Slashdot Mirror


Does Google Censor Chinese News?

mOoZik writes "A story carried by New Scientist suggests that Google might be playing into the hands of the Chinese government by blocking certain news stories which may be deeded inappropriate. Some users recently reported that Google's Chinese news search returned different results depending when they searched using a computer based outside of China. The claims were substantiated by researchers who connected to computers inside the country. Read on and decide for yourself."

102 of 547 comments (clear)

  1. That's just business.. by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sorry but I don't see why this is such a surprise. If you're a multinational company and you set-up office in the United Kingdom then you have to adhere to European and UK law and if you set-up office in Turkey you have to adhere to Turkish
    law. So what's the problem with adhering to Chinese law if you set up office in China?

    Now you might not like the political stance of the Chinese government but that's your business after all it's their country and their jurisdiction. If you don't want to adhere to their laws don't set-up office there.

    The principle motive of any company is to maximise its profits. If Google thinks working in China will enhance their profitability and they don't mind the draconian laws then it makes sense for them to enter that market.

    We should not expect companies to make political statements - we have politicians for that - Companies are driven by different forces than politics and in the highly competitive market of internet search taking such a stance could damage the company immensely.

    Simon.

    1. Re:That's just business.. by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, their new motto is "Don't be evil, unless you have to"?

    2. Re:That's just business.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So your definition of evil is that the company either breaks local government policy or avoids the Chinese market?

      How about Google remove all ads from its service? That would be very un-evil no?

      How about Google give its technology and source code up for grabs free to Yahoo! and Microsoft?

    3. Re:That's just business.. by metlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.

      Their motto has always been, "Don't be stupid, unless you have to".

      They're a company, and they have no obligation to the people of China to fight for their freedom of speech.

      When world nations don't care a damn, you expect a corporation that makes search engines to?

      Their playing it safe, which is exactly anyone would do in their position. If anyone should be helping the people of China, it is the people themselves and the rest of the democractic world governments.

      Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus?

    4. Re:That's just business.. by metlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Both.

      The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations, and the attitude of the rest of the world in letting the US puppet the UN into submission is sad to see.

      And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.

    5. Re:That's just business.. by DigitumDei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is one place


      on the left column: " 6) You can make money without doing evil."


      In fact the following google search returns a hell of a lot of results. Though on closer inspection it seems that pop up ads = evil, whilst censoring results on behalf of the chinese goverment = profit.

    6. Re:That's just business.. by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations

      It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    7. Re:That's just business.. by metlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even Rome fell.

    8. Re:That's just business.. by anothy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem is that the structure of the UN makes it very near impossible to impose any sort of sanctions against one of the "permanent" members of the security council - which includes both the US and China. so the US is free (from UN threat) to continue trouncing all over middle-eastern countries, while China is free (in the same sense) to continue abusing its citizens and abusing and invading its neighbors.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    9. Re:That's just business.. by anothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      no, the issue is that "evil" is a lot more complicated than most television shows tend to imply. the choice isn't between "present censored news in China" and "present uncensored news in China", it's between "present censored news in China" or "present no news in China". given the fact that no filtering is 100%, and the fact that even what's filtered is better than nothing, i'm inclined to believe that tools that increase access - even in a controlled, restricted way - are better than the absence of such access.

      i know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income, and eventually enabled him to leave. now, doubtless this worked out better for him than for most, but these "evil" sweatshops did give him and his coworkers income that they would not otherwise have had, and many were grateful for the opportunity.

      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
    10. Re:That's just business.. by Jonathan+A+Frankiln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and I'm not obligated to try to save a drowning man at the beach, or to hold the door open for an old woman, or to rush after a guy who dropped his wallet, or to do anything inconvenient to a ruthless motive of profit and time management. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it.

    11. Re:That's just business.. by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're a company, and they have no obligation to the people of China to fight for their freedom of speech.

      ...which is exactly why many people hate or fear corporations.

      Let me ask you this: if China gets uninhibited access to the benefits of 'free' markets, including the participation of western companies, what incentive do they have to reform their human rights abuses?

      Another question: Based on your arguments, do you therefore boycott any US company that does business in China? After all, it's up to you to make a difference.

      After war, money is the most effective way to change another country's behaviour. In fact, I believe you could argue that it's more effective than war, because it tends to produce less resentment and society-wide anger. If we say 'that's just business' we are putting a rubber stamp on China's current activities.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    12. Re:That's just business.. by sleepy_kev · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --
      I know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income.
      --

      Well good for him, but that hardly justifies the conditions sweatshop workers are forced endure so that Nike and friends can continue to make obscene amounts of cash. Sensible people who oppose sweatshops realise they give people chances they would not otherwise have had. We're campaigning to make Nike and friends stop abusing people (seem reasonable?), not to close them down or move all operations elswhere.

    13. Re:That's just business.. by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "After war, money is the most effective way to change another country's behaviour."

      Very good. That's exactly what Google is doing, providing a venue for the insertion of capitalism (money) and information (partial search).

      "If we say 'that's just business' we are putting a rubber stamp on China's current activities."

      Please give an alternative which would allow democratic countries to have a foot in the door if you would deny those companies who would abide by their rules (that is, be allowed in in the first place)? Assuming you preclude war, that is.

    14. Re:That's just business.. by mirio · · Score: 5, Informative

      And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.

      Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.

      To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).

      I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.

    15. Re:That's just business.. by Politburo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.

      According to the Constitution, treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.

    16. Re:That's just business.. by spoonyfork · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.

      Buckle up and get ready for what happens to Great Powers that become former Great Powers. Empire deconstruction isn't pretty. It is a lesson taught by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one the US will learn well.

      --
      Speak truth to power.
  2. It's all about the market. by mind21_98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they don't play into the hands of the Chinese government, they risk having all of google.com blocked. If they do, they are seen as "censors" and "pawns" of the same government. Unfortunately money and page views seem to trump over principles when given a choice. Remember, there's always the proxy server approach for whoever wants to see the "uncensored" news.

  3. rocking in the free world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how much google supresses certain news stories that the US fed deems innappropriate?

    1. Re:rocking in the free world... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reuters already has suppression coding in all its feeds.

      News editors are supposed to adhere to them.

      For example: http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/index.html

      This report has been marked as:

      "TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**NO ACCESS BRAZIL/ INTERNET**~"

      Lots of different restrictions....

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:rocking in the free world... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't like replying to self, but the link I gave isnt quite right.

      Click World1 on the left and go into any of the feeds, a lot have different restrictions.

      Another example is here (checked link this time):
      http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/2004-09-22/2b32d49c.htm l

      which is marked as
      "TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**PART NO ACCESS IRAQ**~"

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Do no evil? by diakka · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I understand, Google already censors their content in other countries like France and Germany. This is only making the news because it's big bad China. Although it kind of does blow apart this image that they like to present as being crusaders of free speech.

    --
    -- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
    1. Re:Do no evil? by NSash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's why I find it funny that people in Europe point out how evil stuff like patriot act is, when in reality there is no reason to even have stuff like that in their countries because they don't have the "rights" to be violated in the first place.

      Aside from the whole indefinite extra-judicial detentions thing.

    2. Re:Do no evil? by KontinMonet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Freedom House index of media freedom shows the countries with the most media freedom are (in order): Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Andorra, Monaco and then USA.

      All the top countries are in ... Europe.

      In any case, presumably you'd be the first to applaud Germany if they allowed complete freedom to spout Nazi propaganda, anti-semitism, racism, eastward imperialism, anti-Catholic screeds, state-sponsored prostitution, white supremacy and all the other rabid nonsense that happened before? Never mind that Europe suffered dreadfully as a result and would be horrified if Germany allowed such 'freedom'...

      --
      Did he inhale?
  5. Like another poster said, by mongbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it's good business. Otherwise Google news might be blocked from China altogether and Google would lose access to a growing market. Corporations have always got along with authoritarian regimes, ever since the Nazis used IBM punch cards to tally the death counts.

    The real question is why people expect a different standard of behaviour from Google than from other companies. I mean, you guys don't really believe that "don't be evil" stuff, do you? Google is Just Another Company.

  6. This is not really news by quigonn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google already censors search results for e.g. Germany, due to sentences spoken out by some German court.

    --
    A monkey is doing the real work for me.
  7. No, it isn't by SimianOverlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You would be correct if Google were selling razor blades, cheese or any other physical product. What they are doing is creating a news resource. Personally, I don't like the fact that a company which wears its ethics on its sleeve, so to mangle the metaphor, by stating "Don't be evil" as its company motto would self censor to fit into the demands of a foreign government.

    It is the precedent that is important here. When you ignore this, you erode the fundamental freedoms that form the basis of the Internet.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
    1. Re:No, it isn't by Beautyon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I don't like the fact that a company which wears its ethics on its sleeve, so to mangle the metaphor, by stating "Don't be evil" as its company motto would self censor to fit into the demands of a foreign government.

      Your ethics and the ethics of the Chinese are not the same. Just because you think its good that news is not filtered it does not automagically follow that this is the correct way for every society to organize itself.

      It is precisely this sort of "we know best for everyone" thinking that starts wars. Your country is your business, and other peoples countries are their businesses respectively.

      If you dont like the way the Chinese organize themselvs, dont spend your money on goods made there. That is your choice, and your very great power, but dont expect people to adopt your morality, standards, ethics or anything else for that matter, because what they do is not your affair. There are enough problems in the world without more international meddling from "one size fits all" people who think they know whats good for everyone.

      Google by adapting to Chinese society are in fact being absolutely "not evil". They are showing true respect for Chinese society and sensitivities, which is precisely the way that all humans should interact with each other.

      Finally, there is no such thing as "the fundamental freedoms that are the basis of the internet". The basis of the internet are a set of protocols and nothing more. How the Chinese and for that matter the Saudis see the internet is just as valid as how you see it. IMHO that is its true beauty.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    2. Re:No, it isn't by elgaard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If a companys ethics aligns with every country it operates in, it is not really ethics.

      Then they should change the slogan to "we obey local governments and make money".

      The Chinese people or government may have different values (that can be wrong). But the same company cannot believe that censorship is wrong in Denmark and OK in China.

      (this is all hypothetical, I don't know what Google is doing).

    3. Re:No, it isn't by Jonathan+A+Frankiln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A company aiding and abetting a totalitarian government in limiting its peoples' free speech is not going to fall under "oh, we just have a difference of opinion!" Some things in life are not relative. Individual freedom is an indispensable value. It isn't just a preference from a salad bar like ranch dressing over Russian. It means something, dammit. Oppression isn't "just another way to structure a society," it's oppression. No company that does business with a totalitarian government should be allowed to do business in America. But we've let it happen, and it's too late. Our principles are rotting. In a decade, or maybe sooner, we're all going to regret having let American businesses coddle China, and letting them become addicted to an immoral revenue stream. For now, at least, all we can do is enjoy the cheap shirts.

      In case that didn't convince you, here's a hot naked woman's breast. Agree with me.
      http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL487/1395129/34420 88/67415647.jpg

    4. Re:No, it isn't by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      as opposed to ignoring the requests of the PRC government and having google web pages blocked by the national firewall, yea that'll really help people. I am sure that chinese citizens would rather have censored news than no news.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:No, it isn't by Threni · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Your ethics and the ethics of the Chinese are not the same. Just because you
      > think its good that news is not filtered it does not automagically follow that
      > this is the correct way for every society to organize itself.
      >
      > It is precisely this sort of "we know best for everyone" thinking that starts
      > wars. Your country is your business, and other peoples countries are their
      > businesses respectively.

      Oh, I get it - there's no right and wrong, and that's why it was immoral of Germans to hide Jews in the 1930's and 40's. After all, they were breaking the law. And the ANC, weren't they terrorists? I mean, the lives of white people were more important than the need of blacks there to emancipate themselves from the system of apartheid, so in killing people the ANC were evil, and anyone contributing to the ANC was aiding and abetting a criminal act, right?

      > That is your choice, and your very great power, but dont expect people to adopt
      > your morality, standards, ethics or anything else for that matter, because what
      > they do is not your affair.

      What IS his affair is bringing to other people's attention the fact that he believes Google is going back on it's "Don't be evil" commitment, and they they might too.

    6. Re:No, it isn't by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny
      Why does Google not just return a page saying: "this link and its cache is censored by your governement"?
      Maybe because saying such things is not allowed by the aforementioned law?

      My guess is the law itself is also censored under that law, so you can't really read it. But it's still there.

    7. Re:No, it isn't by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Some things in life are not relative. Individual freedom is an indispensable value.
      Some people - including some Chinese I know - would disagree with both statements. So would I, in fact. Would you enforce it on us?
  8. Woe... by shirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't anybody else think that ever since Google announced a few new services that SlashDot is suddenly carrying stories that suggest that Google is evil?

    Frankly, in this case it is quite clearly the Chinese government that is responsible for this. If Google doesn't comply, their service will be blocked from China such as they have done in ths past. If by "playing into the hands of the Chinese Government" you mean that they follow the rules of that country (just like they do in the U.S.), then I suppose they are. But by that argument, Google is clearly playing into the hands of the U.S. Government too.

    --
    Sunny

    Be my Friend

  9. Alternatives by barcodez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Those wishing to take a stand this this a viable alternative to Google.

    All The Web

    Remeber alternatives are what encourages competition and that can only be a good thing.

    Any other good search engines people can recommend?

    --

    ----
  10. understanable by uv_light · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it is understanable that google leave out those site. when people use the google chinese to search news site, who will most likely to come from China. even if google return the "correct" result, if the chinese goverment have already block the site, they will be clicking on the dead link.

    if google don't take out those site, then it will in turn hurt google.

    I am not saying it is a good thing, I personally don't agree on internet censoring, but that's how china work, it is something that won't change in a short while.

  11. rephrase by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that should read "don't be evil, that's a job for the guys who machine-gunned their own students protesting for democracy"

    you somehow seem to think idealism is achievable in such an environment

    you should be condemning the chinese govt, not google

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:rephrase by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Given China's behaviour with respect to Tibet and Taiwan, I would say that any company that specifically re-enforces the policy of the government through censorship has no more right to claim to not be evil than Fox News has to claim to be fair and balanced. Either way, I'm not going to give up my Gmail account, but then I don't claim to not be evil.

    2. Re:rephrase by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're in a difficult position though. If they want to do business in China, then they're going to have to abide by Chinese laws and customs.

      Lokk at it this way - no technological method for filtering out "undesirable" sites and news, etc, is going to be 100% efficient or effective. At least with google serving the Chinese market, there will be "windows of opportunity" for people to find stuff that their government deems unsuitable. With the web continuing to grow, these opportunities will become more frequent and longer-lasting, as google/the Chinese authorities play whack-a-mole, a game that's impossible to win...

      As others have said, at the end of the day, google is just a company, and this isn't really their fight. Change has to come from within, not be imposed from outside. Besides, for all anyone knows, there could be an unofficial, internal google policy to not be as quick at complying with takedown requests as they could be, or to introduce subtle inefficiencies and bugs into the process/software. Let's see how this plays out for a while before calling people evil. (Do google even claim not to be evil?)

    3. Re:rephrase by benjj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      (Do google even claim not to be evil?)

      Uh, yes. That's what everyone is talking about.

    4. Re:rephrase by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, the obvious solution is that they should be MARKING what they're censoring so people know that "something" was censored, even if they can't see it. When they return results for searches, or display news stories, they should just be returning a "censored" link that goes to a page explaining why they are unable to provide the content.

      Kind of like their old policy on takedown notices.

      Journalists used to do the same thing before they sold-out to the government. For eaxmple, if they were in a war situation and the government censored pieces of their footage, they'd just broadcast black on-air so that viewers knew SOMETHING was being withheld from them by the government and they could start asking questions.

      But journalists have become the pawns and puppets of government now, and rather than holding them accountable, they're just climbing into bed with them. Makes me sick.

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    5. Re:rephrase by Angostura · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is something people seem to be missing here - there is a lot of talk about Google 'doing business' in China, but the broader issue is Google being accessible *at all* in China.

      We know that previously the Great Firewall of China was used to block Google entirely. Then the ban was lifted, presumably on certain conditions. I would posit that the conditions were something like:

      1. You tweak the search results to exclude certain material
      2. You doh't make this agreement public.

      Given that is it more of less Evil for Google to censor its feed or have it blocked entirely. I'm not sure myself.

    6. Re:rephrase by dnoyeb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They are only in a difficult position if you fall into the ideology that Google has a responsibility only to its shareholders.

      Makes you wonder if they would do this if they were not public.

    7. Re:rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intrestingly enough; Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. (the parent company of all US Fox holdings), also owns several Asian media companies. Murdoch is directly responsible, among other things, for buying up the South China Morning Post and firing those journalists who dared to criticize the Chinese government. Funny that Bill O'Reilly's boss is also one of the biggest supporters of the repressive government in Beijing.

    8. Re:rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that should read "don't be evil, that's a job for the guys who machine-gunned their own students protesting for democracy"

      For a second there I thought you meant the incident of the National Guard shooting down Vietnam War protesters.

    9. Re:rephrase by hackstraw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If they want to do business in China

      You could have stopped there. They don't have to do business with China. I don't buy Nike shoes, I only go to Exxon gas stations if I think I'm going to run out of gas, etc. However, its difficult working with computers and electronics and not have dealings with China. Afterall, they provide the best slave labor in the world right now.

    10. Re:rephrase by cicho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "They're in a difficult position though. If they want to do business in China, then they're going to have to abide by Chinese laws and customs."

      This is exactly the problem. They "want to do business" first and foremost. That's what spammers say, too - they just want to make a buck. But it matters howHow you do business and with whom you do it - that's where capitalism stops being morally neutral. If you trade with a corrupt government knowing that it is corrupt, you are willingly assisting them, no two ways about it. It's like selling a gun to a convicted murderer, because you "want to do business" with him.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    11. Re:rephrase by cicho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, because they were already doing so in 2002.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    12. Re:rephrase by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Technically, if their motto is based on respecting the principles expressed in the page you pointed at, then "not doing evil" involves "VII. Obeying the Law". Nowhere in that code of conduct do they imply that doing no evil involves some great principles and the protection of the freedom of speech.

      So although their definition of doing no evil may not represent our individual impression of what it should be, they are at least consistent with their published definition. Our criticism of their slogan should not come from what their position on complying with chinese restrictions, but from their definition of doing no evil as represented in their code of conduct. I don't think they have breached their code of conduct as it is stated there (of course I didn't read it in detail, but from quickly peeking at it, it involves more fiscal responsibility and protection of privacy than freedom of speech related topics).

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    13. Re:rephrase by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If China and the rest of the world sees that you can do business with China by ignoring their gross human rights violations, then nothing will ever be done about it, and you will be doing a disservice to the chinese people.

      Google enables the chinese government to keep censoring media, and that means Google approves of it. Bad Google! For this is most certainly an evil alliance.

      What if a rope manufacturer wanted to do business in the 1950's southern USA, but the lynch mobs in the south would only buy rope that was pre-tied into a noose? Is it alright to accept their demands just to do business with them?

    14. Re:rephrase by rajafarian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... to the detriment of human civilization?

      I'm not sure where you have been, but it's been a while since the profits of corporations surpassed near everything else in importance.

    15. Re:rephrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Change has to come from within, not be imposed from outside

      You must not be American.

    16. Re:rephrase by JebuZ · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd steer clear of Shell and Chevron, too. Shell deals with military regimes in Ogoni, whom executed several activists, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Ken Saro-Wiwa, protesting the destruction of their environment. It has been argued in court that it was carried out with "the knowledge, consent, and/or support of Shell Oil. On the other hand, when a Chevron oil platform was overtaken by protesters, Chevron went as far as to provide a private police force with transportation to a Nigerian oil platform. Before even landing the helicopters, the police started shooting. They killed two people and injured many others. Chevron was unapoligetic, and refused to provide any compensation, but did provide money to cover the cost of burial. How sweet..

  12. Not the first time by JohnnyNoSPAM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the first time that Google has imposed some censorship over its search engine. Check out this article at WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26819

    When Google started out, they seemed to be a refreshing alternative to other larger corporate sites. Google is now becoming part of corporate America. With that, we can expect to see a more "tame" Google geared toward minimizing the making of waves for the purpose of maintaining investor confidence and ensuring a steady profit.

    Is it "selling out"? Perhaps, but I think that this is the sort of thing that we can expect as a company expands and grows.

  13. China’s Internet Regulations by phreakv6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    here it is

    --
    fifteen jugglers, five believers
  14. No specific charges by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You'd figure they could put some specific charges with dates and the precise content that wasn't available. I love the way the Slashdot summary says "read on to make your own decision" but the linked article doesn't actually contain any more detail than the summary.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  15. Maybe not censor but by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But certainly the news portal itself seems either biased, or US news really is that bad.

    I have noticed if I search for a story I will find it, but the google portal does give a good indication of what the US is seeing.

    For example Bushes war records. You check the news/search engine all you find is about the CBS documents.

    However if you were to dig more you would find that a judge has ordered the release of the originals (ref: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6022115/).

    I've wondered if this is a new system of polluting the news on the net. As it is harder to control stories but easy to bury them.

  16. And in the US too... by clickety6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... remember when Google removed a load of links because of threats from the Scientologists invoking our old friend the DMCA !

    It's not just China !

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  17. Google's Reply by Andy_R · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the tradition of misleading Slashdot summaries, this one contains only the accusation, not the defence. Here's Google's reply from the article:

    "In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:Google's Reply by Enoch+Root · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given the sheer amount of blocked websites that still show up in a standard Google search in China, I find this claim dubious. Why do they weed out the news for blocked sites but don't do so for websites such as the BBC, which has been blocked forever and STILL shows up in a Google search?

    2. Re:Google's Reply by JimDabell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because their news and search offerings are very different. Their search results comes from a vast database of every document indexed, weighted by keywords and other factors. Their news results come from a small list of pre-approved news sources. Having to determine which documents are available to the Chinese out of the billions they index on an ongoing basis is a completely different matter to determining which of their hundreds of relatively static news sources are unavailable to the Chinese. Filtering their news based on location blocking is feasible, filtering their search results based on location blocking is not feasible.

  18. No surprise - I agree by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and confirm what the top post pointed out - I'd like to add that Google, as an aggregator, isn't a news service. Google trawls and clips...that's all.

    Anyone not aware enough to find other sources from time to time, deserves the narrowness they assume, whether it concerns Asia or Europe or NA.

    Take responsibility for your own interpretation...after all, we were taught in school how American newspapers bury or bias 'news' by placing some on the front or back pages, while other stories get jammed against an inside margin. To repeat...don't be surprised when your 'news' is crafted by the source(s) you use.

    1. Re:No surprise - I agree by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, you can always be your own source for news.

  19. I'd be surprised if they didn't by r6144 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a Chinese in China, this is hardly a surprise. Considering that Google news is accessible in China, while most foreign news sites such as CNN and BBC are blocked, I'd be very surprised if Google news are allowed to serve anything censored by the authority to those in China.

    Note that I don't think this is right, and the current internet censorship really sucks, neither does it work --- new sites containing western political views spring up every day and they can't censor them one by one. The recent efforts against porn sites are even more laughable, considering that it is still hard to find a news site in China that does not contain sexual content deemed inappropriate for children by most parents. Hopefully some time in the future they will admit that such efforts are useless and use the money on places that really need them (such as some poor rural areas).

    1. Re:I'd be surprised if they didn't by Enoch+Root · · Score: 2, Informative

      CNN isn't blocked... What are you talking about?

  20. Some google is better than no google by Heartz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It's easy to sit on your moral high horses and say that Google shouldn't censor news.

    However, I feel that it's better for the chinese people to get some access to google, rather than none at all. The Chinese government would not hesitate to completely remove access to google.com. This would greatly trouble a great many number of chinese people.

    Some (censored) google is better than no google.

  21. Re:censorship by obscurity by TheWingThing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A sample size of 1 website doesn't mean anything. By the way, is your website popular, and linked from other sites, or did you submit it to Google? In any case, unless you take a random sample of several thousand websites and test if they are listed on Google, you cannot derive a meaningful conclusion. Are there any such studies that were done with published results?

  22. Not a Surprise by ShadowFlair · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with the first poster that it is not a surprise that they adhere to Chinese laws when feeding content to a Chinese audience.

    In fact, I think it would be odd if they don't. There is simply no point in jeopardizing their business this way.

    This reminds me of the whole Kazaa Lite censorship stuff, where they took a rather conservative route in obeying the law. But I think their stance in the legal area should save them lots of trouble dealing with the implications.

    --
    To iterate is human; to recurse, divine!
  23. Remember the Yahoo Auctions affair? by CdBee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yahoo got in trouble as an auction site they run had items on it which are illegal in France. Maybe Google are just trying to comply with local laws rather than be censored completely...

    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  24. Note to Google by paragon_au · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

  25. The issue is broader here.... by syrinje · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Listen up, because I gave up moderation rights on this thread to say this.

    Many of us on Slashdot use Google very frequently (almighty god, give us this day our daily byte...) to find all kinds of information including stuff that we need and use to make our livelihood. We also use google to keep up with the news. Mostly, we find what we need if it is out there on the net.

    This easy access to information on the net seems to have distorted our expectations somewhat. We expect, nay demand, that Google find everything there is to find, always, correctly, without fear or favour, without regard to consequences that might affect Google itself, without consideration for the laws of the many lands that Google serves - in short we want Google to be a completely good and benevolevent omniscient oracle. Googles 'do ot be evil" motto is partly to blame for this - especially to people unfamiliar with the context of the phrase. I don't think the motto calls on Google to commit hara-kiri to assert its fealty to freedom and the protection of all good in the universe. I do not expect Google to take on the Death Star in a battered Millenium Falcon. I do expect, and rightfully, that google will not screw me over by selling my personal information, by setting terms and conditions that take away my ability to use it in conjunction with any other service or sofware I want, by taking away my right to choose, by deliberately and maliciously determining what I see in order to increase their profit.

    Unfortunately, the same omniscient hold that Google has on the information on the net makes it easier for oppressive governments to control information. Previously, where such regimes had to track and control a million individual sources of information, they can now achieve that control by influencing Google. Since Google is subject to the laws of the countries where it operates (GASP!), it has no choice but to comply when threatened with complete blocking of its services in e.g. China or France. Remember the case of Yahoo! and neo-Nazi material? You can bet that Yahoo! will pull that information now that it is clear the first amendment will not protect them from legal process in France or Germany in respect of that material.

    So, the question is, do we give up on google altogether? Of course not - it has for better or worse, grown into an extension of our memory, we google as easily as we breathe - my three year old daughter knows that google will help her find her favorite cartoon sites! What we need is a tempering of the expectation that we have of Google. Get used to the idea - you will need it more in the days to come, Google is merely another tool you have at your disposal. It is NOT the be all and end all of all known human wisdom.

    --
    See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
    1. Re:The issue is broader here.... by JohnnyNoSPAM · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a very insightful point that you make, and I certainly agree with you.

      It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.

      Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe ..." I believe that an underlying concern among many people (although not specifically mentioned) is that Google may become powerful enough through its tremendous influence among its Internet users that it could easily become subject to corporate influences which come more to benefiting the investors than the users.

      On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.

  26. Umm... regional Google? by Anubis333 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the pillars of Google's trusty algorithms is finding what sites link to URLs, that's how it ranks (nay?). If it is illegal for ISPs to provide links to said URLs, wouldn't they not be in the China link database anyhow? And if China linked to them because it compared databases with those of other countries, wouldn't it be getting normal people into trouble by serving them links to illegal material, whether or not they knew it to be such?

    It just seems like a touchy subject, and I think a lot of people like to jump up and down assuming other places/countries are peopled by others like ourselves.

  27. Does Google Censor American Searches? by Afty0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google removed from sites from its' index some time ago due to legal pressure from the Scientology movement using the legal system of the United States of America.

    Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.

  28. Eh? by t_allardyce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its really a business decision - if the government of a country whos internet population is over 60 million demands that you stick a few lines of code in your software or they will block you totally, what are you gonna do? sure you're aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, but business is business and 60 million people is allot of business, its not like other companies don't do it - IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis, Cisco supplies network equipment to the Great Firewall of China.

    Also what exactly did they proove here? it seems a bit of a bad explination, if google was providing different chinese content based on your position relative to the firewall then that would mean the firewall was doing the censoring right? "Google China" means that google has determined you are in China from your IP or the address you typed - if the news was the same on both sides then that would be dodgy because it would mean the firewall wasnt changing anything so google must be?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Eh? by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Interesting
      IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis

      A point of clarification, IBM not only supplied, but also had IBM employees servicing the machines within the concentration camps.

  29. Not just chinese news... by joss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It also has a tendancy to provide a one-sided viewpoint of israel/palestine news, although I expect this is a result of successful lobbying rather than explicit policy.

    more info here

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  30. Can't blame them but it's a pity. by marcello_dl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe we don't have the right to blame Google for not giving up a potentially huge market as China, ok, but think about the consequences if the Google team decided to stay unfiltered and the China government had to censor them: chinese users would become third class internet citizens and have one more reason to demand a more democratic government.

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    1. Re:Can't blame them but it's a pity. by acceleriter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, we do have the right. They're an American company and should be held to American standards. If they want to do business the Chinese way, they should start a Chinese company with seperate governance and seperate financials. That way, Americans who want to own stock in a treasonous enterprise can buy it (because it is unfortunately not illegal to invest in oppression), but those who don't can buy the U.S. stock.

      Accomodating the PRC's censorship regime doesn't do one bit of good for the Chinese in the long run--isolating China and letting the PRC be replaced by its people was the correct path, but it wasn't very good for corporate bottom lines, so they're a "Most Favored Nation" while they censor what their people can read, torture Christains, and oppress the Falun Gong.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  31. Censorship, China, and others. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Given China's behaviour with respect to Tibet and Taiwan, I would say that any company that specifically re-enforces the policy of the government through censorship has no more right to claim to not be evil than Fox News has to claim to be fair and balanced.

    So consider the case of underage pornography (something that the US government does censor). Should Google not censor it?

    All governments that I know of do *some* censorship -- the question is just to what degree.

    I mean, I think that the people running China are a bunch of shortsighted assholes, but they aren't qualitatively different from other governments -- just, perhaps, quantitatively. Given that we listen to US media, we hear a lot about how awful China is doing.

    On the other hand, the US Iraq occupational authority did not allow freedom of press, and in fact shut down a number of media sources for criticizing them (newspapers and the only Arab-language news network). Naturally *that* didn't get much air time -- but godless communist oppressors censoring critical media is acceptable and *required* content for us to hear about.

    1. Re:Censorship, China, and others. by LnxAddct · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know someone involved with the US Iraq authority shutting down various media outlets and IIRC it is pretty much because they were being used to organize ambushes and attacks against the US and/or instigate further crimes against the troops. Now I'm not saying that I agree with censorship, but there are exceptions ( as there are with all rules). Its not just a black or white issue, its more of a "We are getting killed to ensure these people's freedom, having the media be free is one of these freedoms, however it is currently being used to aid in killing us, if we are killed we can't try to ensure their freedom so we must temporarily put some restrictions on this to make their future better." Now whether or not you think the US is really fighting for the Iraqi's freedom or not is a different debate, but I do know that the US Soldiers, in particular the Marines, are over there fighting and dying fully believing that is why. So regardless of Bush's intentions, the guys really doing the fighting really want the Iraqi's to be free and are trying their hardest.
      Regards,
      Steve

  32. Bears Defecate In Woods. Official. by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 4, Funny

    Company chooses to make money over being banned shock!

  33. Contrary to popular belief by killua · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is in the market to make money. They are a buisiness that is what they do. If they think by sensoring google news for chinese users that they cah make money, then yes they will be sensoring to there hearts content. Don't be fooled into thinking they are anything but that, a buisiness.

    Don't get me wrong, i like unbiased uncensored news as much as the next person, but its obvious that google feels they can make money otherwise, so is it really so shocking?

  34. Re:*shakes head* by Errtu76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pressured? I think it went somewhat like this: you work according to our law or you don't work at all. You are completely 'free' in making that choice.

  35. I doubt at all by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how much google supresses certain news stories that the US fed deems innappropriate?

    I doubt at all. I mean, every day there's headlines about this or that bad news from Iraq, or "news" like "Kerry said blah blah ...". Not to mention "reputable" exposes from CBS.

    I know it's popular for today's youngsters to pose as though they are living in an oppresive dictatorship, but it's bunk, and really insulting to those who actually do.

  36. Homeland security by hey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just wait a few years and the US will start censoring websites. In the run-up to the Iraq war US news outlets didn't ask any questions. Americans who looked at cbc.ca or bbc.co.uk realized the world was against the war (for good reason). Only seems reasonable, for homeland security reasons, that Homeland security dept should not allow Americans to read evil foreign websites in the run-up to the Iran war.

  37. What about the Government? by linuxrunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love how people are bitching about how Google is at fault for possible complying with the Chinese Gov't.

    And that Google's policy is Don't be evil, unless you have to...

    But no one is bitching about the Chinese Government... What's up with that? It's the Chinese Government making these policies, and if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple.

    If the United States Government required Google to filter out all READ: EVIL CONTENT, then the same folks would be up in arms over the US Gov't, and not google.

    I guess out of sight out of mind eh? Or maybe it's just expected from Communists? I can't say why... More of an observation, but I do find it interesting that people are reacting harder on Google then the Government.

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
  38. Google does the right thing. by mowler2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China may be stupid and have draconian laws. But in my opinion, and objectively, it is as much wrong to ignore laws in china if you do business in china as it is to ignore USA-laws when doing business in USA.

    If I don't agree to some laws in the USA, because they don't match my morale, it does not give me any right to ignore them. Likewise it is for google in China.

    It is simple to understand the issue by this reversed question: Should china ignore some laws in USA, if they do not agree with their morale/ideas?

    Google does the right thing.

  39. Censorship works in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A friend of mine just returned from a trip to China where he was working for 3 months. He said that nobody there had ever heard of the Tiananmen Square massacre. When he explained what he knew about it, the Chinese people he was talking to just said, "Anyone could make up stories about our government." He tried going back to his hotel room and searching for the information, but he couldn't get any results.

    What bothered me more was a conversation I was recently having with an American friend of mine (I'm Canadian) over a beer. He said that 9/11 was the first time that the U.S. had been the subject of an unprovoked attack on its own soil since the British attacked the U.S. in the war of 1812. I was sitting in stunned silence after he said that. I know for a fact that the U.S. burned Toronto (then called York) to the ground before the British attacked Washington. How could that be considered unprovoked? So, given that we're both products of our respective country's state funded education system, it gave me a queasy feeling to say the least.

  40. Transparent proxy. by puddnhead7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any evidence at all that it's Google that's responsible for this? We use a combination of Squid in transparent proxy mode and policy routing to do something very similar at the company I work for. It seems more likely to me that the Chinese government is altering google searches in this fasion than that Google itself is.

  41. Remarkable restraint by amightywind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations

    I assume you are refering to the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Iraq. By harboring UBL after 9/11 the Taliban was complicit in an act of war. Perhaps you think the U.S. should have entered into peace talks with Mullah Omar? As for Iraq, Saddam's regime murdered 400,000+ of his fellow citizens, violated the sovereignty of neighbors Iran and Kuwait, renegged on a surrender agreement, defied UN resolutions for 12 years, and bought off security counsel members though the "oil for food" racket. I think the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Remarkable restraint by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for Iraq, Saddam's regime murdered 400,000+ of his fellow citizens, violated the sovereignty of neighbors Iran and Kuwait, renegged on a surrender agreement, defied UN resolutions for 12 years, and bought off security counsel members though the "oil for food" racket. I think the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint.

      Restraint? Why do you say that? Why is it our job to police everyone else? Or, more accurately, why is it our job to selectively police Iraq and ignore other hotspots such as Sudan and Chechnya?

    2. Re:Remarkable restraint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for Iraq, Saddam's regime murdered 400,000+ of his fellow citizens, violated the sovereignty of neighbors Iran and Kuwait, renegged on a surrender agreement, defied UN resolutions for 12 years, and bought off security counsel members though the "oil for food" racket.

      Those would all appear to be really good reasons. So why did Bush focus on fictional Weapons of Mass Destruction and totally improbable links between Saddam and Bin Laddan?

      Why are the majority of Americans seemingly so happy that the President outright lied to them? Clinton lied about getting a blowjob and the entire world grinds to a halt, but Bush lies about a war were hundreds of service men and women have died and there is barely a peep.

  42. Why pick on Google? by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 2
    Why not jump on Cisco (or whoever) for selling the Chinese government the equipment that helps them maintain so much control over what people can see and do on the Internet? And I'm sure that Motorola must be accomodating to the Chinese government in some way (beyond giving a huge chunk of the business and intellectual property as required to do business there) in the phones they make for sale in China.

    For that matter, why not jump on me, or you, for not putting down that "Made in China" item in the store? Moral outrage should not be aimed at one company.

    What worries me most about China is the skill with which they are able to control what the citizens see and believe, to the point that their notion of reality is so very different from ours. Differences of opinion (as between the U.S. and the French, for example) are natural, but when the lens through which information is filtered is not filtered, but distorted -- nay, completely altered -- there's a problem. Add to that the fact that China is or is becoming the largest market in the world, and you have the potential for something with far more impact than the U.S., and even more warped!

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  43. So, okay, let me get this straight by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 3, Funny
    Google:
    • Won't post (paid for) ads about firearms products.
    • Will assist a repressive regime in censoring information from its people.
  44. Wow, more hypocracy please? by Pragmatix · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Some of you people have very selective morality. You eagerly condemn Google for compromising in order to do business with China, but completely ignore the fact that half of the crap most of us buy is made in China.

    The average American does a lot more to support China's policies than Google does by filtering a few searches.

    Of course my hope is that stability and economic growth have a good chance of breaking the stranglehold of any dictatorial government. But we will have to wait and see.

  45. Only the Westerners? by darth_zeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for your anti-west sentiment, but what about russia? japan? china? the Islamic empire? Shaka zulu? Genghis Khan? present day somalian warlords. present day egypt, iran, syria? 1951 North Korea?

    conquest is a Western invention? my ass it is.

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  46. well... by mattdm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They are only in a difficult position if you fall into the ideology that Google has a responsibility only to its shareholders.

    That's not ideology -- it's US law. If they do anything else, they can be sued.

    1. Re:well... by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      I keep seeing this "they can be sued" phrase pop up, and it's time to put a stake through its heart.
      1. A company can be sued by a shareholder for just about anything they do. All it takes is profits being below a prediction (or some half-assed guesstimate), and someone will point to a particular corporate action as being the alledged cause. Most (90% or so in an average year) such suits are unsuccessful. Google can still be sued for working with the PRC's laws, if profits fall (even in some other division, as that could be called a PR backlash!), or for not investing agressively enough in China, if profits fall, or for not dropping this silly internet stuff and becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer, if profits fall.

      2. Google is not a majority held public company. Lawsuits would be coming from minority stock holders. Minority stock holders have a steep hurdle to prove in any suit - that is they have to prove that they don't have the ulterior motive of trying to make their minority of votes (or their non-voting influence) steer the board of directors on an extra-legal issue.

      3. US law simply doesn't say what you are misquoting it as saying. The law actually requires any corporation to abide by some pretty strict standards of ethics that often go against maximizing shareholder value, as in these examples:

      First,
      http://www.business-ethics.com/current.htm/
      alwys has some examples of companies that have done the right thing, (in the opinion of the editors). You can look at what they did, and decide for yourself if they were under pressure of lawsuits or not.

      Then there's the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is intended to have a positive impact on accountability, and is sometimes misconstrued to support your position. Most significantly (for this discussion), the Act imposes new responsibilities on CEOs and CFOs who could face criminal sanctions for false certification of financial reports. This was done by congress, because so FEW shareholder lawsuits against corporations were successful, and it was deemed necessary to give suing stockholders some "teeth" in a few cases of outright fraud, sufficient in itself to lead to criminal charges.

      http://www.genusresources.com/site/content/publica tions/articles/tatelbaum_sarbanes.asp/

      Will go to a prety good overview of Sarbanes-Oxley, and why it DOESNT leave companies wide open to any lawsuit some shareholder attempts.

      You could also read up on The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It prohibits giving anything of value, directly or indirectly, to foreign government officials or foreign political candidates in order to obtain or retain business. It is strictly prohibited to make illegal payments to government officials of any country. Given the PRCs poor worldwide reputation on this, Google management could easily win just about any shareholder lawsuit, simply by saying bribery became a major issue.

      (I give up. If I'm gonna keep biting on these legal related posts, I might as well change my sig to IANAL).

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  47. Google is partially blocked in China by Mitch+Monmouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in Shanghai. Google Cache and Google Groups are both blocked from anywhere in China (except oddly through China Mobile GPRS.)

    This can be quite annoying, particuliarly when a site is down or I don't want to load a .doc file. Being unable to research with Google Groups is also a problem since I work in technology.

  48. This is nothing new by Xepo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here's an article dated January 2003 talking about how google decided to cooperate with the Chinese government, and why. This isn't new at all, in fact it's over a year old. Google's don't be evil policy hasn't changed, this is one decision which they decided it was less evil to cooperate.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_ pr .html