Google's proxy: Internet censorship; Schmidt's security detail

Google filed its proxy statement with the SEC on Tuesday and detailed an attempt to get the search giant to stand up to Internet censorship abroad. Google recommended shareholders vote against the effort.

The Internet censorship proposal was raised by the Office of the Comptroller of New York City and St. Scholastica Monastery. The two shareholders likened Internet censorship to a human rights violation. The proposal in full reads as following:

Whereas, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”, and

Whereas, the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major industry in the United States, and one of its major exports, and

Whereas, political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad, and

Whereas, some authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens attempt to obtain, and

Whereas, technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and

Whereas, technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression,

Therefore, be it resolved, that shareholders request that management institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet which would include the following minimum standards:

1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system. 2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship. 3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures. 4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access. 5) Users should be informed about the company’s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties. 6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.

That's a long-winded way to say that Google should be more upfront about its dealings with governments that censor the Internet. Google's board recommends shareholders vote against the proposal. From a business perspective it's not hard to see why Google is against the proposal--it would have to pull out of China. Anyone that doesn't vote for the proposal will be read to be a vote against. Another shareholder proposes that Google creates a human rights committee.

While human rights were a big topic the pay table was more of the same. CEO Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, president of products, and Sergey Brin, president of technology, took salaries of $1 each. Schmidt did garner "$474,662 for personal security and approximately $4,000 paid by Google on Eric’s behalf for aggregate incremental costs related to aircraft chartered for Google business on which family and friends flew."