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.
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.
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
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
You are disappointed in Google? Are you sure that you understand what their situation/predicament is? They simply do NOT have the option of providing an uncensored search engine in Chine at this time, so it is either a censored Google or no google at all. I don't know about you, but I will take whatever I can get. At least now they have a foot in the door.
http://wi-fizzle.com Fo' Shizzle Dizzle!
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
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.
I agree with you. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that our own system is screwed.
The likely scenario: Google stands up for freedom and says that China will not receive service. Great, but: 1) The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers; 2) The shareholders would also sue under American Law that makes it illegal for a corporation to do anything purely humanitarian (see: Henry Ford); 3) Google would be signing their own death warrant, as Microsoft and Yahoo! serve the Chinese market, making tons and tons of money and reinvesting at least part of it (if they were at all smart, enough to ensure that Google died) back into the search business.
So, I can forgive Google to some extent. It's a shitty situation but they honestly had no choice from a business perspective. Until our government gives up this ridiculous idea that a little taste of democracy and freedom will have the rest of the world screaming for it in due course (see: recent Palestinian and other Middle Eastern elections), nothing will come of this. We'll continue to see our manufacturing and other industries outsourced to countries that have no labor protections and totalitarian governments with an agenda using our products to oppress their own people.
This isn't something Google can fix. This is one of those things where the government has to wake up, realize that the invisible hand isn't doing a goddamn thing to change these people's lives for the better (Nixon opened our markets and diplomats to China, and we're talking about them 40 years later the same way we were in the 60's), and take action.
The problem is that taking action means, literally, putting our money where our mouth is, which I don't think many Americans have the stomach for.
C
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
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.
Google has to restrict information to comply with US laws? Are there something I am missing?
This isn't something Google can fix.
You're right, it's too late for Google to fix it. It was too late the day of the IPO.
The shareholders would also sue under American Law...
Which is exactly why being a publicly held corporation and the motto "Do No Evil" are simply incompatible. The only way for Google to truly be able to maintain the moral high ground was for it to remain privately owned.
The lesson here is that if you own a company and don't want it to be forced to mindlessly pursue profit at any expense, don't go public. Just don't do it.
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...
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 .
Yes you are right... if Google wants to enter the Chinese market then they have to bend to the will of the Chinese government. Western companies must realise that things that are taken for granted in the West are not always a given in Asian nations. The overarching culture of confucianism in China is at odds with the ideals that many of us in the West hold sacred- but as visitors to their country Westerners must be flexible and respect their world-view as legitimate. People seem to be of the view that access to an uncensored Google is a basic human right- but not only is this not mentioned anywhere is the Bangkok Declaration but I don't think it is mentioned in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. In Asian countries and China in particular the civil freedoms that we prize play second fiddle to the economic and freedoms that they enshrine. Indeed a universal declration of human rights is alien to Asian culture and the constant need for the West to push this ideal only serves to drive Asian countires away.