Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Moving PRC Records Out of China

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the covering-their-bases dept.

Lam1969 writes "Google says it is moving search records out of China and back to the U.S. to prevent the Chinese government from accessing them, reports Computerworld. Additionally, the company will let Chinese users know when search results are being censored. According to Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, 'Some of the people want to query about democracy, but most of them just want to know about their pop stars.'"

8 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Wait a minute by pHatidic · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe they should be moving the US records into China, given all the crap with the DOJ recently. That would actually be a pretty good swap, moving the US records into China and the Chinese records into the US.

    1. Re:Wait a minute by pHatidic · · Score: 2, Informative

      China doesn't have the authority to kidnap US citizens without probable cause and send them it Gitmo without trial to be tortured or killed so it doesn't matter. Well, technically neither does the US, but that doesn't seem to be stopping Bush.

    2. Re:Wait a minute by corbettw · · Score: 1, Informative

      Was he "kidnapped"? No, he was captured by the Northern Aliance in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban.

      Was he tortured? Not likely, though his lawyer claims he was put in "highly coercive" holding conditions, which led to his confessing. What this means exactly is unclear. However, it does not appear he was tortured, per se, merely made very uncomfortable. Possibly due to conditions aboard a warship at sea (having served in the Navy, I remember the racks in the brig not being very soft when I had to clean the brig in the normal course of my duties).

      Was he ever sent to Gitmo? Nope. He spent time on the USS Peleliu before being sent back to the states for his trial.

      In short, none of the alleged actions ever happened to him.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    3. Re:Wait a minute by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Informative

      You both seem to totally ignore the first half of the sentence and then take the second out of context. I'll explain this slowly then:
      "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

      "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" - says that this is to not be suspended, as in no law can do this and the president cannot legally do this.

      "unless" - okay, now we get an exception.

      "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion " - here, the exception is detailed. And two conditions are given when this may apply. Note that the exception only applies to those two conditions, a rebellion or invasion.

      "the public Safety may require it." - This simply limits the two conditions above even more; it does not ignore them nor create a separate condition. In other words: not just any cases during a rebellion or invasion, but only when the suspension is for the public good during an invasion or rebellion.

      In summary: Writ of Habeas Corpus may be ignored if there is an invasion or rebellion AND suspending it is in the interest of public safety.

    4. Re:Wait a minute by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Informative
      Lindh was captured fighting with a foreign military, against US forces.

      False. He never fought against US forces. In fact, when given the option of fighting the US forces or the Northern Alliance forces, Lindh specifically said he did not want to fight US forces.

      Further, he was captured by the Northern Alliance forces and put in an Afghanistan jail. He was only found after the riot and attempted takeover of the prison in Mazaor-e Sharif by the prisoners. For reference:

      CNN
      Wiki

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      there is plenty of oversight. Red Cross visits

      And they have documented "inumane treatment" of prisoners.

      "Proven" torture at Gitmo? You mean allegations of torture by people who've been released from Gitmo.

      Umm, the government has admitted to using torture at Gitmo.

      And I like how torture has been watered down to being anything that might discomfort anyone at any point in time, compared to say, the torture that Americans at Hanoi Hilton received

      And I love how the Bush administration has redefined torture so narrowly as to only cover injury serious enough to cause death or organ failure. You are sticking your head in the sand if you think that none of the techniques we use on prisoners qualify as torture.

      Listen to bedwetters like you whine incessantly is torture in and of itself.

      Why does questioning the use of force by the state make you a pussy? I never understood that. If anything, apologetics for those in power always seemed a lot more cowardly to me.

      And I guarantee listening to people whine about our government abusing its power is not nearly as bad as being waterboarded.

    6. Re:Wait a minute by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Last I checked, pilots can quit and go home. Are you saying that the detainees can do the same?

      In that case, I retract everything I've said.

  2. Re:One has to wonder by GmAz · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, since the search was done on a server in China, the records are stored in...China. They are simply moving them from the chinese server to a US server.

    --
    Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!