It’s not yet clear whether Beijing delayed the order because PC makers were having trouble supplying all new machines with the program or in reaction to the international outcry over it. In a letter to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last week, an international group of business associations that includes most of the world’s major technology companies, called upon China to abandon the plan, which it said “raises serious concerns for us and seems to run counter to China’s important goal of becoming a vibrant and dynamic information-based society.”

“According to complaints from many residents, Google’s English language search engine has spread large amounts of vulgar content that is lascivious and pornographic, seriously violating China’s relevant laws and regulations,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regularly scheduled news conference. “I’d like to stress that google.com, as an Internet enterprise providing services in China, should earnestly abide by Chinese laws and regulations.”

The disruption of Google (GOOG) services follows a widely criticized mandate from Beijing requiring all computers sold in the country to include Green Dam, an application designed to prevent citizens from viewing “offensive” content, which in the Chinese government’s case includes all manner of material. From a report by the Open Net Initiative, an academic consortium dedicated to the study of censorship and surveillance:

The version of the Green Dam software that we tested, when operating under its default settings, is far more intrusive than any other content control software we have reviewed. Not only does it block access to a wide range of web sites based on keywords and image processing, including porn, gaming, gay content, religious sites and political themes, it actively monitors individual computer behavior, such that a wide range of programs including word processing and email can be suddenly terminated if content algorithm detects inappropriate speech. The program installs components deep into the kernel of the computer operating system in order to enable this application layer monitoring. The operation of the software is highly unpredictable and disrupts computer activity far beyond the blocking of websites.

…The deeply intrusive nature of the software opens up several possibilities for use other than filtering material harmful to minors. With minor changes introduced through the auto-update feature, the architecture could be used for monitoring personal communications and Internet browsing behavior. Log files are currently recorded locally on the machine, including events and keywords that trigger filtering. The auto-update feature can used to change the scope and targeting of filtering without any notification to users.

While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies.”

– Rep. Tom Lantos (D., Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, to Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and General Counsel Michael Callaghan, Nov. 6, 2007

Yahoo’s public shaming before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last November apparently had quite an effect on Internet companies cooperating with Chinese government censorship and demands for information on dissidents. Less than a year after that brutal Capitol Hill humiliation, during which Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D., Calif.) lambasted Yahoo’s leadership as moral “pygmies,” Yahoo (YHOO), along with Microsoft (MSFT) and Google (GOOG), is introducing a code of conduct that will govern their business practices in repressive countries. The Global Network Initiative, as it’s called, commits the companies to a general support for freedom of expression on the Internet, requiring them to at least try to “avoid or minimize the impact of government restrictions on freedom of expression” and to “narrowly interpret and implement government demands that compromise privacy.”

“The idea is that we believe the guidelines will need to be reviewed, and we will have to revise them as we take into account the actual experience,” said Sharon Hom, executive director of Human Rights in China, which helped draft the initiative. “It envisions an ongoing process of learning and sharing best practices.”

That’s a great step forward for firms like Google, which censors its search results in China, and Yahoo, which handed over emails to the Chinese government that led to the imprisonment of two journalists. But with no bans or sanctions on any specific conduct and most of its key guidelines left entirely up to interpretation, The Global Network Initiative seems more like an effort on the part of the participating companies to avoid legislation on their conduct abroad than anything else–a “We Promise to Be Good if You’ll Just Leave Us Alone” code, if you will. “After two years of effort, they have ended up with so little,” said Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA. “It is really very little more than a broad statement of support for a general principle without any concrete backup mechanism to ensure that the guidelines will be followed.”

Prodded into action by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Verizon (VZ), Sprint (S) and Time Warner Cable (TWX) have agreed to block Web sites identified by Cuomo as ones that disseminate child pornography. They’ve also agreed to restrict access nationwide to most, and in the case of Time Warner Cable all, of Usenet’s discussion groups, most of which are not repositories of illegal material. To repeat, Time Warner will now block all of USENET.

“It’s going to make a significant difference,” Cuomo said of the agreement. “It’s like the issue of drugs. You can attack the users or the suppliers. This is turning off the faucet. Does it solve the problem? No. But is it a major step forward? Yes. And it’s ongoing. No one is saying you’re supposed to be the policemen on the Internet, but there has to be a paradigm where you cooperate with law enforcement, or if you have notice of a potentially criminal act, we deem you responsible to an extent. This literally threatens our children, and there can be no higher priority than keeping our children safe.”

Of course. A noble effort, this curtailing of access to child pornography. It would just be unfortunate if it became the first step in widespread Internet censorship.

I’m pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in China. Google has a far superior track record than other Internet or Internet search companies in China.”

–Google co-founder Sergey Brin adjusts the company’s informal corporate motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “Don’t be AS evil” for the Chinese market.

AT&T initially characterized the deletion of unkind statements about the White House from Pearl Jam’s performance as “an unfortunate mistake” and “an isolated incident.” But after music fans pointed out that the company deleted remarks critical of the Bush administration from its Webcast of the Bonnaroo Festival as well, AT&T came clean. “It’s not our intent to edit political comments in Webcasts on the Blue Room,” said AT&T spokesman Michael Coe. “Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to insure that it will not happen again.”

AT&T’s mea culpa, though seemingly earnest, didn’t carry much weight with Net-neutrality advocates, who said the incidents highlight the need for regulations barring large telephone and cable companies from excercising too much control over the data transmitted over their networks. “AT&T is really getting into its role as content nanny in a big way,” Art Brodsky, communications director for Public Knowledge, wrote in the Huffington Post. “First, it starts monitoring all sorts of conversations for the National Security Agency. Then it promises to work with the movie studios and NBC to come up with some super software to tag copyrighted material that flows through its network, regardless of how that content is used. Now it puts ‘content monitors’ on its Webcasts. We must ask: This is the company that wants to be left alone to run the Internet as it sees fit? The corporate officials of AT&T like to give speeches and to tell the FCC and Congress that they won’t block people’s access to content. They made that promise when they bought BellSouth for $80 billion last year. Former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre made it in a speech last March. They protest too much. Despite the denials from Whitacre and others in the telecom industry, this incident is just one more count in the indictment. Millions of people all over the country have signed petitions and told the government that they don’t want companies like AT&T to have control over what goes over the Internet. If you have to ask why, this is why.”

Sad, isn’t it? Although to be fair, Yahoo’s shareholders were just doing what they’d been told: The company’s board urged them to oppose the proposals in its annual proxy statement. “Yahoo! is committed to preserving and advancing the fundamental principles of free speech and expression, and … has already adopted policies to promote open access to information and communication for users of the company’s services around the world. The board of directors believes the company’s existing policies, which were carefully developed by Yahoo’s management team, provide the company with the flexibility and resources to comply with applicable laws and, at the same time, protect and advance these important freedoms.”

And what “existing policies” would those be? Turning over political dissidents’ emails to the Chinese government?

Indeed, with the sophisticated filtering techniques available today, it’s a simple matter for repressive regimes to, say, disrupt access to opposition media at strategic moments during and after a presidential election, or knock out YouTube. “In the early days, countries used relatively crude blocking mechanisms at the national backbone level, or imposed restrictions upon ISPs that were applied in uneven ways,” Deibert told Technology Review. “Now we see first and foremost that many countries are using commercial filtering technologies, most of which are made by U.S. companies. That’s providing them with a finer-grain level of service.”