Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies
koweja writes "Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'. Most of the specific incidents have been covered on Slashdot already. Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
Likewise, as Eastern Europeans were forced to sing The International under the Bolsheviks on pain of death; our capitalist institutions seem hell-bent on destroying the last vestiges of provincial (domestic) accountability.
It's bizarre how, at their limits, capitalism approaches Bolshevism.
Obviously, there is a conflict of interest between these two ideals. On one hand, it's very American to be a capitalist. After all, what is the American dream? On the other hand, it's very American to cherish the freedoms that we are privileged to have. But is it American to push the ideals of Democracy on the rest of the world? Some people would say that it most certainly is, some people would wager to leave well enough alone.
Depending on how you want to look at it, Google and Microsoft are more American than Thomas Jefferson.
Because of the Cold War in the 80's, the worst thing you could call an American was a Communist. But Communism is only talking about the market--Socialism is how the government is run. So what do we value more as Americans, our market system or government? If you claim them to be inseparable, you're greatly mistaken.
And now, Google and Microsoft are trying to bring out beloved capitalism to China. But they aren't also enforcing Democracy in their wheeling and dealing. Is this so wrong? Probably not if you believe every country has a right to govern itself as it so chooses. To quote Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill K.G.: So I encourage you to think twice before faulting Microsoft and Google for their entrance into China. One of the most revered and holy things the American people have is a free and open market system. Granted it's not perfect, we still value it to a great extent. With our corporations extending into China, perhaps they will change to full blown Capitalism also. This is also capital exported from China to America which benefits our economy in some small way.
So remember, we elect our congressmen to represent us , not the people of China. I'd like to see them show more concern for the ebbing of Democracy in our own damn country before they start working on forcing the Chinese to accept our form of government. Perfect the system we have here and, as in the case of East and West Berlin, the people will vote with their feet.
My work here is dung.
You have to address ALL business doing anything in China. Any business activity that boosts the Chinese economy or makes them more competitive could be said to be supporting crimes against humanity.
I'd be all for it if it were more unilateral. It would help force China to play more by international rules than by their own.
on the Capitol steps when Toshiba sold advanced milling machines to the Soviets in the laet 80's.
Generally, when Congressmen resort to theatrics, its a sure sign the actually plan to do nothing.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
So does this work both ways? Will congress condemn companies for following the law here and applaud them when they break it? The fact is if they want to get into China they have to follow the law. The law sucks, this is true, but there are many laws I disagree with here and I have the funny feeling my congressman won't bail me out if I decide to break them.
Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"
Thank God that Congress will never grant China "Most Favoured Nation" trade status...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation:
The US might have more creidibility if our record on civil rights wasn't so shoddy right now.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Our congress is whining about this, however they still continue to make laws for IT things of which they dont understand unless its understanding with a fat contribution check for their campaign!
This is why they declined to attend the hearings. They knew it would turn out to be a combination of witch hunt and ass whupping.
Oh, and some grandstanding, too.
Chip H.
'putting profits before American principles of free speech'
OMG.. No they didn't.. I can't believe they want to make money while sacrificing some American principles..
Meanwhile, lawmakers are getting paid how much by tobacco, big media, defense contractor, corrupt unions, questionnable interest groups, etc?
Maybe someone can help me out and post another few thousand ways Congress and the Senate are corrupt..
--- We need more Ron Paul!
'putting profits before American principles of free speech'
Well, a publicly traded company is supposed to put profits first. If your politicians want them to put some other principle over and above that, all they have to is change the law, making it mandatory.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus said four US firms were putting profits before American principles of free speech.
And they will continue to do so unless it is no longer profitable to do so.
"Corporate Ethics" is an oxymoron. The only real way to keep US firms from doing such unethical things is to make it unprofitable for them to do so. This can be done in any number of ways -- by fine or revocation of charter for repeat offenders. Remember that the fine must be >= the profit made from the transaction or else it is not a deterrent, something we often forget.
We indirectly support the same Chinese Government that censors their internet with our huge international trade imports, but our Congress will criticize just the IT companies.
Seems a bit hypocritical, if you want to stop the perception of helping a censoring government, then stop all trade with China, not just IT.
I don't agree with the fact that these companies are helping censor the Chinese internet, but what about all the other companies that directly or indirectly help the same people profit through other means?
And what about human rights/worker rights/environmental protections? Is censorship a greater problem than these?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Does anyone else find it ironic that the US govt is yelling at companies about free speach, while illegally (yes, that's the correct word) conducting spying operations on its own citizens?
Maury
German law (article 130 of the German penal code) bans a great deal of internet sites dealing with historic revisionism, especially sites which arrive at the conclusion that the holocaust itself (holocaust meaning the systematic executions in the death camps) never happened or if it did happen then not in the numbers and dimensions which are found in the "official" schoolbooks. Sites that have been banned on Google Germany include sites such as http://www.stormfront.org/ and http://www.zundelsite.org/ etc. to name a few.
Did they condemn ebay for bowing to German bans against Nazi memorabilia?
Did they condemn companies for continuing to do business with a mysogynistic France which denies an education to Muslim women who choose to follow their religion?
Is it freedome of speech for all (including the whackos) or freedom of speech only for those opposed to countries that we fear?
Is it freedom of religion for all or freedom of religion only for members of acceptable belief within the Southern Baptist Convention?
Wasn't the US one of the first nations to lift economic sanctions after the Tiananmen massacure?
You've missed the point. The point is not about following the laws in a country where the firm does business. The point is that the firm should have the fortitude to say, "You know what? Even though we could make a killing helping the Chinese government with their 'needs', we simply aren't going to do business there until they clean up their act."
I agree with the sentiment.
And what about radio and TV censorship of, for example, Howard Stern?
Though, if we haven't all figured out by now that politicians are two-faced, then we're dumber than we let on.
I understand the fact that these officials are unhappy that technology companies are aiding the oppressive Chinese government, but there's two things that need to be considered.
First of all, if there's anything that's truly international, it's the internet. People in china need access to blogs, search, and all the rest just like we do. Most people are not going to blog about democracy or political freedom, they're going to blog about what they did or didn't do that day. They'll blog about girls or boys they have crushes on. It won't make headlines, but they should still have an outlet for their musings, even if some political dissidents won't.
And secondly, from a strictly business standpoint, you'd have to be mad to exclude yourself from one of the fastest growing economies in the world that contains 1/6th of the world population, no matter how high your moral ground is.
The main problem, as a poster pointed out here on /. yesterday, is that this issue with Microsoft and Google is a GOVERNMENT problem, NOT a corporation's problem. I agree whole-heartedly, and being a rather odd mix of Republican/Libertarian/(slightly Democrat) person that I am, I can say that I have been whole-heartedly disappointed with President Bush, his policies, and his party's policies during this term in office.
Unfortunately, the only solution is to make sure the Senate, the House, and the Presidency are as split up politically as possible so that no one party has more control than the other. Capitol Hill, it seems, operates more efficiently, and for the greater good when they're too busy bickering with each other to be passing lame laws and bickering with their citizens. Where's a good tyrannical Caesar for the oligarchy to hate when you need him?
Then we can watch the prices of half the goods we buy there shoot up by 20-40% because they can't buy from cheaper Chinese manufacturers. Won't that be fun?
Morale of story? If you're going to punish the goose, punish the gander too. And while you're at it beat on some cel phone carrying pidgeons who are getting too angsty in their blogs.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Microsoft and Google do business in another country. They follow that
countries laws, and that makes them the bad guy?
The law is the law. When doing business anywhere, you must obey the laws that
that land, not just the laws you agree with.
And moreover, if you want to put pressure on a foreign body to change their
laws.... wouldn't that be the job of politicians (talking to other
politicians) and not the job of some corporation?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Didn't you learn that before the age of ten?
This happens in every discussion about China on Slashdot. China defenders, like you, attack the US on the human rights mistakes it makes in order to excuse or paper over worse abuses in China. I'm not sure why you are so bent on giving China a free pass to suppress dissent.
I'm perfectly comfortable taking a moral stance for abolute human rights, regardless of whichever government is trying to abuse them. Suppressing speech about controversial topics like Taiwan by the Chinese government and eavesdropping by the US government are both wrong.
This is probably one of the most hypocritical (to the point of laughter) thing congress has been saying for a long time. If you truly don't agree with the conditions in china you shouldn't have opened trade with them.
It's not like american and chinese manufacturers treat workers of sweatshops that well. Google's actions do zero harm to the chinese people. The government will only allow a censored google through the "great firewall." It's much better for the people to have a powerful search engine and index for most of the items they search for then nothing at all.
Hmmm... Pie...
...With the likes of Diane Feinstein among their ranks. She and her husband have had close economic ties with China for years, megabucks involved. She never passes up an opportunity to suck up to them. One despicable came in 2001 when China tried to shoot down an unarmed survelience plane (yeah, a spy plane). See the article on World Net Daily.
Chaos maximizes locally around me.
These companies are simply trying to operate within the bounds of the law, whether they agree with them or not, in each country the operate in.
If they were to behave any differently in the US, those same congressmen would be bitching about their "unAmerican" behavior for not respecting the law.
Now, that said, why do they think operating in China under Chinese law is wrong? Who cares about their profits (other than their shareholders)? They're there, and that itself, regardless of the restriction placed by the Chinese government, will move the Chinese culture out of their current mindset. At least they're able to participate in an increased exchange in ideas. Isn't that better than keeping them shut up by city or village? And as recently reported on slashdot, those restrictions are not foolproof by any means.
Eventually, there will be changes simply because there is a larger exchange in ideas. Trying to move things forward faster by ignoring the Chinese governments restrictions will only get them ejected, keeping the Chinese people in the dark ages. So IMHO, these congressmen should just STFU and worry about the constituencies they were actually elected to represent.
What these congressmen probably don't realize is that by pushing these companies to influence national policies anywhere, they're setting a very dangerous precedent.
The idea that congress believe they have a 'high horse' to judge anyone else from is laughable. The market in China is so vast the if anyone had refused to conceed to the demands of that govenment, congress would soon be griping about the loss of possible tax income and branding that company communist. NEWS FLASH: American House of Representatives Diagnosed With Attention Deficit Disorder.
Might have been relevant to include a link to the organisation making the statements in the news snippet?
c us/
c us/Members/
Here it is:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cau
And here is their member list:
http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cau
Yeah we can all goggle but why not add a bit of value?
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Not just that; they are complaining about Google giving in to China's censorship, when Google have already been censored by the DMCA in the USA at least twice. One. Two.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
This all makes sense. It is the job of Congress to represent US interests. That is not the job of Google and Microsoft (nor do I think that it's reasonable to expect Google and MS to expend their resources fighting these wars, which have no benefit for either of them).
The people in China lack certain rights and expectations that we have in the United States. If they get ticked off enough about it, they'll do something about it.
For those not familiar with the history of cell communications in China, back when, China had something like four companies bid on the ability to set up cell service in China. China wanted the ability to monitor all calls. Three of them said that they'd do call management work through their own existing infrastructure (in the US), and one (the winning one) offered to allow China to run everything through Bejing.
Now, those three companies suffered a big loss because they didn't want to play ball with China.
Google is not doing anything that is not expected of a typical company in China. If the people there want change, it's hardly up to the United States or the influence of US-based companies to impose that social change. The reason we have these expectations is because someone here fought for them.
Sorry, China, but if you don't like the policies of your leadership, you need to either convince that leadership that those policies are a bad idea or overthrow said leadership.
If the Soviet Union controlled all the television companies at one point, and they insisted on shoving communist propaganda over TVs in the US if people in the US wanted TV content from them, it's a good guess that the US government wouldn't buy into it. Companies don't produce social change -- they simply reflect it. People in China have to decide that they want something firmly enough to demand it of their leadership.
Frankly, I consider the expectation here that Google use its influence to produce change in China (despite the wishes of its leadership) to be on par with the expectation that we produce change in Iraq. Deciding that someone is misguided and just needs a little forcible "help" from the outside is a dangerous conclusion to make.
The US has lots of ideological differences from other countries. It's sexually repressive, allows media endorsement of violence, theologically-influenced, and less socialized. While I dislike some of these themes, I also don't want, say, France to be the one to try to change them (nor do I think that that would work well). People's ideas need to evolve on their own.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Note in the article that "Congressmen" are condemning Microsoft and Google. A fair number of them also condemn the so-called spying operations. They are mutually exclusive.
And expelling people from State of the Union for wearing a tshirt with a message that the government doesn't approve of.
... bows to no one, including the lesser God of Free Speech.
You'd think that, of all places, they'd know this by now in Washinton D.C.; a city in which monopolists have nothing to fear and lobbyists have everything to gain (especially during the last five years).
kettle, meet pot. pot, meet kettle.
The firms have said they will attend that process.
That's good as debate may help. Remember though it's not a company that can restrict speech it's government that does.
Not that I am supporting those companies decisions. They are just doing what the US government does. I think those who go before this panel they should ask questions themselves about policies that help countries like China.
Another example of politicians grandstanding on an issue in a way that makes them look good (to some), while avoiding the responsibility of actually *doing* anything. Are any of these same members of Congress actually working to revoke China's "Normal Trade Relations" (formerly known as Most Favored Nation) status? If not, they're just blowing hot air without expecting to have any real effect.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Now in 2006, politicians are spending quicker than ever and the amount of debt China holds has gone up a bit
So for politicians rambling on about how US corporations are falling into line to please the Chinese, the fact that in order to keep these loans coming in the Government must be friendly to this communist country and still not recognize the democratic Taiwan.
There are bigger structural problems in the USA right now - an alarming statistic is that the average american household has $8k - $10k in credit card debt. This is incredible.
Google's response.
My apologies if this has been posted already.
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
Glad to see so many /.'s saw this as hypocritical...
:-D
I mean GEESH!!! Congress telling companies they are sacrificing American ideals when they (congress) have NONE...
Give me a BREAK!!! (I loved that John Stossle show)
Reminds me of Captain Stern in Heavy Metal...
always cracks me up.
It maybe so, but that doesn't change the fact that what these companies are doing is wrong.
Both are without principles, bottomline.
The second they really annoy the Chinese the Beijing authorities will cut back on their dollar purchases and suddenly that deficit starts to look really untenable. See also reasons for not defending Taiwan.
US Government:
You are spying on your own citizens. Claiming a company is being un-american because they're abiding by other states' laws when you cannot follow your own is a little silly.
You won't allow half a dozen four letter words on TV, and heaven forbid any boobies. Decrying censorship is hypocritical.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you just cite Wikipedia on a geo-political-economic matter?!?
Please explain why the government granted China " most favoured nation" trading status despite their repeated and unapologetic human rights abuses. How dare you betray the ideals of the American view of human rights?
When you can answer this question without using the words "we make more money," then you can criticise others for their actions in China.
Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
What nonsense, and I'm surprised nobody calls them on it:
People in China could access these things with or without Yahoo and MS (and Google). People in China could even develop their own search engines, blogs, and indexes -- in fact, some already have, believe it or not.
The only question is, whose portal they will use? Yahoo, MS and Google will lose marketshare if they don't jump in now, but the Chinese people won't lose access to the Web.
How cynical of these companies, and how gullible Slashdotters are, to repeat this blatently false argument.
No, they are supposed to obey the law first, starting with the constitution. A company can not kill a person in order to boost profit. Yes, a publicly traded company has an obligation to the shareholders, but that obligation does not take priority over other laws.
If you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US. Not sure what happens if you kill a local while you're there... So if you go to China and Google is censoring the net while you're using it that's illegal. I'm not sure about censoring the locals, but it still violates our principals.
Successful people tend to disregard the priciples that created the environment that made them successful. It happens all the time, and I think if Congress wants to smack someone for it that's great - we should deal with congressional misbehavior separately (for those shouting hypocrisy).
I have seen so many articles here on China since I moved and have really been torm most times as to what I could uniquely add. Sometimes my silence was all I could add as I have been blocked from a couple articles/discussions - but not the front page.
From what I have experienced the censorship is annoying. And that is it. Any information you _really_ need are out there and anyone who wants to find something given enough time in a haystack will. There have been a few stories that I have seen that at first set off the filters and then slowly be released and/or fall over and around the net as it were but those didnt truly affect me.
What most people forget is that the people this censorship affects is the average Chinese citizen. Not you, and not even a Beijing laowai like myself. Ther is an inherent view that we have been raised with that makes censorship mean different things to us and I really cant stress this enough. I dont want to justify anything but I do want to put forth the average persons view that what the government is doing is _not_ inherently wrong.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
I certainly have no problem with people voicing their concerns over the policies of other people or companies. I do take issue with the calls for legislation banning companies from complying with the local laws of the other countries where they operate.
Whether you agree with Chinese policy or not, they are a sovereign nation. American companies do not have any _right_ to operate in their borders, they're allowed to operate; a permission the Chinese government can revoke at any point. Compliance with Chinese law is required for the ability to operate. We, the U.S., are the same. Any company not complying with U.S. law within our borders will not be allowed to do business. Google, Microsoft, the US Government . . . do not have the right to impose a viewpoint on China.
Does that mean I think Google should censor results for China? Absolutely not. I stand by the principles of free speech and think all content should be freely accessible to all people. But, I also recognize China has a right to legislate how it sees fit. I'd take issue if Google was censoring Google.com, but they're not, they're censoring Google.cn. As far as I'm concerned they're complying with local laws. Its an internal matter between China and a company operating within its borders.
The fact a US company is willing to work with a country whose policies we disagree with is just part of the same capitalism we hold so dear: China is a huge market and we place money above all other concerns.
... that european companies shouldn't obey America when it violates highly cherished european concepts like social welfare, lack of the death penalty, and the fact that you can't patent software?
James P. Barrett
How many of you complaining about Google/MSN/Yahoo! buy stuff that was made in China?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
1. Grant China Most Favored Nation trading status.
2. Bend over backwards to ensure that US/China meetings are not harmed by any silly protests about Tibet (or Xinjiang, or anywhere else...)
3. Move manufacturing to China.
4. Deal with annoying 'pandering to China to make a short-term buck' image, by freaking out at US companies who obey local laws.
5. Profit! Actually, profit at every step!
Didn't need the ??? this time, cause it's all kind of straightforward.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
when you don't contribute to enough political campaigns. Just a few hundred thousand dollars and this wouldn't have been an issue.
That is exactly the first thing that popped into my head when I read the headline.
Apparently, it's ok to grant them preferred trading status so we can all get cheap stuff that's manufactured there (conveniently forgetting all the bad things), but it's not ok to obey their laws inside their country to do business with their people.
This is just plain hypocracy from our gov't (yea, yeah, I know
- Brian Roach
If everyone stood by their principles, no freedom-loving company would do business in China.
What happens if they stay out? Then China uses its massive population to develop equivalent services, thereby reinforcing their monoculture. Staying out is NOT going to bully the Chinese government into changing laws. They have no incentive to do so.
As long as there's SOME influence of foreign information services in China, there will be some leakage of outside ideas into China.
Yes, we all wish that China would wake up and embrace democracy and freedom for its people. But we also wish that Pakistani Muslims would stop hating Hindus for being "idol worshipers", but that isn't going to happen any time soon either.
yeah, nice how you ignored the Florida Rep.'s Wife who was removed as well for wearing a PRO military t-shirt...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Pot calls kettle black, brief fight ensues, they both make up and get chinese as the owner lets them eat on a tab. Still nice to see something vaguely progressive since the state of the union was all about the evils of the world including a lack of democracy. Last I checked China and Saudi Arabia weren't incredibly democratic, especially if you discount the democratically-elected parlaiment of Iran and say they are not democratic. Drink up shriners.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of free speach in the good ol' U.S. of A lately.
Taiwan had US diplomatic recognition for a few decades, until Carter revoked it. The result is that we recognize a dictatorial communist government, and refuse to recognize a free-market, democratic government.
Why? Because everything runs smoother that way. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and principles be damned.
If any of these congressman vote to extend diplomatic recognition to Taiwan despite the costs, then I'll know that they're for real.
Until then, they're just trying to score cheap political shots.
Clearly some brave Dutch company needs to stand up for our rights and deliver marijuana to the oppressed American people! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
The government is composite. It's not one person that you can shake a stick at it and say "hypocrite"! It's got Republicans and Democrats and moderates and a few crazy Libertarians and some Greens and probably the random Communist and even the closet Nazi here or there. Do you find it ironic that a group of people can express multiple viewpoints at different occasions in time?
So because these large corporations pay taxes and they pay the congresses salary, they're okay with taking a pay cut just for free speech internationally? Finally! Some true American Patriots!
How easily these posters toss aside other people's civil rights. As Martin Luther King wrote, serving jail time to protect the rights of Americans reading this,
This relativism, that the Chinese Communists' "system" is an equally valid alternative to ours, is nonsense that's been repeated for decades to justify the oppression of others. Jefferson wrote, All men are created equal; he didn't specify Americans. Democracy is not the American system, it's only letting the people decide the system instead of leaving it to thugs with guns. Instead of Westerners arguing that it's valid on their 'free as in speech' Internet forum, why not let the people of China decide whether to keep it? Too bad they can't even read about the debate, much less meaningfully participate, much less do anything about it.
Saying that censoring commercial 'speech' (e.g. DMCA issues) in the U.S. justifies censoring political speech in China is false and painfully cynical. First, I don't remember Slashdotters supporting DMCA censorship. Second, does one wrong justify the other? And finally, I don't beleive posters don't see the difference between commercial and political speech -- Just think how cyncial this argument has become: This large community religiously supports 'free as in speech' software and freedom for programmers, but not actual free speech and self-determination, about real political issues, for real live human beings?
Finally, regarding the companies involved, with their power comes responsibility that goes beyond making money. An obvious example, companies can't make products and disregard consumer safety. Nobody supports large oil companies propping up dictators who blackmail them with market access, nor the companies that aided Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Pinochet, the Soviets, or the rest of them. If the privacy or civil rights of Slashdotters were on the line, I'm sure this would be easier to see -- in fact, Slashdotters daily assert those rights and argue forcefully for them.
Yes, it puts an unfair burden on those companies, which must sacrifice more than others, but those companies benefit (like I do) from the sacrifices that came before them, which provide their rights, security, and prosperity. What about the companies that lost money on wars? What about the millions who died, mostly aged 18-25, over 200 years?
There is no excuse for supporting the oppression of the Chinese people. I hope they become free some day, and remember who supported them and who made a few bucks.
I had no idea who Tom Lantos was before this, but I decided to investigate. Turned out he voted to block China's Most Favored Nation status in 1997, and again in 1998, and in 1999, against the wishes of a Democratic president. He also voted against the 2000 bill giving China permanent MFN status.
So, allegations of hypocrisy are misplaced in this particular instance.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Based on the premise of many like-minded posts here on /.:
Therefore, as shown here, we can extrapolate:
The primary goal of the corporation is to reduce the value of shareholder investment to zero over time. (see Dot.Com Bubble)
--
Sig monde
These congressmen who scorn censorship-laden governments are the same that had to be banned from Wikipedia for their censorship practices?
My other post is a First.
In my opinion, China should be free to make the laws that they want, and then the companies who do business with them need to follow the laws they make. The congressmen should be attacking the policy of China if he does not like the actions. There is no point in telling companies to stay out... unless they want to go all the way and place an embargo on China or something like that. That is why they have to power to do that. I am not saying that an embargo is a good idea, as every cheap plastic toy that we have here is made over there, but I do not think that telling companies to stay out is a good policy. We want to get US based companies to sell products and services to China to reduce the trade deficit anyway, so telling them not to do anything over there is a bad idea. If he wants to complain about something, anti-competitive practices are a good target, and DRM is also a good target, or the patent companies, and the list goes on. There are better things to attack then things that are just following government policy.
[from my recent blog]
If you have been Chinese since the 1940's it's hard to imagine anyone thinking
China is imperialist. Of course it is possible to say that China as capitalist
would be equally shocking to Chinese society before 1980. Imperialism requires
either a king or heavy handed policy. Historically war has been the direct
result of this style of policy however in recent times economic sanctions also
work. Take for instance the US led sanctions on Iraq.
While most countries require the UN to impose economic restraints, China has the
singular ability to make economic policy with it's own weight. Google's recent
policy decision to self censor information fed to Chinese citizens is proof of
her ability. Even though the United States does not have the
same sorts of restrictions on information dissemination Google has chosen to
impose restrictions on itself in order to continue diplomatic relations. It
would be interesting to know whether Google has Taiwanese relationships and
how they plan to explain themselves. "Taiwan Independence" is one of the
restricted keywords.
China is not new at imperialistic tactics. A paper from the China Quarterly,
from Cambridge University Press, describes the "Macedonia Project" where China
bought influence in post communist countries before Taiwan could. Countries
who are UN abiding do not recognize Taiwan as a soverign country. Macedonia did
recognzie Taiwan for a time as a country.* Capitalist nations follow their
corporations. Corporations follow the revenue. Any percentage point higher then
one from the overall population represents a large potentional of revenue from China.
The Japanese idiom that "business is war" could be taken literally here. As
our nations corporate players jockey around the Internet our governments bend
policy to their will. In this case the pronoun "their" is entirely subjective
and could be the government's will (presumbly linked to the people) or the corporation's
will (presumbly linked to the shareholders). If the government were to enact a policy
that stated "corporations could not create policy that would be illegal to enact on
citizens of the United States" then entities like Google and Yahoo would be
bound to comply. There would also not be a financial risk to them since the US
government would be responsible, and the ultimate defendant, in legal action.
Until that time China will have the ability to bend corporate policy to her
own will regardless of that company's own laws.
* Canada currently favors Taiwan with diplomatic level relations. The US officially recognizes "One China" but continues to sell fighter jet and submarine technology to Taiwan.
China leaders blast Microsoft for bowing to US pressure to reduce monopoly status
Slashdot readers expode trying to decide to defend Google and Microsoft or Free Speech and US Congressmen.
-David
Come on, people, this has nothing to do with free speech. I've been to HK and I see more freedoms in the market there than I have every seen in the US in my nearly 18 years of being in business.
:)
Google censors in China? They also censor in France and Germany. Who is moaning about that?
I have repeatedly considered moving to China (can you hear the cheers?) to start a business. The barriers to entry are tiny, the work force is hungry for providing efficient work at a fair price, the government is not looking to control me in order to support their cronies, and the tax level is tiny compared to the US. The only place I'd rather be would be in the DFIC in Dubai (tax free regulation free law free zone beyond the reach of nearly every government).
Don't slam China -- they're doing what the US did for the 150 years that we grew -- they're PUSHING for freedom. Sure, they're censoring some political speech, but that is nowhere near as bad as what happens in this country every day. My own family tells me to be careful of what I write on my sites. That's security an freedom?
Also, no one in China is barred from Google.com -- only google.cn is censored. They can easily switch domain names and get what they want.
A.B. Dada -- karma limited to posting more today
A possible way to discourage this type a behavior is to create a Censorship Tax on US exports.
This way China (or other repressive governments) would have to pay more or it wouldn't be worth the added expenses for US companies.
Are these the same congressmen that have no problem shafting your rights for corporate profit? They don;t even blink when they pass laws like the DMCA and now the Broadcast flag discussion, but they are all up-in-arms when Chinese rghts are violated? Please give me a break. Sometimes I think it would be better to move to anotehr country that the US is "Rebuilding and helping" because the home front is being neglected.
I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.
China is a totalitarian state where a few individuals control all aspects of the economy and the law. In the US this system is essentially replicated with leaders of major corporations controlling US economy and law.
Google is censored in China to protect those in charge: totalitarian political leaders. GOOGLE IS CENSORED IN THE US to protect those in charge: our corporate totalitarian leaders. THE US WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO CENSOR GOOGLE! Just because it wasn't our "government" doing it doesn't make much difference. The "government" in the US is rich corporations.
I remember Brin of Google (or was it the other one?) on an NPR interview a couple of years ago. It went something like this:
NPR Host (Terry Gross): blah blah Brin of Google. Blah blah countries want to censor Google. Are there a lot of countries that want you to censor search results?
Brin: Oh yeah.
Gross: Like what countries?
Brin: Well, the United States.
Gross: Oh I'm sorry, I wanted to know which countries forced Google to censor their search results....
Brin: Yes, the United States.
Gross: I'm sorry?
Brin: US corporations force us, using political and legal pressure, to censor websites they claim are stealing their intellectual property. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - bitch!
Here's the interview.
This intellectual property thing is BS, just so you peanut gallery people know. The church of Scientology has successfully used IP law to force Google to censor sites that criticize Scientology. I'm sure there is other stupid BS like that around too. Type "xenu" into Google and scroll to the bottom.
The US is no different than China. Google censors sites for the totalitarians of the US just as they do for China. I guess everyone wants to believe that the US is some bastion of "freedom" but give me a break! There is a ruling class in every country and these overlords do everything they can to maintain and increase their power. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and that's it. Welcome to the real world. Stop getting your panties in a bunch over this "freedom" propaganda.
Damn I hate Terry Gross.
Bowing 2 Beijing
What is new about what Microsoft and Google are doing that would warrant complaint? China enjoys "most favored nation" trade status and Americans have been trading with China since Nixon normalized trade relations with them in the early 70s. It's not as if we have had hundreds of billions of dollars invested in China for decades or anything.
Also, at the risk of being self-referential, let me repeat a point I made in an earlier thread.
There are two ways the US can go, and it's tried both. It can take a hard stand on principle, as the United States had done before Nixon, and refuse to deal with anyone who restricts speech, jails reporters and dissidents, beats and tortures Christians and Falun Gong (sp?) but this won't accomplish anything but drive China further from us. Look at how successful our hard stance against Castro in Cuba has been. We've refused to trade with Cuba for 45 years and guess what? Cuba is the poorer for it but Castro is still there, so are his policies. Nixon decided this wasn't going to work, that China was going to become a global superpower with or without us, and that it was better that China liked and understood us and was allied with us rather than viewed us as a rival that refuses to have relations with them. It's much easier to go to war against a country when you have had no economic ties and no diplomatic relations for decades.
Or, we can let capitalism take its cour
Suppose you're a librarian and an FBI agent shows up and wants to know the complete list of books and websites this particular Muslim patron looked at. They don't have a court's warrant, but you still have to comply, of course. You're outraged, you want to scream, you want to protest, you want to blog, you want to write a letter to the editor, you want to call your congressman! Oops, nope, can't talk about that, sorry, it's illegal. That's freedom of speech for you, in these United States of America.
The same is true for bank employees, by the way, and everyone working with financial records, including casinos, pawn shops, U.S. Postal Office, car dealerships etc.
Nice rant. Make it coherant and somebody might listen to you.
Mod parent insightful but troll.
why would 'anyone' except the perhaps people in the US care about what US congress thinks? what about our problems here in Australia bowing to the US government's needs?
Has the U.S. officially recognized Tibet as an illegally occupied country?
Has the U.S. officially recognized that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory, which would include east Jerusalem?
Oh wait, Hamas was democratically chosen to lead the Palestinians? Fuck em!
While I am in favor of drug decriminalization, you're trivializing the issue when you compare America's laws against marijuana to China's laws against speaking out against its laws against marijuana. Follow?
If a company comes here to do business, they have to abide by our rules against marijuana. If we go to China to do business, we have to abide by their rules against criticism of the Party. If we go to Morvikonia to do business, we have to agree to help them round up and execute women who have been unfaithful to their husbands. These three situations are all exactly the same, right? Of course not.
If you're going to make this sort of analogy, at least compare apples to apples. Maybe you could talk about how other countries might stop doing business with the U.S. for, say, our detainment and torture of war prisoners, or our spying on our own citizens without any sort of due process or oversight.
But then people start thinking, "Hey, that sort of makes sense," and your whole argument gets blown out of the water.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The type of statements made by these politicians is intended for an ignorant audience. "Most favored nation" trade status, anyone?
If a billion people want to change their oppressive government, it will happen in time. Although in the U.S., our Federal government labels many patriots as terrorists.
This is hypocrisy at it's best. The federal government (under Clinton) gave China most favored nation status, ignoring human rights, environmental, and other issues in doing so. Now that same federal government (ok, different players, but still) is criticizing industry for not doing THEIR job of enforcing 'merican values.
If I were these companies, I would ask the Feds: WTF are YOU doing to encourage American values in China?
Google et al are just doing what we told them they must do... Their shareholders can sue if the board takes an interest in the welfare of the people over profits...
This isn't a Google/China problem, it's a problem with our definition of a corporation, and it impacts us just the same. Don't like it? Change the definition such that Google can take an interest in the welfare of people (not just Chinese people -- all people).
You can't get mad at someone when they do what you told them to do, just because you don't like the end result.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ah, the old "I was just following orders!" line. Truly an unimpeachable excuse.
Profit before principles is as American as penny stocks and get rich quick schemes.
If we are going to force companies to apply Freedom of Speech and other rights of America why not make them apply all of our laws like Minimum Wage laws....
I really don't think obeying the laws of the counrty you do business in is a bad thing. Yes if the regime is oppresive you are going to have to limit services or products but we live in a global community and we have to play ball. Yes google, yahoo and msn could have told all of china too bad, but I belive that would be a huge dis-service to the people. Would you rather have limited web access or none at all? If change is going to happen in China it will happen from with in not because an American corporation refuses to filter it's internet sites. These companies are evil for allowing China to control its people, but the people allow themselves to be controlled. If everyone in that country stood up at once and said this is it. We are tired of oppresion and we are taking our country back, they could do it. They have more people than thier military could possible control. Yes many would die but how many died in the French and American Revolutions? Its the cost of freedom. If the chines people want unfiltered sites and be able to say what they like they should fight for it themselves. I'm not saying those that want to help shouldn't help them, but an individual corporation should not be held reliable for the laws of the land it operates in.
WTF?
I guess that would be wishful thinking since it would take a major depression and the rabid free trade zealots to be thrown out of Congress and the White House for China's permanent MFN to be repealed.
But it is okay to gut the American economy by taking manufacturing and technology jobs, and exporting them overseas?
But this position is criticised as protectionism. Sure, in a world with a limitation of certain resources, let everyone come in and kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, because everyone one wants a goose dinner. sheesh.
Bottom line: Don't kill the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs. AKA the Tragedy of the Commons.
This, tied in with things like China's long policy of tying the Yuan to the Dollar,(recently changed), led to a flood of resources out of the USA into China, a fine gift of the American people at their own expense. Heck, the situation even made it as a commentary by JibJab, although from another side of the ledger.
(sigh)
>>>>>>>>
Perfect the system we have here and, as in the case of East and West Berlin, the people will vote with their feet.
Which is why the USA has a border problem with Mexico. Not that they want to go to China. Like anything, it's the lure of the perceived "easy life". And in the USA, there is an alarmingly large section of the population who think they deserve the Paris Hilton LifeStyle(TM). Not that they should work for it, but that they deserve it.
There are lots of things that can be considered human rights, but the Paris Hilton LifeStyle(TM) is not one of them.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Note in the article that "Congressmen" are condemning Microsoft and Google. A fair number of them also condemn the so-called spying operations. They are mutually exclusive.
It would help a little to be more clear about this.
China wants to actually prevent broad, freedom-related pieces/flavors of information from being seen, uttered, or referred to in either private or public communications.
Tracking down phone calls to/from known Al Queda members/financiers/taffickers overseas, the other end of which calls terminate in the US in no way causes communications (on Google or otherwise) to be disrupted. Rather, it illuminates calling patterns that help the spooks and domestic law enforcement/intel types actually know who to go after, including actual taps/monitoring of the type FISA is all about (though FISA didn't really contemplate dozens of one-time use calls made from a bag of 50 disposable cell phones bought at conveinence stores from every exit on some highway... no phone use repeated, no ability to level a tapping warrant on any of those phones... but the calls all going to/from consistent numbers in Syria, or Jordan, etc).
Trying to figure out which forms of communication add up to regular enough pattern to track down someone to actually FISA-tap is completely unrelated to filtering words like "freedom" out of your Google searches. Performing one and condemning the other are not mutually exclusive any more than your typical neighborhood watch program is mutually exclusive with condemning Chinese human rights violations. Trying to tie the two together, rhetorically, is nonsense.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh, that's rich. You point out someone's deliberate omission of facts by omitting some yourself. Yes - 2 women were removed from the State of the Union address. One was cuffed and put into a cell, and the other was not. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure what happened to whom.
If Alice tells Bob to "be profitable before compassionate", Alice has no business get angry when Bob does just that.
Charlie, on the other hand, can quite justifiably be upset with Bob for not being compassionate. Charlie can be upset not just with Bob, though, but with Alice as well for making the orders.
There is no rational argument for punishing someone for doing what you told them to do.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Why is it that congressmen criticize China as represive, but reject the idea of recognizing Taiwan as a free and independent state? I think these congressmen need to improve their own policies first before condemning businesses which have no legal obligation to protect personal liberties.
Since when has Congress been concerned about free speech and civil liberties?
Pointing out one of the many sublime ironies in this hardly makes anyone a China defender.
It's too damn funny, really;
"Google, we think you should risk legal prosecution for not maximizing profits, by beeing uncooperative with one of USA's major trading partners because they want your help in censoring information from their people. And by the way, give us those search listings already, would you? We need them to keep harmful web content from our citizens."
(Incidentally; yes, that is a 33 word sentence. Me type good.)
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
There's a small difference between laws drafted by (ablbeit elected) officials telling a coporation to "do no evil, except when money is involved" and me, voice_of_all_reason, beleiving "good is always better than money"
Just out of curiousity, how do you think Google and fellow corporations should handle this then?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Actually, I think it's more ironic that our representatives are complaining about companies doing business in China while they repeatedly vote for China to have "most favored nation" trade status. I mean, given they're actively encouraging companies to do business in/with China, what do they expect?
DNA just wants to be free...
If I had a business in the UK and I wanted to grow and set up operations in the United States, the US would expect that I operate my company under the set of laws governing the US. If my product offering in the US differed from the product offering in the UK, what does this have to do with the UK?
...that just this morning while poking around in my Barracuda Spam Firewall I found a checkbox to enable "Chinese Government Compliance (PRC)". This would impose extra filtering on mail that is likely weighed against some kind of RBL maintatined by the PRC government. It made me think (me a liberal/anti-big business guy) what have we come to when our businesses are supporting political regimes that are violating human rights? This is quite an interesting and non-partisan issue at the core.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Pot, meet Kettle.
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
While ethics are in the eye of the beholder, I don't think any reasonable person can say that censorship of political speech is ethical. You can't be for freedom of speech unless you are for freedom of speech for all people at all time (save very specific restrictions -- clear and present danger stuff). I'm honestly suprised the people who make these decisions can look themselves in the mirror. Of course they rationalize, but when it gets right down to it Google is helping a totalitarian government, which has no right to govern, control its subjects.
They are enablers, and they are directly responsible. Be better than that. Be above doing anything for profit.
Yes, and the US government didn't "bow to Bejing" when we granted them Most Favored Nation trade status?
Oh, and the global community didn't give in by giving China the 2008 Olympics?
When it comes to China, those in power always follow the as-yet-unrealized dollar signs, and fold like a cheap suit. They make noises about how "working" with China will be the best route to a more free and democratic country, but all China does is that it takes everyone's money, enriching those in power, and everyone else there just has a better and more expensive boot on their necks.
For those in Congress to complain about how private companies are giving in to China's demands is like Microsoft complaining about how some other company's code isn't open enough.
(That said, it's one thing to do censoring as required by the government. It's an entirely different thing to rat out someone critizing the Chinese government, as Yahoo stands accused of.)
Search 2010 Gen Con events
...this same goverment is taking google to court for asking to see a warrent before turning over private records of US citizens.
It's not ironic; you still have the freedom of speach [sic], but now the government is recording it for posterity. :)
How many Chinese died when we tried to install a Capitalist system in the 1900's?
When did Congress remove "favored trade status" because of Tiananmen Square ?
Why didn't we push the WTO not to accept China?
Why are my rights as an individual being erroded so a corporation can make money?
Communism wasn't a threat to America because it was Godless or totalitarian. It was a threat because it wasn't Capatalistic.
This is just a politcal cry from a Democrat who has become confused because of the last 20 years of "moderation", ie: the turn of his party away from the people toward money.
I'm no fan of how the Chinese gvt behaves, but at the same time you must respect their sovereignty. But that's a political, not a commercial problem. You can't expect an organisation who's legal mandate is to maximize profits within the constraints of the law to have a social conscience.
So, while I empathise with your position, the problem is that (apparently) a majority of the country doesn't agree with you. They want corporations to provide maximum profit.
Maybe though, most people havn't thought about it. And maybe this will bring it to people's attention. This isn't a Google/China problem. Corporations are 'evil' to Americans in the name of profit as well. It is, as you have said, a problem with the legal requirements we have for a corporation to make profit job-'one' above all else.
Next step? Talk to your congress-critter. Until the law changes, Google et al are behaving exactly as we mandated them to.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Fully disagree.
You claim that China has the right to legislate as it sees fit. Where does this inalienable right come from?
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses. Not from some
farcical aquatic ceremony. Not from the end of a gun. Whatever China does within its own borders is fine by me, so long as China is governed at the behest of the governed.
There is positively no reason to give the will of a tiny clique of despots any moral standing. That goes double for you, Cheney.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
how can we in one breath bash microsoft for failing to bow to the EU's sovereignty, and in the next bash them for compliance with the chinese? google and microsoft are doing the right thing. if the US has such a problem with censorship in china, they should issue statements to the chinese government, the one with sovereignty, the one with the ability to ACTUALLY CHANGE the situation. i know americans are used to big business telling the governnment what to do, but internationally, that concept is ridiculous.
portfolio/blog
Where does your inalienable right to impose your views to another country come from?
However you personally feel about the legitimacy of another country's government, they are the government in charge and, more important to this discussion, they're the government recognized by the international community. Therefore, any company wanting to do business in their borders must comply with their laws.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support helping the chinese citizens bypass the firewalls to get to the information that is censored and I'd stand behind Google or Microsoft refusing to censor. But I do object to demonizing Google or Microsoft for complying with that country's government. And I object to any legislation that makes it illegal to comply with the local laws of another country.
If we, as Americans, have such a problem with the way China conducts itself, then we should impose a sanction. We should forbid all US companies from doing business with them. But we should not make it out as if the people or companies simply following the laws of a legitimate (as in, internationally recognized) government's laws are the bad guys.
I'm not supporting the censorship, I'm just supporting the companies for following local laws and I'm suggesting we stop demonizing them and instead focus the outrage where it belongs: at the chinese government for requiring censorship.
There's News!
how is babby formed?
Let me get this straight: These are the same people who restrict internet and television content on the basis of "community standards". Our religious conservatives can't see anything that might be pornographic ("we don't know what it is, but we know it when we see it") and then bully companies that are providing a service that consumers clearly seem to want.
If California can have different standards than Alabama, then China can have different standards than America.
The irony of Congress' entire argument is that they themselves have supported the censorship of the Internet in certain respects. Now, obviously, it is nowhere near to the extent of the Chinese, but was it not the US Government that was attempting to prevent the creation of the .xxx domain, for example?
Basically, it comes down to this: should we retain the traditional model of the Internet, making it as realistically free (as in speech) as possible? Or should there be certain restrictions, in order to prevent things like libel, where the most recent incident that comes to my mind was the case of John Seigenthaler Sr. and Wikipedia?
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
With the amount of attacks against the free market in the form of intellectual monopoly 'property', that freedom of the market doesnt appear to be very revered or holy.
For whatever reason, some Slashdotters seem to believe that "free market" means "no regulation at all."
Events like the 1929 crash, Enron, and others have shown that capitalism can fail without a referree. In the case of Enron, the company had an agreement with the shareholders: you buy our shares, we give you dividends, voting power, and accurate information about the company. The Enron executives broke that agreement with accounting shenanigans. The lesson was that someone (the SEC) needs to better police what companies are reporting to the public.
Similarly, an economy based on financial incentive for intellectual work (whether it's software, music, movies or books) depends on an agreement between the author and the customer. The author sells access to the work to the customer, and the customer agrees not to distribute copies to other customers without permission. Because this agreement is so common, the government provides a standard called copyright so that we don't have to read and sign a lengthy legal agreement everytime we buy a copyrighted book or music CD. All we have to do is learn how copyright works once, and then we know that everything with "©" falls under that standard agreement.
You call copyright a "monopoly." In one sense, yes it's a monopoly; when you copyright your work, you can exclusive control over it. On the other hand, if I go buy a plot of land, you might also consider that a "monopoly" because I have gained exclusive control over it. If anything, the monopoly you get over land is worse than the monopoly of copyright; there is only so much land on the planet, while there's an essentially unlimited expanse of possible creative works you can create and copyright.
So yes, you gain a monopoly under copyright over *your own work*, just like when you buy physical property you gain a monopoly over it. But if I write a song and copyright it, that in no way prevents you from writing your own song. In a monopoly, the monopolist prevents competition by becoming the only significant seller in a market. By your logic, Ford is a monopolist because it is the only seller of Ford vehicles. That's a completely oversimplified and narrow view. Ford is not a monopolist because there are many competing auto manufacturers, all of which are the only sellers of their own cars.
So, the entire point of copyright is to let authors require customers to pay a fee as compensation for their work. Without copyright, authors would no longer be able to require these fees and would thus become dependent on donations for compensation.
I love open source, and I am in no way saying that proprietary software, music, etc. is necessarily the best way to create work. I'm also not saying that copyright hasn't been misused or that there are no problems with copyright law. But this claim that somehow the basic idea behind copyright is "anti-free market" is really silly. Copyright is nothing more than an economic agreement between two parties that has been standardized by the government because it's so ubiquitous. If copyright is anti-free market, so is any contract between two parties that prevents them from doing whatever they please. Free markets depend on such contracts, one of them being copyright.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Hypocrites... Google can be trusted to uphold constitutional rights more than the currentlegislative body.
Actually what you have to say is very important even though not very well written out. It is important to know what is being censored from you. If Chinese people know what is being censored from them then I don't think the censorship is as bad as it is in the US. US citizens have a false sense that their search results are uncensored. That is a worse mentality than those that know what is being censored.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
Maybe Congress should have thought of this before acquiescing to industry moving its manufacturing base there over the past 20 years.
Given the tremendous economic interdependencies between China and the US in the manufacturing sector, there's absolutely nothing they can do in the form of economic sanctions in order to correct China's human rights problems without committing economic suicide - and probably starting a war, to boot.
Is Google squeaky clean? Hell no. But it's also in no position to effect any improvements from the communists.
First, Congress gives China most favored nation trading status, and now they bitch at US companies for trading with them. Congress is not only a parliament of whores, but also hypocrites. ...And we keep re-electing them as long as they bring home some pork.
How ya like dat?
Wait a minute! Didn't I just read last week that the China Network Information Centre is one of Cisco's biggest customers, relying on the filtering technology which they pioneered in the US!? Damn I wish I could find that link again (it must be filtered in Google or something).
I think that the simple fact that Google, Microsoft, or any other company is legally obligated to maximize profits at all costs is the very reason why congress *should* be getting involved here. All of a sudden Google becomes "evil" for dealing in China, and getting sued by shareholders if they don't?
If I were Google, and honestly concerned about not "being evil", then I would be backing up this legislation 100%. That way they can't be sued by their shareholders when they tell them that they can't operate in China because they would be forced into censorship policies that would be illegal.
But then again, where do you draw the line if Congress were to get involved..... *sigh*
A community-oriented lyrics site
Aren't these the same Bozos who trying to put their own children and yours in prison for listening to downloaded music?
Really, it's time to celibrate Kazaa. They are the world's library, the world's jukebox, and the world's samizdat. There is no difference any more. One country gets all 'upstanding' and upset about some other country ruthlessly suppressing political dissidents or people with a different religion. But that same country will put people in prison for listening to music instead of reading the bible or circulating a political satire.
Face it, they're all jerks. And that's why Kazaa is so important, spyware and all. (KazaaLite is better, though) Kazaa is where people can put anything for download: a pop song, a political satire, the bible, a serious scientific paper, porn. If you want it or need it, Kazaa should be the place to find it.
Along with this realization comes the awareness that there is always going to be something on Kazaa that is going to offend, anger, and annoy you. This too is inevitable. Accept it. Fight it by putting a rebuttal that is better written, better played, better sung, better hung. That's the civilized way of the world, not censorship.
Strive to be civilized, and leave Kazaa alone.
Right up there with Bush's "Drunk on Oil" digression. Hey, Mighty Mouse, the day you are here to save happened twenty years ago.
Corporations put Profits Before Altruism, but first, a bulletin of latest news...
Having lived in China for a bit of time (~ 3-4 years), I've experienced Chinese Web access for a long time. A lot of websites just aren't accessible, since ISPs block a ton of stuff. ISPs in general are governed by the government, and pretty much actively block anything that has to deal with sensitive information. I mean, for a long period of time, geocities.com was blocked. GEOCITIES PEOPLE!
Here's a real example: If you searched something sensitive, around 50-70% of the time, that site would be banned within the next 5 minutes. No, not the site that you got in your search results. Your SEARCH engine would be banned. This has happened on several occasions, where my google just got blocked and couldn't use it for the rest of the day. Honestly, from what I've seen in Google's response, this "bowing to Beijing" just makes it a whole lot easier for the rest of us living there.
Honestly, the amount that google blocks is probably just the remainder of stuff that gets past the ISP filters already in place. It's sad and it sucks that the congressmen make such a big deal of this, when it's much more convenient than before.
While I'm glad to see that some American companies are being called to task over business practices in China I'm afraid that these Congressmen are being hypocritical. What about all the blatant Internet censorship that goes on in Europe? What about the banning of speech, email, and web sites in Eurpoe which espouse certain political or social views? France ordered Google to not let people sell certain types of historical items because they may offend others. Where is the outrage of these Congressman over these matters?
BTW, why aren't Motorola and IBM being called before a committee. These companies are just as guilty of proping up and aiding the Chinese Government as Google, or Microsoft. In fact, aren't all American companies doing business in China guilty?
The feds should do something about it, not just blather. Pie Central is running an article calling for the creation of a federal agency designed to investigate and prosecute American companies for crimes committed abroad.
War is not a legal means to acquire territory.
Familirize yourself with the UN charter, which Israel is a singatory of. before ejaculating misinformation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Before they complain about the dirt in anyone else's house, make sure their own house is clean. Congress should take care of the needs of the voting public, and not the big business interests, and their own interests. Graft, Graft, Graft.
The US was the first country to censor Google.