they possess the unilateral license, and distribute information about the new license and its terms broadly across Russia, including to relevant authorities and online.23 Microsoft has also published contact details so that NGOs and others can alert the company to questions from authorities regarding the license’s coverage.24 The company has pledged to implement specific steps to ensure that its Russian lawyers are well trained in administering the new license and in engaging with relevant authorities to explain its coverage.25 Finally, Microsoft has posted on the web a list of its authorized counsel in Russia.26 In announcing the license details, the company pledged to “actively communicate the facts of the license to government officials and the legal community.”27 Microsoft consulted with Russian civil society groups in formulating its license program and related steps. In November, Human Rights First convened a meeting in New York between Russian NGOs affected by selective enforcement and Microsoft officials putting together the license program. In December, shortly after the license announcement, senior Microsoft officials responsible for the license program briefed a wider circle of Russian NGOs in Moscow. The meeting, in which Human Rights First also participated, provided an opportunity to explain the program and to answer questions about its implementation. Many of the NGOs represented were skeptical of the program. They noted the difficulties of obtaining access to the InfoDonor program, including ambiguous selection process and cumbersome administrative requirements and associated fees. It became clear from the discussion that Microsoft will need

Human Rights First

to earn the confidence of civil society through ongoing engagement and outreach.

Ensuring Effective Response: Recommended Next Steps for Microsoft Microsoft’s corrective measures put the company on a new path forward. As Microsoft already knows, it will take more than a license to address the problem of selective enforcement. The company’s public acknowledgement that nongovernmental organizations and small independent media are not appropriate targets of antipiracy enforcement is an important step. It now faces two challenges: (1) ensure that—despite the existence of the license—it is not facilitating selective antipiracy enforcement; and (2) make the temporary license work in practice and transition to a permanent software donation program. To meet these challenges credibly and effectively, Human Rights First recommends Microsoft take the following additional steps:

1. Continue and Expand Efforts to End Facilitation of Selective Enforcement of Antipiracy Laws

Make its policy clear to senior Russian officials responsible for antipiracy enforcement. Microsoft should inform Russian authorities, without delay, that it does not endorse—and will not be a party to— selective antipiracy enforcement. The most effective messengers of that position are senior Microsoft executives from the company’s headquarters in Redmond. The most important targets of that message are the Russian Procuracy and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Microsoft should establish points of contact with those agencies for ongoing dialogue as well as emergency use in the event of future raids.

Be proactive to prevent future cases of selective enforcement. Microsoft’s program is more likely to succeed if it addresses threats of selective enforce-


ment at the outset—before raids are conducted, equipment confiscated, and charges filed. To the extent it has not already done so, Microsoft’s Moscow office should promptly communicate Microsoft’s policy on selective enforcement to regional prosecutor’s offices and law enforcement agencies, and maintain regular contact to ensure the policy is fully understood and respected.

Pay special attention to the three regions where cases have arisen and Microsoft’s local lawyers had played a facilitative role—Krasnodar Krai (Southern Federal District); Irkutsk Oblast (Siberian Federal District); and Nizhny Novgorod Oblast, Samara Oblast, and Saratov Oblast (Volga Federal District). Microsoft’s Moscow office should contact the relevant regional authorities who were involved in past cases, communicate its new policy, and establish points of contact should a question or potential antipiracy claim arise involving a nonprofit or small independent media organization intended to be protected by the Microsoft program.

Have a rapid response strategy. When Microsoft obtains news of a raid in progress, it should make immediate contact with Russian authorities at the national, regional, and local level.

Stay engaged to promote prompt case resolution. After a raid has occurred, Microsoft should actively disassociate itself from the harassment by explaining the license to Russian antipiracy officers; notifying authorities that it does not seek damages; following up with the relevant officials at the supervisory level; and continuing to monitor developments at the local level, to promote transparency and a prompt resolution, which includes return of confiscated software and hardware.

2. Ensure Effectiveness of its Unilateral License and Related Programs

Supervise local representatives charged with administering the new policies. Microsoft has

stated that its lawyers in Russia will be trained to administer the unilateral license and explain its coverage to government authorities.28 Because local Microsoft lawyers in some cases helped facilitate selective enforcement in the past, Microsoft headquarters should adopt appropriate additional supervisory policies and procedures based on the findings from the independent investigation commissioned in 2010.29

Publicize the license program widely. Microsoft should post regular updates on its website about the availability of the license and the means to access it. Because internet access may be limited in more remote regions, it will be important for Microsoft to devise alternative means to publicize its license; for example, through partnerships with well-known national organizations or relevant official bodies (such as the Human Rights Ombudsman) and appropriate government agencies.

Use practical experience of civil society to strengthen effectiveness of the temporary license and ease transition to a permanent program. Human Rights First has been working with Microsoft to facilitate a dialogue among senior-level Microsoft officials in the United States and civil society representatives in Russia. The meetings in New York and Moscow established a working relationship with the company whereby civil society and independent media can provide their perspective on the implementation of Microsoft’s license and quickly report developments, including new cases of selective enforcement against NGOs and small independent media covered by Microsoft’s license. Microsoft should use these facilitated relationships to: (1) strengthen its responses to cases of selective enforcement; (2) troubleshoot issues arising in the license program; and (3) ensure a smooth transition to the permanent software donation program. In particular, to reach those intended beneficiaries of the license and any future permanent donation program, Microsoft should continue consultations

Human Rights First


with nongovernmental organizations and human rights experts.30

Encourage other software companies active in Russia to adopt similar policies and programs. The local Microsoft lawyers implicated in previous selective enforcement cases also represent the other software companies active in Russia. The impact of Microsoft’s license program will be compromised if these local lawyers continue to participate in cases of selective enforcement on behalf of other companies. It will be particularly difficult for Microsoft to promote its policy in an environment where raids continue, computers are seized, and civil society groups and independent media are prosecuted and silenced for political reasons. Human Rights First is prepared to work with Microsoft to bring the problem of selective enforcement to the attention of other software companies active in Russia and elsewhere in an effort to ensure that these companies do not facilitate selective enforcement cases.

Engage the Business Software Alliance to ensure that companies do not facilitate selective antipiracy enforcement. Microsoft is a founding member of the Business Software Alliance, a U.S. software trade association. Microsoft should engage the Business Software Association to promote the adoption by the Alliance and its member software companies of policies and programs to address selective enforcement.

Communicate clear plans for the transition from temporary license to permanent software donation program. Microsoft intends to replace its temporary license program with a permanent software donation program by 2012.31 Russian NGOs have encountered difficulties with accessing Microsoft’s existing software donation program, in particular, the administrative and eligibility requirements. In addition, they have expressed concerns about further exposure to legal harassment from receiving donated software, for example, through enforcement of Russian tax laws. Microsoft needs to work through these problems—in close consultation with civil society groups in Russia—to ensure that organizations receive the benefit without unanticipated risk or costs.

3. Promote Software Industry Engagement on the Selective Enforcement Issue Human Rights First believes that Microsoft’s experience in Russia presents a unique opportunity to promote wider software industry engagement on the potential abuse by authoritarian governments of antipiracy laws, both in Russia and elsewhere, and in the process, help ensure the success of the Microsoft program. Other U.S.—and non-U.S.—software manufacturers are also potential facilitators of selective enforcement and harassment in Russia. Of the ten cases identified, one involved Corel software. Russian NGOs interviewed by HRF indicate that Adobe is widely used—particularly by small independent media—raising concerns about another potential mechanism of enforcement abuse. The popular antivirus software produced by Kaspersky Lab, a Russian company, may also be an attractive alternative to the authorities. Based on its experience, Microsoft could lead its industry by taking the following steps on the business-to-business level:

Human Rights First

Companies Can’t Go It Alone—What the U.S. Government Can Do to Curb Selective Enforcement in Russia In December 2010, Microsoft, Human Rights First, and Russian civil society representatives met with the U.S. Embassy Moscow officials responsible for trade and investment, political and economic issues, and human rights. At that meeting, U.S. officials made clear that they opposed selective enforcement. Human Rights First believes that the U.S. Embassy is well positioned to reinforce and complement efforts by Microsoft (and potentially other software companies) to address selective


enforcement by (1) advising U.S. companies on the underlying political dynamics that lead to repression of civil society and selective enforcement in Russia; (2) making clear to the Russian government that U.S. efforts to promote intellectual property enforcement should not be misconstrued to encourage selective enforcement or harassment of civil society groups and independent media; and (3) convening civil society organizations and private companies to maintain ongoing attention to this issue and provide support for efforts to address selective enforcement. The U.S. government has actively encouraged Russia’s enforcement of antipiracy laws and adoption of stronger intellectual property protections under a bilateral agreement. The United States Government also provides training for Russian intellectual property enforcement authorities and holds regular working group meetings to review progress. The cases discussed in this report—and outlined in the attached chart in the Appendix—bring to light the challenges associated with antipiracy enforcement in environments where rule of law is not respected and there is a history of the application of legitimate laws in illegitimate ways to repress political opposition and other civil society voices. This history is chronicled in the annual State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. In addition, U.S. foreign and commercial service officers monitor and report publicly on Russia’s efforts to enforce intellectual property rights. There are several annual reports to Congress on foreign trade barriers and intellectual property enforcement. The annual National Trade Estimates Report, issued in March by the Commerce Department, reviews foreign trade barriers and compliance with international trade norms, including intellectual property protection and enforcement. The Special 301 Report, prepared by the U.S. Trade Representative, is an annual review of the state of global intellectual property rights protection and enforcement, and informs U.S. trade policy and technical assistance priorities. For several years, Russia has been among a

small number of countries highlighted for special concern and attention in these reports. To support and reinforce Microsoft’s position on selective antipiracy enforcement and to ensure that U.S. human rights and trade policies are not working at cross purposes, the U.S. government should:

Urge Russian officials to end selective enforcement. The U.S. Ambassador in Moscow should ensure that the Embassy officers for political and commercial affairs understand the distinction between legitimate antipiracy and abusive selective enforcement, and are familiar with Microsoft’s program and strategy. They should reinforce the U.S. position with the the Procuracy and the Ministry of Interior at the national, regional, and local levels.

Use ongoing training and technical assistance related to IP enforcement activities to clarify the distinction between legitimate antipiracy enforcement and abusive selective enforcement. Embassy officials responsible for promoting improved intellectual property enforcement efforts should incorporate the topic of selective enforcement into intellectual property enforcement training and technical assistance programs, and include it as an agenda item in ongoing workshops. The establishment of a working group, recommended by a recently released report of the U.S. National Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, provides an additional opportunity for coordination and oversight.

Human Rights First


Coordinate trade and human rights reporting on this issue to ensure a clear and consistent message underlining the distinction between legitimate antipiracy enforcement and illegitimate selective prosecution. The Commerce Department and the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office should include in their annual trade reports information on politically motivated antipiracy enforcement; and their message should parallel and support the State Department’s country human rights reports that outline U.S. opposition to selective enforcement. U.S. Congress should ensure that the information is included in the reports, and reinforce U.S. policy by including the selective enforcement issue as part of the oversight by the committees on the process of enforcement of antipiracy laws abroad, including by convening hearings or otherwise engaging law enforcement specialists, representatives of IT companies, and human rights experts.

Maintain regular contact on this issue with civil society representatives and software companies in Russia and elsewhere, as appropriate. The Embassy should consider regular meetings on this issue to promote exchange of information and coordinated, effective responses to selective enforcement. The Embassy can help monitor and respond to developments, and speak out as necessary on behalf of targeted groups in the event future cases are brought. This work would help advance U.S. human rights goals of protecting freedom of expression and association, while supporting U.S. companies seeking to operate legitimate businesses in unstable environments.

Human Rights First


Annex The Bigger Picture: Incorporating Respect for Human Rights into Corporate Policies and Procedures All companies face the same problem across the globe: how to operate responsibly where governments fail to respect the rule of law and use the law to violate fundamental rights. Companies operating in such environments should not be content to rely on after-thefact fixes once these rights have been violated. They must anticipate attempts by governments to undermine human rights and have procedures in place to counter such violations, or at least ensure that they are not complicit in them. In short, companies must provide their agents on the ground with both the will and the means to identify and resist government actions that place human rights at risk, not just in Russia but wherever they operate. Microsoft is not the only Information and Communications Technology (ICT) company that has confronted hard choices posed by repressive governments. For years, ICT companies operating in China have been pressured to support government surveillance and censorship of the Internet. In 2004, in response to a government demand, Yahoo! provided Chinese authorities with email account information for journalist Shi Tao, which led to his arrest and imprisonment.32 In explaining why it handed over Shi Tao’s website user information to the authorities, Yahoo! maintained it was merely complying with local laws.33 Yahoo! apologized to Tao’s wife and mother during U.S. Congressional hearings on the matter in 2007.34 But Tao continues to serve out his ten-year prison sentence in a Chinese jail.35 Google, too, has had to make hard choices in responding to Chinese censorship demands.36 In February 2006, the company announced that it would acquiesce in China’s censorship demands, explaining that even censored

search results would provide Chinese users with more information than they would otherwise have.37 Four years later, in 2010, the company announced it would stop censoring results on its Chinese search engine.38 It then began directing users in China to its uncensored search engine in Hong Kong.39 In addressing its operations in China, Google’s chief legal officer acknowledged that “figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring searches on google.cn has been hard.”40 Canadian company Research in Motion (RIM) recently allowed filtering of search services in Indonesia, justified on public morality grounds. This is not the first time RIM has been confronted with such demands from a government. RIM faced a difficult choice in India late in 2010 after the government threatened to shut down access to RIM’s services in India if the company did not change its data encryption procedures to make it easier for the state authorities to monitor encrypted traffic between devices and RIM’s Canadian server.41 RIM maintained that it would not alter its standards for security to meet the demands of specific countries and months later stated that it was confident there would be no ban on its services in India.42 RIM has encountered similar demands from governments in other countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, but maintains that it does not allow any third party, including the company itself, to read information sent over its network.43 ICT companies operating globally can expect that governments will continue to make demands that infringe users’ free speech and privacy rights or in other ways violate fundamental freedoms. Such companies need to develop the tools necessary to respond. Just as companies have established policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that their financial and accounting operations meet rigorous domestic and

Human Rights First


international standards, so, too, they must establish the same type of policies, procedures and internal controls to ensure that their human rights operations meet rigorous domestic and international standards. Having strong procedures in place to address the human rights impact of their business practices and resist demands that encroach on those rights would result in far less cost to targeted groups and avoid the need for costly damage control following a violation.

Human Rights Impact Assessments As a first step toward human rights compliance, ICT companies should conduct human rights impact assessments in countries where they operate. This is particularly important in those countries where rule of law is weak and corruption is entrenched. Such assessments should review national laws, as well as how such laws are actually enforced. Companies should use that information to determine the likely human rights impact of their operations in specific environments, and to develop appropriate risk mitigation strategies for use when responding to questionable government demands, entering new markets, conducting due diligence before doing business with partners in at-risk environments, and developing new technologies and products.44 To account for changes in laws, regulation, and operating climate, the human rights impact assessments that companies perform should be updated periodically.45 New procedures should be implemented to incorporate steps proven to work and eliminate those that were less effective.46 In Microsoft’s case, this could mean reviewing the results of the independent investigation it has commissioned, reviewing information obtained from its dialogue with members of Russia civil society, and using the new information to inform ongoing antipiracy practices in Russia.

Human Rights First

Adoption of Internal Compliance Mechanisms As part of an effective human rights compliance program, companies should adopt written policies and procedures that ensure respect for human rights. Additionally, companies should (i) train employees and third party agents in the adopted procedures; (ii) document government demands that impact human rights and company responses; (iii) provide for escalation to headquarters of particularly sensitive or difficult requests; (iv) actively monitor compliance with the company’s practices and procedures; and (v) review them periodically so they can be upgraded and adjusted as needed to track performance, account for emerging patterns, and identify and promote successful responses.47 Companies should also establish a complaint mechanism for anonymous reporting of human rights concerns in each country of operation.48

Headquarters Level Oversight of Global Operation Accountability for human rights in all aspects of a company’s operations begins and ends at the top. As a result, it is imperative that senior-level company officers from headquarters are tasked with responsibility for overseeing the company’s global human rights operations. These officers should focus special attention on countries where human rights impact assessments indicate a high potential for abuse, e.g., countries where a combination of weak or corrupt governance and unfavorable conditions for human rights exist. As Microsoft’s experience in Russia demonstrates, headquarters cannot delegate all human rights compliance responsibility to local employees, agents, or lawyers. Senior officials at headquarters need to stay closely involved to monitor whether the company’s business conduct and interactions with government authorities are consistent with its stated human rights objectives, and whether actions taken by or on behalf of the company promote or violate the rights of local


citizens. This requires periodic reviews of region and country-specific staff to ensure that staff in remote offices adhere to the same standards of professionalism expected at headquarters. Local employees also should be made aware of the results of human rights impact assessments with respect to risks to freedom of expression and privacy and be kept apprised of new developments.49 Staff should be trained with respect to their interactions with government officials and be educated as to ways governments may seek to manipulate legitimate laws in illegitimate ways. Finally, they should understand how to use the company’s internal reporting procedures to alert senior-level officials when necessary.50

Collaboration with Others Companies facing common problems can work together and with local governments to devise common understandings and solutions. Companies in the ICT sector have come together through the Global Network Initiative (GNI), a multistakeholder coalition designed to address efforts by governments to pressure information and telecommunications companies to comply with government policies that violate freedom of expression and privacy.51 The GNI brings together companies, NGOs, investors, and academics to create a united network designed to facilitate communication, the sharing of ideas, and to help devise effective responses when faced

with difficult issues.52 Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft are founding members of GNI.53 Companies also should find ways to make expectations regarding respect for human rights clear to national governments in countries where they operate. In Russia, for instance, Microsoft is helping to ensure its license program is effective by making clear to government authorities that it no longer will participate in antipiracy cases involving nongovernmental organizations and small independent media. Finally, companies should engage with activists and dissidents who are most at risk in undemocratic regimes because victims of oppressive government tactics often are aware of problems well before they are publicized. Working together with such groups will help companies anticipate and prepare to respond more effectively to abusive government demands. Working together also will help companies gain credibility in the communities where they offer products and services. As part of this outreach to end users, it is advisable for companies to publicize information about their corporate social responsibility programs on their websites in local languages around the world. In order to avoid being exploited by governments aiming to crush dissent, companies must plan ahead and devise ways to integrate respect for human rights throughout business operations around the globe.

Human Rights First


Appendix

Chart of Case Studies of Selective Antipiracy Investigations in Russia These materials were prepared based on interviews with civil society and publicly available information. Where these source materials are incomplete or inconsistent, we have attempted to provide enough information to enable the reader to evaluate the information accordingly. We provide this information to illustrate a pattern of abuse of laws targeting civil society and independent media in Russia and to show the human rights impact of such abuse. Organization

Date of Contact

Software at Issue

Type of Contact and Resulting Charges

Contact with MS / Role of MS Rep

Impact on Organization

Final Disposition

Baikal Environmental Wave, Irkutsk (environmental NGO)

1.28.2010

Microsoft (“MS”)

• Police raid without warrant; all computers of organization seized

• Leaders sent letters and documents to MS-US and MS-RU to prove use of licensed software

• Lost access to computers for approx 6 months (until 7.2010)

On 10.29.2010, BEW received letter from Russian investigators saying charges against BEW were dropped on 9.22.2010

• Staff charged with obstructing justice for attempting to stop seizure

• MS-RU said it would provide documents to RU government to determine if laws were violated • Approx 5 months after raid, RU investigators reportedly contacted new MS-RU rep in region; approx 1 month later, BEW’s computers were returned • After New York Times article in 9.2010, MS-RU head intellectual property attorney, Alexander Strakh, met with leaders • After meeting, MS-RU wrote to BEW and said they would ask RU authorities to drop charges; MS-RU urged RU authorities to drop charges against BEW

• 1 returned computer was disabled by viruses and 1 returned computer would not turn on; BEW suspects data was copied • Years’ worth of files were inaccessible for approx 6 months and website was disabled • Police visited homes of former employees at all hours and discussed private lives of BEW leaders and employees • Authorities publicly disparaged BEW and its leaders


Organization

Date of Contact

Software at Issue




Final Disposition

ETHnICS, Krasnodar (youth group to promote tolerance, NGO)

• 10.12.2009

• MS

• 1.11.2010

• Corel

• Police raid of private space rented by President Anastasia Denisova under assumption that space was ETHnICS office; warrant listed different address altogether; 3 computers confiscated

• MS-RU rep reportedly confirmed inflated damages estimates

• Lost access to computers for approx 10 months until 7.2010

• MS-RU rep reportedly participated in closedcourt hearings for which he was not summoned and assisted prosecution

• Organization is still legal entity but no longer functions

Criminal charges were dropped in April 2010 due to lack of evidence (approx 7 months after raid of office)

• Police raid of Denisova’s home; seized boyfriend’s laptop, flash drive and external hard-drive • Criminal charges against Denisova for illegal use, storage, and transportation of pirated software even though the seized computers belonged neither to Denisova nor to ETHnICS

• In response to inquiry by human rights orgs to MSUS and MS-RU, Strakh wrote letters to human rights orgs saying MS was aware of alleged targeting of civil society and was looking into situation but maintained that MS-RU reps act according to Russian law and denied that MS-RU reps instigated case • Human rights orgs reportedly met with Strakh • Journalists reportedly tried to reach MS-RU rep but received no response

Samarskaya Gazeta, Samara (newspaper)

2.2009

MS

Police raid; nine computers confiscated

Editor reportedly contacted MS-RU but MS-RU took no action

• Denisova was forced to flee Krasnodar for approx 3 months due to personal safety concerns • Denisova could not travel once criminal charges were brought • Staff left the organization • Denisova currently works for SOVA Center for Information and Analysis and collaborates with Youth Human Rights Movement, but continues to be targeted and is concerned about her ability to work in Krasnodar in the future Editor has had difficulty finding work

N/A

Human Rights First


Organization

Date of Contact

Software at Issue




Final Disposition

Moscow Islamic University, Moscow (academic institution)

10.8.2008

N/A

• Police search publishing office of University; 4 computers and 50 CDs of computer data seized

N/A

N/A

Ezhayev found guilty of copyright violations and use of harmful software by district court in Moscow and fined 50,000 rubles (approx. $1600 USD) in 7.2009

• Some confiscated material produced to Prosecutor’s office as evidence against head of Publishing Department, Aslambek Ezhayev • Criminal charges against Ezhayev for improper use of copyrighted items and harmful software brought in 3.2009 Minuty Veka, St. Petersburg (weekly newspaper)

2.2008

MS

Police raid of newspaper and publishing house offices; all 6 computers seized from newsroom

When questioned by the Committee to Protect Journalists, MS-US said they were “looking into whether the paper had licenses for its software” but did not stop investigation

Publication of newspaper interrupted

N/A

Tolyattinskoye Obozreniye, Samara (newspaper)

2.1.2008

MS

Police seized all 20 computers on charges of pirated software

N/A

N/A

N/A

Tolerance Support Foundation, Nizhny Novgorod (NGO)

• 8.29.2007

N/A

• 8.29.2007: Police raid offices, all computers seized

N/A

• Director and Consultant had to seek assistance of human rights organizations

• N/A

• 10.6.2007 • 3.20.2008

• 10.2.2007: Criminal investigation against Director and Consultant opened • 10.6.2007: Police search for pirated software, CDs seized and Consultant detained • 3.20.2008: Police raid, all computers seized, office sealed, cell phone confiscated

Human Rights First

• Following 8.29.2007 raid, organization unable to continue work until it purchased replacement computers 10 days later at significant cost


Organization

Date of Contact

Software at Issue




Final Disposition

GOLOS, Samara (voters’ rights NGO)

5.2007

Unknown (some reports say Director Lyudmila Kuzmina used unlicensed software; others say charges were unfounded)

• Multiple police searches of offices; computers seized and premises sealed

N/A

• Election monitoring activities suspended until after federal election in 2008

Charges dropped in 3.2008, just after elections (approx 10 months after raid)

• Criminal investigation; Kuzmina charged with violation of intellectual property laws

• Kuzmina could not leave Samara • Kuzmina successfully sued authorities for the invasive investigation and recovered 20,000 rubles (approx $845 USD) in 6.2008

• Kuzmina questioned extensively and forced to undergo psychiatric exam and drug testing • Search of Kuzmina’s home on suspicion of “terrorist activities”

Volgainform, Samara (online news publication; local affiliate of Regnum News Agency)

5.11.2007

MS

• Police raid; Computers seized; back-dated warrant produced later • Criminal charges against Editor Liudmila Kotova • Damages assessed 52,000 rubles (approx $2,010 USD) • Investigation opened against Volgainform 10.2007

N/A

• Lost access to office computers until 4.2008 (approx 11 months); used personal computers • Reduced coverage from 17 to 5 regions • Staff questioned; staff, family and friends received threats; staff went from 29 to 3 • Credibility damaged; newspaper struggles to survive and may close

• Charges against Kotova dropped for lack of evidence in 8.2007 • Civil society reps think investigation against Volgainform may still be pending; no one has been charged

• Kotova successfully sued authorities for pain and suffering and recovered 10,000 rubles (approx $425 USD) in 2008

Human Rights First


Organization

Date of Contact

Software at Issue




Final Disposition

Novaya Gazeta, Samara (newspaper)

• 5.11.2007

• MS

• 11.2007

• Adobe

• Police raid, office searched twice; Computers seized

• MS-RU rep has been accused of playing a role in initial complaint and damages assessment

• Lost access to office and personal computers and Kurt-Adzhiyev left

• Kurt-Adzhiyev found guilty of using nonlicensed software in 2008 by district court; fined 15,000 rubles (approx $580 USD)

• 1C (Russian software)

Human Rights First

• Editor Sergey Kurt-Adzhiyev arrested, detained and charged criminally

• MS-RU rep reportedly testified at trial of KurtAdzhiyev that software was pirated and assisted prosecution

• Spent time and resources defending against charges • Local office forced to close after 11.2007 raid • Staff were searched and monitored by authorities

• Kurt-Adzhiyev appealed and was found not guilty in 2.2011 by Samara’s Oktyabar district court. Court ordered RU Finance Ministry to pay KurtAdzhiyev 450,000 rubles (approx $15,200 USD) for incorrectly charging him with the use of pirated software


Endnotes

1

Lyudmila Alexeeva, “Open Letter to Microsoft Corporation,” Moscow Helsinki Group, March 2010, http://denisova.yhrm.org/en/microsoft; Oleg Orlov and Elena Panfilova, “Letter to Craig Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Office, Microsoft Corporation and Brad Smith, Senior Vice President, Microsoft Corporation,” Memorial and Transparency International, March 2010, http://denisova.yhrm.org/en/Microsoft; also interviews conducted by Human Rights First with civil society organizations.

2

Youth Human Rights Movement, “Campaign in Support of Anastasia Denisova: Role of Microsoft in the Criminal Case against Anastasia Denisova, Youth Human Rights Movement,” April 2010, http://denisova.yhrm.org/en/Microsoft.

3

Information derived from public sources as well as interviews conducted by Human Rights First with civil society organizations.

4

Youth Human Rights Movement, “Campaign in Support of Anastasia Denisova: Role of Microsoft in the Criminal Case against Anastasia Denisova, Youth Human Rights Movement,” April 2010, http://denisova.yhrm.org/en/Microsoft.

5

Clifford J. Levy, “Russia Uses Microsoft to Suppress Dissent,” the New York Times, September 11, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/world/europe/12raids.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1; Brad Smith, “Antipiracy Enforcement and NGOs,” The Official Microsoft Blog, September 13, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/13/anti-piracy-enforcement-andngos.aspx.

6

Clifford J. Levy, “Russia Uses Microsoft to Suppress Dissent,” the New York Times, September 11, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/world/europe/12raids.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1.

7

Ashlee Vance, “Chasing Pirates: Inside Microsoft’s War Room,” the New York Times, November 7, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/technology/07piracy.html.

8

Ibid.

9

Ibid.

10

Human Rights First, “Chart of Case Studies of Selective Antipiracy Investigations in Russia,” December 6, 2010, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/Russia_Anti-Piracy-Cases_Chart.pdf.

11

Brad Smith, “Antipiracy Enforcement and NGOs,” The Official Microsoft Blog, September 13, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/13/anti-piracy-enforcement-and-ngos.aspx; and interviews conducted by Human Rights First with civil society organizations.

12

Alexander Strakh, “Letter to Lyudmila Alexeeva, Chair, Moscow Helsinki Group,” Microsoft Corporation, April 13, 2010, http://denisova.yhrm.org/sites/default/files/moscow_helsinki_group_letter.pdf, p. 2.

13

Brad Smith, “Antipiracy Enforcement and NGOs,” The Official Microsoft Blog, September 13, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/13/anti-piracy-enforcement-and-ngos.aspx.

14

Ibid.

15

Ibid.

16

Ibid.

17

Ibid.

18

Nancy Anderson, “Microsoft Announces Immediate Availability of Unilateral Software License for Eligible Organizations,” The Official Microsoft Blog, December 6, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2010/12/06/microsoft-announces-immediate-availability-ofunilateral-software-license-for-eligible-organizations.aspx.

Human Rights First


Nancy Anderson, “Microsoft’s NGO Software License,” The Official Microsoft Blog, September 23, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/23/microsoft-s-ngo-software-license.aspx; Danny O'Brien “Microsoft, piracy, and independent media in Kyrgyzstan,” Committee to Protect Journalists Blog, April 14, 2010, http://cpj.org/blog/2010/04/microsoft-piracy-andindependent-media-in-kyrgyzst.php; International Freedom of Expression Exchange, “Newspaper suspended, TV station raided,” Press Release, Apr. 6, 2010, http://www.ifex.org/kyrgyzstan/2010/04/06/opposition_news_targeted. At the time of the raid, Stan TV had been covering a growing opposition movement critical of Kyrgyzstan President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. During the course of the raid, all of Stan TV’s computers, as well as the personal laptops of the station’s journalists, were seized under the pretext that they contained pirated Microsoft software. The determination that the computers contained pirated software was made by an individual who accompanied the police in the raid and who claimed to be a representative of Microsoft. When asked about Microsoft’s role in this purported piracy investigation, Microsoft stated that Mr. Pavlovsky had represented Microsoft in previous enforcement actions, but that his participation in the raid of Stan TV had not been at the behest of Microsoft. See also Jeffrey Carr, “Microsoft Denial on Kyrgyzstan Censorship Conflicts with the Facts,” Forbes Blog, April 14, 2010, http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/04/14/microsoftdenial-on-kyrgyzstan-censorship-conflicts-with-the-facts/.

19

20

. In Moldova and Georgia NGOs reportedly have received threats that they could be the next victims of selective enforcement schemes relating to software piracy, however, these countries are not yet included amongst those that will receive the unilateral license.

21

See Smith, supra note 5.

22

Nancy Anderson, “Microsoft’s NGO Software License,” The Official Microsoft Blog, September 23, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2010/09/23/microsoft-s-ngo-software-license.aspx.

23


24

Ibid.

25

Ibid.

26

Ibid.

27

Nancy Anderson, “Microsoft Announces Immediate Availability of Unilateral Software License for Eligible Organizations,” The Official Microsoft Blog, December 6, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2010/12/06/microsoft-announces-immediate-availability-ofunilateral-software-license-for-eligible-organizations.aspx.

28


29

Ibid.

30

Microsoft’s unilateral license states that it covers NGOs operating on a not-for-profit basis that “have a mission to benefit the local community” and “small newspapers, independent media, or others that hold a local public communication license, are members of a local media association, or are recognized by an international media organization.” Nancy Anderson, “Microsoft Announces Immediate Availability of Unilateral Software License for Eligible Organizations,” The Official Microsoft Blog, December 6, 2010, http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2010/12/06/microsoft-announces-immediate-availability-of-unilateral-softwarelicense-for-eligible-organizations.aspx.

31


32

BBC, “See Yahoo ‘helped jail China writer,’” BBC News, September 7, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4221538.stm; and The Associated Press, “Yahoo Criticized in Case of Jailed Dissident¸” the New York Times, November 7, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/technology/07yahoo.html.

33

BBC, “See Yahoo ‘helped jail China writer,’” BBC News, September 7, 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4221538.stm.

34

The Associated Press, “Yahoo Criticized in Case of Jailed Dissident¸” the New York Times, November 7, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/technology/07yahoo.html.

35

Tony Cruz, “Yahoo - Poster Boy for Internet Censorship,” Human Rights Now: the Amnesty International USA Web Log, July 1, 2010, http://blog.amnestyusa.org/business/yahoo-poster-boy-for-internet-censorship/.

Human Rights First


36

Editorial, “Google vs. China,” the Washington Post, January 14, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011302908.html.

37

Miguel Helft and David Barboza, “Google Shuts China Cite in Dispute Over Censorship,” the New York Times, March 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html; and United States House of Representative, Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Africa, Global and Human Rights and Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, “Testimony of Google Inc.,” 2006, http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-china.html.

38

Miguel Helft and David Barboza, “Google Shuts China Cite in Dispute Over Censorship,” the New York Times, March 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html.

39

Ibid.

40

Ibid.

41

Daniel Emery, “India threatens to suspend Blackberry by 31 August,” BBC News, August 13, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology10951607.

42

Ibid.; and Devout Tripathy and Jui Chakravorty, “RIM sees no ban on India Blackberry services,” Reuters, November 23, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM2W920101123.

43

Daniel Emery, “India threatens to suspend Blackberry by 31 August,” BBC News, August 13, 2010, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology10951607.

44

Global Network Initiative, “Implementation Guidelines for the Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy,” GNI, http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php.

45

John Ruggie, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Business & Human Rights, “Keynote Address at Center for International Private Enterprise Conference: Engaging Business: Addressing Respect for Human Rights,” February 25, 2010, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg/CSRI/newsandstories/Ruggie_Atlanta.pdf, p. 4.

46

Global Network Initiative, “Implementation Guidelines for the Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy,” GNI, http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/implementationguidelines/index.php.

47

Ibid.

48

Ibid.

49

Ibid.

50

Ibid.

51

Global Network Initiative Website, http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org.

52

Ibid.

53

Ibid.

Human Rights First

Headquarters

Washington D.C. Office

333 Seventh Avenue 13th Floor New York, NY 10001-5108

100 Maryland Avenue, NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002-5625

Tel.: 212.845.5200 Fax: 212.845.5299

Tel: 202.547.5692 Fax: 202.543.5999

www.humanrightsfirst.org