Our irrepressible.info campaign, to combat internet repression has continued to gather pace and support this last fortnight.
Since the campaign launched in The Observer two weeks ago, over 21,000 people have now gone online and signed our pledge for internet freedom, writes Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International.
Over 3,000 emails have been sent protesting against the imprisonment of journalist Shi Tao, locked up by the Chinese authorities just for sending an email.
But there was also interesting news from the corporate world.
Rumblings from Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, reveal the company's discomfort at having to run a censored version of their search engine in China. Brin was even quoted: 'Perhaps, now, the principled approach makes more sense.'
Unfortunately, he was also reported saying: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... that's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now.'
Nonetheless, Google's soul-searching reflects a growing dilemma for all companies operating in countries and contexts where human rights are abused.
Some companies are now beginning to realise that to avoid the risk to their reputation of being seen to aid and abet repressive governments, they need to have in place comprehensive human rights policies.
The mistake that companies such as Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft have made is to move into the lucrative Chinese market without understanding or addressing their impacts on human rights.
This was compounded by a flawed public relations strategy based on blanket denials that there is anything positive that they could do in China, arguing they are merely complying with the law.
Google's recognition that it has made a mistake in complying with China's internet censorship demands is a necessary first step. At Amnesty we believe there is much that internet companies can do in China and elsewhere to protect human rights.
An immediate action would be to openly call for the release of all cyber-dissidents and journalists imprisoned solely for the peaceful and legitimate exercise of their freedom of expression.
Further steps would include exhausting all judicial avenues and appeals before complying with state directives regarding censorship, and be transparent about their own censorship practices and agreements with the government.
If Google does eventually decide that 'the principled approach makes more sense', it will send out a strong message to the other IT giants presently colluding with the Chinese authorities.
And it could, perhaps, signal a sea-change: if Google and others were to start working together to develop and implement appropriate human rights policies, internet companies could become a force for positive change when operating in China rather than collaborators in repression.
