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.
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
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.
...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.
We'll still buy Chinese goods, and send our atheletes to their games....
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Emperor Cheney and the Figurehead Buffoon
Isn't that going a little to far. It is not like Cheney ever shot someone.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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 sense a new Slashdot meme coming on... next thing you know, we'll have t-shirts that say "Cheney shot first!"
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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.
"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...