China's Net police should worry US firms
Don't talk to Harry Wu about human rights. The term has been pummeled into mush by pundits and self-serving tyrants, and Wu, a geologist who survived 19 years in a Chinese prison, isn't the mushy sort. He prefers to talk about the cold, hard text of American law, which he thinks is being flouted by US technology companies eager to make a buck in China.
''It is quite simple," said Wu, now an American citizen and human rights activist. ''American business is not allowed to sell or export any equipment related to crime control to China."
He's right: A law passed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown put a stop to such trade.
Yet Wu says Cisco Systems Inc., one of the world's leading data networking companies, is selling advanced gear to Chinese police agencies. This equipment has all manner of benign uses; it can improve communications between police stations, and ensure that cops respond faster to emergencies. But Cisco gear could also help the government block ''subversive" Web pages, record ''suspicious" e-mails, or tap the Internet phone calls of a billion Chinese.
Never mind the human rights implications. Such sales to China, Wu said, are just plain illegal.
Well, maybe. The people at Cisco said they'll get back to me this week, after they've researched the matter. But it's easy to guess their answer. The law bars the sale of ''crime control or detection instruments or equipment." One can argue that Internet routers and switches aren't covered. After all, we're not talking about handcuffs here. Routers and switches are electronic crossroads, where billions of network data packets are swapped around and shoved toward their destinations.
Because Cisco's gear handles every bit of data, they can track everything happening on the network. That's fine when they're used in a business that needs to protect trade secrets. But in a country where every data network is owned by the state, Cisco gear could give the government a chokehold on information.
Ethan Gutmann thinks this is happening, and that Cisco is deliberately aiding China's spies and censors. Gutmann, a former business consultant in China and author of the book ''Losing the New China," tells of his chat with a Cisco sales representative at a Shanghai trade show in 2002. The Cisco rep, Gutmann said, bragged that his company's products would let Chinese police track the e-mails and Web surfing of any suspicious citizen. ''They basically can plug in your name . . . and then they can start reading your e-mails for the last 60 days," he said.
Gutmann passed this information to Harry Wu, along with a sales brochure that Wu has translated to English. The flier shows Cisco's ''IP Telephone Solution for Police Routine Community Surveillance," and shows how Cisco gear is already in use in China's Qinghai Province, ''combining voice, video and data into one accessible resource to strengthen China's law and order."
Cisco spokesman John Earnhardt, while refusing to name specific countries, said police worldwide do use Cisco gear. That doesn't necessarily mean Cisco is actively helping to stifle dissent in China, or in other Internet-censoring regimes like Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Earnhardt said Cisco sells exactly the same stuff in every country. Dictators can't order a router tricked out with chrome trim and the optional Oppressors' Package. But they don't have to. Under US law, Internet routers must be configured to allow for wiretapping and secret data collection, so our own cops can snoop on us. The difference is that over here, the cops must get a court order before they can plug in.
Can we be sure that Cisco isn't encouraging oppression?
Dawn Wolfe hopes to find out. She's social research and advocacy analyst at Boston Common Asset Management, an ethical investment firm in Boston. Wolfe's firm tries to make money for investors who want to put their cash only in firms that respect human rights. Boston Common has long invested in Cisco, but it's having second thoughts. So Boston Common has filed a shareholder resolution, in cooperation with Domini Social Investments. Both are demanding that the company investigate and report on its human rights practices.
''What we want from them is more information about the policies and processes they have in place, to make sure they're not complicit in these abuses," Wolfe said.
Cisco is opposed to bringing the resolution before shareholders. The company already posts a guide to its human rights policies on its website; Earnhardt thinks that's good enough. Cisco boasts of its support for the United Nations Global Compact, a set of principles to guide companies with international interests. Among the principles: ''Businesses should make sure they are not complicit in human rights abuses."
Sounds good. And by merely selling its gear to the Chinese, Cisco may not be complicit in the country's wrongs. But apart from offering up some noble words, it's not clear that Cisco is doing business decently -- and there are worrying hints that it may not be.
Cisco may not be violating US sanctions, even if the company's gear is helping to stifle the freedom of millions. Proof that Cisco's policies are legal might get Harry Wu off the company's back. The rest of us shouldn't be so easily satisfied.
Hiawatha Bray can be reached at bray@globe.com. 