go/why-jpoulson-is-leaving
August 20, 2018
“I don’t think it’s a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both
China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really
opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that’s
the key issue from our side. […] But there is also a broader pattern we then
discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists [emphasis mine].” Sergey Brin, interview with Philip Bethge of Der Spiegel, 2010.
“I can’t see a way to operate Google search in China without violating widely held
international human rights standards.” - Lokman Tsui, Google’s former head of free
expression in Asia and the Pacific, interview with The Intercept, August 10, 2018.
“It will be a dark day for internet freedom if Google has acquiesced to China’s
extreme censorship rules to gain market access.” - Patrick Poon, China researcher at
Amnesty International, August 1, 2018.
“#China’s extreme online censorship is well-known. Is there any way @Google can
engage w/out joining not only in that but also the surveillance & criminalisation that
attaches to it? I don’t see it.” - David Kaye, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of
opinion & expression, August 16, 2018.
“There is simply no way that Google can feign a neutral stance while developing a
search platform designed to serve not the general public but a violent, coercive,
authoritarian regime. Censorship, information blackouts and outright propaganda are
prime tools in the CCP’s arsenal of control, as evidenced in incidents large and small,
recent and historic. The ongoing crackdown on lawyers and human rights activists
and the outrageous campaign against ethnic minorities in Xinjiang province – all well
documented by numerous media outlets, NGOs, the United Nations and the U.S.
government – are but two examples in a trove of evidence demonstrating the CCP’s
intentions.” - Chen Guangcheng, The Washington Post, August 27, 2018.
“Rumours violate individual rights; rumours create social panic; rumours cause
fluctuations in the stock markets; rumours impact normal business operations;
rumours blatantly attack revolutionary martyrs.” - Piyao, promotional video for
launch of AI dissent monitoring tool, August 29, 2018.

Overview
On June 7, 2018, Google released its AI Ethics Principles as a means of helping to
clarify the ethical decisions associated with Project Maven. In the “AI Applications
We Will Not Pursue” section, it is claimed that Google will not “design or deploy”
AI in the following areas:

 1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a
material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits
substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety
constraints.
2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is
to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.
3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating

internationally accepted norms. [emphasis mine].
4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of [...]

human rights [emphasis mine].
I would like to make the case that Project Dragonfly has, at the very least, involved
us “designing” technologies that violate the latter two of our four primary constraints
(as discussed below). And I argue that ensuring that ethical flags can be raised
during the design/exploration phase is a necessary condition for democratic
ethical accountability. Further, I am backing the call for transparency and
accountability with respect to Google’s ethical decisions raised by go/ethics-codeyellow. And hopefully situations such as b/112107148 can be avoided in the future.

An aside to my Chinese colleagues.
I have tried to convey that my concerns are not specific to just China, nor am I trying
to suggest that I, as a North American, know better how to protect Chinese citizens
than they do themselves. And I fully respect the view that one should prioritize
the well-being of Chinese citizens.
But, I view our intent to capitulate to censorship and surveillance demands in
exchange for access to the Chinese market as a forfeiture of our values and
governmental negotiating position across the globe. Surveillance and oppression
of dissidents, while perhaps pronounced in a country as large as China, is a
worldwide phenomenon. I have cited recent worrying examples in the United States
[3, 4, 5, 24], and the situation with our close ally, Saudi Arabia [17, 11, 12], perhaps
goes without saying. At the moment, there is virtually no international support for
Canada calling for the protection of Saudi Arabian dissidents [14], including from the
United States.
I hope that one can respect a concern that agreeing to blanket surveillance (including
of activists) in China could lead toward similar demands on activists in the United
States (especially those that might lead to significant economic impact) and abroad.

 We are a global company and, as far as I am aware, we have not made clear what our
red lines are in this area internationally.

Violation of: Technologies that gather or use information for
surveillance violating internationally accepted norms,” and
“Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted
principles of […] human rights.”
One of the central technological components of Project Dragonfly is Google’s
proactive censorship of queries and reportedly forcing users to logged in so that
citizens’ queries can be directly monitored by their phone number [15, 16].
As clearly stated by Brin in his 2010 interview with Der Spiegel, and as quoted in the
banner of this document, the censorship and tracking of queries in Dragonfly would
be complicit with a broad pattern of “surveillance of human rights activists”. So far,
critical statements have been released from: Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, Access Now, Reporters Without Borders, and Human Rights in China.
[Edit, August 28, 2018: 14 human rights organizations have now written a letter
calling for us to cease this project.]
[Edit on August 24, 2018: Recent external analysis appears to come to similar
conclusions: “It’s also interesting because in June, Google unveiled its own principles
for ethical uses of its artificial intelligence programs, which are central to so many
things that Google does. One of those principles, which would apply here because
Google search uses artificial intelligence, was committed to not design or deploy
“technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international
law and human rights.” Well, the human-rights community has come out in strong
condemnation of Google for its plan to deploy a censored search engine in China –
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders.”]

Complicity in the violations of the human rights of Chinese
activists and ethnic minorities
Our support in the censorship and surveillance of Chinese dissidents would have
serious repercussions. Beyond the oppression of well known figures [8, 9, 10], the
United Nations is currently reporting that between 200,000 and 1 million Uyghurs
have been disappeared into reeducation camps [6,7]; there was also a recent detailed
internal talk on this subject. Surveillance plays a critical and unambiguous role in the
maintenance of these “reeducation” camps, and there is a serious argument that
Google would be complicit should it launch a surveilled version of Search. While

 censorship is something I am very concerned about (particularly as a means of
quashing political organizing), surveillance is likely to be directly used as part of
campaigns violating human rights [18].

My resignation
I wrote this document because I believe that Google is largely composed of
altruistic employees. But, due to my conviction that dissent is fundamental to
functioning democracies, I am forced to resign in order to avoid contributing to,
or profiting from, the erosion of protections for dissidents. There is an all-too-real
possibility that other nations will attempt to leverage our actions in China in order to
demand our compliance with their security demands. Indeed, this immediately began
happening in the United States [2], and there is reason to worry [3, 4, 5, 24] about
more direct parallels emerging over time.
(Edit, August 28: One could argue that Trump is now exploiting our alleged
censorship compliance.)
(Edit, August 30: The UK foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is now explicitly calling
for such concessions. And, more soberly, I am probably giving Trump too much
credit.)
I have cherished working for Google and hold the vast majority of my colleagues in
very high regard, both professionally and ethically. But I cannot work at a company
that will not internally or publicly clarify its ethical red lines in areas that it is actively
engaging. I would further like to reiterate my call for a response to the requests of
go/ethics-code-yellow

A note to my manager and team
I’m extremely sad that our work is being caught in the crossfire. My manager and
coworkers are some of the finest, smartest, and most hardworking people I’ve ever
met. I’m truly sorry for the collateral damage.

Contacting me post-Google
I can be reached at both xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. I’m not sure what my next step is. My announced
final day at Google is Monday, September 3, 2018, but this is subject to minor change
(after speaking with my management chain) Friday, August 31, 2018.

 [1] https://theintercept.com/2018/08/17/internal-meeting-reveals-how-google-bossesmisled-staff-on-their-china-censorship-plan-here-are-the-questions-they-mustanswer/
[2] https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1024668085654118402
[3] http://justiceonline.org_fbi_files_ows
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-walmart-union-surveillance/
[5] https://theintercept.com/2017/06/03/standing-rock-documents-expose-innerworkings-of-surveillance-industrial-complex/
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_reeducation_camps
[7] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-crediblereports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUSKBN1KV1SU
[8] https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-police-remove-professor-during-broadcastof-voa-program/4509815.html
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Xiaobo
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_dissidents
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Saudi_Arabian_dissidents
[13] https://plus.google.com/u/0/118316939500792639566/posts/87NhUQncWDs
[14] https://globalnews.ca/news/4378208/canada-saudi-arabia-spat/
[15] https://dory.corp.google.com/series/101039699?sort=top
[16] https://b.corp.google.com/issues/63347318
[17] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/22/saudi-arabia-seeks-its-firstdeath-penalty-against-a-female-human-rights-activist
[18] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/08/27/googleis-on-the-verge-of-making-a-huge-mistake-with-china/
[19] https://plus.google.com/u/0/105694924338704480236/posts/AavbbxopWSJ
[20] https://plus.google.com/u/0/105694924338704480236/posts/X1XFKW5DGpc

 [21] http://news.trust.org/item/20180830063018-6rju6
[22] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/china-s-piyao-to-stop-online-rumours
[23] http://xinhuanet.com/politics/2018-08/29/c_1123350023.htm
[24] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/opinion/trump-republican-partyauthoritarianism.html
[25] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/uk-foreign-secretary-jeremy-hunt-attacksgoogle-over-child-abuse-content.html