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
Well, what they COULD have done is implement a technical solution. For example, they COULD simply NOT LOG anything. If they aren't tracking what people are looking at, it simply isn't possible for them to give anybody up, which solves the whole problem -- temporarily. China could demand that they implement some tracking technology, they could answer that they will do their best, but that they can't promise anything, and maintain an impasse for some time.
Of course, what China would probably do is start logging things at some intermediate point between the user and Google, and set up some sort of scheme to identify and track all packets touching Google's site (they probably already do this, mind you). And then we'd be right back where we started, with people getting nailed for their internet searches.
At that point, Google could respond by forcing SSL for all visits to their site, so that even if packets are tracked by an ISP, they can't be read. At which point the Chinese government could either shut them down entirely, or imprison all their staffers in-country and "nationalize" all Google's assets in country, turning them into a state-run Google which is much worse than the Google that's already there.
It's a hopeless situation, unless you're willing to simply refuse to offer service to China. I think what Google is saying is, this is a situation we can't do anything about, and having SOME access to internet searches is better than none, even if certain searches may be singled out by the government.
Sometimes, it may not be possible or practical to do what you consider to be the "right" thing. Sometimes, you have to accept the "least awful" thing.
'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..."