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.
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
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.
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?"
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.
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?
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.
Nice try, but no. If you measure "repression on a per capita basis" as simply number of people per capita in jail, you are completely ignorring that this is mostly likely not "repression" as much as "enforcing the law". As well, it also ignors that the conviction in rate in China is over 95% and there is no such concept as Jurisprudence or Miranda Rights. Additionally, on a per capita basis, China has many times the number of people imprisoned which would possibly be classified as "political dissidents", even though many would classify our Gitmo detainees this way.
So in short, I call "bullshit" on your "bullshit". read up and comapre.
FanFictionRecs.net
Move to China and see how much better you do there.
If you have not done so yourself, you are not qualified to make that suggestion to him. In fact, if you have not taken the time to spend some real time there with local people, you are not qualified to talk on the subject at all.
I suspect, like most people who talk about China, you are talking based on reports you've seen in the media based on agendas pushed by people who have chosen to not live there. Go ask ex-pat Americans living in cities around the world about their opinion of life in the US. It will be equally biased.
The reality of the situation is somewhere in the middle, but based on your response its clear you have no first hand experience with life in China.
If you measure "repression on a per capita basis" as simply number of people per capita in jail, you are completely ignorring that this is mostly likely not "repression" as much as "enforcing the law".
How is 'enforcing the law' any different from 'repression'?
Are you saying that because something is the law, then that means it is valid, even if it's decided democratically?
Meanwhile, why should a minority party be forced to agree to the majority's decisions? How does 'majority rules' help the progression of society? Doesn't that repress the minority party?
Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.