Slashdot Mirror
Are Web Firms Giving in to China?
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Google and other Internet companies are sending executives to Capitol Hill for a hearing next week seeking to answer the question: Are U.S. companies giving in to China's censorship demands too easily? Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.' The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
China has one of the fastest growing markets
Don't expect a company to take ethics over profits.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
Sure they do, as much as any American company or person. But why should Google be singled out while 90% of my consumer goods come from China? Many of those manufacturers have willingly or unwittingly participated in things worse then censorship.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
What's the difference between Google and Microsoft censorship in China and the sweatshops established by almost every major industrial company in the U.S.? It's okay to force starving children to work for 13 cents an hour, but taking down some democratic journalist's blog in China is not?
What the fuck? Can we start with the worst that US companies are doing first, please?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Where else in the world can capitalism legally exploit human rights for big time savings? Not only that, but all the manufacturing waste can be dumped in the river behind the factory - no EPA!! woohoo!!
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
It seems to me that if people from foriegn lands called in death threats and bomb threats to companies like yahoo where it might not be illegal in a far away foriegn land, yahoo would be outraged and they wouldn't take that kind of threat to their security. But if they turn in people who literally get tossed in jail for 40 years for free press, then it's just business as usual - and they are acting within the laws of the countries they do business in.
At the risk of invoking the Goodwin law, isn't this issue somewhat similar to the moral and ethical considerations of manufacturing Zyklon B, knowning full well how the chemical was being used. Yahoo recently provided information that resulted in the jailing of Chinese Journalist
Not much of an irony when you consider that by fighting in the U.S. they're not risking losing the entire market, whereas in China, trying to fight the government can get google banned from the entire market.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
I guess they can be called the not-so-firm web-firms
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
They also have an obligation to follow the laws of the land. Nobody seems to think China has the right to impose their laws on American companies, which is bullshit. I remember years ago when some punk kid from Minnesota went over to Singapore and was spraypainting stuff, the punishment was caning. People argued over it here also, but I think he ended up getting his deserved punishment, and imo rightfully so.
If some Chinese company comes over here, they play by our rules. Why should American companies expect to be treated differently by Chinese companies?
It's and interesting delimma, but companies are going to take China's huge market over losing out over there. Everybody needs a search engine, if Google didn't censor their searches then they'd lose a potential 1 billion customers. Same with Microsoft and their MSN blogs.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
The people who designed the American constitution said they did not want democracy for America because democracy was not good for stability and the interests of the wealthy. James madison, hamilton, Jay and Jefferson all wanted something less than democracy--they wanted a REPUBLIC.
James Madison, the father of our constitution, said this:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property"
So China is now putting property over people. And that has ALWAYS been A-OK with those at the top in America!
Let's spread "freedom" to the entire world!
eat shiat and bark at the moon
As a Jew, I would like to be able to read Mein Kampf because I need to understand what hatred looks like before it comes knocking on my door. If I were in Germany or France it would be illegal, and Google would hide that information from me.
Why is nobody complaining about how Google is giving in to censors? Because the ability to do business in France hinges on obeying the laws of the country, which means that Google wouldn't be allowed in France at all if Google did block things that were illegal there.
Google's choice is either block what China says to block, or the Chinese get no Google at all. Should we blockade China all together like we do Cuba just because the government is repressive? Why don't we blockade France while we're at it? I doubt many Americans would object.
Google can still be used as a tool for the social good in China, regardless of whatever specific pages are blocked, just like it is in France and Germany.
dom
Isn't it interesting that Capital Hill seems more concerned with companies giving into China's demands rather than dealing with the illegal wiretapping that is happening. I know they are seperate issues, and both very important, but lets stick to our fucking priorities.
And, why?
1. Because China is an enormous emerging market, with lots and lots of money tied up in it. If you don't go along to get along, your competitors will. Or the Chinese will build their own solution and they won't need you ANYWAY. Of course, if THAT happens, the Chinese people will probably be even worse off (so going along to get along is actually the lesser of two evils).
2. Because if you don't cooperate, China *could* send scary people with guns to talk to you personally. I'm not saying they *would*, just that they *could*. After all, they might just see it as a "national security" issue. And we all know how governments have traditionally dealt with those.
3. Because it's a foreign country, with laws you must obey, even if they're unlike the ones you're used to. And because if you DON'T obey them, any staff you have in-country might just get arrested and imprisoned (or worse). You're friends with those people, so you're naturally concerned about their welfare.
I've probably missed a bunch of reasons, but these are the ones that seem most obvious to me.
I just received a letter today from my daughters school (in the UK). Mandarin is going on the *mandatory* curriculum next year.
To quote the headmistress, "Students who speak both English and Chinese will be the future executives"
Although my industry, telecoms manufacturing, is being eroded by China, I'm in complete agreement with the move. If nothing else my daughter will experience a culture radically different to her own. In my day we learnt french, the langauge of a culture 30 miles away.
Interesting times ahead for the next generation.
Slightly off-topic but I thought I'd share it.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
If we restrict ourselves to U.S. corporations, then we can recall the handsome profits Ford and ITT made in Nazi Germany, even when the war was going on. Or we can recall the role of IBM supplying their Hollerith technology to aid the holocaust. More recently, we can look at the role of corporations like ITT (again!) and Anaconda copper in pushing for the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, or United Fruit in Guatemala, etc.
War and dictatorship provide excellent opportunities for corporate profit. Just ask the board of Bechtel or Halliburton.
The only time this comes up is when the press/politicians talk about China or Cuba or Iran, etc. Hell, the same politicians who get on their high horse about prisoners in China used as slaves advocate exactly the same stuff here for American prisoners.
Where ever someone is being locked up, killed or tortured, someone else is making a profit. Take a look at the U.S. prison system if you don't believe me.
Western companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like could present a unified front in dealing with Beijing. They could agree to Western Principles (WP), an expanded version of the SP. Specifically, these companies agree to not assist the Chinese government, in any way, to abridge human rights. If Beijing retaliates by kicking Google out of China, then Beijing will expel all the other signatories to the WP. In this way, no Western company will gain an economic advantage over any other Western company.
How should we handle Taiwanese companies? Long before Yahoo's indifference to human rights in China, Taiwanese companies have routinely ignored human rights in China. In fact, when Western governments and companies curtailed their investments in order to punish Beijing for the incident at Tienanmen Square in 1989, the Taiwanese actually accelerated investments into China, thwarting Western economic sanctions against Beijing.
If Western companies abided by WP but Taiwanese companies ignored WP and human rights, then the Taiwanese companies would enjoy an economic advantage (in China) over Western companies. How can we deal with this situation? We boycott all products manufactured by or sold by Taiwanese companies. The boycott will level the playing field.
The real point is that instead of making hay over the executive's increasingly intrusive surveillance of ordinary Americans, the right wing is trying to change the subject to Google's relatively neutral move to enter China on the Communists' terms. Google is in the news as an advocate of privacy (for not turning over a full week of searches) and the right is trying to tarnish their image.
As evidence, note the Mighty Wurlitzer's campaign for divestment led by right-wing PJ Media and friends. Like Roger Simon's "I like to think that if I had any Google stock I'd be divesting it now". Or here. Or Michelle "The case for interning American Muslims" Malkin.
Don't buy the head fake. Google waited a long time to enter the Chinese market. They didn't just do this for the money. Instead, get back to the NSA illegal wiretap scandal, the Hurricane Katrina scandal, the no-room-at-the-inn hotel evictions of Katrina victims, the Jack Abramoff scandal, the Valerie Plame scandal, the prewar Iraq intelligence scandal (still no Phase II report! senior intelligence official reports that the administration commissioned no strategic-level assessments in the run-up to war), the troop-fatality-body-armor scandal, the Iraq reconstruction money scandal... and many other scandals.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
Which is worse: an American company doing business in China, bowing to Chinese censorship (eg Google), or a Chinese company doing the same (eg Baidu)?
The former extracts wealth from China. The latter only adds more wealth to the existing Chinese establishment.
(PS: As an AC, Slashcode gave me the following CAPTCHA: "dissent")
But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
By law, corporations must consider only the shareholders. Nothing more. Any CEO who tells you his company is moral, cares about human rights, promotes democracy, or "does no evil", lies to you, because if his company's profits suffers even slightly from its moral stand, the shareholders can (and do) take actions against the execs to correct this.
Morality is a foreign concept to corporations, unless morality is good for the bottom line (like building up an image to sell more products to people who care). Period.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
At current growth rates, which appear to be sustainable, China will soon be the largest economy in the world in every measure. As long as we allow China to market in the US, no US company will have a chance to survive without the mass of China's market. If China launched a Google competitor targetting 1 billion potential customers that Google can't reach + all of Google's customers, Google's advertising revenue would plummet because Google's advertisers can no more survive without China than Google itself.
The reality here is that any effort by Google to fight the Chinese government on this would result in nothing more than Google's demise. And why should we expect Google to stand up to China when our own government has caved at every opportunity for over a decade?
Something to keep in mind, that was mentioned last time we had an article like this:
There are very strict and clear legal precedents about publicly traded companies. They are required by law to make all decisions in such a way that will maximize profit. I think people are forgetting that Google is not a private company, there is not one man making the business decisions.
They are responsible to millions of shareholders, a large board of directors, and many private investors.
If Google took actions (i.e. avoiding Chinese market) that significantly reduced profits, for no logical reason, they could easily be facing massive litigation from shareholders.
If i'm not horribly mistaken, I think the Dodge Car Company was started with money the Dodge brothers received from Ford Motor Company when they sued Ford for keeping their car prices low instead of maximizing profits. (Dodge brothers were investors in Ford). Maybe someone else can provide more detail about this.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
It's that work, which is a reasonable wage there, which prevents people from starving.
Prove that sweat shops exist in China today. Prove it.
If Beijing retaliates by kicking Google out of China, then Beijing will expel all the other signatories to the WP. In this way, no Western company will gain an economic advantage over any other Western company.
Ever heard of globalization? If western companies choose to stand up against the PRC (just suppose, it'll never happen, but just suppose), then thousands of companies from India, south-east Asia and Whereveristan, and even China's own, will fill the void in no time flat. That's why no western company is silly enough to propose that.
Not to mention, the West doesn't really have moral lessons to give to China in more ways than one...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
For me the more interesting question is, don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in? How can anyone seriously demand of Google (or any other company) to break the law in China? They have the right to do business there, same as in my country, and when they do, they have to do it in a law abiding way. We may not like the law and if it hurts their business elsewhere, a company may make the decision not to do business in a certain country... but that's a question of business ethics. I don't think any government should be allowed to dictate where a company can do business.
'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy
Remember this statement. It is very telling about current and future problems for the US. I think it explains a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq, and with Hamas.
To these politicians, democracy naturally means no censorship, and things such as freedom of the press. It will probably come as a great surprise to them when many of these democracies they helped promote elect very theocratic controlling governments that do things such as censor and control the press.
IMO, the reason there is no irony in Google acceding to Chinese demands while fighting in U.S. Government is because China doesn't have any laws to say otherwise.
China and the U.S. play by a different set of rules. What is okay in China is not okay in the U.S.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
It appears that everybody except google was prepared to give in there. Is there some big difference between censorship and censorship that the DOJ would care to explain?
Perhaps the war on despotism can be fought not with soldiers but with corporations and money.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And the Chinese government will be holding hearings about Chinese companies doing business with the dictatorship established in the United States. And so the world turns...
... between trading with a dictatorship and being an instrument of censorship for that dictatorship.
The Raven
But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
Excuse me... It is possibly my extremely short and volatile memory... But wasn't United Fruit an American company? How many dictatorships in Latin America were planted and maintained in its name in the last century?
So as far as historical precedent is concerned the answer is definitely and clearly NO. America promotes what is good for american business. In the 20th century it was "if it is necessary to promote a dictatorship so that there are no trade unions and fruit and oil prices are cheap than it shall be a dictatorship". Now it is "if it is necessary to promote a dictatorship so that there are no independent trade unions and toy, textile and electronics prices are cheap than it shall be a dictatorship".
Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change unless the fundamental nature of who pulls the strings on Capitol hill changes.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I've been following this whole debate, and it really seems like no one understands that China is a soveriegn country that has its own laws and rules. They may not completely mesh with those of the western world, but it's not our job to decide if they're right. They have the absolute right to demand that search engines alter their results in order to do business in the country.
China knows that their huge population is too big for any company to ignore. They're ideally positioned to take over the tech world anyway, guven the population and the central ocntrol they have over things like education. A central government can plow money into any problem; if they decide that every single new graduate of eveey university must be a scientist or engineer, that will happen. It certainly isn't happening here.
The US thinking that we have the right to tell other countries what to do led to the Iraq war, and the Vietnam war, and the Korean war before that. It doesn't matter that China has a lousy human rights record. That's their decision. If the people don't like it, they'll find a way to revolt. There are plenty of examples of _that_ in history as well.
Well, they want a piece of that pie.. And if they dont bend a little, they wont get any..
$ wins over morals any day.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Get over it people! We are not China nor do we have any power to tell China what to do. If they want the censor the internet from their people, so be it. Let their people decide when enough is enough. Man, sometimes I wish freedom of speech didn't exist so morons like you would quit thinking everyone if the world needs to change to be more like the US.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Pardon? Are you trying to be cute?
I can't believe I'm actually going to argue this. So, the war torn countries like Vietnam, now impregnated with unexploded ordinance and lands rendered almost unfarmable by chemical warfare (agent orange, anyone?) should be considered lucky to have to work 14 hour days every day of the week for pennies on the hour?
And in countries where American produce and farming corporations took the land from the native people? Where are they supposed to get their food again?
Right, I forgot, the peoples of the world had no idea how to farm before American corporations came along, no idea how to feed themselves.
Lets not even get into the extremely dangerous working conditions of the factories, where limbs can be lost in an instant and chemical poisons are barely contained, and any injury gets you fired.
You are the worst example of an American citizen.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
I think it's a much deeper philosophical question than that. It seems to me that Google has two choices: provide a censored search engine to China or provide no search engine at all. Now I can see arguments for both sides here, but I wouldn't say that either amounds to "promoting dictatorship".
This BBC article interviewing Chinese bloggers seems to agree: "The problem is not that Google is censoring its search service, it is that China doesn't have free speech." "There's too much Western media emphasis on internet censorship in China. Experienced bloggers know how to use proxy servers to get around the government firewall and access Google's main English language site." "I wish somebody would take the position of the typical Chinese internet user. If one is going to advocate a boycott, I would like the criteria to be the material improvement in the life of the typical Chinese internet user. I think talk of boycotting Google is a bad idea. People in China will not appreciate that because these are esoteric issues for them."
As an amateur military historian, I can tell you that the best strategy is to pick the battles you know you can win. There are a *LOT* of services out there, proxies and such, that are dedicated to allowing people who live under restrictive regimes to surf safely through "restricted" information. This is not a battle that Google can take on or win. Frankly, I put far more of the burden on our goverment than I do any private corporation. We should immediately ban all exports and all imports to/from China until there is immediate and permanent improvment in their human rights. If we don't want American companies complying with China's requests to repress its own people, we shouldn't be trading with them at all.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that many of the companies who "assist" repressive regimes also funnel money and/or information into the projects designed to circumvent those very controls. If anything, the internet has shown us that information, for all practical purposes, wants to be free. All that has done is create an arms race between those who seek information and those who wish to see it restricted. For every control that it is put up, a way to defeat it is devised quickly.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
China has Baidu. Google needs China, else M$ takes it. Or someone else.
China doesn't need Yahoo. China's got Taobao (AliBaba, which bought Yahoo). Yahoo needs China, Yahoo needs AliBaba.
China doesn't need iTunes Music Store. China's got Aigo Digital Music. The **AA needs China, else they're fucked in the ass by one billion people. Actually, they are fucked anyway.
China doesn't need you. YOU need China.
Web firms who want to be democratic missionaries in China need to go with the system. This is a long process, and waaaaaay too complicated to be understood by the average libertarian libertine-wanna-be slashdotter coding in mom and dad's basement.
Google is Evil when they help a repressive government jail or otherwise punish a person for use of the Internet in any fashion that is not illegal in the United States. There are no two-ways about it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
So often I've seen people on slashdot saying how inevitable it is that google will be evil since it has to at the end of the day make money for shareholders. While that is true, it does have to make money for shareholders, the fact that 'Do no evil' is in the google charter does ensure that it doesn't have to choose evil if given a choice between evil with profits or good with losses.
Doesn't China still have "Most Favored Nation" trade status with the US? I guess the name was changed to "Normal Trade Relations" in 1998.
Seems to me that if the U.S. government considers the Chinese government to be oppressive, to whom the export of normal civilian technologies should be restricted, then they should say so and stop talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Its hard to fault Google for treating with the Chinese government in precisely the way our official trade stance with the Chinese says they should.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
It's the going wage in those areas. It is a living wage. It's not worse than paying people $4.50 here.
Also, agent orange breaks down over time. The risk to the healt of the people there now is virtually nil.
You're right about the working conditions, they're bad. It varies from plant to plant as to the actual danger, but they're all more dangerous than in the US. I don't know what to say about it other than the domestic employers don't treat their employees any better. Kinda sucks.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
HTH.
Because Google promotes themselves as the Do no Evil company. Most other companies don't.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
She miscarried. The officials say they got medical attention immediately. And there isn't any evidence to the contrary.
It's ridiculous to condemn the US based upon one woman's bald assertion and no actual evidence.
Do you have any evidence to add? Or were you there or something?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
"But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship."
Given the US support for dictatorships, monarchies and repressive regimes around the world for the last century - not to mention a repressive regime just installed in Iraq - this is hypocritical in the extreme.
The Net companies are in China to make money. Are they supposed to tell the Chinese government to fuck off if they asked to comply with the laws of that country? Are they supposed to write off millions, scores of millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in that country if the result of such a refusal is a yanking of their license to operate in that country?
"Morality" has nothing to do with it. Obviously any employee on the spot for such a situation has to make a personal decision as to whether he will comply with either the government's or management's request. That has nothing to do with the overall question of whether the company should accede to such requests.
At best, the only legitimate question is whether a company should decide to invest in such a country, given the possibility that some such situation could arise. And given that ANY company involved in China could face a similar situation, it's disingenuous to single out the Net companies.
I smell a rat. I smell an attempt to use the Net companies as a means of smearing China for the administration's own demonization purposes, irregardless of whatever China is responsible for.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Have you ever taken a class in business management?
The company's first job is to ensure shareholder value
Not quarterly profits, shareholder value .
If taking a moral or ethical stance creates more shareholder value, then everybody wins. Sometimes shareholder value is hard to quantify. The value of a brand name is often hard to quantify, but having a strong brand name creates value for the shareholders.
Sorry for repeating it so many times, but the value of a company is often tangled up with intangibles.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Historically, until recently, stockholder profits come SECONDARY to being of the public good, and was like that from the beginning. That's something the blood profits and no ethics at all corporate shills (and government regulators) always seem to forget about. You are ALLOWED a corporate charter not only for your stinking profits, but only so long as you and your pirate gang are OF THE PUBLIC GOOD. You have no "right" to just "incorporate" then be a jerk off to everyone around you just to make money. We need to return to that. Screw your blood profits and pain profits.
a rter%2C+history%2C+public+interest&start=0&start=0 &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8r t=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
It just so happens there's a movie making a big splash in europe now, it's about Walmart -"Wal Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", but you can apply it to just about any western corporation "doing business" in the autocratic hellhole that goes by the name of the "Peoples Republic of China". Those fascist leaders there (they ARE fascist, the shoe fits) share a host of similarities with western fascist corporations and political and business "leaders", that's why they get along so good. Swine.
Further reference, take your pick. Learn some history you disgusting greed defenders.
http://www.google.com/search?q=corporations%2C+ch
http://www.google.com/search?q=Laogai&start=0&sta
everybody assumes that democracy is great. well, it ain't. anybody who thinks that democracy is great is deluding themselves, or lives in a country which operates under a corrupted version of democracy (where money talks, buys laws and generally runs things).
... well... c'est la vie. but i think you'll find that a country like china is a bit different from a tiny country in africa or south america. china pretty much runs itself; their culture is radically different from ours. who are we to dictate to them that our corrupt and weak system of government is better than theirs that has been in place for thousands of xxxxing years?
democracy as advocated by anyone who thinks "democracy should run the world esp. where there are dictatorships YEAH" actually results in a paralysed country that remains fragmented and weak. people in general are TOO STUPID and TOO SELFISH to "do the right thing".
france. they can't get rid of the crippling cost of pensions which is going to kill off the economy in ten years, because "everybody wants some", and any politician that even THINKS of mentioning "social cuts" gets kicked out.
iraq. the voting is polarising along religious lines, into three main groups. the entire country is fracturing into chaos, ripe for being plucked and whipped up by religious fanatics ["ahh things were better in the old days even dare i say it better with saddam around: let's go kill some americans, it must be their fault: if you die you will go to heaven, my poor downtrodden son"].
now.
let's see...
you want china, the world's most populous country (and a nuclear power) to... become a friggin _democracy_???? what is WRONG with you???
they have a perfectly good working bureaucracy that has helped stunt irresponsible decision-making for thousands of years; they have a figure-head who makes silly decisions like banning tai-ji, which has been practiced (again) for thousands of years, so the ban cannot be enforced and his authority is weakened; they have very _sensible_ censorship laws in place which make it clear to people that "western corruption" is not "officially" tolerated.
i used to think, probably like you do, that "china is evil" because they have communism and they have dictatorship, and that their pttoeyy-attitude towards "the corruption and decadence of the west" was just bad manners and ideology.
_then_ i went to america, and i began to understand what they were on about. when chinese say "the west" they mean "america". the land where a friend of mine was asked what the weather was like where he was from (australia) and when he said "oh, it's snowing, mate" the guy looked at him like he was a fucking idiot.
dictatorship _works_ in certain places, and it is appropriate (and a very very heavy burden of responsibility). chris patten (hong kong). fidel castro (responsible for the BEST healthcare system anywhere in the world). red ken (mayor of london for 11 years with only another nine more to go. dang you don't get _prison_ sentences that long!!). more recently: paddy ashdown (croatia, i think) has been placed as the governor there i mean mr ashdown has serious SERIOUS xxxxing responsibility: police of chief, head of state, most senior judge, president of the country's bank... that kind of responsibility REALLY gets to you.
when people sign up for these things it's usually for life - or a significant portion of it - and as a general rule, they take it frickin seriously.
where it goes wrong is usually because the people who "take over" are interested in corruption and greed and aren't _actually_ interested in the populace.
what we find distasteful is that instead of being able to "vote the bastards out", it usually requires a bit more violence to get rid of them.
Why is this only becomming an issue now, as the government rattles its sword at these companies about giving up the search data to support...wait for it....wait for it...a law based on censorship... What the hell kind of sense does this make, scream at companies for aiding in the censorship abroad, and in the same breath ask them to help build a case for censorship at home.
Nevermind the multitude of other companies operating in China taking advantage of lax labor laws and things like that. It would be interesting to see how many of our rightous leaders have fortunes built on portfolios that include companies that are taking advantage of cheap chinese labor.
This is getting stupid...if they really are concerned they need to sort out their own hypocritic objectives before doing anything else.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I'll bribe some king of a small pacific island to let me be his Information Minister, after that I'll send emails to internet companies, asking them to shut down blogs and reveal me personal information of their users so I can go after them.
I'll also ask the better internet company around to use their top-notch technology and hardware to improve my censorship firewall, so I can reduce my costs, since I don't need to do it myself anymore, and improve my efficiency googol times.
They will do that, because they need to respect the laws of my country!
Sure they aren't doing all that to show respect to law. I don't even know if that deserves the name "law".
They're doing all that because they're greddy. And they sell human rights for some cheap Ads.
companies are REQUIRED to stick to their... statute (whatever it's called) because if they DON'T then the directors can be kicked out by the shareholders.
things like "maximise profits" are REQUIRED.
maximising profits tends to conflict badly, as we have noted repeatedly, with things like "environmental impact" and stuff like that.
so oh yes governments damn well _do_ have a right to dictate what businesses can and can't do, because it is a system of checks-and-balances against the stupidity of "maximise profits" above all else.
be very _very_ careful when you start saying things like "businesses can do what the xxxx they like".
This is not the same as cencoring google.cn.
not a lot of people use google in China, it seems that not a lot of people know this. Google never gained a lot of market shares in China through their own search engine because it didn't show up most of the time due to cencorship, as appose to Baidu, the most popular search engine in China. Baidu is obviously, being a chinese based search engine, cencored.
After obeying the laws of China, google can finally provide their service to the Chinese as a reliable search engine. It is the chinese users that google is benifiting as well as themselves.
However, providing the private information of search terms to the US goverment provids no benefit for google nor the users using the search engine.
So in a way, google is fighting for the best interest of the users, instead of freedom. (Im sure people in China rather have a working, cencored google than one that never works.)
I live here and get tired at times of all the BS, the window dressing that goes on. But then again that's the culture, not the government! I can't see the difference between "conforming" with our technology and selling them weapons. Both help to promote control and repression. I guess in the corporate eye, eventually everytihng looks ok. If it's all about money, then let's do away with our government and start selling crack and whatever else makes the almighty dollar. By the way, those who speak on China from the West would do well to finally "GET IT" that the East and the West don't think the same and when you see something in China through Western eyes, you don't even come close to seeing what the Chinese see nor their motive for doing what they do, etc.
It would be possible to make at least an outline case that the Chinese boom is unsustainable and the Chinese control economy and government will ultimately be harmful to US business and the world economy, and that therefore a company like Google which depends on information availability must resist as far as possible any official attempts to curtail their access to and dissemination of information.
It is unfortunately all too often that civil laws are drafted in such a way as to maximise lawyer profits by giving the largest possible scope for variant interpretation. Sed quid custodiet ipsos custodes, as they say.
Pining for the fjords
Here's Google's dillema: either China blocks Google, or Google complies with China's censorship demands. This is different from Google's refusing to comply with the Justice Department -- because they're not threatening to shut them down. (It they did, Google would most likely comply). Even if Google chooses to "promote democracy" and resist the Chinese government, Google will be blocked and the Chinese people are going to be denied the information anyways. The Chinese government wins either way.
The chinese power freaks don't give a crap about where they are, so your point 2 is quite valid. Read this, very recent.
_ channel_id=32&url_article_id=11616&url_subchannel_ id=&change_well_id=2
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url
If the New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee is so concerned about how US companies behave abroad maybe he should start here at home with how the US government behaves. First our government must obey our laws then follow the same alleged high standards abroad. They must stop with the mental gymnastics to circumvent the constitution. The law is the law. You cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce. The use of a persons citizenship to deny civil and human rights is wrong. The US government sets up a double standard ware it does not have to follow the law but expects others even those who are not even under its jurisdiction to obey its laws.
They get all up in arms when a 3rd world dictator puts himself above the law does want ever he wants with out any regard for the law civil or human right. But it is ok for W to do whatever he wants as long as he claims it for security and the war on terror.
Its not only wrong when its done in the 3rd world it's always wrong every ware to disappear people hold them with out trial or charges, torture them and in some cases torture them to death. But ware have we heard of this happening lately? Light-stick enema anyone?
What about a government that publicly states that we do not torture but allows it in secret.
This is The United States of America NOT the United Police States of America. Our government needs to re-examine its recent human Right history before it will have any credibility.
Almost all the commenters suggest that this is a battle between altruism and Google's bottom line, blithely ignoring the possibility that Google is engaging in the most pro-liberty option it has available.
Google's restricted participation in China isn't necessarily at odds with Google supporting increasing personal liberties in China.
There's some danger that a lack of involvement by Western companies would pose an obstacle to increasing personal liberty in China. A boycott might only lead China to become more isolationist, or to rely on less scrupulous companies. A boycott could lead China away from increased personal freedom.
The more casual exposure to Western products and services the Chinese have, the more resonance Western ideas will have with the Chinese. Participation, even with restrictions, will position Western companies to encourage liberty in China in ways they simply cannot now.
In ten years, when Google provides the main launching site for 90% of Chinese surfers, maybe that's when they should threaten to pull the plug. But for now, the Chinese people need them there, in whatever limited capacity they can be.
...actively lobby and promote full business ties with china, even though it has been proven year after year that all it does is promote a serious trade imbalance and make a few globalist CEOs and top stock holding concerns wealthier. Or do you claim those sorts of things don't go on there? What's the diff? These companies are Ok with it, our government is Ok with it, ELSE THEY WOULDN'T BE DOING IT. don't look at what they say, look at what they do, and getting on their knees in front of those PRC/PLA demons is *what they do*.
It's easy for us to say "Hell with China, let us all withdraw our money and see what they can do". That is such an American way to think, do you think they don't have major serch engine in Europe, South America or other parts of Asia? If U.S. withdraw their business from China, there will be a long line of business waiting to take our place. We will be only hurting ourselves and the problem will still exist.
Some will always say "well, we can't help the tyrants to achieve their goals", well, where were you when we supplied Iraqi and Iranian with US weapon and tech support? How much help are we currently providing with Pakistan, which is not exactly nice and peachy. Wake up kids, if we refuse to do business with everyone who doesn't meet our standard of moral, we shouldn't even be doing business with ourselves!
interesting parallel
Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.'
Corporations have only one goal - to make money for themselves or their shareholders. They have no "moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship".
They have one goal - profit.
Please, let's keep morals out of business.
qz
We don't have any moral lessons?
Do you think that preserving freedom of speech in law is a bad idea?
Just because America has a ton of moral failings, it doesn't mean that we don't have a ton of moral strengths, either.
Something tells me: You'd be at home in a community circle, working together with others, and realizing each other's strengths and weaknesses, and affirming the value of every human being.
Why then, such bitter hatred, of America, as to claim that America doesn't have moral lessons for the world?
I've heard leftists say: "No, no, you got me all wrong: I don't hate America, I love America, and that's why I'm doing all this activist work." But then you hear something like how it has "no moral lessons to give," and you understand the complaint: "Leftists hate America."
So do Leftism a favor, and recognize the value of all people and nations. We're all human. If any of us are going to make it through the next century, we have to remember that.
If you can make money; the morals slide. This is in regards to China; however, when the DOJ wants records and their is no money to be made..... We stand up for the little guy.....
Spare me....
PS: My friend is going nuts with all the filtering that is going on in China... An no; he won't circumvent the systems. He has a high profile position.
IBM and Ford Motor Co., among many others, helped the Nazis. Today, Haliburton is involved in slave lavor and also trades with Iran, a known sponsor of state terrorism, and the U.S. Vice President has stock in the company. Who do you think armed the dictators of the world, socialist peace activists?
Does this makes capitalism horrible? No, because it's only as good as we are. People like to do the right thing, and will do the right thing, when doing the wrong thing is no longer profitable or convenient. But when you work in a corporation where your job is to make profit for said corporation, and easy and convenient rationalizations abound for doing what you know would be wrong if you personally were doing it, you can still do it with a clean conscience, because it isn't you, it's the corporation.
It isn't as if there are evil people out there somewhere doing evil things, and if only we could stop them, the world would be okay. That counts for a relatively small percentage of the badness in the world. Most of it comes from normal, decent people rationalizing their asses off so they can do what is profitable and convenient.
Why is Google being in China such a bad thing? I understand that they are giving into a lot of the demands of the government, but if that enables them to bring their content to the people, it might not be such a bad thing. There have been other reports that have stated plenty of ways around the filters that are in place to censor what people see. What if Google put these in their on purpose? What if these American companies are giving into China's demands now so that they can get in the door only to later help bring about a change in China later? Is this at all possible?
> The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
it's not ironic, it's actually pretty predictable.
They're just fighting for the freedom americans used to have before 9/11.
In the US, going against all post-9/11-crap is defending the actual government model. Which is exactly what those companies do in China.
That Chinese journalist (or his family) could get a lawyer and sue Google in US courts, for a big indemnization.
http://207.57.7.130/JANAKA/ATCA.htm
Alien Tort Claims Act of USA
Recently, American courts have begun adjudicating civil liability for human rights violations (especially torture) committed in another country, under the Alien Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 1350) and the Torture Victim Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. 1350).
The US Second Circuit Court of Appeal said the following in a Judgment delivered in September 2000[i] about application of these two Acts:
"The Alien Tort Claims Act (ACTA) was adopted in 1789 as part of the original Judiciary Act. In its original form, it made no assertion about legal rights; it simply asserted that '[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States..." For almost two centuries, the statute lay relatively dormant, supporting jurisdiction in only a handful of cases [ii]. As the result of increasing international concern with human rights issues, however, litigants have recently begun to seek redress more frequently under the ATCA [iii].
These suits produced several important decisions interpreting the meaning and scope of the 1789 Act. For example, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, this court held that deliberate torture perpetrated under the color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of international human rights law, and that such a violation of international law constitutes a violation of the domestic law of the United States, giving rise to a claim under the ATCA whenever the perpetrator is properly served within the borders of the United States. More recently, we held in Kadic v. Karadzic, that the ATCA reaches the conduct of private parties provided that their conduct is undertaken under the color of state authority or violates a norm of international law that is recognized as extending to the conduct of private parties.
In passing the Torture Victim Prevention Act [TVPA], Congress expressly ratified our holding in Filartiga that the United States courts have jurisdiction over suits by aliens alleging torture under color of law of a foreign nation, and carried it significantly further. While the 1789 Act expressed itself in terms of a grant of jurisdiction to the district courts, the 1991 Act:
(a) makes clear that it creates liability under U.S. law where under "color of law, of any foreign nation" an individual is subject to torture or "extra judicial killing," and
(b) extends its remedy not only to aliens but to any "individual," thus covering citizens of the United States as well. The TVPA thus recognizes explicitly what was perhaps implicit in the Act of 1789 - that the law of nations is incorporated into the law of the United States and that a violation of the international law of human rights (at least with regard to torture) is ipso facto a violation of U.S. domestic law.
Whatever may have been the case prior to passage of the TVPA, we believe plaintiffs make a strong argument in contending that the present law, in addition to merely permitting U.S. District Courts to entertain suits alleging violation of the law of nations, expresses a policy favoring receptivity by our courts to such suits. Two changes of statutory wording seem to indicate such an intention. First is the change from addressing the courts' "jurisdiction" to addressing substantive rights; second is the change from the ATCA's description of the claim as one for "tort... committed in violation of the law of nations..." to the new Act's assertion of the substantive right to damages under U.S. law. This evolution of statutory language seems to represent a more direct recognition that the interests of the United States are involved in the eradication of torture committed under color of law in foreign nations.
One of the difficulties that conf
The U.S. Civil War was very much about money. Morality was there too, but it only took the forefront when, again, doing the wrong thing was no longer profitable or convenient. Yes, there are exceptions, like the Quakers, who put morality first, but those are the exception, not the rule.
I went through a lot of opinions on the subject. I don't understand why most of them are based on the freedom of speach only. I live in a country where the information was strictly controled. And I'm not talking only about the freedom to voice your complaints against the government, but also about the access to literature, scientific magazines, movies, anything. My country lived the communist nightmare. Sincerly, I'm amazed by the simple information that the chineese people have home access to computers and internet. I wish I had this when I was young, even with all the stupid restrictions imposed. I starved for information those years. Most of you start from the false premise that freedom comes from the possibility to express whatever one wants to express. Well, it is not quite so. For having freedom it is necessary to start looking for it. It is not something to be given, it is to be won. And it is education that may bring one to the point where one will claim ones freedom. What the internet, Google included, will provide to the people of China is potential education. It is only up to them to properly use the tool given to them. Anyway, I really doubt that anyone in China needs to read on internet about the wrongs done by their government. I think that anyone starting to search about this is already informed on the subject. The problem is to give them access to what they don't know. Well, about the money.... make your own company, fight with the market and if after some years you can tell you don't care about them...
It would be wonderful if corporations would promote democracy here in the United States.
Or, hell, if they would just stop supporting the current illegitimate fascist junta in power here right now.
Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
You are correct! "Their poor industrial techniques meant that they simply had nothing good to offer the consumer markets of other countries"
--you mean what these shortsighted mouth breather stockholders and slicked back snake oil salesmen CEOs are doing to the US economy RIGHT NOW? Killing off the manufacturing sector, denigrating what any real economist knows is true in his heart, that you can't have a robust economy without manufacturing tangible goods? We are at the point all we have to offer is hollywood movies, rap/pop music and weapons, and usually those weapons are POINTED at the other nations.
And this is touted as a "smooth move". Uh huh, real smooth, as in bowel movement smooth.
It looks like if history is capable of repeating itself, the USA will follow the USSR in short order. I hope to see globalist CEOs and their "stockholder" minions who don't care about anyone else getting what they deserve then, and not "golden parachutes" and some nebulous life of leisure based off of other people's backs and labor..
Witty press people love using the line about how can google justify self-censorship and resisting the American government at the same time. But while it looks like some sort of conflict they seem incredibly different to me. In one case the US government is asking for google to give information it considers both private and possibly revealing personal details about its users. In other words its a privacy concern. In the other case its about google offering reduced service due to local laws and customs.
Is anyone hurt by the first? potentially, both as individuals and because the data will be used in the formation of laws to control society. Is anyone hurt in the second? Not really, some google is better than no google as long as you know the service is restricted, and I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that the Chinese government is heavily into such control.
I don't see the two as remotely similar, and I think google can easily argue that "do as much good as you can" is compatible with their corporate quote.
As for our government, it's ironic that we sacrifice our troops for democracy
It never ceases to amaze me that the American people are deluded enough to believe that their government actually contributes to freedom and democracy worldwide. You sacrifice your troops for democracy like the Germans liberated the Sudentenland.
Most of these companies have already gave in to U.S...
Fine, if you feel paying $4.50 should be illegal, then you should be equally angry about $0.14 or whatever in China.
$4.50/hour isn't much anywhere in the us (am I off here, isn't min $5.25?) but there are places where you can live on it. Sorry it won't be luxurious or even easy.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
The Founding Fathers were concerned with property rights because property belongs to people. They wanted to protect people from mob rule, which is what pure democracy is.
Your rights can be easily violated in a democracy. And that's what they were hoping to prevent.
So putting property over people? Unless you are trolling, your understanding of the views of the Founders' philosophy seems to be lacking.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The position of Yahoo and MS is a bit more doubtfull in this. There is a big difference between being the 1st big company to do this and the 3rd. Besides evidence has come to light suggesting they are helping repress the chinese people more than they have to.
But to accuse google of hypocripsy in this case makes about as much sense as accusing a billionaire who pays some terrorist a ransom to get a family member/employee/whoever of hypocripsy because he said he didn't give money to terrorist. The billionaire's statement that he doesn't give money to terrorists should obviously be understood as saying he doesn't approve of the terrorists actions and will not aid them in killing/bombing by donating money. Of course there is a genuine question about whether paying them off in this case to *STOP* them from killing someone is worth the extra money/moral boost it gives the terrorists but this is a tough and unclear point.
Google is similarly in a hostage situation and it would be just as wrong to accuse google of selling out. What is being held hostage though is not google's profits (though those do hang in the balance too) but the chinese people's access to information and the internet. IF GOOGLE DOESN'T CENSHOR GOOGLE.CN THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT CENSORS THE RESULTS ANYWAY. It just isn't the case that if google took some principled stand that the chinese people would have any more access to the internet. In fact google seems to have done a remarkably poor job of their censoring (the misspelling issue is well documented) so they probably give the chinese more access to info than they did if they had refused. Quite simply the choice is between a censored version of google being availible to the chinese and a slow, buggy, frequently inaccessable censored version of google being availible to the chinese. Also I suspect by doing self-censorship rather than having chinese filters do it the censorship system will move much slower but I'm not sure.
Yes, had google been the first company to do this there would have been concerns. Perhaps china might have relaxed its censorship policy if western companies hadn't been willing to go along (although how do we know this isn't what happened? By making a comprimise these companies might have gotten china to loosen their policies...though I wouldn't count on it) or the chinese would have been more outraged if the censorship resulted in that much inconveince. However google was not the first company. MS and Yahoo were already there and they provide acceptable search results. Any damage was already done when these companies made their deciscion, google could either refuse to go along and just let censored MS and Yahoo cites take all the traffic or jump in themselves.
SO LONG AS GOOGLE IS LESS REPRESIVE THAN MS AND YAHOO THE CHINESE USERS HAVE MORE FREEDOMS WITH GOOGLE.CN THAN THEY HAD BEFORE.
Given the records of MS and Yahoo I suspect this is probably the case. Even if all the western companies had refused it is unclear whether this would have been good or bad. After all if china developed its own native search company the government would have far more power over that entity and fewer ties with the west would mean less long term pressure to change.
It is particularly rich to see congress critisize google and these other companies whe
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I live and work in China and my customers are Chinese factories. I've seen the good (US owned factories that are clean and well lighted with good food and dorms that are far better than the houses the workers would live in at home) and the bad (a factory that used underage girls for QC work since their eyes were better and had dorms I wouldn't put a dog in). But even the worst is far better than the alternative for its workers. Those underage QC girls were farm girls from the back of beyond. They were making more money every month than both their parents put together. If they weren't working in that factory (illegally) they would have been back on the farm (and if you've ever seen a Chinese farm you'll know that's pretty hellish) or working on their backs in Zhuhai which is the Southern center for underage prostitution and which was withing 100 miles of that factory. When you buy consumer goods from China you aren't hurting the Chinese people. Collaborating with Internet censorship is a whole different story. There you are cooperating in repression.
In addition, the factory will almost always provide a dormitory and three meals per day.
Chinese farms are poor, the working conditions are brutal and dangerous (even in the US farming is dangerous), and there is no opportunity for enhancement.
Prostitution is always an option for attractive girls, but just like in the US most prefer to find other work.
So yes, there is a huge difference between censoring the Internet and giving people jobs they are glad to have.
We kept them going by selling them grain for cheap. When Carter discontinued the program (for their invasion of Afghanastan), they were almost ready to collapse when Reagan restarted the program. At that time, he kept them alive for another 6-7 years (he had more to do with extending them, rather than killing them; of course, the USSR of the early 80's may have elected to go out with a BIG bang).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
the perspective we hold, we assume to be correct; that information is always neutral, more of it is always beneficial, and that we have the perfect ability to control our exposure & reaction to it.
but do we really have the capability to know all and make rational decisions? the foundation for rational thought demands this, yet the experience of living in this post-modern culture questions this reality. if the lonely, self-sufficient, individual-centered reality we create here is truly an illusion, what alternative exists?
one of the merits of chinese culture is that property rights are secured not at the individual level, but at the community / village level, such that larger groups form and cooperate and help eachother, rather than the lonely competition and atomic family of western culture, with it's commoditization of everything, including relationships.
and if a capitalist society wherein a community is a better answer than the individual as the smallest unit of economic actor, what steps must be taken to protect the integrity of the community and society? could we be wrong to think that we can imbibe any and all information without negative reprecussion?
are we really more free, when we mostly consume advertising rather than precious "free speech"? we have so many options on what to BUY, but we lack options of what we may do, and who we may be.
So Long, Dalai Lama: Google Adapts to China
Only one of the 161 images produced by searching in Chinese for the Dalai Lama on Google.cn shows the 14th Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet since 1940. He is pictured as a young man meeting senior Chinese officials. That was before 1959, when China's People's Liberation Army invaded Tibet and the Dalai Lama fled into exile.
But few have cooperated as openly as Google. Google's local staff works closely with Chinese officials to ensure that search results from Google.cn do not include information, images or links to Web sites that the government does not want its people to see.
In other cases, the omissions are glaring. Searches for photos of Tiananmen Square on regular Google produce many shots of a man blocking a column of tanks outside the square, the iconic image of the 1989 democracy movement and the later crackdown.
So I've been wondering why Google is sudenly "evil" for filtering it's content for Chinese users.
Here's my understanding, and I hope somebody can show me where my thinking is wrong.
1) When a Chinese surfer searches on google.com (not google.cn) they get a list of 1,650,000 hits on "tiananmen square". However, the vast majority of them are blocked by the "great firewall of China".
2) When a Chinese surfer searches google.cn they get 16,300 hits - and all of them are reachable.
Isn't google.cn just removing the results that cannot be reached by Chinese users anyway?
What am I missing?
No. Really.
Ethics only matter when we are dealing with internet companies. Any other company or industry and we arent having this debate.
Ethics may be important, but if you want ethical capitalism you have to make ethics profitable.
Look, the totalitarian government of Soviet Russia could not withstand the spread of information brought about by faxes, the result? Gorbachev implemented Glastnost and the iron curtain fell shortly thereafter.
China is largely rural and many areas are getting cell phone coverage before they even had land lines. With the advent of the internet, the name of the game here is to get them ACCESS to information. Once the information flows start to happen, there will be NO STOPPING THEM, the horses will have gotten out of the barn. Let the internet reach ubiquity in China and once it does to the point of the government not being able to "Shut it off", then the restraints on access to information will fall away because the information will ALWAYS find a way into the hands of the people seeking it - and the result is that China will be forced to relax its internal rule sets to cope with the changing world.
These rule set changes are ones that CANNOT come from within China, they must come from the outside world. The most recent rule-set change that I can think of came from SARS. The closed society of China just about caused a complete disconnect from the world economy because they refused to share information with the World Health Organizaiton. The WHO banned all flights originating from or destined to certain regions of China. Last time I was there I was approached and had my temperature taken; if I had a fever, I didn't get on that plane - I had just won 3 day extended vacation, all expenses paid...by me. This is a rule set that NEVER would have come from China internally.
How the information is flowing right now is completely secondary to the fact that it IS beginning to flow, which is the most important factor in this equation. All this "evil censorship" won't last.
Joel
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
Fact is, aside a few good which are 100% manifactured in china (like shoes, t shirt and so on), most good are only ASSEMBLED in china (computer electronic good etc...). So what is the difference ? Well foreign (US) company , build up the component all over the world, then chip to china for cheap assembly. So it might appear there is a huge deficit of import with China,since the good say made-in-china, but taking account that phenomenon the dificit might be overstated, since the component might come from the US, and the profit of the company goes back anyway to the US.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
.. don't have to look at China to see examples of web censorship. A recent transaction where a Canadian web hosting company bought a US web hosting company resulted in the forced shutdown of several USA websites. None of the websites had content considered illegal in USA, but may have possibly contravened 'human rights' regulations in Canada. Ex: poking fun at racial minorities or expressing 'contempt' for homos. The acquiring company was probably afraid of attracting a S13.1 or 'human rights' tribunal complaint.
A fterCanadianCompanyBuysFirm.html
See: http://www.halturnershow.com/AmericanWebSitesShut
I believe the internet/search engine companies are giving in to the PRC.
Having the US government, under the current administration take them to task for it is a bit rich considering they just extened the Patriot Act, the NSA is tapping all sorts of communications and the "executive branch" is trying to extend special powers that many experts claim they legally don't have.
Doesn't anyone realize that Chinese people can EASILY use the English site? Yes, Google blocks its Chinese site - but the original link to google is right there, for anyone to click on and search for whatever pictures of tanks or democracy that you want. The censorship is an annoyance at best - far short of the "human rights violation" that everyone seems to be going on about.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
As a foreign entrepreneur operating in Shanghai doing business with
domestic companies for some time, the 20 years out-of-date "scary red
China" rhetoric of every Slashdot story is just getting tiring. Yes,
there are human rights problems here. The situation improves along
with the economy. The cultural revolution ended in the mid 70s. China
is still "Communist" because face matters to Chinese. Falun Gong
is more Aum Shinrikyo than Catholic Church. Taiwan rejoining China
is merely a matter of time and economic development. Thousands
died during Tiananmen, it was a disaster for both government and
people, mostly the right lessons have been learned on both sides, it
probably couldn't happen again, and the likeliness of anything like
it reoccuring decreases with each year of increased GDP. Hard-liners
are diverted by propagandizing via obscure mouthpieces no-one in
China even knows about, or incompetently attempting to censor the
Internet, or incompetently targeting Falun Gong, because that's
the best place to have them expend their negative energies while
the pragmatic inner circle get on with building a successful
capitalist market economy. Some China Telecom manager in a region
of southern China (CT has a roughly 30% market share) gives some
foreign vendor no-one's heard of before a contract to filter Skype
on their networks, and all of a sudden it's "CHINA BANS SKYPE". The
youth section of the CCP (anyone who does more than carry a card is
regarded by other Chinese as an oddball) publish an article about
an anti-Japanese PC game in an obscure newspaper they operate,
and it's "CHINA DEVELOPS ANTI-JAPAN WAR GAME" in The Guardian
(who should know better than to amplify propaganda created by
fringe hardliners in other countries), and then automagically here
on Slashdot. On democracy, the best argument against it is a five
minute conversation with the average voter (Churchill said that). A
five minute conversation with the average Chinese about policy would
go something like: "There's far too many rich people living it up
in the cities - we should take their money and distribute it more
fairly. Oh, and we need to beef up the military faster so we can
take revenge on Japan sooner." Great ideas. Thank God for enlightened
dictatorship, the Ritz-Carlton on Nanjing Rd., the Shanghai American
School, brunch at the rooftop bar/restaurant at No.3 on the Bund,
live-in servants, "Karaoke TV", and good old capitalism. In China,
the rich are living large and the poor are getting richer. No wonder
Western socialists like to harp on about human rights in China. Bah.
China is a sovereign nation, and ultimately, they decide how business is conducted there. And that includes what kind of content Chinese citizens can obtain on the Internet.
If we want China to democratize, if we consider their restrictions on speech to be unreasonable, we can try to persuade and negotiate. But unless we're willing to go to war (trade, economic, military) over this, that's the extent to which we can influence China.
In no case is this the responsibility of non-Chinese companies. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are neither justified nor have the power to push non-Chinese ideals on China unless US law requires them to. But if US law requires them to, then those companies would probably simply split into a US and a non-US branch, or they might choose not to do business in either China or the US.
Frankly, I think the current deal really isn't bad: censorship or not, any access the Chinese population has to the Internet is likely democratizing. And I think even the biggest Chinese political hardliners are viewing these kinds of restrictions more as a temporary measure that merely delays the inevitable.
I faxed Google last week - asking to get a copy of what they have filed on myself - including info on me sent by another party. The response so far from Google - zero, nada, zip!
I don't remember authorizing Google to store anything on myself.
So isn't it time - that a series of legal questions must be answered about the internet (at least). Perhaps the EFF needs to start - or have they? - or have others started?
1. If Google is making money off of me and you (or my/your info) in one way or another - how much money do they owe me/you?
2. Does Google have to provide me with a copy of info by or on me?
3. Can I demand that Google delete any/all info they have on me?
Read "Trading With The Enemy" if you need to clearly see how many "blue chip" U.S.A. corporations made it possible for Hilter and the his military machine to happen. Hitler was financed in a large part and supplied by U.S.A. corporations including I.B.M, Exxon (Standard Oil), Dupont, Ford - and on and on and on.
So it's no big surprise that Google and others are more than happy to make money off of millions of Chinese slaves working as slaves in totalitarian China's prison factories. The old addage "do anything for money" has never been clearer.
Google's opposing the USA fed's request - is just a marketing ploy to keep you all silenced. As I mentioned in another post - I faxed Google to get a copy of what they (Google) have on file about myself. Of course no response from Google. As if somehow they own me - just another slave.
The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
China was business -- nothing personal. It is my understanding Google is fighting the DOJ data mining in large part because of the repressive costs to Google of performing it. Again, it's business considerations -- nothing personal.
What if the DOJ had gotten off on a better foot and contracted with Google to pay them costs+profit on the project? How much U.S. freedom would they be defending then?
In the United States, we have the Constitution as the bedrock of our legal system. The most important provisions of the Constitution were emphasized in the Bill of Rights.
Article (or Amendment) 4 of the Bill of Rights says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That seems frighteningly clear to me, and is at least as relevant today as it was when it was written. Throughout our Constitution, the point is made over and over that individual rights are paramount, followed by States' rights, and lowest on the hierarchy of "Rights" are those reserved for the Federal government.
In fact, in the United States, individual rights are so revered that when they come into conflict with criminal prosecutions, except for a restricted set of situtations, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS TRUMP CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. This is, so far as I am able to determine, unique among nations of the world and has served to keep us free these past 200+ years.
In China, the situation is reversed. The national government has all the rights, and the individual none. Whatever the government says, goes.
A good summary of the censorship situation in China is presented in the 2/27/2006 issue of Forbes (reg. reqd.) -- be sure to check out the editor's remarks.
So, do I get this right?
The U.S are debating whether these companies should comply to another country's law just because it has different standards?
This opens the door to ask whether to comply with the U.S. law in the first place..... (e.g. should Google really release those records they are being requested by the U.S Governemt).
Is it better to filter out results about democracy like in China or to be really prude about porn like in the U.S.?
Maybe I should start using google.cn and find out if it returns all those great lectures in human anatomy....
I don't want to sound like I'm against democracy, but can't anyone here see it from the other perspective? You could argue that way too many companies are messing up the working government system in China and that it's awful that they appease the US's expectations of democracy so much. If I were the Chinese government, I'd have the same complaints about these companies, but going in the other direction.
It doesn't really matter what Google does in China. The average user can always set a manual proxy to point to any one of the tens of thousand of proxy servers running squid. Heck aim at any Akamai server and see what you get. Hint, hint, hint.
Many web companies have previously given into pressures they feel from US culture. e.g. Christian fundementalism, the ideal of the family, US car culture have all provided imagery which has subtley driven the way web companies present themselves. Such imagery will seem alien to many foreigners outside the US.
Not unfair to allow Chinese culture to allow a little infuence to the way the web looks?
Google and others can't be faulted for following other nation's laws, especially when they do physical business there.
Even with Internet censoring, the government has already opened the floodgates. People have had work arounds for the firewall for an extremely long time. It doesn't take a majority to start a revolution - just one pissed off, really loud minority with the right message.
It's all well and good to talk about promoting freedom and democracy, and about companies have a moral obligation to do so, but:
1. What exactly do you mean by 'freedom and democracy'? What if it turns out that people in this or that country actually want communism or islamic theocracy? What if they feel that freedom means something entirely opposed to US interests? Do you still want that? And quite apart from that - democracy is not something you just do. In most countries in Europe it took a long time, often involving conflict; the population needs to be prepared and educated to accept the way democracy works. You just need to look around in the world to see examples.
2. When you talk about the moral obligations of companies, how do you propose to compel them? If you define ethical guidelines and implement them in law, that is going to affect all American companies all over the world and take away what many Americans consider a basic freedom. Apart from that, what if the law of another country conflicts with the American ethical requirements? Shall American companies simply give up on getting into the Chinese market?
But I agree in principle - multinational companies, even American ones, should be restricted by international, ethical guidelines; a lot of companies commit gross indecencies in countries where they can get away with it, and they should simply be put out of business.
'But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.'
THAT's a good one...
considering how many dictatorship the US has propped up in the last half centuries.
Hot from the headline today, Rumsfeld is visiting Algeria to considering selling weapons to them.
From the CIA World Fact book in Algeria:
"The army placed Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA in the presidency in 1999 in a fraudulent election but claimed neutrality in his 2004 landslide reelection victory."
I don't know enough to say whether Algeria is a dictatorship or not.
But this is clearly another case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend..."