Slashdot Mirror
US Lawmakers to Keep Google Out of China?
caese writes "USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China. From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
Seems almost ironic doesn't it?
Live forever, or die trying.
1) Good luck chums, worst case Google et al form shell companies to own the servers in china
2) Congress would better use their time investigating the human rights abuses commited by this Adminitration instead of pointing fingers.
Let's have excessive government regulations to keep them out of countries that we deem to have excessive government regulations.
When have embargos worked? VEry rarely I presume. There's no point in this. Also why target high tech .. what about walmart?
No I am not in favor of cutting off trade in any case.. people should have the right to buy goods from wherever they like.
the export of cheap goods from China to the US. I know censorship is a bad thing, but it seems like finally some US companies selling stiff to china instead of the other way around. Which is good for the US, No?
Seems kind of discriminatory to only go after internet companies. Anyone who does business there is supporting the system as much as Google, etc. are. I really think it is just some politicians trying to score some cheap points.
I don't like Uncle Sam in my search records any more than the commies. The commies actually never promised to protect and defend my constitution, so I have less problem with them than the spies and nannies in my midst.
This could only come out of the US. Sure, I don't agree with the techniques and laws of the countries in question, but trying to pass legislation on where a private or publically held company can open its business to... that's just ridiculous. Its also going to be interesting to enforce. Suppose Google splits off google.ca (Canada) as a seperate company (maybe it already has). Then google.ca opens/runs/maintains google.cn. What can the US gov really do about it?
I wonder why the US government doesn't ban all US based companies from dealing with China, if they want to be pro human rights for a change. Its so hypocritical for them to ensure that US information isn't housed in China and use human rights as a cover. IF human rights were a truly important issue companies like WALMART wouldn't be allowed to trade with them. That would make an actual difference
A lot of those companies may not have their own servers in the nations in question, but they license technology to partners in the region to handle their day-to-day stuff. For example, Yahoo has a partnership with Alibaba.com. Let's say Google say "ok, we won't move our servers there." But they license everything out to a regional partner, and help them set it up. Is this a law that has a very clear loophole prior to even getting going? As such, does it make it another "feel good" law, the kind that we seem to be getting over the last 15 years or so?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
I hear European Union is collaborating with asian authorities to keep Everything out of the US.
Who'll win..?
Since I'm a Free market capitalist republican with Libertarian tendancies I would, most of the the time ask congress to keep their hands off of what a company does. But...after thinking about this I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standardars that represent what our country stands for (reguardless if you think the U.S. is hypacritical or not!). Some of the things they should have to abide by if they still want to be based out of the U.S.
1. Child Labour laws
2. Free Speech
3. Environmental regulations
I would'nt expect them to have to obey ALL of the laws of the U.S. and the localality where they are setting up shop, but going to another country does should not give a company a way around laws here (in the U.S.).
If they refuse then they can base their company in the Bahamas or some other country and take whatever fallout comes.
just an opinion
Don't put the servers overseas 'cause they have oppressive governments!
... it's all right to have them assemble cheap junk for us to buy, no matter how oppressive their government are.
Aha. But
Could it be, just maybe, that the reason isn't the oppressive government but rather that those bastards don't wanna let you sniff into their search records, hmmm?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
After the cold war and the break up of soviet union, it has increasingly become a habit with the USA governments to try and play big daddy to all the nations.
This trend is really disconcerting for people living outside the US. As far as china is concerned, it is entirely a different story. Communism and capitalism can be equated to the devil and the deep sea. Both are not good for the nations. If one ideology generates oppression, the other inculcates greed.
Linux Help
for all things on Linux
So, why don't we ban them from the US, too? Our human rights record has not exactly been spotless, lately.
...Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft...
Microsoft is an Internet company? Wow, i've really been out of it.
How come internet companies have to stay out but Wal*mat gets slave labor?
Are we allowed to buy stuff cheap from there but not allow them to search?
Are servers rare?
The quote seems to indicate that we need them here and can't spare any.
Does China not have the technology in those servers?
It makes no sense.
It's like a kitten with a tuba.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
All a company has to do is develop a "joint" venture with a European, Asian, or even a Chinese company (i.e. government) and bingo! the "joint venture's" servers are now in China under Chinese Government's control.
I think the Chinese government, as a condition of doing business in their country, will not put up with this law - as in a company will not be able to abide by the spirit of the law. I'm thinking of starting a pool on haw fast this bill is squashed.
I've got next week.
Plain and simple. This is a censorship issue. It isn't a "we like china" or "we dislike china" issue. When Google or Microsoft or Yahoo sit down with the Chinese and decide to open up shop they have to censor, and part of that is having programmers who work on censoring software. Are you really comfortable with the fact that Google is using money they make off of you to write censorship software? They are only improving the state of censorship in China and who knows maybe someday that censorship software might just end up censoring you, or censoring something you want to access. Makes me sick.
Since I'm a Free market capitalist republican with Libertarian tendencies I would, most of the the time ask congress to keep their hands off of what a company does. But...after thinking about this I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standards that represent what our country stands for (regardless if you think the U.S. is hypocritical or not!). Some of the things they should have to abide by if they still want to be based out of the U.S.
1. Child Labor laws
2. Free Speech
3. Environmental regulations
I wouldn't expect them to have to obey ALL of the laws of the U.S. in the locality where they are setting up shop, but going to another country should not give a company a way around laws here (in the U.S.).
If they refuse then they can base their company in the Bahamas or some other country and take whatever fallout comes.
just an opinion
So you'd trade with the third reich during WWII ????
You libertarians are sooooo cooooool.
First, I'm opposed to anyone doing any business in China until they get their act cleaned up. In fact, I'd be for a such a law that bars American businesses from doing any business there.
Second, I don't see anywhere in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows for Congress to regulate the activities of private business in foreign countries. Therefore, I am opposed to the bill and for an amendment to the Constitution that will provide Congress with the proper authority to do so.
Is it a good idea? Of course. Is it constitutional? Not a chance.
...where'd they get all the benefits of the US without any of the disadvantages.
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
They'll just move their HQ to Canada or Mexico and keep on doing what they did before except it'll churn less money in the US economy. Free trade is in everyone's best interest (except the politicians, of course).
Seriously, What a stupid thing to do! China can make them or any other US company truck loads of money. More potential for profit then the US, that's for sure. If I were google, I would just move to another country. Base it in Germany or something. Then you can use the favorable exchange rate to buy up small American companies in the states of the jackasses writing this stuff and close them just for spite. Then launch a media campaign explaining it's all their fault. At lease that's what I'd do.
since fighting China by military, or economic means is nearly futile, about the only way left is to disseminate information via the internet in all imaginable ways. If the net is a 'true democracy', then by 'painlessly' infiltrating it into the hands of 1.3 billion Chinese, we'd be 'waging' a successful war on China... which, lest you forgot, is still considered the last, dying, communist bastion of the world.
'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
I believe in the free enterprise system. Google is an independent entrepreneur within the free enterprise system. China is attempting to become so (on its own terms). Let market pressure and the free enterprise system work this out. China cannot remain forever an island (I mean, really . . . look at the size of the place :^)
Yea right. More like keeping vital servers and technology out of China and other nations the State Department deems competitive to US economy. The last thing the US wants is for China have access to free information. If China ever got their act together and started emulating the US economy of our industrial age, they would take over the world economy in a heartbeat.
If this was about human rights, we would have stopped trading with China decades ago. No, this is about working with the Chinese Government to help keep its people down. It's what China wants, and it is what the US wants.
Spin spin spin spin, spin spin spin spin....
We'll still buy Chinese goods, and send our atheletes to their games....
Other friendly countries nearby that have better human rights policies: Japan, Philippines, and South Korea.
I suppose those locations would also make sense, if they never noticed an advantage of the government-controlled dirt cheap labor force in China. It's not a localization issue, it's a revenue and profit issue. Expect that any Google Japan, Philippines, or South Korea sites would locate in China, too.
...that the US might fail on 2 and most certainly will fail on 3?
But I'm sure a lot of US companies would support your idea. Hey, it's like asking them to outsource labour!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So now we have the people that we put into office trying to step on the rights of companies like Google to succeed in business. We voted in people who have betrayed our trust. Instead of applauding these successful companies for their large profits and the wealth they bring to our country, they instead trample their right to profit in the name of some illusory moral concerns. If we, as a nation, had any balls we'd be voting these bufoons out of office before they start taking our guns away and throwing us in gulags.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The US can't ban companies from doing business with China because China owns a LOT of our debt. Where do you think we're borrowing all this money from? Well, boys and girls, it's China (and some other countries). We can't ban all business with them because they can go ahead and call in the debt, which would be a huge economic disaster for the US.
How about this...
You get an email account in the U.S. The U.S. company has servers in a foreign country hostile to the U.S. They read your email.
You query google but the server happens to be in China. Now China wants to look at your queries.
Is China going to honor your rights? No way Jose. Yet, I was a non technical user who thought these services where in the U.S.
Sorry to coward... I'm at the law library computer lab.
I heard or read here on the Interdoodle a few years ago that technically, Windows XP itself was not supposed to be exported, because it features DES Encryption, which is classified by the government as a "munition."
Am I remembering this accurately, or is it just FUD? I checked snopes and such and didn't see anything. And yet clearly WXP is exported all over the place, so for whatever reason, there isn't much in the way of enforcement here.
For my part, I'd like to go hands-off and let the companies do whatever they want, but the authority which makes that possible is the US Government, so some degree of adherence to that government's rules is reasonable to expect.
In order to oppose governments who repress their people, our government is going to repress its people [more].
It's not surprising; just wanted to make sure I got the gist of it.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
I highly doubt that a country like China - with the possibility and skill that (not to seem *positively* racist) asian people seem to have in their studies and grasp of technology - would feel the burn of loosing Google or any other company for that matter before they make their own replacement. I think they're making the mistake of assuming the country NEEDS Google, not that Google needs the country (and I don't just mean this in direct relation to China, i mean it in a more broad terminology... any country besides China for that matter.) I can understand some of the reasoning behind it in a very roundabout way, but it's still a very draconic bill. It's the implications behind the thing.
It seems like search engines are generally going to lag slightly in censoring things behind how they index the web, so people searching for subversive information will tend to get only the most recent bunch of sites to come up, but they'll have an easier time getting information than if they didn't have search engines or if they only had search engines that included only sites previously approved by the government.
The real concern should be that search engines will keep records of searches and turn them over to the government. Google seems unwilling to do this (while other companies seem quite willing). And, of course, government-sponsored or locally-based engines will be more likely to turn over their data than foreign ones.
If this senator really wanted to help the Chinese people rather than the Chinese government, he'd propose banning keeping search records or revealing this information to outside parties.
Yahoo has surrendered personal data on two dissidents at least that have lead to their arrests. Yahoo claims they had no choice. Well, if the data wasn't in China, they wouldn't have had that excuse, though they probably would have folded anyway.
So Google and the other Internet companies can't have servers in repressive countries, but Nike and Wal-mart have the go-ahead for child labour? I'm a big opponent of Internet censorship myself, but let's solve the problem we've been putting off for awhile first before we hop onto that big ol' Information Superhighway and start legislating away.
Chris Smith (R-NJ) is usually busy crafting legislation to gag 3rd world countries re. abortion services in family planning clinics.
To his credit he *has* been a strong supporter of veterans health care and the like, for which he was kicked off the committee chair because he wanted more money than the other Republicans wanted to give. Apparently they're big on allocating money to send the guys into harm's way but want to minimize the health care costs when the vets come back broken.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
I'd love to see companies fight this and take it to the Supreme Court. I'm very interested to know if they will decide the federal government has the right to mandate this. It could potentially end this debate once and for all.
Developers: We can use your help.
A few observations:
> USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that
> would keep Google and others out of China.
Actually, no. First off, the bill hasn't even been drafted yet.
Secondarily, as I read the article, it wouldn't prevent anyone from doing business in China and other oppressive regimes. It would simply require the "vital computer servers" (currently not defined; remember, it hasn't been -drafted- yet) from being located physically within the opressive regime's geographic control.
> From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that
> would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft
> to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State
> Department deems repressive to human rights.
The part that wasn't quoted says: "Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach. But that also could weaken the firms' crucial Internet search engines."
It appears the intent of the bill is to prohibit situations where crucial equipment could be physically compromised by force, although since it hasn't been drafted yet, it could go further, of course.
I don't know anything about Rep. Smith, but this page:
http://www.house.gov/chrissmith/laws/laws.htm
Seems to indicate he has been actively interested in human rights under opressive regimes rather than gestapo internet control laws. Maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, at least until after he has finished a first draft we could look at?
I have my facts wrong. Clause 3 allows for this. I apologize.
Let us hope the gentleman from NJ is able to shepherd this bill through Congress and to Mr. Bush.
If congress won't even stop US companies from relocating offshore to avoid US taxes, won't do a damn thing about the trade deficit WITH CHINA, they're going to somehow get up the courage to enforce American laws (which may or may not be set aside by the executive) on (what would become) foreign subsidiaries?
Can we say publicity stunt?
Next thing you know, they'll try declaring search engines "munitions."
Here's a better idea Congressthing, pass a law that the US will cut off ALL trade and diplomatic relations with China until they meet certain human rights standards.
Why should companies be penalized for something the US gov't isn't willing to do itself?
So...
it's OK to send our manufactuing capability overseas
it's OK to uy most of our goods from overseas
it's wrong to sell them data
The fucking idiots we keep voting in.
Perhaps the EU should place a trade embargo on the US for similar reasons?
James P. Barrett
That's fine by me. We shouldn't be doing business with China AT ALL. They are our largest enemy. They would like nothing less than our absolute destruction. They've caused the destruction of America's manufacturing sector. As more business moves to China, we are giving them the ability to cripple our nation in one fell swoop, simply by stopping shipments of goods we depend upon them for.
But they make cheap stuff, so who cares, right!?
Look, I'm no xenophobe, but am I the only one out there that thinks that, even though they are our largest trading ally now, China has some other plans for us further down the road? I don't see any reason to trust them, but day by day we are more reliant on China to survive.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
So, we won't let google go there, but Wal-mart can buy up something like 10% of their total exports?
How does that make sense?
It's because if joe-bob redneck can't get a $40 TV for every room in his house, those politicians won't get re-elected.
What a sad bunch of crap.
I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, the Chinese government is restricting free speech, and US companies are assisting in that effort. On the other hand, I believe that in general engagement is the best way to cajole repressive governments into better behavior. There are limits to this, of course. Discerning those limits is difficult. For example, why are we not similarly purturbed with American activities in Russia, even though everyone knows the last vestiges of Russian democracy are slipping away. How much of the current reaction to American tech companies' involvement with China is really a reaction to growing Chinese economic power?
Another question: Would pulling Google, Cisco, et. al. from China actually help the Chinese people at large, would it harm them, or would the end result be neutral? Would we be harming our own economic interests for some tangible end, or would it be a hollow gesture, akin to the "Free Tibet" bumper stickers that make us all feel good, but are essentially pointless?
It sounds like I'm begging the question, because right now I am leaning in favor of keeping the US government from interfering with tech companies that do business in China. But I am still profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that American technology is being used to smother dissent. So at the moment, all I have is questions.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
So you want to keep the servers out of China. Well, to do business in China, you are going to have to comply with their rules:
1) Block search info
2) Hand over names of bloggers
3) What ever else
Great now your servers are in the US now their Gov. cannot take the hardware but if you don't play ball; then you get blocked anyway. This doesn't solve the problem; so stop putting band aids on when you have a cut artery
How about requiring American corporations to keep their accounting computers in the US, where US laws can govern them? And while they're at it, how about Congress making some laws that actually stop Enrons, WorldComs and Andersons and their Kenny-boy Lay generation from robbing people?
--
make install -not war
It's called "sanction." What's ironic is how long China has been free from sanctions.
Would it seem "repressive" to say "State Department moves to block Google from installing servers at Natanz uranium enrichment site in Iran?"
As long as that free market is enginnered to our standards and for our benifit. I bet you're also one of those limited-government republicans like our current president. There is way too much relativism in modern conservatism.
Doesn't China already have MFN status? Why not just revoke that instead?
Encourage companies to trade with them, and encourage them to push the boundaries of what's allowed there. Let the people see what they're missing out on.
Tim
I thought it was:" derka, derka- Mohamad jihad - from "Team America" Hilarious movie!!
So that means no countries that have the death penalty, make laws against gay marriage, euthanasia, marijuana, DRM etc.? If so I guess that's Canada!
Governments repressive to human rights? Would that include Canada or South Dakota?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
This is yet more hypocrisy due to the fact that we accept chinese goods for sale here .
If we cared about human rights like them using political prisoners as slave labor
to work in factories to ship goods here, then we would do something about it .
This just smells of total hypocritical BS .
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
If they're trying to prevent Google from supporting a corrupt, repressive government that spies on its own people, they'd better keep them from operating in the US too.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
What is amazing to me, is that so many seem to hit Google hard. They are being accused of being the worst amongst the main search engines. It has made major headlines that google allows the china gov. to decide what will be seen, but with the proviso that is shows that the entry was deleted. Well the other engines simply delete the entries, BUT do NOT show that it was censored. In addition, both Yahoo and Microsoft have helped the chinese gov. to catch those who write against the chinese gov. Google has not (and I hope will not) helped them in such a manner. In addition, MS has offered up all sorts of information to the chinese gov. on how to do various things (basically their "valuable" closed source code), IIRC Yahoo also has a branch in China, while Google has done none of the above.
Offhand, I would say that Google has a major hatchett job being done against them at all levels. I wonder where it originates at?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There are many laws on the books to keep any private citizens/corporations from interfering with Foreign Policy.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Sounds good to me. We need to do this to more companies. Sorry, but especially after Tiananmen Square China holds nothing but contempt from me.
This is the sort of problem which the corporate world created lobbying to solve.
Guys, get some education on how things work out in the big blue room. This isn't dangerous.
I'll clue you in, this is all about posturing. No, this bill won't pass and it isn't intended to pass. What it is intended to do is put political pressure on Google to counterbalance the polutical pressure China is putting on Google, Yahoo!, MSN, etc.. Before, US companies really didn't have much choice, they were operating in China so the Chinese could lean hard on them to play ball. Bills like this are intended to provide cover, i.e. next time China wants to lean on em the US companies AND the Chinese government have to counterbalance the gain aganst the potential loss if they push Congress far enough they actually get serious next time.
Wouldn't be at all suprised to find Google or Microsoft behind this bill, of course in a very back room, back channel and totally deniable way. This is modern political theatre. Yes it is sleezy, underhanded, hypocritical and so on, but it happens to be the way the game is played.
Democrat delenda est
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I REALLY do think that if a company is based the U.S.A. it should have to abide by minimum standardars that represent what our country stands for
Let us see:
a) Imperialism, including supporting client dictatorships (North Korea) and conducting colonial wars of conquest abroad (Tibet)
b) Repression of ideas and civil population survillance (China seems to have inspired the most recent US legislation on this area)
c) Political Repression, like keeping political enemies imprisioned without trial, access to legal advice or perspective of release
As for your list:
1. Child Labour laws: Western companies (including American ones like Nike) made child labour in the Third World possible and profitable by hiring it in the first place
2. Free Speech: Yes, here the Chinese are way ahed, but the American government is doing its best to close the gap.
3. Environmental regulations: Ah, yeah, Kettle refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty because it thought Pot was having too much fun.
All in all, I think China is doing quite well in its quest to abide by the American principles. They also have only one party like the US, favour profit above anything else and are willing to do whatever it takes in the name of its own interests.
In what way are the Google servers in China, which presumably serve predominantly Chinese crowd, "critical servers" for the American Google corporation? If the servers in China die/are confiscated, sure Google's revenues will suffer, but I don't think it will be a critical event.
Your argument is upsetting. I, as a Canadian, could make the same argument about doing business with the States -- you guys could quite literally cripple us by not buying our wood, our oil, most of our intellectual property (though of course, you'd be doing everyone a favour to muzzle Avril Lavigne/Celine Dione etc.)... You guys could crush us like the ants that we are; but nobody's arguing that we should cut off trade relations completely because you guys might come, in about 30 years when your freshwater supply runs out due to global warming, and annex us for our many lakes and rivers.
Increased trade with China is making it possible for workers to live better lives; economics really shouldn't be viewed as this nationalistic "US versus Them" kind of thing. If your nation isn't competitive in one arena, educate people to be competitive in another.
Like, say, academic navel-gazing.
USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China.
Too late! China has already de-constructed and reverse-engineered Google.
They have changed the code ever so slightly, and is coming out with their very own search engine called 'Choogle' in June 2006.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
if you give livestock the power to roam freely, they might get free and run away. Good fences make good neighbors, etc. Adjoining ranches cooperate to keep their cattle under control.
The American elite and the Chinese elite are just putting up fences to keep their livestock safe.
Don't you feel safer now?
baaa baaa baaa
eat shiat and bark at the moon
no more financing the largest deficits in our history with evil Chinese money.
Or no more doing oil business in Nigeria.
Let's be fair.
Methinks many in the government (and oil co's) might not agree with this.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
I am a US citizen, and I am utterly appauled [sic] at how my country feels the need to meddle in the affairs of other nations.
I don't think it right to opress people, if China so chooses to opress it's people then so be it. History teaches that even opressed people will revolt when they have had enough.
Given China's age vs the age of the US who are we to say they are running their country wrong or bieng wrong in opressing their people.
If we are a nation built on freedom why is there a need to force our ideals on a nation that isn't as open as we are. It seems that China's current method of governing it's people is working for them atm, why should they change?
By imposing our beliefs on them we come out the arrogant assholes on the block.
I'll be sure to write my congressman and let him know how I feel, and that China should not be sanctioned into bankruptcy to enforce our beliefs.
Signed
Fucking sick of legislators who know how to run (read ruin) the world.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
If they do passs this piece of legislation. All these companies will just move servers outside of china with the same restrictions inplace. That way chinese get google and the chinese gov is happy cause it is censored. congress need to stop nickle and dime trade sanctions and step up to the plate if trade sanctions is what they are going to do.
WTF?
See the US critizise it's 'Ally' controller - haha, as if they ever would
Lets keep things in perspective. Google censors, but notifies the end-user that they were censored. Google does NOTHING else to help any goverments.
Yahoo and Microsoft censor, but do NOT notify the end-user (they leave them thinking that the search is complete). In addition, both of these companies (and others such as Cisco) ARE helping the chinese gov. to locate and crush all disenters. MS is going so far as giving source code and interesting algorythms to the gov. Many conservatives have labeled clinton a traitor for helping the chinese to correct a rocket fin problem, that they would have figured out in time.
Be careful of pointing fingers at Google. There are far worse companies out there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Many of you demanded that Government stick its nose into the tech business, so why are you crying about it now? Did you really think that Government interference would go no further than that DOJ/MS case?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
I find it totally ironic. The administration that wants to spy on it's own citizens without judicial oversight wants to prevent someone else from violating civil rights. Fuck the white house bigots, who are happy to repress the US citizens, but prefer to free some other country. It's about time "we the people" kick the bunch of fat cats out of DC and replace them with people who actually have morals and ethics. Not some whoring asswipe who is willing to sell out to the highest paying company.
but.... but.... all Republicans are pro-free-market, right?
First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government. An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen. In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US. Half the people in jail are there for non-violent drug offenses. Just because you can complain all you want to doesn't mean you're not oppressed. People confuse freedom of speech for actual liberty. The problems don't come from the top here (unless you're a suspicious A-rab) but from local incompetent governments jailing people without access to decent legal defense. Police abuse is rampant, etc.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
See my comment on a previous story:
7 05660
h p?can_id=H2371103
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=177193&cid=14
In a nutshell, I think the Bushies are going after Google as retribution for defying the Justice Dept's hunger for private search data.
Chris Smith's voting record:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.p
Notice the votes with/against ACLU and other "rights" organizations. That's all I know about him, but I'm highly suspicious.
Buy their own country? they could then live by their own rules, and tell the other countries to suck it if they want to have the use of their software. it would get them out of the grips of oppressive governments.
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
My question, then, is, how do I justify that position? Is all censorship the same? Is it just a different set of values applied to the same problem?
My current rationale is that they are two different types of censorship - one is meant to control a population and the other is meant to protect people unable to protect themselves. Thoughts?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It is ironic you can go in a store and see that almost every item is manufactured in China or Taiwan, and then you see this about how they feel that "google" shouldn't be allowed to do business in China because of how the Chinese have poor human rights issues.
Who do you think is making all those toys that stock our shelves? Chinese kids more than likely.
So why don't they block Mattel from having their toys manufactured in China?
It seems the USA just wants more jobs to go to different countries, that is the only solution for Google it would seem. If I had a multi-billion dollar business opportunity that required to move 1000-3000 workers across the sea, then so be it. The US is the only one who is going to lose by this idiotic move.
And since when has the US been so keen on human rights? Since Abu Ghraib? Oh wait.. Guantanamo is still doing far more horrible things such as forced feeding, to prevent prisoners on a hunger strike from dieing.
When the US talks about "human rights" its hard to take them seriously like an executive from Enron talking about ways to diffuse corporate corruption.
the waste time congress will now be involved in when they totally shoot down this bill... what an incredible waste of time proposing, discussing, writing this bill. it will never ever pass.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
I agree that under Emperor Cheney and the Figurehead Buffoon the Bill of Rights is under attack. But prisoners in China don't wind up on The Island, they wind up as guest of honor at a chain organ transplant. You don't stay in prison very long, just long enough for a tissue match and to fill in all the order blanks.
Rodney King, aka traffic terrorist
it will not last long. the men who control the International Monetary Fund will be using Google and various other technologies as bargaining chips to establish control over the Chinese money supply. If you think politicians control these things, then think again.
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
It's interesting to note that when Frost penned that line, it was sarcastic.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Such a law cannot effectively be limited to these three companies. It cannot effectively be limited to a single technology type. It needs to be done across the board.
Like it or not, the products and services of the U.S. along with the companies that provide them are a large part of the world's view of the U.S. There should be something to keep a local company, operating abroad, in line with the same U.S. standards that are required for operation within the U.S. No child labor; Reasonable wages and all that stuff.
If this means I pay +$10 for a shirt, then so be it. I really don't think we'll pay +$10 anyway -- the top executives will simply make less bonus and/or less salary or face going out of business while a more flexible company profits.
I hope the proposed legislation is not inherently limited to internet technologies and services... it's just not enough.
political stunt to earn some brownie points when he is up for the re-election, right? Such bill will never pass, just like the military draft bill a few years ago. It's nothing but a PR move so he can say "look, i tried this"
If this law is really just about "vital" servers, then I would assume that as long as Google and others had backup and infrastructure within US to keep US online during emergencies that should be sufficient to stay in line with the law. I think this is just saying that US internet companies cannot have their services rely on infrastructure located in China. That's probably reasonable and not overly onerous for Google to satisfy.
I wish they cared 10% about our civil rights at home as they do about Chinese human rights.
First of all, on a per-capita basis the U.S is more oppressive to its citizens then the Chinese government.
Anything you compare to china on a "per-capita" basis is going to be skewed due to the sheer mass of their population.
An American is almost four times as likely to be imprisoned then a Chinese citizen.
Yet the chinese execute more Criminals than any other country.
In fact, the US has more total people in jail then the Chinese, despite the fact that china has almost four times as many people as the US.
But you don't go to jail in the US for being of a certain political view, or religion. Of course, the fact that they execute people much more liberally in China could be a reason that they have less people in jail. China executes more people than the rest of the world does...combined. China also has the second most executions per captia (since you like that stat) to singapore.
Of course, your point is only valid if you believe the numbers the Chinese government puts out. (they claim 1.4 million people in prison to the US prison population of 2 million).
Half the people in jail are there for non-violent drug offenses.
Just because you can complain all you want to doesn't mean you're not oppressed.
So why are you oppressed? Because the government tries to stop people from drugging themselves to death?
People confuse freedom of speech for actual liberty. The problems don't come from the top here (unless you're a suspicious A-rab) but from local incompetent governments jailing people without access to decent legal defense. Police abuse is rampant, etc.
Move to China and see how much better you do there.
What's next? Prohibitions on manufacturing for all the stuff "Made in China"?
Yeah. Suuure.
from the article (gasp!:):
>...to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the
>State Department deems repressive to human rights. Moving servers
>would keep personal data they house from government reach.
and...
>Google's site launch came days after it rebuffed a U.S. Justice
>Department subpoena demanding that it turn over data on how millions
>of users search the Internet.
heaven forbid that *other* governments have the same easy data
access the US government has!!
(inspite of Googles so called 'rebuff', nothing is stopping the US
government from just taking the data. nothing has stopped it from
similar behaviors in the past.)
sigh*
It's about time that companies are forced to abide by U.S. law while operating in other countries. After all, most U.S. laws are meant to enhance individual life.
...No?
While we're taking care of Google, they're throwing in stuff about manufacturing companies offering below-U.S. minimum wage, work hours, and child labor laws in other countries, right?
So you're telling me that companies like Nike, a highly profitable corporation which can charge $150 for a single shoe because of overhype, can continue to force children to work long hours for little pay, while a corporation like Google, which is providing a much more valuable service of information, and doesn't hinder its employees in foreign nations (to my knowledge), is forced to work by the U.S. laws?
How does that make sense?
Oh, right. Google probably hasn't been keeping up with their bribery stipents to members of congress.
Fucking politicians.
I mean aside from the bullshit reasons about them caring about the issues.. why do they care about this? Are they not getting a cut for something, which rich interest group are they doing this for? Is it a power play of some kind?
... start your campaign fundraising engines!
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
In addition, I would say that each of the millions of individual law that our country has on the books is one less freedom. People think of freedom as "freedom of speech" or "freedom of religion", but to many people that couldn't care any less about speech or religion (i certainly don't care about religion), then those freedoms are meaningless and only self-congratulatory. "WOO HOO WE CAN WORSHIP DEITY 2 INSTED OF DEITY 1!"
To me, freedom would also include the freedom to mod an X-Box, or not to have to shovel my sidewalk when it snows, or to smoke weed, sing "Happy Birthday" at a company, or make a duplicate of a DVD i bought. Those are my 'care-abouts'. Unfortunately, those are all illegal.
So, given that, I would say the US is one of the LEAST FREE countries in the world. How many laws do people in other countries have to follow?
And, why do people always say a Democracy is good? The average citizen is unlikely to notice if their heads of government comprise of an inherited monarchy or elected officials: both end up being authoritarian figures that only represents certain special interests. In a representative democracy, the government doesn't represent the people, it only represents the people that elected them. How is that any better than a king, who may be able to rule independently of what the mob decides?
Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.
Talk about being hypocrites. The Chinese government cannot impose their will over the Chinese people, but the American government can? If the US goes through with this, the Chinese people won't have a slightly censored version of Google, they'll have NO version of Google (other than the one hosted in the US which doesn't work very well in China), never mind numerous other online services. Sorry America, mind your own business and fuck off for once. The rest of the world is sick of your shit. It's not your responsibility to tell the rest of the world what to do. That's my humble Canadian opinion.
Maybe it's time the 'mega companies' of the internet stop trying to be 'American companies' and set themselves up somewhere else.
They're US because they are established there but they serve virtually the whole world. In my opinion they should owe allegiance to no particular country because they deal with them all.
I'm sure many countries would give them the freedom to conduct business internationally without trying to intervene or dictate how and where they may do so.
They're not selling weapons, drugs or anything illegal or immoral so why persecute them based on political moods?
China's human rights issues are something that should be addressed, but not by Google, Yahoo, MSN or any other internet corporation.
So they're going to keep Google out of the US? [Cough]Ehmmm... ehmm... Gitzmo..[/Chough]
Having many channels of communication between the Chinese population and the outside world -- even "censored" ones -- increases the odds that ways will be found to circumvent the censors.
Even schemes like the one spotlighted ("Freegate") in today's WSJ (subscription reqd) would fail if there were no channels of communication through the so-called "Great Firewall of China".
Of course, reasoned thought has long ago been abandoned by the US Congress (if indeed it was EVER present in the House of Representatives) in favor of more lucrative means of constructing legislation. Is the Chinese government acting as the lobbyist for this rumored legislation?
I can't believe people would disagree with this move by the US government.
1. The Chinese government filters what its citizens can and can't view in all forms of media, especially the internet. A move like this by the US government is not meant to be hostile to the chinese people, but the "repressive" Maoist regime. Free market reform has brought China a long way toward becoming more open and free nation. But, nowhere close to what westerners would consider a truly free society.
2. I can understand the necessity for Google to agree the filter restrictions imposed by the Chinese government. If Google didn't agree to it, then China would homebrew their own version of Google. Having an America corporation allowed to serve the internet uses of China is a technological bridge between our two worlds. Who knows, perhaps Google will help bring about true freedom in China. Stranger things have happened.
3. Say what you want about the "opressive" nature of the United States, but we certainly don't imprison people for trying to look up "democracy" on the internet.
And to all of you from around the world who make absurd claims about the US Government, just list the nation you're from and we'll see who lives in the more oppressive nation. Unless of course you're from Western Europe, or Canada, then all things are equal.
Isn't Google a Canadian site though? I mean, since when does the US get to say where we put our Canadian sites in. I mean, China could totally use Google. I mean, if Google is so popular in the US and Canada, imagine how popular it will be in other countries. The makers of Google will make billions. Let's just let the whole world have Google, and see where it ends up.
How long ago was the State of the Union address again? Wasn't this the sort of thing George W. Bush repeatedly demonised in his speech? He will never sign the bill into a law, even if it would somehow manage to get passed.
But it won't even pass, because the Californian reps will kill it as soon as it comes to the floor.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
You have attained the rank of "Master Skimmer" with the skillful avoidance of the line "(reguardless if you think the U.S. is hypacritical or not!)". That bastard thought he was going to escape smartass remarks by politely making a note in his post to understand we're talking about the values American doctrine has preached, but you showed him! Nothing gets past you! The nation thanks you for pointing out that we're not exactly the bastion of freedom and light we love to tell ourselves we are, right from childhood. Nevermind that the point of all that has always been to work towards that goal, not to make anyone believe that it's the Actual Way It Is(tm).
P.S. - Speak for yourself, and find a better way of trying to karma-whore. Even the "M$" moniker is less used here on /. than that tripe.
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
Because the government tries to stop people from drugging themselves to death?
The war on drugs isn't about keeping people from doing drugs any more than the war on terror is about keeping people from committing terrorist acts (or protecting people from them).
The war on drugs is a pretext so that the government can carry out its domestic and foreign policy objectives: that is, an American Empire abroad and a secure elite at home.
The drug war, like the terror war, is a strawman erected to detach the actions of the government from direct scrutiny. People waste their time seriously talking about a drug war as if its stated outcome or objectives were at all important to anyone anywhere. People give up their freedoms to be protected from boogeymen that don't exist, so that the government can continue policies that create the very issues that the war "addresses."
For an example of how this filters down to the empowerment or liberty of individuals, look at your comment.
People were complaining that Google and other were complying with the oppressive laws in China, and thereby abusing human rights... and something should be done. Along comes a bill (Slashdotters seems to love government regulation) to directly address this issue (i.e. if the servers are not in China, then Google or whoever don't have to obey Chinese censorship laws... that is at least the theory behind it). Now people are whining and complaining about that bill!
I don't think you are all Libetarians or Anarchists and against this simply because you are against most forms government regulation. So could someone, who thinks Google is evil for doing buisness in China, who opposes the government restricting buisness in China on human rights grounds, and IS NOT a libertarian and just opposing the government on principle, please explain to me the logic of your decision.
PLEASE... Seriously, I am not going to diss you or disagree with you in any way. I will give you the last word and won't even reply back. I seriously want to understand the logic of your beliefs. This is not a rhetorical question, and I am not being factitious. I realize this is a failure to comprehend on my part, and would be very greatful to have you enlighten me on this issue.
You're an idiot... move to China and enjoy your freedom there.
If the United States is that concerned about human rights violations, would we (as a country) not have done more before these search engines' censorship garnered national media attention? It seems to me that the cart is being placed well before the horse. Regulating a tricky enterprise like e-commerce should be the last phase in such a policy, not the catalyst for initiating one. How can the United States support the Beijing Olympics in 2008 if human rights violations are such a concern in China?
Does that cover countries that the government is taking many civil liberties and human rights away from its people along with violating its own laws and ratified international laws? If so, we better censor/ban ourselves since Empirier CEO Bush has done a great job doing such. -lms gezzan 6033185093
which is ironic since that would be again slashing at rights in their own country, and b) since as the US looses more rights one has to question at what point they themselves cross the threshhold of human rights abuses and google can no longer maintain key servers in hte US either. Some would say already.
Wow, "Criminals", with a capital "c", heheheh
Well, what IIII like about China is the often don't FUCK around when it comes to EXECUTING corrupt politicians. They executed a number of them in the 90's when they found them stealing from the public. Sure, it might have been to show the world they would clamp down on accounting irregularities and to punish those (convenient to punish) when caught stealing Western investor's huge cash infusions to China...
But, we need some of that "political assassination" here, NOW. We've been for way too damned long paying excess taxes for fat-assed politicos who get huge retirement benefits, yet can't get off their asses to timely send armor to service personnel fighting/hijacking lands in the ME; veterans are being miscounted as to the extent and effects of their injuries; schools are not getting enough money; the worst bad teachers and police are protected by unions and tenure, and more.
Talk about oPPRESSION. These dumb-assed, self-serving, two-faced politicians think they are doing the right thing? They'll just create a vacuum. Google, Yahoo!, ms and others will just shadow-fund non-US companies and then remain in China under another name, a partnership, or some other (ad)venture.
But, wait! Why stop at ISP and data-mining companies. They haven't yet done much about the (defunct) C-cube, DiviComs and the fiberoptic and data storage companies that in the 90's set up shop not only in Hong Kong, Tokyo and the UK, but in China. Innumerable, but certainly a good 10 of these such companies helped China not only get wider Internet access and VCD inspirations (VCDs sprung up because the Chinese (rightly or not) indignantly re-effing-FUSED to pay (what they consider) extortionist cartel fees to the DVD consortium; later VCDs got so good as to error-correct shitty or scratched-up DVDs. VCDs popped up all over the place in the US, particularly in Asian neighborhoods, but also in neighborhood stores, and since so many (not just Asian) Americans were bootlegging DVDs and ripping VCDs, the price of DVDs couldn't compete with VCDs. The profits suffered and VCDs then--particularly in small, poor, rural areas of China, but also in the US, took off like hot cakes.
But aside from that, the Cicso and Broadcoms DiviComs and others who started ventures in China not only helped China get better diffused/spread out news coverage (and, for those of you who don't KNOW, China has at least TWO sources of news: that for the politicians who don't want to find their names linked to corruption and scandal, and that which is for public consumption), but they ALSO "complied with local law" (in direct contravention to what the current ad-hoc, reactionary cabal in office and congress (the opposite of PROgress) claims to be feeling now) of China and enabled China to tap, filter, redirect, drop, disrupt and otherwise suppress information flow to the masses.
Now, in reality, those companies helped diffuse (as in spread, not just water down) information to a Chinese public that otherwise would have far LESS information (well, until European and Japanese companies filled the void) access.
Telling Google, Yahoo! and ms and the others they can't "be there with critical servers" is dumb-assed, too-little-too-late bullshit. It's posturing and probably going to backfire on them when the time for reelections returns. Those mega $100,000 meal tickets will dry up pretty fast. But, oh, I almost forgot: many CEOs and typical 'merikuns have short memories.
But, China is NOT going to take this sitting down, either. Rhetorically and politically, this is an opportunity to roundly slam the US and give more publicity to US interventions, jailings, and corrupt police, as others here have been pointing out. In the worst case scenario, this could end up in trade sanctions.
But, as for the US exporting only "1%" to China, the reality of it is: TOO BAD. Most US companies are so greedy they' try to sell for $100 to some item they can get domestically for under $1. Besides, $100 is a
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Your comment is like the fucking commercials claiming that buying pot funds terrorism.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Most libertarians would have had America trading with Adolf Hitler if he hadn't declared war on us.
Free trade has no intrinsic regard for human rights.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I don't get why Google doesn't just direct the Chinese Government to it's own constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and press and be done with it.
Surely it's own constitution isn't a farce, right?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Maybe i forgot, but don't we have a right to protection against ex post facto laws?
Oh, wait, I forgot where I am.
The Yellow Kid said the biggest fool is one who accuses others of it. At least Google if
forcibly kept out of China will no longer be able to continue being an active enforcement
agent for the Chinese Secret Police. And American collagen cream manufacturers will maybe
have a little less raw material for their creams, as a few less Chinese will be informed on
by Chinese agents Google and Yahoo and others. That will mean fewer will be executed and their bodies skinned and processed for collagen. Every time you buy collagen containing
creams, think of the Chinese who were tortured to death for your 'soft skin'. Every time
you surf using Google or Yahoo, think of the blood on their hands and the evil avarice in
their hearts.
That's funny, our government says "hey google, you can't do business with china because their violating citizens rights", while at the same time, the government sues google for protecting American's rights to privacy read me.
Doesn't matter where the servers are. All that matters is where the IT workers are, which is in China.
The servers are just computers. The threat to national security is that the whole infrastructure of the Internet is now being developed and maintained in China and India.
Also, if Google and Yahoo can't stand up to the United States government's illegal demands that they turn over every bit of private information regarding *your* searches/emails, what makes you think they can stand up against the Chinese government without losing a quarter of the world's population?
At least Google has so far stood up against the U.S. governemnt. Don't know how long that will last.
To me it sounded like it only said they cant put the physical servers in China. As far as the /. summary goes, I saw nothing in it to limit Google from doing business with China. But then again, I didnt RTFA, so I could be wrong...
Have we completely reversed the roles of government and industry?
Isn't it the job of Google and friends to make money while (hopefully) respecting the laws of the countries in which they do business?
Isn't it the national government that represents the people of the nation and their values?
And now a representative of the party that puts money above values in its dealings with foreign governments is asking companies to adhere to it citizens' values. This is incredibly ironic isn't it?
So which oppressive government dictates who can and cannot trade in other oppressive governments?
I'm of two minds about this.
As an IT professional, I don't want to see my job sent offshore and it would be nice to see the government do something to keep that from happening.
As a Libertarian I'm against this kind of intrusive government regulation. Why don't they scrap things like minimum wage laws and the EEOC. Then it would be easier for companies to keep their computers, and our jobs, here in the U.S.
"Politicians always tell the truth, when they're calling each other liars."
The bottom line is where does motivation for $$$ stop and motivation for standards/beliefs begin? One of the reasons why (it seems to me) the almighty $$ is the common denominator for corporate behavior Is that our country has gotten TOO BIG for anybody to agree on a common set of moral standards that would be enforced (in this case companies practices overseas).
I'm a believer in democracy, but I think we are seeing that it does not scale well without disenfranchising MANY people of different political slants. Thus causing almost NO commonly recognized set of moral beliefs that society can enforce among themselves (one primary reason societies come together because of a shared set of beliefs)
Personally I'm of the opinion that we should have a MUCH weaker central government and leave things up to states, that way if one state wants to have legalized gay marriage and leagal use of pot, then they CAN! And if one state wants to make abortions illegal then they can. If you don't like your state then MOVE.
Is there ANYTHING that 99% of Americans nowadays can agree upon which is common to everybody?
yea...practically speaking it aint gunna happen but continuing down this road will only lead to a further fracturing of society in the U.S. until one side says f**ck you to the other and ether 1)tries to kill the other side or B) sticks their new flag in shared territory and declares it theirs.
...that getting more Western firms involved in China, no matter what limited capacity they must start off with, will only lead to increased liberty in China?
Is there any reason to suspect cordoning China off will be a better path to reformation?
Arbitrary hardline positions are fun and all, but I'd like to see some evidence that cultural embargos of a nation are more likely to bring them around to your point of view than simply increasing economic contacts. Compare the results of economic isolation on Cuba and North Korea, contrast it with the economic integration invovled with Japan and Germany. (Obligatory reference to Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree).
Maybe Tiananmen Square leaves something to be desired, but there are still some valuable searches out there.
PS - hey, looks like they patched some of the misspelling workarounds.
Without mentioning the U.S.'s questionable human right's record, which makes this a bit hypocritical, I have to say that this is the appropriate response to the recent new regarding Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google complying with Chinese law. I've always felt the backlash against the technology companies was unfounded (in some cases like Google's censoring of Google.cn), since they're just complying with the local laws of where they're doing business.
I agree that "X" (e.g., US) companies who decide to do business elsewhere as an end-run around labour laws should expect to get flack from the lawmakers of country X. To some extent, I would also expect companies to stay within the bounds of legality on their products as well, but this is a grey area.
.cn search) would be illegal in the US--maybe no one would buy it, sure--but I don't think it would be illegal.
However, Google does not fit this mold in either case. Google is delivering a product to China, not producing one there (at least, not with this venture). Furthermore, the limited local production of the product (i.e., running the servers) does not (in anyway I can see) restrict freedoms. The product itself (searching), well, yes it is restricted--but it is advertised as such. I can buy cable tv in the US--but I can't expect that it have every show. Likewise, I can buy a gun or a car, but there are laws about how I can use them--laws that are explained to me and that I agree with implicitly when I buy the product because I want to use it regardless of the restriction. I cannot see how selling this product (Google's restricted
So how's it not in agreement with the laws of the US?
Looks like Google's going to have to move their data centers to Canada.
But, seriously. Denying China in-country hosting of Google servers (for whatever reason stated) serves two purposes.
First, it prevents the Party from rifling through the data collected by the servers (for human rights reasons, what-have-you).
Second, it prevents the Party from seizing/copying the technology that IS the servers (similar to preventing the exportation of a crypto engine) - which would prevent the Party from getting fed up with Google playing "oh, butterfingers" with search results, seizing all assets (including some support staff) and copying it far and wide within China (as a state-run enterprise), then kicking Google out (and subsequently producing a newsreel stating that an international court determined that Brin stole the search algorithm from the Communists in the 1950's, along with the formula for Coke, hail the glorious People's Party, Google support staff have asked for political asylum from empty life of materialistic capitalism.)
Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing, or neither, or both, only time can tell.
Well done!
I like how their screen capture of the image search has Tiananmen spelled "Tianammen". Also ironic that if you search for "Tianammen", you actually do get pictures of tanks, whereas you don't if you search for "Tiananmen".
Shoddy reporting.
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So a country that imprisons people without charge and without access to legal council for up to eight years, tortures and humiliates prisoners, kidnaps people from countries without due process, runs detention camps in violation of international law, launches illegal wars on countries it doesn't like (but has something it wants), etc., etc., would be covered by this law? COOL!! Please pass this legislation as soon as possible!
It's great to see that the US stopped those filthy rest-of-the-worlder's getting their hands on the Inter-Web thingy and stopping political interference with how it works. Man, Slashdot was right on the money with THAT one!
how is guantanamo secret?
Though I'm usually in favor of fewer laws with respect to corporations, I can truly stand behind this one. This type of action is the most responsible kind that the US can take. Let's say that the US was to impose strict sanctions on China, and pass huge incentives for other democracies to also "boycott" China. I think we'd see a significant change in their human rights policies. If we want to stop terrorism or improve human rights throughout the world, we must squeeze our opponents at their cores. One way to stop them is to attrophy them, weaken their economies. We know that any mid-eastern oil we buy most likely helps out some terrorist down the line. We also know that the mid-east relies on the US and Europe as one of its two major income sources, the other being, coincidentally, China. A final bit of knowledge some of us have is that the Chinese economy is terribly weak, near collapse, because of faulty loans and unsustainable growth. The US has stood up and beat its proverbial chest. I am glad that our lawmakers are finally considering some sanctions for totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Don't get me wrong, China will be a big player in the 21st century economy, but their government needs to wake up and smell the coffee. I doubt this law will affect their olfactory senses terribly much, but I believe the US has begun grinding the coffee bean.
So are these people also going to require that Walmart or Nike not operate within China, or does having people work under slave labor conditions in a sweatshop not count sufficiently as a restriction upon freedom?
Now it a huge bureaucracy with myriad legislation that rivals the IRS Tax Code. I'm not at all surprised that some congresscritters are trying to get Googletech listed, and I'm fairly sure they'll succeed.
The USA is not the country you think it is. There have been many ugly compromises -- slavery being the most obvious.
I'm interested in learning how repressive China is, but I can't seem to find any quantitative studies on how repressive China is relative to the rest of the world. Can anyone point me to such a thing, if it exists?
-------
Incite and flee.
Additionally, your nick is perfect for setting up a negative bias against any post you make.
-------
Incite and flee.
"Fine, but why do we continue to trade with them? We make up 30% of their GDP, while they wont let our goods into their country fairly (we export less than 1% to China). We allow them to make everything you can think of, yet we aren't going to let google go there? Seems like too little too late. "
The reason this doesn't bother many people is that this imblance hides the fact that it is U.S. companies benefiting from this arrangement. For example, most of those Chinese made goods in your local WalMart are marketed by American companies and they are making the profits (some of which they keep offshore to avoid paying u.s. taxes of course...). So, although the goods are made abroad, the American companies make more money than they would if the goods were made here.
I'm not arguing for using China as our labor force. In fact, the whole situation makes me sick. I'm just explaining why businesses interests here like things just how they are...
So when do Google move thier servers out of the US?
Oppressive regimes are all around the world. Abuse of human rights occurs all around the world. Why pick favourites (or "worst ofs")?
Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
4 year olds in chinese sweatshops are still going to be sewing sneakers with their teeth for .16$ a week with or without the heavily censored searching power of google.
Farce, never!
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The use of child labor to make cheaper shoes is devastating for children's rights if we reward companies that do that.
You have to make a choice between cheaper shoes or children's safety.
Capitalism says children's safety is irrelevant, and eventually we will have to go to war to decide who is right, or the alternative is that the value of all of human life will be cheapened by capitalism.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
When I buy something from my local merchant, it keeps him or her in business, and their store will help pay the taxes to my local government to keep my community's infrastructure as nice as it is.
When I shop at a large store like WAL-MART (or an internet-based company, although this is a different kind of "internet company" than the topic at hand), these taxes either don't come in at all (internet), are reduced by "economy" of scale, or WAL-MART has been *paid* by the local government to bring their 'glorious' store to the region. On top of this, more roads must be built and maintained to handle the greater traffic from larger distances to the WAL-MARTs, and the increased cost has to be covered by residential taxes, and not commercial. (and then there's the fact that most WAL-MART workers are on social assistance, and the effect on the unemployment rate...)
The price of goods at the local shops is the price of living in a good neighbourhood. If you don't like it, move next door to a frickin' WAL-MART.
What does this have to do with censorship and Google? Not a whole bunch.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
America practices "politics of convenience". Need a gulag and can't set it up on American soil without a big fuss -- no problem, use Cuba, or Afganistan or Russia or the Ukraine. Plenty of countries to hide dirty work. And don't worry about doing business with these 'evil' countries -- at least not if you have 'friends' in the white house -- It's All You Can Eat at that sow-trough.
Isn't this a textbook case of political restrictions inferfering with free trade? It seems to me that China could just bring the case up with the WTO and win sanctions against the US.
I'm a gnu world man.
Actually, theres an excellent chance it's a brushback.
Those of us amateurs who follow the Chinese-American economic war have been increasingly concerned about the actions of the organizations mentioned.
While it is fairly common that international businesses influence international politics, every so often it is necessary for the American government to remind businesses that the actions of those businesses are getting too close to the line where their actions will no longer be tolerated, no matter how much money they spend lobbying.
I suspect this bill, like the subpeona's a while back, are meant to remind those businesses that American lawmakers and law enforcement organizations are still in charge of foreign policies, and still have the last word on what international actions are tolerated, and can make the lives of the the companies personnel really miserable if that is what it takes.
In this case, it appears that the government is suspecting those organizations may be starting to get involved with things they think it shouldn't, and decided to send them a wake up call. It is not an action the American government takes lightly,(or often, last time was 8 years ago) but when they do, it indicates how serious the government is about the warning.
so typical, the US is one of the worst human rights abusers today, what about guantonomo bay !?
such hiprocrasy is not good for the internet !
Capitalism may "work" because of greed, but that does not mean society does. Cooperation can lead to a better situation than everyone persuing the maximum gain for him/herself, /even though it may yield lower gains for some individuals/. A famous example of this is the prisoner's dilemma, which pops up about everywhere in real life.
In other words, unlike some seem to presume, a society simply cannot run as efficiently on selfish, greedy people. You'd create a society that sucks to live in, nobody can even afford to care for anything or anybody else, and overall performs sub-optimal. Since when is our goal to create or promote such a greedy society?
Greed should be recognised as a motivation (hence, communism does not work) but not as a goal in itself. It may look nice on the short term, but it promotes devastating ideas on the long term if not kept in check. Our companies erecting factories in africa and asia, employing child labour and encouraging the foreign govs to keep the status quo as it suits both parties, is but a small example of this. Greed promotes such moves, regardless of morale (morale costs money). We should *really* ask ourselves if *that* is the kind of world we want to live in.
Hey, the free market will regulate itself, thats what makes capitalism great..and if it doesn't, well we will just pass a law against it.
China has stopped all shipments of everything to the US because of it's anti-communist views. Officials in the Republic were quoted as saying "Let them find out how much they need us and how much we don't need them."
"If I were bound by all laws everywhere I'm sure I would have committed a capital crime somewhere."
They could take the time for this and do something useful like redo the patent and copyright laws to the way they should be. You know, any music made before 1996 is public domain now.
Even if, in China, Google has to follow the law and commit some immoral acts, don't you think the presence of Google and it's tools for communication would greatly aid .. er, The Cause or something? You know, those folks fighting the censorship and stuff.
Here's where I stand with this kind of legislation. Either
A. What these politicians really want is for China to continue to repress there citizens.
B. These politicians are ignorant fools.
Yes, and the United States has an incarceration rate worse than Stalinist Russia, but the best someone can up with for an example of "repression" is the government slapping a multi-billion-dollar corporation on the hand for doing business with one of our largest creditors and trading partners in a lame attempt to look like it could care less about human rights.
THAT was what I was getting at, smartypants.
I find this sort of censorship talk rather ironic coming from USAToday.com which blocks access from ISPs in Taiwan. I had to use a proxy to read the article.
So, what is the difference between corporate censorship and government censorship? Either way, I am prevented from reading what I choose to read.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
"The Local mutiplier wipes out the value of best- for every $1 you spend on local goods, you generate $8 of economic movement. For every $1 you spend on foreign goods, you generate $.08 of economic movement locally. Therefore, you had better be able to get 100x the amount of use out of the foreign goods- and from what I've seen that isn't possible with the crap currently coming out of China."
It is one planet, a small one indeed. Remove the "local" factor which you use to mean one entire small area. Then you get every $1 spent on planet earth goods generating $8 of economic movement. That's a great deal! (Think globally, act globally).
"In addition to that, what I really support is LOCAL CHOICE- the ability to just say no to foreign products when it hurts a neighbor."
I support this choice too. As always, consistently, I support maximum choice. Thus, you get to make your choice. This includes "local choice". Your neighbor gets to make his/her choice, even if it is very different from yours.
"Boats waste fossil fuels"
Replace them with sail boats, or run them on burger king grease. One "excuse" gone.
"as well as provide a hiding place for terrorists trying to cross borders, or ship in a bomb."
Maybe, but can you name one terrorist who came over that way? It's easily solved by inspecting the containers, anyway. Another excuse gone.
"Aside from that, boats have crews- and we cannot afford to trust those crews. "
I know, I know. They cannot be trusted because you do not control them..... I am sorry, I can't get rid of this "Excuse", just like I can't easily get rid of an excuse that really means "there is someone there, and they might do something I do not like". Well.... maybe I can get rid of this one. We will get rid of ALL of the crews of those hated sailors. All ships will now be "controlled by wire", all leading back to instances of ShipMate (tm) running on YOUR computer (little ship's wheel icons, slider icons controlling the rudder, buttons controlling robot arms that tie ropes, etc). This way, you can handle all of the functions of the crew. The last excuse gone.
Do you plan on lining up sailors against the wall before or after you nuke India? I know why you hate people from India: because some of them are better workers. But why do you hate sailors? Is it from childhood nightmares caused by Popeye cartoons?
I support your freedom to make these personal decisions (such as trade decisions). I do not support your idea of forcing your personal choices on others. Some rights are way to important to have others/governments take away.