Slashdot Mirror
Search Companies Questioned About Chinese Policy
Romerican writes "The U.S. Government is questioning Google in relation to corporate behavior under anti-bribery laws. The government is also questioning Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco about their dealings with the Chinese government. Where do Slashdotters see this going?" From the Red Herring article: "There is precedent for the U.S. government establishing laws governing the conduct of U.S. companies abroad. During 1977 the U.S. government enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which was substantially revised during 1988. The provisions of the FCPA prohibit the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. citizens and prescribe accounting and record-keeping practices. Opponents of the law said it would severely restrict the ability of U.S. companies to compete in many countries where bribery was part of the commercial fabric." ats-tech wrote to give us the link to Google's response to these events, via the Googleblog.
This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. The US is supposed to pride itself as being the beacon of light of democracy and the free world.
Instead, everything here has become so much driven by money that ethics and values become irrelevant when it comes to business. Oh, please don't give me that relativistic bullshit.
The Chinese government has killed thousands of its own citizens in massacres and throws its people into jail without a trial for speaking out against the establishment. They've a record of human rights violations, which is definitely evil by any stretch. I mean, shooting dead protesters and imprisoning and torturing people for speaking out - this is what Google is abetting a government to hide and keep away from its own citizens.
Like the article said, the Internet was something new, something that was a new medium that might help bring about a change and bring to light these things. Companies like Google and Yahoo! had the power to do something about it, the power to stand up to it and say NO. To say that despite everything, we've values and we have a backbone.
Instead, they gave in. More than anything, I'm disappointed in Google. I'm saddened that a company that preached so much about "doing no evil" turned out to be a bloody hypocrite. You know, deep down you knew that it was a corporation and like most corporations, its driven by greedy ass executives who don't care two hoots about anything - but you always had a hope that it would stand upto something and show some nerve.
Nope.
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" -- Edmund Burke.
That quote has never seemed so apropos.
Exactly why do you think the U.S Government is interested in Google's dealings with China?
Is it because:
or...
Please submit your answers below. Don't forget to show your work.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Opponents of the law said it would severely restrict the ability of U.S. companies to compete in many countries where bribery was part of the commercial fabric.
Yep, the US is a pretty bad market to lose.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
...maybe someone important went short on google instead of long! :)
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
Schmidt and Brin both fly around in a personal Jet which uses an absurd amount of fuel. They've justified this by saying that they encourage their employees to buy hybrid cars, and so on the whole they're making a net decrease in fuel consumption. They make the same kind of argument with respect to their dealings China hear - "On the whole, we're doing more to benefit the chinese people than by just leaving them with the crappy system that was in place."
The problem with google's line of ethical reasoning has to do with their predictive capabilities. How in hell do you evaluate which is better? The only widely recognized framework whereby decisions as to what is best for a large number of people can be made is a democratic election/governmental process. By entering the chinese market and agreeing to help the chinese government hide its hideous record, google is saying that they know what's best for the chinese people. Anyone who gets pissed off about right-wingers forcing their religion down other people's throats ought to be equally mad about this, becuase it's the same situation - one group of people deciding they know what's best for others.
My blog
This is a only political rhetoric by politicians who see a chance to look like a defender of freedom. The government understands that we too see some value in asking individuals and corporations to censor information for the public good. The difference is what information and how much. We ask ISPs to prevent speech that infringes on trademark and copyright, national security, hate crimes, ect... I can see very few instances in our history where we put the rights of foreign citizens above the desire for trade with the countries in which they live--why would we start now.
Like the government wouldn't bend over backwards for China if they suddenly decided they'd cash in their bonds if we didn't play nice with them.
just as we already do in those rare instances where we alter results in order to comply with local laws in France, Germany and the U.S.
Does anybody here know exactly which laws - and what search results - they are referring to, relative to the U.S.? I never knew Google removed any results in the U.S. I find that idea a little unsettling, to be honest. What is the U.S. strong-arming Google into hiding???
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Circumvents the US Government prying into Google's databases, and permits Google to continue working in the American Way, by taking advantage of business opportunities without the US Government trying to legislate morality.
Really . . . does our government think China will repent and come to the UN hat in hand seeking forgiveness of the world so that Google can provide them with a search engine? Or have I misunderstood what the government is ostensibly trying to say here, that Google has a moral obligation not to respect the sovereignity of the People's Republic of China because that conflicts with (US of) American ethics?
Good grief, where were these ethical considerations when we were trying to put the whack on F. Castro and J. Stalin? Or more recently during the Iran/Contra debacle? (finding further examples is left as an exercise for the reader)
Apologies to all present - I'll get off my soapbox now, closing with a quote:
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - H. Mallow
These laws haven't ended bribery, but they have resulted in recipts for bribery. I know of people that illegally paid bribery to government officials. They paid "elevator rental fees" to police to gain access to their secured servers, and such. They just collected recipts and declared it as a cost of doing business. It is necessary in many places, and makes no more sense than declaring haggling illegal because it isn't popular in the US. I guess they should just call them "campaign contributions" and not worry about it, like they do in the US.
Learn to love Alaska
of the countries they don't do business in? American law is now global law?
I'm not exactly sure why it would be the place of the US Government to regulate privately owned corporations this way. The article mentions the "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" but I'm not sure that uncensored internet search is a basic human right (don't get me wrong, I'm against the cencorship, but I'm also against the government meddling with the private sector).
At the very least this is definetely a change in Google policy. As noted today on Google Blogoscoped Google has removed their entry on censorship, which used to read "Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results...". Attempting to navigate to the page now results in a "Document Not Found". It turns out that not being evil isn't necessarily in line with the interests of a corporation, who's job is to please shareholders and not users (or the government!).
From Google's response
Can someone point me to a google query that indicates that its results were filtered in accordance wuth US laws? Or am I misreading that?
Cheers
-b
If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
From TFA:
>Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing
>to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population,
>however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with
>our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users
>trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the
>choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn and making a major
>ongoing investment of people and infrastructure within China, we intend
>to change that.
In other words, Google has put it's "mission" (its business interests) ahead of what is morally right. Rather than simply take the other, unmentioned option, that is, simply refusing to compromise and not provide any Google services at all, they have compromised so that they can have a market presence in China, lest someone else develop one internally that might come to rival Google later on down the road.
To be fair, I think Google's response in TFA was fair and reasonable - from the perspective of a corporation. It was a hard decision, and they made the best they could - for the corporation. But dammit, I don't like it one bit. This idea of multi-national corporations setting up shop in repressive countries and then claiming, "We're just complying with the local laws" smacks way to much of the old "I was just following orders" line. As far as I'm concerned, such corporations are complicit in the repression and they are profiting off of it to boot.
If corporations cannot be counted on to shun such morally bankrupt regimes then there should be consequences for them in the countries that have bled to preserve liberties.
Steve
P.S.
Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
...in the most disgusting, visible, blatant fashion. google is now an accomplices to one of the most evil governments in modern history, one that murders people, destroys families, and violates very noble principle that our country ostensibly stands for and protects. google just spat on the democratic values that the company exploited--clearly for economic reasons rather than out of ideological conviction--to establish good will among consumers. this is evidence that power just creates hunger for more power. i sincerely hope there is a huge outcry against this and that people stop using google in protest. this is more disgusting than alito's appointment. it is egregious and inexcusable.
When Bush administration demanded that Google turn over a list of search requests, it more or less expected them to behave the same way that Yahoo, AOL, etc. did. Namely, it thought that they would quickly and fearfully turn over the information and slink away like a swatted puppy. Instead, Google rolled their eyes, yawned, and told the DOJ to go fark itself. By all accounts, this response threw our good friend Abu Gonzo into a fit of rage.
So now, Bush sees an opportunity to get revenge on Google. Don't get me wrong, I'm not any more happy about Google's deal with China than anybody else is. But let's not pretend that this administration has suddenly seen the light and cares about human rights. Let's call this what it is: an opportunity being taken by the Bush administration to go after a company they consider to be an enemy.
Ok here's what I just don't get. People in China are Chinese citizens. They are bound and supported by Chinese law and government. If their government says they do not the right to certain parts of the internet then how is that a violation of their rights?
Last I checked the Chinese government never agreed to any list of unalienable human rights. Did the UN or any other international body ever decree that the right to post blogs bitching about your government is a fundamental right belonging to all people?
So why then is US company aided censorship a violation of human rights? I can see if the US companies help to compile lists of people to imprison or kill based on web usage (or any other widely regarded human rights violation).... but that doesn't seem the case FTFA.
I mean, if US based Movie_Company_0 makes a movie and supplies it internationally but does not provide copies to China b/c their government says "No", is that a violation of human rights? What about all of the movies made by forign Movie_Company_1 that cannot come into the US b/c the US says no?
Really though, is there any international agreement about freedom of intarnet???
Google has to restrict information to comply with US laws? Are there something I am missing?
Easy. If that were true, we would have been free-basing oil from Iraq years ago.
You topple democratic governments (like in Chile, Iran, Haiti, etc.) and install unelected despots in their place.Funny, I don't remember Iran being a democracy.
Get your own house in order before you start lecturing other people about what's right and what's wrong.No country is in perfect working order. But there is a reason that millions and millions still flock to the shores of the US yearning for the freedom that they simply don't have and will never get from where they originate. Na, we're not perfect, and yeah, the current administration needs to be checked, but we're doing OK considering.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Mr Smith on Wednesday accused Google of "collaborating .. with persecutors" who imprison and torture Chinese citizens "in the service of truth".
Everywhere I look, I see "Made in China"... if that isnt collaborating, its definitally financing the imprisonment and torture of Chinese citizens, as well as financing our own eventual demise...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The US Government probably said something along the lines of "We're questioning your actions in China. But if you were to turn over all that search information we want (and keep doing it) we might be convinced to ask fewer questions."
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
"Get your own house in order before you start lecturing other people about what's right and what's wrong."
:-)
Most of us would love nothing more than that, but alas since the masses don't seem to realize that they are the ones in power nothing changes. We need a major upset in our political system but while the two majority parties may "hate" each other they will protect each other against a third party gaining anything more than a fringe following.
I would promote violent overthrow, but that is a capitol offence
And:
[soapbox]
On the subject of capitol punishment, I see very little wrong with it. The system we have is flawed, yes, but it is not the severity of offence that is flawed, it is the execution of the process (forgive the pun) that is flawed. There are some cases where evidence later shows the person is innocent, I understand that. But given evidence that is incontrivertable (DNA, etc.) or the person is a repeat offender, then I feel that a death sentence is a viable option.
[rant]
It may be worth noting that a repeat offender rapist/child ponorgrapher (creater, not consumer), pedophile, and murderer all should recieve a comparable sentence (IMHO). in the case of the sex crimes, whack off their nuts || rip out their overies on the second offence. If that doesn't fix them then make sure they can not harm another soul again.
[/rant][/soapbox]
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
In the early 1950s the democratically elected president Mossadegh was toppled by the British government with CIA support and the Shah was then installed. The Shah was a bloodthirsty ruler and Iran's civil rights record during his rule plummeted, leading to the 1979 revolution. This truly popular revolution--before it was co-opted by the Ayatollah, was supposed to be about restoring the democracy the West screwed up in 1953.
A good overview of this tragedy is Kinzer's All the Shah's Men : An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror .
It's spelled 'subpoena'
The real question is who is selling China the infrastructure equipment to make all of the filtering they do possible. Now that is some company that is making a killing. They have got to be spending literally 100's of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, to do what they do. It's no wonder the US govt. wants to talk to Cisco. They will need one of their undocumented backdoors so they can go in and spy on the Chinese.
Look it's their country, right. If they were so worked up about it over there, why don't they do something about it. A billion people can't be wrong can they. And if a billion people want freedom why don't they have it already. You can't tell me that if they really wanted to be a democracy or whatever they couldn't make it happen.
So in the end, Google is doing what most of us Americans do, look the other way, buy our cheap ass Chinese made plastic shit and poor quality Wal-Mart goods and go home to our cable TV or MMORPG and forget about what's really going on out there. It's just what the corporations want you to do - go to work everyday, spend your money on crap you really don't need, never have enough so you have to borrow more because you have to have the latest stuff and in the end that's what we call freedom. Yeah right.
Looking at it from my point of view, I think this is not Google's fight nor it should be. Some may said that Google cave in because of the Chinese goverment presure and some said that Google commitment to "Do no Evil" is none existence. Looking at this real hard and relized that Google is not suppose to do anything more then an average American company providing food/supply, oil and the like to the Chinese people. These companies, wheather they support the Chinese goverment or not they are still feeding ALL of the Chinese people to keep them alive to run their goverment and country, which some how produce the idealoligy that's difference from what we wanted. This is not much difference then how Google is merely providing information a service, a resource.
The argument is that American supply companies doesn't starve Chinese people to death because they doesn't support our ideal, they will just supply what is needed and what the ideal are is the topic of the next meeting between the countries. Pointing out Google as working with the Chinese goverment is merely the same as criticizing the supply companies that keep the Chinese goverment alive.
If Google had instead continued to reject them, then China would miss out on Google. The onus would be on THEM to change, because they want google and recognize its value.
I think you're really overestimating the uniqueness of Google. In this situation, China was fine with blocking Google forever. They'd either cut a deal with MSN, Yahoo, Altavista, etc. or let their own hundreds of thousands of engineers build a Chinese Google-like search tool.
The other factor prompting Google to cave in is that they're a publicly-traded company that has to answer to shareholders instead of their principles. If the CEO would have let another company squeeze them out of the Chinese market, he'd be booted right out of his job. The market value of the stock would have dropped and all those rich google employees would be less so.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Lissen, to do business in China, you have to bribe damned near everybody. IF that's an issue, everyone is screwed. I'd better start selling Google stock; apparently the administration's got a mad-on about China.
In other news, nearly all the money spent in Iraq for recontruction was stolen by American contractors. Bribes are paid out in every direction. No news there.
In other other news, the K Street Project has made the Republicans the most paid off people since the Teapot Dome scandal. Bush's people are stonewalling the investigation, and the pictures of Bush with Abramoff are being destroyed as the President says they aren't relevant to the investigation (which he is not cooperating with). Nice to know that the Unitary Executive can tell the Congress what is and isn't pertinent to any investigations of the Unitary Executive.
But he can sure pull the switch on others. Yowza!
Hamas. Snicker. Sorry, couldn't help that.
You want to know why a billion people don't have freedom? I suggest that you read what happened to some students that started protesting for more food, better housing and better teachers at their universities.
t ests_of_1989
Frail humans on foot don't stand much of a chance against tanks...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
Sadly, because I've mentioned Tiananmen Square here, we'll be blocked by Google from all of China. Except for the people who were there and saw what happened, this is one of the filters that their goverment applies. They don't want their people to know that they slaughtered thousands of their own students because they asked for more food, and housing that was warm in the winter and had roofs that didn't leak.
Last time I checked, food and shelter are basic human needs. Without them people become desperate becasue their day-to-day survival is threatened.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
GuanXi is usually described as simply "relationship", but that's more complicated than that. While China has tough anti-bribery laws (you get shot in the head, how's that for a deterrent?), GuanXi permeates business relationships; who-you-know and what-you-can-do-for-them is the key. So accounting measures are nice, but GuanXi is not just about plain old dollar bills, it's more subtle, it's about what you can do to help the director's niece get into a nice university, how you "entertain" the people in charge of that contract you so desperatly want, in short, how you make a moquery of a small thing called "integrity".
It happens at all levels of business transactions: your suppliers will find it absolutely part of their duties to invite you for dinner or karaoke, and to please you any way you want. They'll send girls to your room, sometime without even asking you. It's incidious and a very clever way of exploiting human emotions: by corrupting you with little things, they manage to deepen the relationship, force you to become friends. Before you know it, the relationship that was strictly business has just become a "partnership" between old friends. It's very hard to fight that without offending them. Often, if you refuse to play the game, they won't trust you. It's so engrainned in their expectations of what doing business means that they are sometimes very upset at not being able to please you.
When tendering for contracts in China, some things are expected, like paying for dozen of people to come and "visit" your facilities in Europe or the US, having to pay for their expenses, their flight, their hotel and of course getting them gifts for their wife and pocket money for their taxi. Whether they actually visit your facilities is irrelevant of course, it's usually just a sight-seeing holiday at your expense.
By the way, you don't have to propose it to them, they'll ask and often times even go as far as to include it in contracts or tender offers, usually under a vague wording that allows stretching of intepretation.
I'm not dicing chinese culture and I know of chinese business men who actually have integrity, but foreign companies have a hard time adjusting to the complex inter-personnal requirements of doing business in China and the less-than-ethical way of doing certain things.
It's a very thin and blurry line between friendly relationship and outright corruption. So yes, any company that succeeds in China has done what it needed to do to succeed there: know lots of people in the right places, and did the right things to make it possible for them to get the contracts they needed.
Most often, when you dont want to get your own hands too dirty, you get other people to do it for you: people with family connections or retired officials make excellent lobbyists that you can pay to do all the dirty work for you whithout ever knowing exactly what they did: helps to make you sleep like a baby.
If you think that a good price and an excellent technical offer ought to be enough, then you're naive and will lose a lot of money in China and never get a contract, that's guaranteed.
So, goig back to google, the question is simple: it's certain they played the GuanXi card like any other company, and it's unlikely that any imposed accounting measures would catch anything suspect. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is all nice and icertainly helps in some cases, but it's self-deceiving as it doesn't guarantee that a company that fullfils the requirements is of a higher ethical standing.
The ultimate irony.
Google's response to the whole China situation is hosted on blogspot.com. This entire domain is CENSORED IN ITS ENTIRETY in Mainland China.
I want to read Google's defense of this -- I really do.
But unfortunately they're supporting the policies that make me unable to read it.
[As a side note, VPN access is blocked as well currently.]
Is that even american tech companies will start operating from outside the USA where they do not fall under American jurisdiction.The American offices will just be a part of the global company. Isn't this what most gambling and porn sites do anyways? Setup up offices in coutries where the standard laws dont apply?
Lord of the Binges.