All U.S. and international firms operating in China face the same dilemma of complying with laws that lack transparency and that can have disturbing consequences inconsistent with our own beliefs.

In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue. We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information.

The choice in China and other countries is not whether to comply with law enforcement demands for information. Rather the choice is whether to remain in the country.

It's not a matter of whether to ignore the law, but whether to leave.

It's an issue that we take very seriously, and the facts surrounding the Shi Tao case are very distressing to us.

This embraces the government-to-government approach that we've been urging.

As in most jurisdictions, governments are not required to inform service providers why they are seeking certain information and typically do not do so.

Companies that choose to enter the market in the future will face the same struggle to effectively balance what they believe which laws they must obey.

These efforts are consistent with and build upon our long-standing commitment to providing a safer and more secure online experience for consumers.

We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy. We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue.