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.'"
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 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
>
>Seems almost ironic doesn't it?
See the earlier thread on politicians making themselves exempt from the CAN-SPAM law while they were drafting it. The logic boils down to "it's not spam when we do it!".
Likewise, it's not repression when we do it. The conjugation of the verb "repress" is as follows:
We protect.
Our allies monitor.
Our adversaries repress.
No, worst case they move their corporate HQ out of the US, (and set up a shell company in the US, to handle that business) thereby not only no longer having to worry about the new laws, but also moving their taxable revenue outside the US. As well as a fair portion of their jobs.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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
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
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.
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.
9th and 10th amendment, my friend. Do you speak it?
9th - All powers not specifically granted to the federal government in this document are reserved for the states
10th - Any right not given to the government (see above) here, or prohibited by the states, is automatically given to the people
I will say one thing: at least we still have enough rule of law to fight to preserve the rule of law. When was the last time you heard about the Chinese government not being legally able to implement a domestic policy?
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
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?"
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.
No... it's not a human right to have Yahoo and Google, that you are correct.
But is it right for the US govt to say who Yahoo and Google can do business with?
Yes. Yes it is.
Countries regulate commerce, sometimes for political reasons. They are called "trade sanctions" and are the reason, among other things, that black folks in South Africa are now able to participate in their own government.
Now, as to the question of whether this particular sanction is a good idea, I'm inclined to say "no."
We've been a political rival of China's ever since Chairman Mao took over, but we've also been a friendly trade partner going all the way back to Nixon's visit. Trade between the US and China seems to have been, for the most part, a Good Thing for both countries, and has resulted in a gradual shift in China of becoming slightly more capitalistic and slightly more democratic, all without a shot fired. (Okay, not counting Korea and Viet Nam, where we indirectly butted heads a bit... Oh, and that spy plane they nabbed right after Bush the Younger took office... but that hardly counts.)
I respectfully disagree with the Senator on this one. China is either a "Most Favored Nation" in our economic policy or it's not. If you want to push a policy of major trade sanctions against them, let's talk about it, but don't nickel-and-dime them by witholding Internet search engines. That's just petty and stupid.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
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.'"
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.
Seems almost ironic doesn't it?
No, google isn't a 'human right'. If we were really doing what was 'right' we would be denying China MFN status until they cleaned up their act.
Article 2 specifically grants Congress the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Why does this conflict with the 9th or 10th amendments? This is not a rhetorical question, you must have some reason to believe that Congress isn't granted this power. So what is it?
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
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.
Let's agree on some basic principles. If you want access to our markets, then play by our rules. And don't be fooled into thinking that these companies are one of "us." By their own words, they are not American businesses, they are multi-national businesses. That's fine, but America sets the rules for America's market, and if we're to stand for anything, it has to be by using our economic influence.
And if google loses out on becoming #1 in China, no, I do not really care. If they're not furthering American values there anyways, then it might as well be a Chinese company.
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.
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 see no problem here. Our government has been replaced repeatedly since many of these incidents. I would hardly lump the Patriot Act in there, because I frankly stand behind it. If you can't see the difference between China and the U.S., then go live there. Please.
If money flows between google China and google US, then international commerce is occuring. Within only matches if google China was a completely separate company that just happened to have the same name and business plan, but no profits are sent to the US and the US doesn't invest anything in the Chinese business.
This space intentionally left blank.
because if we trade with them then they will be more likely to embrace democracy.
You are kidding right? America wasn't into real 'free trade' until the 90's, but I'd say we were pretty much a democracy without it. The statement that free trade leads to democracy has to be one of the biggest lies that free traders use for propaganda. How does more money, and a better economy motivate the communist government in China to embrace democracy? Or the people? People don't revolt when they have steak on their plates.
Unless of course you are iraq, iran, syria, cuba or anyplace else that does not have lots of people or money. See how simple that is?
In your mind? Yes.
Since the term "banana republic" was coined.