The internet has been a revolution for censorship as much as for free speech – something that the great libertarian godfathers of the net did not bargain for.
It is a revolution not just in terms of technology, but in terms of who does the censoring. It's no longer just the big boys – the media magnates, the state, corporations; there are a whole host of middlemen who now play a part in deciding what we can and cannot read. Most important of all, much of what they do is not transparent and there is even a level of secrecy that is protected by law.
One of the most popular filtering software programmes is SmartFilter, owned by Secure Computing in California, a company that's just been bought by McAffee for $465m (£311m). SmartFilter has been used by some of the world's most authoritarian regimes: Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, as well as in the US and the UK.
The list of sites that are blocked by the software is so secret that not even the countries that use the technology know what is actually being censored. These lists are the intellectual property of the software companies and are protected by copyright.
We know as much as we do because of the great research of organisations such as the OpenNet Initiative and because of the brave detective work done by researchers such as Seth Finkelstein and Ben Edelman. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Actin the US, no one can legitimately examine the lists of blocked sites or ask for a review.
Censorship, for the first time in its history, is now a commercial enterprise, and, as the writer Xeni Jardin has observed, a successful American export – clearly more popular than democracy.
Last month, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft signed up to a code of conduct (the Global Network Initiative) that will require them to pay special regard to free expression and privacy as part of their business practice. It has taken 18 months and some very tough negotiation to hammer out the agreement, led by Leslie Harris at the Centre for Democracy and Technology and Dunstan Hope at Business for Social Responsibility. The plan now is to bring others into the fold, including European telecoms.
Cisco Systems, another American company, is a prime candidate – it was invited to the initial discussions but didn't take part. Cisco sells networking technology to China and has been described as "the internet's plumber".
Along with Yahoo and Google, it has been hauled before House and Senate subcommittees to explain its conduct. Cisco has always somewhat disingenuously argued in its defence that it sells the same products to China as it does to the rest of the world – and that the customers decide how the technology is used. That is not an argument that is likely to satisfy Cisco's critics: last Thursday, some of the company's own shareholders attempted to get Cisco to establish a human rights board and to disclose what kind of actions it is taking to ensure its business practices are not violating human rights.
Harrington Investments, which proposed that Cisco establish a human rights board, is actually dismissive of a voluntary code of conduct making any kind of impact. Its chief executive, John Harrington, called it "meaningless noise" and wants to see bylaws introduced that will force boards of directors to accept human rights responsibilities.
What is important is to continue the dialogue with companies that do business with repressive regimes. As a collective enterprise, the Global Network Initiative may offer a unique way forward – particularly if the membership expands and when Cisco decides that it has no choice but to sign up.