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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
The only thing that's bullshit here is your post.
So, by your argument US law would have no bearing on foriegn companies doing business here? Hell it barely has a hold on US comapnaies operating domestically.
If China had a law saying that Google had to turn over anyone searching for info about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that those people would be shot... Do you honestly think that Google has an obligation to do that!?
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
You are absolutely mad! An unjust rule is not one that should be followed, especially if the rule is in a country different than the company making the choice!
For the definition of unjust rule please see nearly every important legal or political decision in the US in the past 6 years. And if you want to flaunt the law of a country in which you are operating, be my guest. But do not be surprised when then deny you the right to operate there. AND I'm certain that you'll be doing all of that unjust-law-flaunting from the safety of your office here in the US, where there is no chance of you getting punished. Until of course you are sold out by a treaty from your loving government.
There is NO EXCUSE for the behaviour of these companies.
There is NO EXCUSE for MOST of the behavior of MOST companies or governments. Fixed that for you.
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/
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."
"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!
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
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.
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.
What right does the Chinese gov't have? Who gave it to them? They are essentially thugs with guns, imposing their will on the Chinese people.
We have no right? We have no responsibility for our fellow humans? Should we have ignored the situations in the USSR, Nazi germany, South Africa, Rwanda, Serbia, and many other places and just left millions people to be oppressed, suffer and die?
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.
I agree that there should be limits, and unfortunately there is no perfectly legitimate international power to decide when and how to intervene (the UN Security Council may be the closest) but that is not a reason to do nothing.
BTW, the Korean war was fought under UN auspices, though mostly by US and S Korean troops. I don't think the South Koreans wish they had been left to their fate, to live like their relatives in the North.
I'm the last to argue the American experience has been beneficial to the country - it's been disasterous and a stain on their history - but drawing them as the eternal boogyman makes no sense. From the CIA fact book regarding one aspect of Vietnam's challenges:
"logging and slash-and-burn agricultural practices contribute to deforestation and soil degradation; water pollution and overfishing threaten marine life populations; groundwater contamination limits potable water supply; growing urban industrialization and population migration are rapidly degrading environment in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City"
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
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.
If you were the one whose family the government jailed, or the one shat on by the powerful without any recourse, or the one imprisoned without a fair trial, or the one harmed for publishing dissenting views, I think you would think differently. It does matter that China has a lousy human rights record because we have a moral duty to help others who are being murdered or oppressed. Your reasoning is identical to IBM's before WWII or the people at numerous points in history who shrug off the atrocities as others as someone else's problem. When one person is oppressed, it is everybody's problem.
America is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections. A pure democracy would allow majorities to trample the rights of minorities, which is not a good idea.
And, yes, the founders wanted to protect property rights. That's an important part of individual freedom. In China, the communist government does not recognize property rights. Leave it to someone at slashdot to conflate the two.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
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.
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.
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.
'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..."