Google Aids Indian Goverment Censorship

An anonymous reader writes "Google's Orkut has made a deal to provide IP addresses of posters of content deemed objectionable by Bombay police. They object, among others, to posts against certain Indian personalities, young women admiring Indian mobsters, and, amazingly, "anti-Indian words" (!)."

Comments

Hey!

[The Orange Mage]

Finally, something we can be happy about getting outsourced...sorta.

Re:Hey!

[dopenkly]

funny! sorta

here it goes: Beef is good

[kaufmanmoore]

....Whats that knocking at my door?

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[kraemate]

Thats the local beef-vendor.
It would have been the police had you started a community on the lines of "OMG! PaKiStan is teh roxxorz.. iNdIa is komplete sucks"

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[renegadesx]

You have been hereby charged with eating beef, I sentance you to become a snail in your next lifetime --Indian Judge

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[AEton]

I assumed you were joking. Then I read the comments on one of the linked articles:

its good to know that finally some legal action is taking place somewhere.
ORKUT is doing real damage to 3 major areas when it comes to India&Pakistan regios specifically...

1. Inter-National relations between india and Pakistan
2. Inter-Relegion relations between different relegions (Especially Hindu-Muslim)
3. Inter-Sect relations between different sects of same relegion or region( Islam and certain local territories of Indo-Pak area is being a visible target)

there are only few ppl who want this kind of sh*t. and ORKUT is providing them a medium to do what they want. what happens is, they just put a flame to an issue and all the stupid people start a war on that.

I know that majority of Indians are NOT AGAINST pakistanis, and same for Pakistanis about Indians.
same thing is true about relegions and sects.

what goes wrong is, if someone says "I HATE PAKISTAN", i feel like killing him. but, i have to control myself. it is not appropriate in anyway that i start abusing India in response.
but not much of ppl stay controlled. they start reacting in stupid ways. without even thinking that its a cyberworld where even identities are not actual identities. where playing with issues is easier than ever. maybe some anti indian pakistani has said that "I HATE PAKISTAN" just to start a well expected social war against india.
same story remains true for indians as well.

both nations are pround of them. both nations have their own dignity and respect. but when it comes to ORKUT, only two things are there to make it stop...
1. sensible people, or control by sensible people (this is very hard to implement on such media)
2. legal action to ensure that anti-national, anti-relegion, anti-sect or any such communities/blogs get banned right away.

really i am feeling very happy that at least india is taking some action. i hope Pakistan cana lso learn something and start some legal movement.

Gosh.

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[codecracker007]

A small clarification: In India sale of beef is banned in 13 states and three Union Territories, while its legal in the remaining 15 states and three Union Territories. Another heartbreaking fact for Holy-cow brand of joke crackers is that India is actually a majority non-vegetarian country as shown in this survey: http://www.hinduonnet.com/2006/08/14/stories/20060 81403771200.htm

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[Wiseman1024]

Guess they haven't found 4chan yet

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who used that as a sig.. Changed mine now, but wow.. that was a pretty awful hardware review.

Re:here it goes: Beef is good

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Outlawing eating beef! Can you believe those backwards bastards?

Obviously, all advanced, non-backwards countries properly outlaw only eating horses.

And thank goodness this issue came up! Congress needs to focus their attention on important issues rather than pandering!

>:(

"Don't be evil"??

[fabs64]

I'm usually in the "whatever, they have to do business" crowd with google, but this isn't in any grey area, it's downright black.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[dreamchaser]

I'd be ok with it, or at least *more* ok with it, if they didn't claim to be 'good'. They stopped being anything close to that the day they went public.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[heinousjay]

Why the day they went public, out of curiosity? Do you have anything backing that up, or is this just a useless anti-corporate rant?

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[TodMinuit]

I'm usually in the "whatever, they have to do business" crowd with google, but this isn't in any grey area, it's downright black.

How so? You want to play in India, you play by their rules. You can argue that India is doing the black, but Google is just playing by the rules.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[fabs64]

Last I checked the Nuremberg defence was invalid.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Tsagadai]

Playing by the rules is supporting them. If google is helping crazy regimes stay in power that is a very bad thing. Just like in war you have a choice whether to pull the trigger. You may be killed (metaphorically or physically) for your decision but you can't sit on the fence it's yes or no.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[antonyb]

Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?

I dunno. Too early to be thinking about this stuff.

ant.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation [long]: If someone's rules are evil, that totally gives you karmic amnesty when you carefully look over those rules, understand them, and still choose to play their game.

Translation [short]: I can't be bothered with moral nit-picking! There's money to be made!

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[antonyb]

Most people I know here would happily admit that there are aspects of the Indian political system that are crazy; however, it is hardly a crazy regime - India is not Iran...

ant.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[241comp]

Well, our country was founded on the belief that those are natural (or unalienable) rights (that is, rights that exist in and of themselves, outside of government). They were explicitly stated so that there would be no confusion because they were among the most import of such natural rights. This does not prove that "The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad'" is a universal truth, but our country was founded on the belief that it is a universal truth... that must count for something.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[deevnil]

Just because this is slashdot Google gets a bunch of grief. I'll bet if it was Microsoft out doing evil then..... oh.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Our country. Said article is about India, where Cows rank higher. Also, they invented Karma. Which I think I shalt preserve by anon-posting...

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[homer_s]

Just curious - would the US govt be interested in message boards where ppl are discussing how to bomb a building?

Then why shouldn't the India govt be interested in boards where people are planning/ inciting the next riots

. Of course, having observed how the riots always occur at convenient times for the local politicos, I don't believe for one minute that this has anything to do with public safety. But I do question the holier than thou attitude adopted by many Americans over free speech when their military has willingly killed journalists many many times.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[aussie_a]

Unless the Google founders are Unamerican then they believe censorship is bad.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[1u3hr]

you want to play in India, you play by their rules. You can argue that India is doing the black, but Google is just playing by the rules.

What do you mean by "rules"? If you RTFA, it seems Google is coperating above and beyond the extent required by law. The police are congratulating them for not making them do any paperwork before handing over the IPs and other identifying details of anyone who posts anything deemed "offensive". No doubt Googel is coverd by its terms of sevice and such. But that's not the point.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Nutria]

it seems Google is coperating above and beyond the extent required by law. The police are congratulating them for not making them do any paperwork before handing over the IPs and other identifying details of anyone who posts anything deemed "offensive".

Or... Orkut might be thinking: "Indian magistrates rubber-stamp these kinds of police requests anyway, so lets just set up an electronic request process and make our lives easier."

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

In point of fact, the trials at Nuremberg involved several defences. Have you read the transcripts? I have.

One of the biggest points of the defence was that the court did not have jurisdiction. Why not? Because it was not a court established by germans, in authority over germans, by any recognised process nor accepted by germans either. Particularly, the people being tried were being tried after the fact for acts which, at the time and in the place performed, were not criminal in the jursidiction which held sway. The court didn't bother to respond to this at all beyond casually sweeping the objection aside.

And not a few of them were taken from there to a place of punishment where they were hanged by the neck until dead.

This is the problem with suspending habeus corpus; the right of appeal and the limitations of applicable jurisdiction no longer afford you protection. It's as if farmers got rounded up and taken to the High Court of PETA Justice (once the revolution of animal-respecting violence takes place) at which they were tried, convicted and executed for raising cattle for the meat market during the current regime. (Note for the hair-trigger knee-jerk idiots out there: I'm not comparing jews, gypsies, mentally troubled, politically unpopular, homosexual or otherwise unpopular figures with farm animals. I'm comparing the activities with respect to legislative circumstances.)

Let's be clear about this: if national independence means anything whatsoever, at the very least it defines jurisdictions; where the law and system of one place stops and another place starts. To charge people for things and ignore jurisdiction is as biased as simply establishing a kangaroo court of any other sort. If you want another example, somewhat less charged than the Nazi trials, I would like to point out that the age of consent in much of Europe is substantially lower than that in much of the USA. Ditto drinking ages. Should the french government hunt down and lock up or hang BATFE agents for persecuting young drinkers? That's the logic of Nuremberg for you.

To close the loop of relevance: welcome to the world of globalisation. Different jurisdictions mean different obligations. If you want american companies to run by american rules, ban them from maintaining servers and networks outside the USA, or running them by non-american rules.

And see how far that gets you.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Nutria]

Last I checked the Nuremberg defence was invalid.

This article gives no indication that Orkut is collaborating with Bad People.

If you want to do business in the US, you follow American laws. If you want to do business in Mexico, you follow Mexican laws. If you want to do business in China, you follow Chinese laws. If you want to do business in Russia, you pay lots of bribes.

What's the problem?

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[fabs64]

Not an American, I'm Australian and I fully support our racial/religious vilification laws, as well as the laws against inciting crime.
However I do not support our sedition laws and for good reason.

You're right that if you change the article to be more benign your point makes sense though, however the actual example in tfa was

Mohite talks of a citizen who had complained to the police in November regarding a photograph of her posted on Orkut, along with derogatory text.
Hardly encouraging a riot.

Saying I'm adopting a holier-than-thou attitude seems a little far-fetched as well, seeing as it was Google I was criticising, not the Indian govt.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Yvanhoe]

I'm okay with censorship in a democracy. People got what they voted for. After all, for a non american, libel and copyright laws could be seen as censorship (and Google also helps to enforce these)

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[drgonzo59]

Google is a company and not a non-for-profit-feed-the-starving-children organisation. Let's get that out of the way first...

Google's sole allegience is to their investors, period. What the investors want? Surprise! - Money! Google at any moment will evaluate the function called f$$$="how much money are we making?" and try to maximize it. They are not there to spread good, love, freedom and democracy. They are maximizing f$$$. When they stop doing it they will stop existing as a company.

But I can hear thousands of Sladotters' voices saying "But doesn't Google do good things and isn't it nicer than Microsoft? You better say YES or we'll mod you into oblivion, traitor!" The answer is that the whole "do no evil" and being nice _is_ part of maximizing f$$$. It has been determined that a company that says "we do no evil" will make more money under certain conditions. Granted when the comany was just the 2 founders they did mean "do no evil" because they would "do no evil", I understand that. But as the company grew it wasn't just the two founders, it turned into a regular public traded company, just as good and just as evil as any other.

This explains why Google is "forced" very often to trump the "do no evil" priority with the "make max $$$" priority. If one would really want to test the "goodness" of Google they would have to point to an instance where Google chose to do "good" at the expense of taking a significant loss (and know about it in advance). So far the China deal and other such happenings point that Google is only maximizing f$$$. Do I think that it is evil? - No. Do I think they are the embodiment of "Mother Theresa - No. Are they just a regular company who is very succesful? - Yes!

Of course the real problem here is with the adjectives of "good" and "evil". One can write a dissertation on how "my good" is not "your good" and how to redefine them for profit. But's that's another comment as they say...

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Seumas]

American corporations are - at the absolute best - ambivalent about the privacy and well-being of the American worker, consumer and citizen. Why would you expect them to treat people in other countries any better?

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[yali]

You want to play in India, you play by their rules.

If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[homer_s]

The last line was not directed at your post specifically, but at the many other posts comparing India to China.

But I'd go further than you and say any censorship is bad.
Take you 'religious vilification laws' for example - how do you define a religion? Now you have got the govt involved in defining the word religion. Some idiot will come up with a new religion that worships the Kiwi bird (I can start such a religion in India within 10min) - now would everyone stop insulting Kiwis?

And what constitutes vilification or insult? What if I say 'Buddhists are nuts'? Is that vilification? How about 'Buddhists are misguided'? Where do you draw the line? We have a problem in India where evangelical Christians preach that anyone who does not believe in Christ will go to hell. There are a lot of Hindu groups (read: politicians nervous about elections) who say that this is an insult to Hindus.

About 'inciting crime' - what constitutes inciting? If you let a govt define such subjective things, they will use it to make criminals of everyone.

Generally, govt should just protect people and their property and not get involved in nebulous concepts like religion, culture, etc.

And oh, btw, get ready to worship the Kiwi overlords - they look like the one time to beat Aus in the WC.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[TitusC3v5]

Every time we see an article like this, this issue is brought up. Now, get me wrong, it does disappoint me to see actions like this taken by Google, but as far as I can see, they *ARE* actually trying their best to follow their code, even though it may not seem so at first glance.

If you take a look at Google's ten commandments, you'll notice two things that most Slashdotters seem to miss. First, for "You can make money without doing evil," never does it mention a goal of being morally white. What is does say is that for the service they are providing, they will be straightforward in their advertising. If you read over the sixth entry, the entire piece is about their advertising and their ruleset concerning it. To Google, I think 'Don't be evil' is more an issue of being straightforward with their advertising than any idealogical framework concerning how their business conducts itself.

Second, if you scroll down a bit further, there's another entry there that says "The need for information crosses all borders." Even if the previous entry was meant to be a moral compass for them concerning issues like what we've seen with China and India, you would have a conflict here. Do they do no even, and tell India to play by their rules or their taking their ball and leaving, or do they swallow the censorship pill and place international availability above this?

As I said before, I would prefer to see Google refrain from such politically-driven censorship, but at the same time it doesn't really see to contradict their business philosophy in the manner that is often portrayed here.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[fabs64]

It's a Governments job to define things such as that, laws.

Kiwi's getting anywhere near the WC... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[XchristX]

You can start a religion that worships the Kiwi bird, but you have to gain a significant following before you can get support against insulting the Kiwi bird. Religion is all about following. If India winds up with enough Scientologists tomorrow then the environment will dictate that public criticism of Xenu the space warrior will be absolut verboten.

You forget that Indians are among the most deeply religious people in the world (more so than the Middle-East even:Indian Muslims especially Sufis and Chistis are more deeply religious and observant than most Arabs, Hindus are obviously deeply religious, and even Indian Christians of all major denominations ie Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Evangelical etc are more religious than their western coreligionists), so it's impossible not to mix faith and politics in such a culture.

With regards to your remarks on censorship, in an environment where petitioning for removing the Quran from the Kolkata high court causes Muslims to amass rocket propelled grenades and Kalashnikovs and cry out for Jihad, a certain degree of censorship is not a bad idea. It's important not to take it to Orwellian levels, of course, but that will never happen in India, where democratic political checks and balances exist that act against such extreme possibilities (remember the emergency, and how Indira the great bitch got spanked by the Supreme Court over it?). We are not Pakistan or Iran, you know.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Monty]

The problem is, we're talking morality here, not law. Google's motto is "do no evil", not "break no laws". Applying your logic to morality only leads to relativism, where there ceases to be any absolute good just because there's multiple subjectively valid claims to it. And it's this that really bugs people. With that kind of thinking, "evil" means almost nothing at all because the line between good and evil is a moving target.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but there is such a thing as being tried for legal acts in foreign countries. Canadians and Australians can be tried in their home country for sex tourism abroad.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Gumbytwo]

You've basically summed up the argument of cultural moral relativism, which was exactly the argument used in Nuremberg, which is exactly the argument that, fabs64 is stating, was ruled immoral. The various defences you listed (court jurisdiction, laws in effect at time and place of alleged crimes, and national independence) are all forms of argument for the same underlying argument of cultural moral relativism.

Cultural-relativistic morality proposes that morals are shaped and defined by members of a given culture. The claims of cultural moral relativism, and more generally, moral relativism, are a hot topic of modern moral philosophical debate.

One commentator in the debate has likened cultural moral relativism to "Star Trek morality." In other words, every culture's moral philosophy holds equal credence in the universe of moral philosophy, and there should be no interference in the execution of that moral philosophy within the context of a particular culture.

Given this framework, you could say that Google is following this law of cultural moral relativism to the letter, and furthermore, is obligated to follow the moral laws of India's culture within their sovereign borders! And since these borders are wholly outside the control of the United States from the perspective of national sovereignty (reference the Nuremberg argument from above), absolutely NO consideration should be paid to United States law or moral guidelines when conducting business in India -- in fact, it would be immoral to do so.

I do not personally agree with the arguments of cultural moral relativism but that is the argument, nonetheless.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[kripkenstein]

If google is helping crazy regimes stay in power that is a very bad thing.

Hang on - India a crazy regime? You can't be serious. India is a democracy - just as democratic as the West, actually. There is no 'crazy regime staying in power' in India, by any stretch of the imagination.

Sure, this specific censorship issue sounds a bit odd to some (including me), but no more odd than things happening in, say France and the UK, just to mention very recent Slashdot stories.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but in this day and age this doesn't cut it. If the ad says, "Do no evil" then they damned well better do NO evil, or else they'll go down as liars and hypocrites. It doesn't matter what the fine print says, unless they recite it during the ads, which they don't.

Sure your points are surely valid, but advertising is about emotion and feelings, it's not about sensibility. When a company like Google says something like this, they are trying to appeal to our emotions. When they do whatever it takes to make a buck, that does the opposite. Why have a slogan that tries to distance yourself from "evil" corporations, when you are just going to act like any one of them anyway? All it does is accentuate your moderate evil when you do commit it. It's not a slashdot thing, it's a human nature thing.

Coincidentally, anyone else noticed that google sucks are finding media since the Youtube buyout and the introduction of google video? I mean, it really sucks. Altavista is far, far better, and that is saying something.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

With only slight snideness may I rewrite your assertions as the following:

If you want to do business in the US, you pay lots of bribes. If you want to do business in Mexico, you pay lots of bribes. If you want to do business in China, you pay lots of bribes. If you want to do business in Russia, you pay lots of bribes.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[XchristX]

This crap got modded up? Unbelievable, the level of ignorant racist bile that passes for "Insightful" on slashdot these days."Cows rank higher". Care to point out the clause in the Indian Constitution or the Indian Penal Code that says so? What about the 150 million Muslims in India who EAT cows? Way to go, generalization seems to be a purview in the counterculture shithole that slashdot has become. I could just as easily state that "Jeebus" ranks higher than humans in the American Deep South, which is where this fool probably hails from anyway.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Moral relativism? Maybe. What, precisely, is included in Google's idea of doing no evil? Go ahead, find the list, I'll wait ... ... you came up dry? Whodathunk? That's precisely the problem here. PETA's activists find the slaughtering of farm animals unthinkable, while the anti-nazis generally were similarly opined on the slaughter of those the nazis regarded as untermenschen. You can always come up with a post facto standard for what is evil, depending on what you're trying to ban this week. Unless and until a detailed standard is forthcoming, it's a pretty darned meaningless exercise. As Aesop said, a man who wishes to beat a dog will find a stick.

As for prosecuting people for sex tourism, if it only affects their own citizens, one can make an argument for jursidictional claims, but Australia isn't in a position to prosecute a brazilian living in Kenya for sex tourism in France.

To sum up: the idea that someone finds something repugnant does not explain why they would toss out habeas corpus if they are using the trappings of due process. The usual term for that is hypocrisy. Moral terms don't mean a damn thing in court unless they have been outlined in legislation or long-standing practice (common law and precedent). If the idea that Nuremberg's logic wasn't airtight bothers you, there's a fine piece of fabric with which to dry your tears, called the Magna Carta. If that's a bit old and crumbly, the Bill of Rights will do nicely.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right that the court at Nuremberg ruled certain ideas immoral. My point is that courts deal, for their very legitimacy, with the ideas of jurisdiction, existing law, and the convenient fiction that the man in the street can somehow hold the entirety of statute law, precedent and so on in his head during all his activities. When they step outside that, they become the arbitrary tools of those who wish to justify their violence.

I would have had more respect if the allies had simply announced that they found certain forms of nazi behaviour repugnant, and had lined the perpetrators up against a wall and shot them. That, at least, would not have had the implied hypocrisy of a perversion of the trappings of justice.

In the case of Google, the Nuremberg comparison would work if they were dragged into court, and convicted, on the basis of things done in other jurisdictions with no prior notice (such as laws passed here) forbidding whatever they were doing. Given the following situation, that they would inevitably be in a no-win situation with conflicting jurisdictions clobbering them either way, they would then simply have to withdraw from either jurisdiction, or both, as a business. Take your pick, but don't confuse the moral prejudices of one group of people for an actual mandate in law.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[DrSkwid]

And what is this "democracy" of which you speak ?

Have you been to India ? It's a crazy place

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[DrSkwid]

The Indians I know in India are nothing like deeply religious.

me : "I thought you Hindus were vegetarian"
Lalit : "I'm only Hindu on a Tuesday, that's temple day"

Though, to be fair, there's no real thing as one true Hindu way, anyone can preach pretty much what they like. It's the most pluralist religion I've come across.

India is a crazy place, police corruption at street level is a way of life, along with filth and shoddy manufacturing.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[sarathmenon]

I hate to break your dream ride, but one of the founders is a Russian.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[XchristX]

You should have stayed in India longer and travelled more. You'd see a wider cross section of the population that's quite religious.

Millions of Hindus goto Varanasi for pilgrimage every year.
Millions of Indian Muslims do Hajj at least once in their lifetimes.
Millions of Indian Christians goto the tomb of the Apostle Thomas in Chennai for pilgrimage.

Also, you should have seen Kerala, "God's own country". They have the cleanest cities in South Asia, as does Tamil Nadu and most places down South.

Generalizing about a country of a billion people is the first step towards becoming a bigot.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[rtb61]

By this logic every evil act imaginable becomes acceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for accepting what you as an individual consider immoral just because it has the veil of a corporation in front of it.

You argument stinks of racism at it's worst ie. you as an American feel you are entitled to freedom of speech but that foreigners are not and nor will you do anything in word or deed to help them get what you take for granted.

Add to that, don't you feel sorry for 'cowboy' neal and his impending 'indian' censorship.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[suv4x4]

If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.

I'm writing an open letter to Google to suggest they change their slogan to "do no evil. wink, wink", so that worried Slashdotters worldwide may rest that the slogan reflects proper corporate behavior.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[WNight]

What maximizes shareholder value? Quick investments or actions that have an immediate payoff might not still not be profitable in the long-term. Usually even, the best long-term strategy isn't the best short-term strategy.

Was Google's business policy "Avoid 98% of evil, unless it's really expedient", or "Don't be evil". These are both strategies, but I don't think they're equivalent. I think the wishy-washy one is likely to trade immediate success like access to more markets (India, Pakistan, China, Turkey...) than their competitors for long-term success such as customer loyalty.

In the days when Google was a search engine it was a commodity and so were its customers - faceless masses they profiled. Now, more and more of Google's customers sign in, and thus are more prone to negative loyalty reactions. In other words, they'll leave gmail, gvideo, gmaps, geverything over annoyance of mistrust. This is a registered user, who would be lost by their short-term thinking.

IMHO Google's reputation is all that separates it from MSN. Microsoft has equivalent web apps to most of what Google does, but has a fraction of the users it should with its monopoly positioning. Why? Because nobody expects to ever win in any confrontation with Microsoft.

Microsoft has a reputation of putting the user last - look at the Zune and how it's really just the latest in a series of software and hardware products like it. Overall, Bill's terribly rich so you can't argue with the strategy by saying it'll ruin the company. But if Microsoft had a policy like Google's from the beginning they'd probably have 100% happy lock-in by embracing everything like Google does, but to joyous welcome, not scorn as when Microsoft does it. Even Microsoft's best customers wish it had competition, Google's best customer's used to wish everyone was like it.

As a stock-holder I'd want a longer-term view, and higher eventual profits. Google is doing something that I feel lowers their value. Not their share price, but their intrinsic value. Here I'm seeing an example of Google walking on their smaller business partners (users) for their larger partners (India, China). If I ran a company and provided unreliable service by let's say, renting a reserved item to someone who'd pay more, I'd soon be out of business. The big client would pay a bit more now but nobody would trust me to provide the equipment they needed. The big guy would become my sole customer and start calling the shots. I'd no-longer have anyone else wanting the equipment so they wouldn't pay rush charges anymore... In a similar fashion, Google risks loosing their market differentiation (a company you can trust with your data) if they break too many promises, especially if they use short-term financials as justification.

I've got email and data services with companies I have to trust a bit, despite my best encryption measures, but it's unlikely I'd trust Google here because they bow to censorship and snooping. They're ideally technologically positioned to provide services, but I don't trust them to provide a service for *me* anymore.

Why is it that suddenly when people expect a company to provide a real dependable product they get treated like that expectation is silly - as if quality assurance being expensive is any excuse to not provide a working product. Can you imagine the reaction if I started handing out 10% counterfeit bills, justifying it by saying that it just wasn't worth my time to check better? So why the climate that companies can provide essentially the same?

In Google's case this is eyeballs in trade for service, but it's still a contract and still valid. But Google then takes the service away, as if you didn't just legally pay asking price for it, at someone else's command. What value does a product, a car for instance, have if you can't be sure it'll work at any given time, or indeed could just stop working forever if the dealership wishes.

Who's going to use an online word processor when their documents will probably be locked or deleted if they happen to be critical of the state religion? That's precisely why people would have gone with Google before - to avoid provincial thuggery.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[DrSkwid]

you're right re: bigot

I've only spent about 8 weeks there in total, I should temper my reportage.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[dreamchaser]

I am not anti-corporate at all, I just have a problem with a company whose motto is 'Don't be Evil' that then proceeds to aid totalitarian regimes (China) and other censorship (India).

My problem is with hypocricy, not corporations.

The reason I used that point in time is that's when their legal obligation became making as much money as possible for their shareholders. They didn't *have* to cave to China and India to do that, but they chose to.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[packeteer]

The day they went public they changed as a company. I ama business student so please dont take this as an anti-corporate rant of mine. When a company goes public they have a legal obligation to do everything technically legal to get money for their stock holders, that is now the #1 goal within reasonable ethical guidlines. A non public compnay can do whatever they want, it is assumed they are oporating for profit but there is no reason why a privatly owned company can choose to not do "evil". For a public company this is not an option, off course there are ethical and legal boundries that the people in charge need to follow but if someone is not illegal you will probably have trouble finding consesus from people to say it is immoral. Without consensus that something is immoral there is no reason why the company should not do something.

This is our system like it or not but its worked pretty good so far, if you cant think of something better im sure there would be billions of people that would like to know about it.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[voice_of_all_reason]

I think we can take even another step back here. Google isn't really censoring content, they're reporting IPs of people accussed of committing really questionable crimes (likely insulting the Prime Minister or something equally goofy). These people may be going to prison or getting their hands chopped off over this.

That sounds more like aiding and abeting.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[kalirion]

Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?

I agree about a lack of universal ethics and all that, but if you take it too far you'll be left with "When in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do."

Goooooooo Godwin!

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a question then: what does their motto mean? Anything goes as long as the locale rules it so? Why bother with a motto if it has no greater absolute meaning? What does this have to do with due process?

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too premature to talk of this. This is more a question of globalization, one that's yet undealt with. A multinational company is a strange entity belonging to many countries. A lot of people don't think this is ideal, because it lets multinationals get away with things they wouldn't in their "home" country, like polluting beyond certain limits, using child labour, etc. Just because this is allowed now doesn't make it correct. At its heart it's moral relativism vs universalism and the jury's still out. But think of things like the UN declaration of human rights, intervention in genocide--they're all examples of a growing sense of universalism. The fact that we're having trouble finding the line between right and wrong doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Another post mentioned being tried for sex tourism abroad. Now you can argue whether or not a company headquartered in a certain country is a citizen of that country, but if so, then it's logical to have jurisdiction over what they do abroad by the same logic.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Sobrique]

Not really. I mean, there's a lot more legal restrictions on firearms in the UK than in the US. If 'someone' be they person or corporate were asked (and were able to) help identify people buying firearms in the UK, do you not feel it's reasonable for them to do so?

By the same token, criteria of laws such that cover things like free speech, libel and copyright (just to name a few) are locally scoped. I think it's entirely reasonable for people and organisations (Google in this case) to comply with law enforcement in countries in which they operate. Whether you happen to like their laws or not.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Sobrique]

Many people I know here would also make a similar assertion about the US legal and political systems. And the UK. And actually... probably most of the legal and political systems in the world, have some degree of craziness about them.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[voice_of_all_reason]

If 'someone' be they person or corporate were asked (and were able to) help identify people buying firearms in the UK, do you not feel it's reasonable for them to do so?

It does indeed seem reasonable, because we also have gun restrictions (I hear it's pretty much de facto impossible to get a handgun permit in NYC for civilians). It's something our country is used to (for good or bad) and accepts.

But look at what "criminals" they are helping prosecute here: people posting "objectionable" images and material. I'm willing to bet their definition is even looser than ours. What if this was about a country identifying "undesirables" for imprisonment based on religion or sexual orientation. Would you still be comfortable with complying with all their laws?

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[drgonzo59]

I think the wishy-washy one is likely to trade immediate success like access to more markets (India, Pakistan, China, Turkey...) than their competitors for long-term success such as customer loyalty.

Serghey Brin a while ago mentioned that making deals with shady governments such as China for ex. was a bad mistake, in retrospect. I think what he really said was that "I wish we didn't make any moral claims concerning our business practices so we wouldn't have measure up to them when we cut corners."

I still see the "do no evil" claim as just another marketing strategy to maximize their shareholder value. It was supposed to work long term and short term. _However_ if it would have been a real moral principle and not just a marketing slogan, they would have passed up the shady deals and taken a loss. That is just as good of a test with humans as well. If I claim "I would never steal" but then live a nice happy life with a cushy $1M job (which I don't), never get sick, never get hungry, my statement of "I would never steal" doesn't mean much, because I would never even be tempted or "need" to steal. But if I was a homeless man who is starving, then I would really have to think about it, if I resist the temptation and don't steal, then I would really show that my "slogan" from above is a true moral principle.

The real problem with Google is that it tries to anthropomorphisize itself (make itself seem as if it is a person, or some entinty with human qualities). People like to deal with other people, they want their business partner to be a human. Google now is a publically traded company, it is just a money making machine and it will do whatever it can to make money both long term and short term. If they make a shady deal with China, someone from Google will make a statement that it was a "bad thing to do" (Brin did) and Google will probably donate some money to EFF so something like that and trumpet that all over media to rescue it's image _but_ at the same time it would not pull the China deal!

Companies do this all the time. Did you ever wonder why corporations like to make huge donations to local museums and and build huge sport arenas? Every city has a P&G hall, or Staples center, or Wal*Mart Park or something like that. If these companies are trully "good" and want to help out the most, they should be willing to donate to a local homeless shelters. They should be helping the poor, they should be helping lower incoome people get housing and so on. But they don't do that, because they would not get to trumpet their "charitable" quality all over the city and the media that way. It is all marketing. As individuals we do charitable things becuase we want to help, if we do it anonymously then we really do it to help and not to show off to others, but companies never do that!

Google is not different. The mistake was ours to believe that it would be a better company which truly cares and would never help send a person to jail because of their political views just to make an extra $10/share.

Yes, my email and many documents are on Google's server, and I am too in a process of moving them to my hosting company so and would pay $5/month for a website/email/domain just not to have some gian corp. look through may personal business.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, their motto is meant to suggest that they won't piss off their customer base. Really, that's all I can get from it. What is evil? They don't specify, and different people have different views on the topic. Eating pork? Eating beef? Having sex with kids/sheep/chickens/watermelons/anybody? People can wave the flag of moral relativism all they like, but it doesn't mean that everyone has the same idea of what is evil, and until a particular moral standard is articulated, Google's supposed motto is utterly meaningless.

You can tell they're not philosophers.

So, no, until they state what is and isn't evil, one might as well assume that they're working in terms of whatever applies at the time. Apparently, in India this means something different from the US. One can see this, because India has different laws from the US, and while reality writ large is the same, local conditions change even to the point that something innocuous in one place could be highl disruptive elsewhere. Again, I'm not saying Google is right or wrong (stipulate a standard for measurement before asking that) but their motto is certainly meaningles without further specification.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[dreamchaser]

I agree that the system works better than any previous ones. I just like to point out that The "Don't Be Evil" motto/mantra is just marketing fluff now, if it was ever more than that. Apparantly I was flaming though judging from the moderation.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Tsagadai]

India is the largest democracy in the world. It is definately a crazy regime that is punishing many social and ethnic groups. It is a regime interested in maintaining a caste system. Democracy doesn't scale well with so many different groups and needs. Take a look at some Indian elections to see this, they literally do say different things to different areas.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a 13 year gap between your country's founding and your country's proposal of freedom of speech.

Therefore your country was not founded on freedom of speech, but on whatever was laid out in the declaration of independence. Which makes no mention of freedom of speech.

Go ahead and wave your flag, but don't re-write history.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[mattgreen]

Well said. It is a shame that people around here are so duped by shallow displays of 'goodness.' They parrot "but Google said they aren't evil," as if it actually means something. By this logic, Microsoft just wants to help me, because they said so in a TV commercial.

It is pathetic that people feel like they need to advertise for companies like this.

Re:"Don't be evil"??

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt you support the Chinese government then. And unless you're incredibly picky about your groceries, you also support pretty much every third world government, regardless of their moral background.

well

[mastershake_phd]

Well if Google doesnt bow to the Indian government they will lose money. The "dont be evil" mantra would seem to contradict this move.

Re:well

[giminy]

Well if Google doesnt bow to the Indian government they will lose money. The "dont be evil" mantra would seem to contradict this move.

Quite right. Which means, by extension, "don't be evil" and "IPO" are a bit at odds. Pulling out of India over this means lost shareholder revenue. Lost shareholder revenue means lawsuits. Lawsuits mean suffering...

So yeah, I would say "don't be evil" died a while ago.

Re:well

[jlarocco]

Come on guys...If there are sites like Hail Hitler or Long live Osama or any of the creepy fellows wont u like those to be blocked...

No, I don't want them to be blocked. They have as much right to say "Hail Hitler" as I have to say "Hail Linux." You can't censor somebody because you disagree with their opinion.

Or r u supporters of neo-nazis...

I'm a supporter of their right to free speech.

May be some assholes will try and glorify the WTC attack. Then what happens lets see *100rabh ducks*

Somebody already glorified the WTC attacks. There have been at least a couple movies...

Re:well

[XchristX]

|They have as much right to say "Hail Hitler" as I have to say "Hail Linux."

Why do people in Europe go to jail for doing just that. Where is the all-American liberal's "righteous indignation" there?

Re:well

[Spliffster]

Why do people in Europe go to jail for doing just that. Where is the all-American liberal's "righteous indignation" there?

if you replace Europe with Germany then your statement is correct. And it might be obvious even to the non European why Germany is not tolerating neo-nazis.

Cheers,
-S

Re:well

[XchristX]

Fair enough. Then it should be obvious even to a non-Indian why India is not tolerating rampant Indophobia any more than Germany or Israel does not tolerate anti-Semitism.

India is surrounded by rabidly totalitarian regimes that conducted government sponsored genocide of Hindu minorities in East Pakistan in 1971 (death toll estimates range from 1.5 million to 3 million, with 75% of the victims Hindus and 25% Bengali Muslim intellectuals), just like Nazi Germany did to Jews and Romanis and Homosexuals (the death toll was higher for the shoah/pojramos than the 1971 Bangladesh bloodbath of course, but the concept of targeted ethnic cleansing/genocide is the same in both cases) and why a rapidly developing but still struggling country like India is a little apprehensive about hate speech directed against Indians.

If you don't believe me then just drop by any Pakistani internet forum and see what they say about Indians there. The Nazi rhetoric of "Blut und Boden" or whatever pales in comparison to the rabidly genocidal streak of the more radical Pakistani Nationalists/Islamic Fundamentalists. Believe me I am not Godwinning when I say that the Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan and the Bangladeshi Nationalist Party in Bangladesh are no better than the Sturmabteilung or Einsatzgruppen (read about their rhetoric and violence against Pakistani/Bangladeshi Hindus , Qadiani Ahmadiyyas, Mohajirs etc.)

Re:well

[Spliffster]

No offense intended. I personally think that racism must not be tolerated. And i am also a strong supporter of shutting up liars. Freedom of speach, yes! Freedom to lie, no!

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

BS pure BS.
Please, slashdotters are the biggest cliq for government. I mean isn't the fix for Global warming here More Government, the fix for poverty, the fix for outsourced jobs, the fix for inequality, the fix for healthcare, the fix disagreement (no wait that here on slashdot is to be sacrastic and hate). Wait maybe that too is more government. I mean look at the comments on the AT&T posting today somehow the government is bad if it is Bush (or whomever the opposition) but somehow the government is good if it is the slashdot party. But yet I bet there are examples of people being for the same censorship that will be supported if only they have the slashdot party affilation. When will people finally begin to actually do the right thing instead of the party thing, instead of the govenment thing?

Isn't it right (but just too plain hard for some people) to just get up and get out and put their hands where the mouth is and actually do the right thing. Not with signs and opinions but with actual work. Nothing is stopping anyone on this cliq website, brimming with hate and opinion, from starting their own business that could be based on making the world a better place.

Why is no one here creating an open source search engine to undo for the little man the corruption of Google. Why is it that this site and it's posters are so hateful so arrogant to people they disagree with, when it comes to big business and big government being in bed with one another. Yet this very idea is at the heart of the slashdot philosophy to fix everything. I mean if there is to be a separation of power like church and state. There should also be a separation of power like big business and state. Or would that mean that slashdotters would be exposed as the hypocrites they are because anyone turning on a TV can see Big Business Hollywood choosing for us who runs the country.

Or what religion we are supposed to believe or how someones opinion does not count if they disagree? AKA deaththreats because some people might be skeptical of global warming. BS pure BS.

Re:well

[the100rabh]

I'm a supporter of their right to free speech. I dont get u...you mean to say that anyone can say anything about anyone and nothing should be done about it...You just sit there...Thats not what is free speech...Free speech is freedom to object, freedom to say that there is something wrong. But character assassination does not come under free speech. Somebody already glorified the WTC attacks. There have been at least a couple movies... Please let me know about them.

Re:well

[RexRhino]

Well, you could argue that "Don't Be Evil" is stupidly vauge, so much so to be absolutly meaningless. But you are really taking things out of context in trying to paint Google as evil.

I mean, wouldn't it be "evil" for Google to break the laws of a country it is doing buisness in - Laws that were designed to prevent race riots, ethnic cleansing, and the like? Laws that Google honors in Germany, France, and many other countries without being accused of being "evil"? I mean, unless you are a hardcore libertarian and are completly against any sort of censorship (which is pretty unlikely you are), most people would consider Google evil if they didn't follow those rules!

Or, should Google refuse to do buisness in India? You expect ethical companies in the United States to essentially declare an embargo on India? You realize that the U.S. has been accused of "economic imperialism" for its embargo on Cuba, or Saddam era Iraq... that embargos have been blamed for the economic hardships and even many deaths in those countries. If Google refused to do buisness in India, they would be accused of leveraging their economic power to push "American values" against the government policies of a democratic India. They would be accused of being evil.

So, if you want to argue that "Don't Be Evil" is so subjective as to be meaningless, well yeah, OK. If you want to argue that in many cases it is impossible to act without being evil, well then, OK. But to imply that Google has made some sort of decision to pursue profit over not being evil is false. No-matter what Google does, even if it desided to do nothing and to completly disband altogether, people would be calling those actions evil.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Pulling out of India over this means lost shareholder revenue. Lost shareholder revenue means lawsuits. Lawsuits mean suffering... Let me translate: Fear (pulling out of India) leads to anger (loss of shareholder revenue). Anger leads to hate (lawsuits). And hate leads to suffering...

Re:well

[jlarocco]

If somebody says something you don't like, there are two ways to object to it. You can censor them, throw them in jail, threaten them, and that sort of thing. Or you can say they're wrong, and point out a more rational point of view. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, North Korea, and China are some well known examples of countries that took the threaten/jail/censor route. I'll let you decide which is "better".

And don't get me wrong, if someone is saying "Hail Hitler", "Windows is Awesome" or any of that nonsense, I'll gladly tell them they're a moron. I just don't think they should have their viewpoint censored. If they actually start killing Jews, installing Windows, or committing acts of violence, that's when they need to be dealt with.

Re:well

[giminy]

Yeah, I definitely concede that some of the people that modded me as a troll are probably right. Ohwell.

I guess the point that I'm trying to convey is that the only way "Don't be Evil" can convey any meaning at all is if the speaker has some absolute ruleset of morality. To convey this point, let's take "democratic rule" to an extreme for the sake of argument. Suppose there is a country, XYZ, with a democratically elected government. The people in that country decide that, for every $1,000 a company makes, it must sacrifice one kitten. Does Google draw the line there? Probably. But maybe not! Then replace kitten with child. Hopefully yes in that case...

The arbitrary and I admit horribly emotional law would demonstrate where Google's absolute morality lies. I guess mine lies somewhere on the "hippie" side of IPOs (meaning I would stay out of India, and which ultimately means I wouldn't take my company public). Public companies often strive to satisfy the law at the expense of morality (or at least at my definition of morality).

At the very least, I think I *would* like Google to judge another country's morality on the legal basis of the United States (kind of the inverse of the above). If India doesn't like it, they're a democracy, their citizens can change their vote. As for cultural imperialism, it's a weak argument...India could certainly start their own version of Google that followed their laws. It's a free internet...

Google does a lot of Good things, like posting the full text of DMCA takedown threats (including links to the actual offshore websites). Legally it has no obligation to do such things. Shareholders could probably take the stance that doing so costs Google money for no return. But it does them anyway. They have a strong moral compass somewhere...I just wish I would see them take a stand on bigger things like India (or China :)) to protect ideals like privacy and free speech, which they appear to care about when dealing with those of us in the US.

Do know Evil?

[pair-a-noyd]

Google made my list of sucky corporations a long time ago.
I've banned google from my network. There's a new search engine in town.
http://clusty.com/

See ya google.

Re:Do know Evil?

[superpulpsicle]

Clusty has the best clustered results by far. I think if they can speed up their engine speed for faster response they can be a legit competitor to google overtime.

Re:Do know Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

You managed to not only get the slogan wrong (It's "Don't be evil.") but also to misspell "no." You have reached the higher echelons of stupidity.

Re:Do know Evil?

[SanityInAnarchy]

From what I can tell, the reason their response is slow is because they're pulling in results from other search engines. In fact, how can they compete with Google when they depend so thoroughly on it?

Bombay police?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's *Mumbai*, you anti-Indian clod!

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: slashdot.org
Address: 66.35.250.150

Re:Bombay police?

[dodobh]

Stop being a kid, you clod. It's always Bombay for us oldtimers.

Mumbai

[Anonymous Coward]

It hasn't been named Bombay in years.

Then again, that's not how you spell "Government" either.

Also - read the end of the not-so-fine article. Yes, undoubtedly there's evil at play. On the other hand, if something illegal was done (the police were involved, one can only sadly assume the 'posting of picture with derogatory comments' was of an illegal nature over there), there shouldn't be any reason for Orkut protecting the suspect perp. Though filing a subpoena for the information (thus not bypassing the judicial system) would be much preferable. /no-karma anon

Re:Mumbai

[kraemate]

I still call it 'Bombay' - you insensitive clods, and so do most people i know (particularly those who live in Bombay).

Re:Mumbai

[Anonymous Coward]

like hell they do, unless your friends are English Colonialist pigs. Indians also now refer to Calcutta as Kolkatta.

Re:Mumbai

[XchristX]

Bottom line is that it's about revitalizing our culture, to which we have every right. The original name of the region was "Mumbai" (after Mumbadevi the Sea-Goddess of the fishermen). If the Irish can call "Dublin" "Baile Átha Cliath" then we can call "Bombay" "Mumbai" for the same bloody reasons.

Re:Mumbai

[Anonymous Coward]

The Irish can call Dublin whatever they wish but everyone else is still calling it Dublin.

Re:Mumbai

[ivan256]

A fact of life in the global community is that people from other places aren't going to call things/places by the same name you do.

Of course you have every right to call a location what you'd like, and by virtue of the same right, everybody else can call that same place something else.

Business Sense

[biocute]

Great news. The sooner Google acts like a real corporation the better.

It's time to stop this "Don't be evil" BS and get on with its obligation to its shareholders.

Having said that, if DBE actually does bring in more profit, or BE brings down profit, Google is then expected to DBE.

In short, act like a business and protect the bottom line, not teh "line".

Re:Business Sense

[Brian Gordon]

"Business" is no excuse for immorality.

Re:Business Sense

[espergreen]

Neither is Government.

Re:Business Sense

[justinlee37]

Is it really immoral to cooperate with the police in a criminal investigation?

Re:Business Sense

[Mr2001]

It certainly can be, if the investigation itself is immoral. Surely you've heard of the fallacious "Nuremberg defense"?

Re:Business Sense

[TubeSteak]

"Business" is no excuse for immorality.

Businesses don't have morality, they have ethics.
Business ethics are a different beast than personal morals.

Example - Company X is being fined every day for their dumping of [bad stuff] into the local waterway. Changing their business practice would be more expensive than paying the fines.
Q: Is this immoral?
A: Maybe.

Q: Is this unethical?
A: No.

Re:Business Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Businesses don't have morality, they have ethics. No offense, but ethics is "a system of moral principles" (aka, a set of rules governing what proper conduct is). Ethical and moral are synonyms. It could just as easily long ago have been called business morals instead of business ethics.

Re:Business Sense

[BitHive]

Actually, that's both immoral and unethical, but thanks for playing. If someone chooses to repeatedly break a law, the fact that they represent a business doesn't mean they're not culpable, nor does paying a fine absolve you of your moral transgression.

Re:Business Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

that comment made no sense whatsoever. it is both immoral and unethical. What it is not is ILLEGAL since they are paying the fines.
Not paying would be illegal and they'd get sued.

Try to get a clue next time.

Re:Business Sense

[suv4x4]

"Business" is no excuse for immorality.

Nothing is, so what's your point? We're not hardwired into being moral, mostly liability makes us be. Thus, companies were born, limited liability, no personal responsibility. Best of all worlds.

Re:Business Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

" Example - Company X is being fined every day for their dumping of [bad stuff] into the local waterway. Changing their business practice would be more expensive than paying the fines.
Q: Is this immoral?
A: Maybe.

Q: Is this unethical?
A: No."

Of course the OP is wrong - it should read 'Is this illegal - No'.

But morally, would the position change if:

  - the 'bad stuff' was actually fertiliser

  - the 'waterway' was completely used by an irrigation system for land which kept the local community alive

  - the local politicos wanted to oust the population and build a hotel complex for profit, and had hit upon this technique as a way of starving them out

?

Re:Business Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose morality?

Re:Business Sense

[Sobrique]

No, Government is the _definition_ of immorality.

Shafting the other dope, in the name of getting ahead.

Re:Business Sense

[justinlee37]

This conversation is meaningless to me anyway, I don't have any morals ... or even believe in their honest existence. Living organisms are just goal-oriented preprogrammed systems -- we do what's ultimately in our own interest (even if that's as hazy as fulfulling a subconscious desire to "be a good boy" like our parents told us to).

I was just posing a question. Everyone is jumping on their anti-gestapo soapboxes.

And rightfully so, if the Indian gov't is going to run around arresting people for insulting public figures like Egypt, a US ally I might add. Aren't we huge hypocrites?

But the article mentioned that some of the sites of interest were fan sites of Indian mobsters, and that some of these fan sites had never-before seen pictures of mobsters uploaded to them. This would obviously imply that the site's writer knew the mobster personally; isn't that a legitimate reason to investigate them?

Nailing them...

[lancelet]

Interesting that the article puts such a positive spin on the ability of the cops to "nail" their suspects in this way.

Re:Nailing them...

[clashdot]

Agreed. Reading this article was downright chilling -- cheering on the "heroic" local police in their oppressive effort with no reservations at all. Straight out of the 30:s it seemed to me.

Does anyone know what kind of paper this is, and whether anti-free speech sentiments such as those expressed in this article are widely shared in certain circles in India?

Re:Nailing them...

[hihihihi]

sorry for late reply...
as far as indian express (expressindia.com, also controlling (probably) NDTV, the other big TV media channel) company is concerned, they could be more regarded as left winged, "the government should control it for betterment of teh poor and weak" type persons.
Although there are some "censorship is teh evil" type medias (Times of India comes to mind) also there, but they are themselves have been many time regarded as tabloids.
all type of media you can find here..

cheers...
PS: am an indian

That's nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats nothing. Read below the comments on the article, where police blame Orkut for helping organize a party where drugs were used.

Seriously. Orkut used to organize party = Drugs used at party = Orkut bad? I don't think so.

I thought India was atleast a pretend democracy?

Re:That's nothing!

[TapeCutter]

"I thought India was atleast a pretend democracy?"

India happens to be the world's largest democracy, their voting system is simpler and more secure than what can be found in recent US elections.

Re:That's nothing!

[prash_n_rao]

thought India was atleast a pretend democracy? It is a pretend democracy! That's why such things happen.

Yay! I made an anti-India comment on Slashdot. Will someone kindly show this to Bombay's (another anti-Indian word) mobster-police, and get Slashdot censored off?

Re:That's nothing!

[blackicye]

"India happens to be the world's largest democracy, their voting system is simpler and more secure than what can be found in recent US elections."

In theory it is, in practice though, one has to question how much simpler and more secure it is. The lack of high level manipulation of the elections, Corporate lobbys, campaign contributions etc. Usually gives way to more grassroots friendly approaches to "vote purchasing" and vote rigging, stipends, developmental funds, basic infrastructure etc. Due largely to the great disparity in wealth between the middle and upper classes and the the vast majority dwelling between that and below the poverty line.

Re:That's nothing!

[XchristX]

The fact that you can say so out loud in the middle of Colaba in Mumbai without getting arrested, strung upside down and flogged with a stick by "Secret Police" proves that it is a REAL democracy Mr "Rao".

Don't like it? Pakistan is just across the border, Balochistani/Waziristani/Taliban/Pukhtunwa terrorists, the Jamaat-e-Islami Islamic Sturmabteilung, various military dictators, warlords in NWFP, 20,000 radical madrassas and everything.Mubarak ho janaab. See ya. Won't wanna be ya.

Re:That's nothing!

[TapeCutter]

I don't for a second claim that India's voting system is impervious to corruption. However it is more secure from systematic corruption (high level manipulation) precisely because the low level "forces" are competing with each other at the "self interest" level. The temptation to "cheat" with bribes/threats is balanced by their opponents temptations and the ability of both sides to take the "moral high ground" when it suits them.

Re:That's nothing!

[Dogtanian]

The fact that you can say so out loud in the middle of Colaba in Mumbai without getting arrested, strung upside down and flogged with a stick by "Secret Police" proves that it is a REAL democracy Mr "Rao". No, it doesn't actually *prove* it at all- free speech and democracy are two distinct concepts. Although there is a tendency for them to go together, it is quite possible to have a democratically elected government that suppresses speech and other rights ("Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."). Conversely, it's quite possible (though less likely) to have free speech under a non-democratic government.

Re:That's nothing!

[suv4x4]

I thought India was at least a pretend democracy?

I was wondering what will happen to you, for ex., if you were spreading "hatred" towards USA, in the same way this happened with India.

Don't be surprised if you wake up automatically promoted to a terrorist by the state, one nice morning.

Re:That's nothing!

[XchristX]

I was using the term "prove" loosely, not in the categorical sense. My main point is that those who cherry-pick a few cases of censorship in India (there are worse examples than the ones in TFA by the way, like Taslima Nasrin's "Lajja" which got banned in some states, or the books of Sita Ram Goel all of which are banned, or banning of the Da-Vinci Code on the insistence of some Christians) to conclude that India is some sort of "fake democracy" should go visit some other developing countries and see what goes on there. India is by far the most democratic country in the developing world. Only developed countries with democratic governments are better (obviously).

Re:That's nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the beggars in the streets have a voice? What about the rickshaw operators who have had their businesses taken from them, because the government does not feel it is good for people to pull other people. What about free speech? there are hundreds of thousands of sites that state the U.S. sucks or Bush sucks. You do not see the U.S. government stopping those. How can you have a democracy with no free speech?

Re:That's nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

What????? Simpler and more secure? A bullet in your ass is simpler, but is it more secure as well? Label me a troll for saying this, but go live there and bitch how USA sucks then come back and suck my dick.

Re:That's nothing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, get your facts right before calling India a "Pretend Democracy". What a shame that there are medival people like you still living.

Re:That's nothing!

[prash_n_rao]

My point: it could be much better.
Your point: it could be much worse.

It's safe for me to assume that you know of many more cases of repression - I won't attempt to enumerate them here.

India may not have a "secret police", it certainly has a "mobster police", as I said, and certainly not a "terrorist police" like that of Pakistan, as you said.

Looks like it makes India a somewhat-real democracy :-/. "by far the most democratic country in the developing world"? I do not know all the factors that would go into making such a statement, I'll not agree with it just because it "sounds nice". But, I agree with you in that it could be worse.

The reason I called it a pretend democracy is that (among other things) I see no attempts by the government to ensure that it does not exceed its limits. What if corporations like Google stuck to their guns, by doing what is "right"? I wonder if that would guide, in a manner of speaking, India along the right path. Or maybe that would push India over to "the other side", and thus trigger a revolutionary revolt!

We live in interesting times!

Re:That's nothing!

[XchristX]

|The reason I called it a pretend democracy is that (among other things) I see no attempts by the government to ensure that it does not exceed its limits

Then vote for a new one. The fact that most political parties in our country are crap speaks more about the flaws and apathy in our society than any flaws in our political system, which is the best possible under the circumstances. The mechanism exists for the implementation of change. Indians just have to care enough to implement it.

Re:That's nothing!

[prash_n_rao]

Vote for one?? :-)

Contrary to what I might appear to be from my previous comments, I am not a fan of "democracy", where something gets implemented just because a "majority" voted for something. That's how we have reservations, bizzare tax-laws, etc. I believe that all this "vote for anything you want" will get us nowhere. For example, would slavery be OK if a majority, of some sort, voted for it?

I could elaborate, but I'll be going horribly off-topic.

Re:That's nothing!

[XchristX]

Well then we seem to have reached an ideological impasse, since I'm what Americans would call a "neocon" ie I believe that democratic societies are inherently superior to non-democratic societies. I leave you with the words of Ambedkar:

"I feel that the Constitution is workable; it is flexible and it is strong enough to hold the country together both in peace time and in war time. Indeed, if I may say so, if things go wrong under the new Constitution the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution. What we will have to say is that Man was vile."

Re:That's nothing!

[schamarty]

You could start with http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0412.html#11, especially point #3.

Then follow the linked article within: http://techaos.blogspot.com/2004/05/indian-evm-com pared-with-diebold.html

You might get the difference between localised (India) and institutionalised (the US) violations of democracy.

Sigh...

[DoofusOfDeath]

Does Google leadership believe that "Do no evil" "Obey all laws"?

Or have they simply abandoned "Do no evil" in favor of, "Do not much evil, and even then only do it if you want to gain a foothold in countries with rapidly growing economies."?

Re:Sigh...

[danlock4]

Does Google leadership believe that "Do no evil" [equals] "Obey all laws"?

"Evil" to the western world (generally) and to Americans such as those who run Google (specifically) is likely to be differently defined than "evil" according to the rulers of India.

To retain worldwide acceptance, Google must conform to local laws.

:-)

Re:Sigh...

[bgog]

This is ignorant. (fictional-example) Here in Lake Thomson, we strongly oppose the evil thoughts of women. Therefore we will outlaw them from writing anything on the internet because... well... They are evil. Hey google. Help us. (/fictional-example)

Are you actually ignorant enough to define evil by what is illegal? Google is an american company staffed largely by americans. Therefore, if they say they will do no evil, they should strive to do no evil at LEAST by american standards. If that means they don't compete as well in some market where people are oppressed then so be it. They made the world a little better by not cooperating.

If they choose be be evil to furthur their business, then fine but don't claim to "do no evil".

Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Most people in America are suffering from sample bias when it comes to Indians. Most Indians they meet are the beaming parent of the teen jeopardy champ or the school math club prez or the local spelling bee. Making them think, "may be they got a billion more where they came from". The reality is ofcourse, among the smart Indians a few emigrate to USA and they are the ones Americans usually see personally. The rest of India, is as smart as the cow.

"They insulted our great leader Shivaji" (Shivaji, btw died in 18th century)

"Where? Who? When"

"In the Internet! Dont know who, may be pakistanis. Dont know when"

"Let us declare war against the Internet!!. We will go ten times madder than the Turks went over that stupid cartoon"

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[belmolis]

In addition to the fact that many Indians are not as urbane, tolerant, and well-educated as those one encounters in the US, one has to take into account the fact that India is much more diverse ethnically and religiously than the United States, and that many potentially hostile groups live in close proximity. While I don't agree with such censorship, I can understand the desire of the Indian government to keep everybody happy and avoid bloodshed.

(Shivaji, btw died in 18th century)

17th century, actually: 1680.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[thrawn_aj]

Mod parent +1 (or at least 1 :P)Insightful. (C'mon! "Troll" is a little harsh LOL)

Precisely. I am an immigrant Indian living in the US and I personally feel insulted by that bias, positive as it may be. It results in a weird kind of prejudice wherein if you do something outstanding people are like "well, duh, they're all like that. Big effing deal :P". And under achievement (relative to the OTHER Indians) is reportedly grounds for deportation in some IT companies. To be perfectly clear, I have experienced the first one personally. Since I don't work in IT (merciful Deus :P), I have only heard of the latter (probably hyperbole so please don't bore me by responding to it all at once :P)

It's quite simple - Gaussian distributions are fairly universal. We have our share of nut cases in India, as also religious fundamentalists that could make Pat Robertson blush (well, that's not possible, but you get my drift. Luckily, no one like Ted Haggard as yet =D), awful movies that seem to be cast out of an industrial mold, and idiots of every variety. Also of note are the "lazyass armchair historians" who feel that it is enough to have a rich heritage but who make no effort on their own part to build a better present or plan for a glorious future.

In short, India is just like any other country, including this one. There's good folks and bad folks. There's eminently sensible people on the one hand and the farking idiots on the other. Am I surprising anyone here? :P

More to the point, I am a member of the social site they mention (Orkut) and it's a little silly that someone actually sues Google for "anti-Indian sentiments". Sheesh, get a thicker skin FFS :P. Why would any sensible person be offended by the comments of some random hate monger? Too much time on their hands I suppose :P. Treat opinions like spam people. You just don't read them all. *roll*

The thing about the underworld dons is a horse of a different color. What non-Indians should know is that the "underworld" in India is NOT exactly analogous to the mafia here or the drug cartels in South America. It's a far worse problem than that. To be more precise, the specific don named Dawood Ibrahim can probably be characterized as the Indian version of Osama Bin Laden crossed with Al Capone. In other words, terrorism coupled with the usual kind of racketeering. And there's more noobs like this guy. The Mumbai (erstwhile Bombay) blasts of 1993 is a good example (I was actually in school near where they happened back then *brrr*). There's some more recent stuff as well, which I have not been following much in the news.

Suffice to say, if Indians wanted to establish something akin to the Patriot Act, these are the dudes who'll be first on the dinner menu :P. So, not SO crazy in this PARTICULAR instance. I would suggest that they not try to close them down though. Illegally hacking into them and monitoring them might be more profitable in the long-term ;-). What are Intelligence Agencies for anyway? LOL

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[Web Goddess]

Mod parent +1 (or at least 1 :P)Insightful.

Let the moderators do their jobs; they don't need your 2c.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[XchristX]

Keep in mind that the Chhatrapati retaliation thing was done by a small group of nutjobs (Sambhaji brigade), and the worst they did was raid the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Pune. No lives were lost, although there was property damage. It was a response to that racist turd James W. Laine publishing a defamatory tirade against Chattrapati Shivaji (one that had precisely zero historical validity or credibility by the way). Also keep in mind that Chattrapati Shivaji is a vital and iconic figure to most Marathas. He was the first warrior in medeival Maratha history to unite the clans into a Confederation that rivaled and eventually exceeded the Mughal Empire in extent and glory. By all historical accounts he was learned, articulate, a brilliant military tactician, a religious pluralist (he revered both Hindu saints like Tukaram as well as Sufi Muslim pirs like Yacob Avaliya) and significantly more tolerant towards different religions than that Islamic Fundamentalist genocidal iconoclastic lunatic Aurangzeb in the Mughal Empire, the inventor of guerilla methods of warfare, an accomplished equestrian etc. All this has created a whole ethos surrounding Shivaji in Marathi culture, much like Robert Bruce in Scotland or Charlemagne in France. If somebody made fun of Robert Bruce in Edinburgh, there would be thousands of Scotsmen in kilts chasing him right off of Arthur's Seat or wherever. So while one can't approve of Sambhaji Brigade's actions, one can certainly understand it in the broad context of human behaviour over cultural icons.

And compare this little spat over Shivaji to the worldwide riots by Muslims over some otherwise insignificant cartoons of Muhammad (incl our Mujahid friends in Kashmir), and you will see that it really was not that big of a deal.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[JavaIsGreat]

As far as your comment like "The rest of India, is as smart as the cow." goes I would like to share some interesting things: India produces average 300,000 Engineers every year. India produces more than 400,000 science graduates every year. Getting an education in arts is a shame in India.If you are an arts graduate it is a shame. Indian Engineering Services is very tough to clear. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad is the toughest B School to get into. Indian engineering entrance exams are tough and JEE is very very tough to crack. I suggest you go and solve I.E.Irodov Problems in General Physics now. Indians who clear JEE to get in to IIT, solve it in SCHOOL. Indians are very good at maths. If you think they are not then go and solve the complete paper of Pre Engineering Maths. Please check how many countries borrowed rocket engineering from Germany and then implemented it. Indians did on their own. To become an IPS Officer(Indian Police Services) you need to clear UPSC which is one of the toughest exam for administrative services anywhere in world. As a NATION India has every right to do what it feels is correct for it.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[AppComp]

I agree with parent. Why mark this troll? The truth is that a majority of the Indian public isn't as smart as what the average American encounters. In a democracy, it is always easy to mislead the public.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[JavaIsGreat]

As far as your comment like "The rest of India, is as smart as the cow." goes, I would like to share some interesting things:
India produces average 300,000 Engineers every year.
India produces more than 400,000 science graduates every year.
Getting an education in arts is a shame in India.If you are an arts graduate it is a shame.
Indian Engineering Services is very tough to clear.
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad is the toughest B School to get into.
Indian engineering entrance exams are tough and JEE is very very tough to crack.
I suggest you go and solve I.E.Irodov Problems in General Physics now.
Indians who clear JEE to get in to IIT, solve it in SCHOOL.
Indians are very good at maths. If you think they are not then go and solve the complete paper of Pre Engineering Maths.
Please check how many countries borrowed rocket engineering from Germany and then implemented it. Indians did on their own.
To become an IPS Officer(Indian Police Services, yes the same police that was referred to in the arcticle, you need to clear UPSC which is one of the toughest exam for administrative services anywhere in world.
Indians are smart people.

Indians are facing terrorism for last 20 years and they are doing what they should be doing. They are avoiding spread of hate via these type of forums. Whats wrong in that?

I think avoiding riots and hate is better than allowing riots to happen or hate to spread.

As a NATION India has every right to do what it feels is correct for it.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh.. Right ... And how smart is rest of the world to ignore "Smart cows of your own countries" and outsource jobs to Indian cows. You guys are really funny. When someone makes a comment on events or people significant to you, what do you do ??? stop them. But of course others are not allowed to do that. Btw wanna hear a good one about 9/11???

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[XchristX]

"No One like Ted Haggard"?

You obviously haven't heard of Zakir Naik (just google for him), who rails about "the prophet Muhammad being predicted in the Vedas" and demands that Islamic Sharia law be enforced in India or Ahmed Deedat (in South Africa actually, but Indian born), who denies the holocaust of Jews by Nazis, demands that "idolatrous Hindus" mass-convert to Islam under the point of gun and says that all Christians are "Bible-Thumpers".

Plus, Ted Haggard, for all his nuttery, never blew up trains like in Mumbai last July by the Students "Islamic" Movement of India (somebody should give those bastards a real Qu'ran lesson), not to mention the Samjhauta Express bombings just last month.

No, we in India have way too many crazies running around with bloodlust in their hearts to have the kind of unrestricted literalist interpretation of "Freedom of Speech" that the west enjoys. That will come only when we are developed enough to eschew all violent religious fundamentalism within our society.

However, always remember that we are by far the most democratic country in the developing world DESPITE all this censorship issues and book-bannings and what have you. Just compare the status of Free Speech in India with our neighbours to the North and West, or any other developing country.

I challenge anyone to give me the example of ONE developing country in the world that is more democratic than India (FYI, Taiwan , Korea, post-apartheid South Africa, Mexico etc. are no longer "developing" but essentially "developed" on the global HDI scale).

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[JavaIsGreat]

Anonymous Coward :) How come outsourcing came into this discussion. BTW outsourcing is economy driven rather than "Who has smarter cows". No doubt every country has smart cows.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[Anonymous Coward]

India is much more diverse ethnically and religiously than the United States

LOL, if by that you mean there is more out-and-out ethnic and religious fighting (shootings, bombings, etc) then I would agree with you.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[thrawn_aj]

I take back the point about Haggard. Obviously, we DO have nut cases of the same severity or more. I should have referred to the issue of how many mainstream Americans take Haggard seriously (well not anyMORE :P) compared to that Fatwa idiot you mentioned (I did state in my original post that I have not been following the recent bombings).

But please don't feed me that BS about Free Speech in India. That just means that the Government does not censor you. Buddy, when I lived in India, it wasn't the Government I was worried about :P (to a point of course - police beatings of journalists get routine after a while, who cares? :P). It was the self-appointed loonies policing morality on the streets and the Government NOT doing anything about it. It would be as if the fundies in the US were allowed to run amok and the Government refused to act. THERE is your freedom of speech. And I gottta tell you, self-censorship in India goes a long way. At least the fundies aren't allowed to get away with murder in the US (just everything else upto that point :P).

And what the hell is this talk about "most democratic developing country"? People are making ranked lists now? How do you even prove such a thing? It's just a meaningless cliche (i.e. not falsifiable) being traded in the self-congratulatory spam being traded these days or possibly in a politican's speech. Also, if you compare India with the rest of the banana republics on the subcontinent, well of course it's great! Duh!

And what do you even mean by "most democratic"? The word "democracy" just means that we elect our leaders, period! You're either democratic or you're not! How could you be less or more? If you rig the polls, you're not democratic; *cough* which happens A LOT in rural India especially. Proxy voting is another fine example of democracy :P. ANd I'm sure the North Indian states are glowing examples of law-abiding democracies (I think I'm gonna cry :P). I'd sooner go live in Saudi Arabia than in a hellhole like the state of Bihar - well alright I didn't mean that, I may be crazy but I ain't stupid :P. That's why I love the name "Democratic Republic of Congo". Some folks need a friggin dictionary before they name their countries :P. I wish someone would make a nation out of MS. Heck, I'd wanna immigrate =D. LOL.

That will come only when we are developed enough to eschew all violent religious fundamentalism within our society. Geological timescales perhaps? Religion doesn't permit the absence of violence. The arguments for believing that peace and religion can coexist are akin to "guns don't kill people, people kill people". As long as there is religion, there will ALWAYS be a jagoff with a bomb wanting to enter friggin Paradise. The militant muslims just have a monopoly on that at the moment. Competitors will catch up no doubt. So, do we abolish religion then? *Bzzzt* wrong answer - we can't. Only option - get used to it :P.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to add to what the parent said, and provide a little more insight, there are numerous cases happening right now where someone posts a fake profile of a girl on orkut with a picture, her home address and a phone number, mentioning that she's a sex maniac and looking for sex partners.
This has been happening *a lot* lately, and given that, wouldn't you want Orkut/Google to help catch those fake posters harassing the girls???
Freedom of speech is one thing, abusing it is another.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[XchristX]

|People are making ranked lists now

Yes. See the US Congressional reports on India, and compare them to other countries in the region.

|How do you even prove such a thing

Easily. We have checks and balances in our political system that other developing countries do not have. Democracy CAN be quantified and relativized.

|I'd sooner go live in Saudi Arabia than in a hellhole like the state of Bihar

Really? True that Bihar is rampant with Naxalite/Ranvir Sena lawlessness, but Saudi Arabia chops your hand off for stealing a loaf of bread and beheads you for watching movies.

|If you rig the polls, you're not democratic

Then no country in the world is a democracy (remember Florida?). That's a pointless argument.

|The militant muslims just have a monopoly on that at the moment

They've had a monopoly on that since the rise of the Khilafat al-Rashidun a millenium and a half ago. No other society has even come close (don't cite "the crusades" plz, the crusades were not nearly as violent as the Islamic conquest of India)

Overall, your arguments make no sense, and remind me more of anarchist absolutism than anything else. It's a question of the best that we, as a developing country can do, given our circumstances. We have done the best that we can do so far. India could easily have become like the middle east violence - wise , but hasn't. It still could, of course. If you don't like the government "doing nothing to stop the loonies" then vote for a new one. It's you people who voted for the likes of the UPA who let the "human rights" mafia led by that terrorist Arundhati Roy spare Mohammed Afzal and repeal POTA.

Re:Time to feel silly, slashdotters...

[thrawn_aj]

|I'd sooner go live in Saudi Arabia than in a hellhole like the state of Bihar Really? True that Bihar is rampant with Naxalite/Ranvir Sena lawlessness, but Saudi Arabia chops your hand off for stealing a loaf of bread and beheads you for watching movies.

Quoting just half of my sentences is intellectually honest I suppose :P. Read the original sentence. Also, consider for a moment which is scarier: a corrupt and extremist government that represses its own people or a populace that manages quite well on its own which is the point I was going for with Bihar. That was one scary place in the news during my childhood. Besides, I actually DID live in Saudi Arabia for a while a decade ago and as long as you stay away from the Arabs (:P. We lived in an Indian camp) it's quite safe and not quite unpleasant. Again, Read the original sentence. Further, when people tell you to make a choice between two horrible things, perhaps it's ok to decline them both ja? See the last paragraph in this post.

|People are making ranked lists now Yes. See the US Congressional reports on India, and compare them to other countries in the region. |How do you even prove such a thing Easily. We have checks and balances in our political system that other developing countries do not have. Democracy CAN be quantified and relativized.

... We have done the best that we can do so far.

The "other countries in the region" are a bit of a joke when it comes to democracy. Precisely my point - if that's all that India aspires to, it's striving for mediocrity and I know it can do better. Yes, apparently you can quantify democracy. I'm saying I don't buy the efficacy of the indices! As for "relativizing", I don't know what you mean by that :P and I'm sure the OED doesn't as well.

If you don't like the government "doing nothing to stop the loonies" then vote for a new one. It's you people who voted for the likes of the UPA who let the "human rights" mafia led by that terrorist Arundhati Roy spare Mohammed Afzal and repeal POTA.

Are you deliberately ignoring things I said? Did I not say that I don't live there anymore and that I haven't followed the Indian news in gory detail? And please don't presume to know who people vote for. Perhaps if you stopped labeling people as "anarchists" and trying to divine their voting preferences based on one post and one issue, you might stand a better chance of going beyond cliched arguments. Arundhati Roy is a well-meaning nut who, as all well-meaning nuts do, lost it one fine day and became a rebel without a cause :P. The Michael Moore of India :P.

They've had a monopoly on that since the rise of the Khilafat al-Rashidun a millenium and a half ago. No other society has even come close (don't cite "the crusades" plz, the crusades were not nearly as violent as the Islamic conquest of India)

Oh FFS, not this tired old thing again. If you notice, YOU brought up the crusades :P. I should say that I AM proud of India, because we have NOT wasted our time in rehashing THOSE old sins and carrying out retaliatory wars in the present. Most of the regions of the world that conspired to pillage India in those days are mere shells of their former selves - dirt poor and starving to death. The great Persian Empire has been reduced to a country that can barely be called alive. Are we now quantifying and "relativizing" the bigotry of different societies? I'll save you the time and stipulate that any society built upon a religion is doomed to extremism. It's evolution. Every religion starts out with moderates and extremists. The former, by their very nature and the inherent systemic flaws in any religion, breed themselves out of existence, leaving the radicals behind, who of course spread like a plague. One can't use the crusades as an argument precisely because the governmental structure that created th

Not another China

[koreth]

I've defended Google's China policy, but it seems like they're just flat-out in the wrong on this one (assuming, that is, that we're getting the whole story here.) I am having a very hard time seeing what greater good is served here. In China they are withholding information their users want. Not great but they are at least servicing the users' requests, just not as fully as one would prefer. Here they are giving out information their users presumably expected to remain private, in direct opposition to their users' intentions. Bad Google.

Re:Not another China

[jfengel]

assuming, that is, that we're getting the whole story here.

That sounds like a big assumption to me. I don't know the full details, but TFA is wide-eyed and heavily slanted against the groups in question. Slashdot spins it as a censorship and Google story, but the article is about how they can "finally" get rid of that "objectionable" material.

It also misspells "YouTube", which is not a particularly difficult word to spell and causes me to doubt the research and editing of the article.

Thought crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who censor either believe that lies triumph over truth, or seek to advance their own agenda.

I have no doubt those who are responsible for this censorship in India are making this move so they can appear as patriots in order to gain power and then screw over the country. If they truly believed in India, they would see no reason to censor.

If the censoring crowd believes that lies triumph over truth that speaks very poorly of their character, and shows that they themselves would see the value in lying to protect themselves.

Goddammit Google

[Petey_Alchemist]

What part of "Do No Evil" is difficult to understand?

Maybe you should hire a couple linguists to complement your thousands of engineers.

Re:Goddammit Google

[Voice of Meson]

I know, bloody Google engineers! They've created a Google AIDS now?

They might want to start monitoring this 'one day off a week for your own projects' thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but wasn't there some kind of agreement between the big search engines to stop doing this short of shit?

Standby for Google Spin (in Beta!)

[BillGatesLoveChild]

What about Sergei's recent public hand wringing that Google's deal with the Chinese Communist Party was a mistake?

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/27/18 39238

Shows how disingenuous that hand wringing was.

On the bright side, at least Google aren't just cutting deals with totalitarian governments. They're now making political censorship deals with democratically-elected governments too! A Googlestroika, if you will.

Lost along the way . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pretty sure that the real meaning and direction of the ban was lost smewhere along the way. Because the police recently busted a massive drugs-distribution joint in East Pune. The whole joint seemed to work via Orkut. The real reason behind this action must be this and not primarily focused on "anti-indian words"

Did Indians forgot to put something like;

[guabah]

No law shall be made abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

in their constitution?

Re:Did Indians forgot to put something like;

[Anonymous Coward]

Article 19.(a) of the constitution guarantees free speech.

http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/wt p/india.html

I could not find the official version. The Mumbai police are notorious for corruption and abusing human rights.
Now yet another reason to stay the hell away from Mumbai.

Re:Did Indians forgot to put something like;

[guabah]

IANAIL(I am not an Indian Lawyer) But it seems by the version you have linked that the state does reserve some rights to restrict freedom of speech.

Re:Did Indians forgot to put something like;

[Anonymous Coward]

We did not forget. But we also have a subclause which denies this right under certain circumstances.

Article 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. [source: WikiPedia ]

(1) All citizens shall have the right -

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Although this is not effective measure by Mumbai police dept to control the proliferation of anti-indian websites, there is not much conspiracy here from our govt. This issue is not so similar to the NDA .

Re:Did Indians forgot to put something like;

[hihihihi]

here you go ...

http://indiacode.nic.in/coiweb/amend/amend1.htm [ironically the first amendment in constition itself]
from above: "The citizen's right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by article 19(1)(a) has been held by some courts to be so comprehensive as not to render a person culpable even if he advocates murder and other crimes of violence."

read the rest for yourself...

cheers.

Expectations

[towsonu2003]

Expect a similar move from the Turkish government soon.

This Story Will Be Banned...

[I'll Provide The War]

For using the anglicised colonial name for Mumbai. The fact that 'Bombay' is not found in the article makes this transposition appear to be a purposeful and hostile action.

Re:This Story Will Be Banned...

[Anonymous Coward]

you dont know what the fuck you are talking about. Vast majority of Indians ,including mumbai residents don't despise the word "Bombay". The name change was done due to the political pressure exerted by a very small radical hindu group RSS on their national alliance Bharitheeya Janatha Party which is not the ruling party now. This whole issue is as stupid as it gets. No Indians are fighting over them.

Thank you for jumping to conclusions on random facts you insensitive karma whore.

Re:This Story Will Be Banned...

[XchristX]

"Small radical Hindu Group"???

You mean the RSS that has 3 million members and is classified by the Economist as the largest anti-Communist organization in the world (at least some people still have the balls to combat the rampant infestation of moonbats and terror-apologists who pass for the "intelligentsia" in India these days, Hang Muhammed Afzal I say!)?

You mean the RSS that has 100,000 Sikh members (not Hindus), 30,000 Roman Catholic members (also not Hindus) and that financed militancy-hit Muslim children (i.e. hit by other Muslims) in Kashmir so as to sent them to Islamic madrassas for education?

And yes, the name is "Mumbai", and it's widely used among the actual people of the city ie the Marathis, who are the overwhelming majority, and always have been, despite what the moonbats say.

Time to see the ground realities, friend.India is shifting to the right. Live with it, or go live in North Korea.

Re:This Story Will Be Banned...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yes, the name is "Mumbai", and it's widely used among the actual people of the city ie the Marathis, who are the overwhelming majority, and always have been, despite what the moonbats say."

Marathis? Yes, there are a lot of us in Bombay. When I'm not on an IT contract I live in Matunga Rd, North Bombay, and the only people I have ever heard using the term 'Mumbai' are political activists and foreigners who wanted to stress their ethnic credentials. Which one are you?

Re:This Story Will Be Banned...

[XchristX]

Nice try Mr Anonymous Coward, but I'm neither. I'm a regular Mumbaikar, born and raised, but am ethnically Bengali. Every Maharashtrian Mumbaikar I know says "Mumbai". The name has always been "Mumbai" as transliterated from Marathi. Check the markers on train stations sometime and look at the Devanagari script. It's said "Mumbai" (Ma-hrasya-u + ma-ba-yugtakshar + hrasya-i) not "Bombay". Not ever. It's only natural to make the English name correspond to the Devanagari transliteration instead of the Anglic appellation. Only mindless moonbats and/or Macauleyists pine for "Bombay". Which one are YOU?

Like I implied in an earlier post, India, like Ireland, has been a victim of English (people) linguistic imperialism (Historical pointer: Both India and Ireland had rich indigenous languages until the English squashed them, read the works of Macauley sometime and you'll see that this was part of their plan to subjugate their vassal colonies, both physically, psychologically and culturally).

However, it seems that the Irish are more in tune with their heritage than most Indians are with theirs (they renamed Dublin to Baile Atha Cliath, the original Irish Celtic name of the city), and rekindling OUR history by a proper name change causes you pinkos to get your underwear in knots. Shame!

Other sources?

[FleaPlus]

Can anybody find sources other than the Indian Express reporting on this? If the article is accurate, my overall impression of Google will be substantially decreased, but I'd like to make sure the information is solid. Right now the only sources I can find are the Indian Express or other sources re-reporting it.

Re:Other sources?

[1000Monkeys]

Shh... This is slashdot. Rumors are true as long as they defame companies the mob no longer deems "cool."

The real Google corporate motto...

[heretic108]

"Don't be evil...

...in the eyes of our customers, especially government customers"

Kinda reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the revolutionary sheep are initially chanting "four legs good, two legs bad", but after the corruption has set in, and the head animals are enjoying human comforts, the chant changes to "four legs good, two legs better".

Im scared..

[kraemate]

This move by Google has left me really worried. Orkut has become extremely popular in India, and politicians and the Government are not happy with it. The reason : people creating communities which they feel are 'anti-Indian', fake profiles, etc. Every day here i see stories about how a police complaint, or a law-suit is filed against such an orkut community. While the so-called 'illegal' communities are mostly pranks, the government acts real serious about them. I'll give you a small (and to me, truly horrifying) example : A few students in my sister's school opened up their school community, and started posting 'lies' about the school authorities (which in reality are the bitter truths). A police complaint was filed against those students and everything - and now if Google is so ready to comply with such people, then i guess it pretty much means game-over for free-speech on the internet in India.

PS: Hope that Google doesn't provide _my_ IP address. Or even /.

Re:Im scared..

[the100rabh]

You forgot India has freedom of speech but not of lies. If can prove that then no probs at all. But u cant just blabber about some one. It happened to a friend of mine. She had turned down one her classmates and that fellow simply posted crap about her in orkut with here photo, fake mail id and aher cell number. Now what do u think should be done about these people

Re:Im scared..

[kraemate]

Fake profiles are bad - but the government gives a damn about you anyways. All they care about are the anti-India communities. I fail to understand what's wrong in them. I can say i don't like india, and all those who share the view join the community. So whats the government's problem?

Re:Im scared..

[the100rabh]

Have u seen any of them....they are there for just character assassination and sorts...How is that...Sure freedom of speech should be there and it is there...I can say I hate certain policies but then thats different from whats being banned.

MOD PARENT UP

[nick1000]

Its not a troll.

Things That Bit Butts

[WED Fan]

List of nifty little phrases that have bitten their speakers in the ass:

• They will never bomb Berlin
• Read my lips, no new taxes
• I did not have sex with that woman
• Mission accomplished
• Don't be evil

Re:Things That Bit Butts

[arnott]

how about 'Support the troops' ?

Do no evil

[satirenine]

Rule # 1 - Do no evil
Rule # 0 - Make money

Indian personalities

[RealGrouchy]

They object, among others [CC], to posts against certain Indian personalities...

So much for those Bollywood jokes on Conan!

- RG>

Slashdotters Indian bias is disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

I see comments like 'India isn't a democracy' or they don't have freedom of speech. Why not look at the US government that records all of your phone calls and sensors its own scientists. Are the fat turds that read this site so pissed that someone overseas can do their job better and for less money that they hold it against a race? Pathetic.

Wonder who's next?

[DeadManCoding]

Well, China has Google filtering search results. Now Orkut is giving IP info to Mumbai officials to ensure that "anti-Indian" speech is not propagated through the "tubes". What's next, the American government spying on their own citizens and abusing the law that was put in place to allow them to do it?

Wait a minute...

If America is to compete in the global economy

[Travoltus]

apparently we need to be more like this in order to get the jobs sent to us.

Go figure.

Censorship?!

[MadnessASAP]

How the hell is this censorship? the police are asking Google amongst others to share information about people who may be linked to mafia organizations. They were already blocking these sites as they appeared you realy might want to do a bit more research before you start having knee jerk reactions every time Google does something involving an authority. PS Supporters of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawood_IbrahimDawood_ Ibrahim are who they are interested in. Doesn't seem like a very nice guy PSS How fucking clean does Google have to be before you people will be happy? Really for god sakes get a hold of yourselves their a damn corporation they do have certain obligations to something other then the set of morales you seem to think they should have when you cant even maintain such a clean lifestyle.

Brazil vs India - FIGHT!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that the Brazilians let Indians use Orkut?

You Want Human Furnaces?

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to start a business making and selling human furnaces to second and third world countries? Hearing someone dismiss "Do No Evil" so easily and blindly is very fucked up. In addition you are probably educated and from a first world country which makes it all the more tragic.

Not that bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Its unfortunate.Its necessary.The dynamics of Indian society are vastly different from the US.There are a lot of uneducated gulliable people who are conned by politicos time and again.Its those politicos who fuel and foment communal and sectarian violence for their own selfish ends.For e.g , historically , Aurangzeb ( a muslim ruler) tormented Shivaji (his contemporary Hindu ruler). The politicos would associate anti Shivaji stuff to be anti Hindu , pro Muslim, and so, is potential riot fodder.And people here ,in general, are net illiterate, and believe every word in the "internet" is gospel truth ( their leader told them so). So , if there is an user on orkut with the nick "anti hindu bombay guy" who posts derogatory comments on Shivaji, the "leader" here will take a banner print of it, claim that muslims in bombay are insulting shivaji ( corollary ...insulting hindus), and will instigate a pogrom.We dont want that.
Jilted male lovers create bogus profiles of the females they have been spurned by, make it seem that the girl is a whore, and post their phone numbers and lewd remarks about them.Imagine the plight of the female who is woken up at odd hours with people wanting to have sex with her.
Who do you go to ? The police of course.How can the police help you ? By tracking down the michief monger. How do they do that ? Travel to US to file a motion in an US court and get a subpoena ? Its impractical.
There is no censorship involved here. Feel free to write what you wish. Freedom of any kind comes with responsibility.Speech and expression is no different ( try shouting fire in a packed dark auditorium ).The government has a duty to protect its citizens. There is an independent judiciary in India which can task an errant government to task, and there are many many examples to vouch for that.I live in this free country, and I support the move.

Iran

[DoofusOfDeath]

So far Google has caved when secular governments have gone after people for civil disobedience.

I wonder what they'd do in an officially Muslim like Iran if someone posted a blog saying, "I was a Muslim but I converted to Christianity", and the government demanded that Google turn over that person's identifying information?

If Google refused, then they're giving up on the broad claim that their presence a blessing to a country regardless of what censorship / person-finding they assist with. If they went along with it, then they show the true vacuousness of their "moral" reasoning.

I don't want such a test case to arise, but I'd be (morbidly) curious to see how it plays out.

Criminal investigatoins should be allowed

[Jimithing DMB]

After reviewing the articles I've come to the conclusion that while I don't condone investigating people for hate-speech against India that I see no problem with investigating the source of a mob boss fan club. Even applying the U.S. constitution (which of course India is not held to) I would see no problem with this. The police can and should investigate something like this. If it turns out it's someone not connected to the criminal then that's fine. But if it turns out that it's part of a conspiracy to drum up public support and poison the jury pool then that is an entirely different matter. Who's to say that this anonymously submitted article is not part of that conspiracy?

I believe Google did the right thing by turning over records to the police. Anonymity is not sacrosanct. Freedom to say what you want is, and if that is not allowed in India then that should be changed. However, impeding a criminal investigation is not a good way to bring about change.

I wish I could point out a specific attribution but it's not a new concept that one must work within ones societal rules to change society for the better. I believe it is mentioned at least a few times in the new testament and most likely in other religious and philosophical texts as well.

Rule#0: make money.

[liftphreaker]

What's so surprising about this move? Google like any other company aims to make money. Like I've been saying all along, this "don't be evil" mantra is an elaborate ploy to make them look like angels and ask no questions.

Remember how we supported microsoft against IBM a few decades ago when IBM was considered the oppressor and microsoft the liberator?

If it hurts their bottom line, they will toe the line. Google has a huge dev center in Bangalore, and many other cities in India. If they screw with the government, they are in for it. That's the bottom line. That's why they are bending over backwards and opening their thighs for the cops.

Re:Rule#0: make money.

[Dogtanian]

Google has a huge dev center in Bangalore, and many other cities in India. If they screw with the government, they are in for it. That's the bottom line. If the Indian government made life hard for Google, or blackmailed them in this way, chances are that a lot of other companies would look at this and (at best) limit any further expansion in India or (at worst) pull out or never establish there in the first place. Cuts both ways.

Their new mantra?

[GodInHell]

Don't be evil (to white people living in western nations.)

-GiH

Re:Their new mantra?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be evil (to white people living in western nations... for now)

Fixed that for ya. Don't be naive, every time anyone uses Googe they are collecting data about them that given proper circumstances could and probably will be abused. Power corrupts and Googe is probably the most powerful entity on the Internet at this time.

This is not censorship..

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont understand how this is censorship.. Google is not restricting anything but providing IP addresses of people who propogate hate speech against India or create fake profles.. I actually think its a good idea that google is providing IP addresses of wrong doers on orkut.

Orkut is hugely popular in India (most visited site). Some people (usually pakistani's) set up anti-india communities with lots of hate speech, which only serve to further harm the relations between the two countries.. Also there is the issue of people creating fake profiles, for eg. taking some girls pictures and making her out to be slut or some such.. which can cause the victim lots of trauma.

The fan clubs of mobsters arent filled with young women, quite to the contrary, they are filled with wanna-be terrorists (just visiting these communities and seeing the posts confirms that)..

This *is* censorship!

[kraemate]

I fail to see the point made by people proclaiming this move is not censorship. It violates the principle of free speech by giving the state the right to prosecute someone who has different opinions. This *is* censorship - not enforced by google, but rather one enforced by the fear of being prosecuted. And this is where google comes in - they are doing all they can to put you behind bars if the govt. asks them to.

Four legs good, two legs ..%((_$$ NO CARRIER.

Re:This *is* censorship!

[Anonymous Coward]

More Free Speech in World = American Tourist's in armour plated Humvees !! For the rest of the suckers, lets sing "Sweet Home Alabama", and feel cozy.

Shouldn't play?

[rumith]

So, should they stop their UK operations as well, since UK is a 'surveillance society'? Should they close their French and German departments, because these countries censor pro-Nazi and revisionist websites, among other things? Should they abandon Russia because Putin is building his 'vertical of power' with sometimes questionable methods? Should they say goodbye to the United States as well because the US is the world's largest aggressor, and has killed millions of foreign civilians in the past 50 years? FACE IT. All governments are evil. That's not good, and that's not bad: it's a fact of life. A government cannot behave like a Barbie-playing girl. Governments are there because they have might, and as soon as they lose their might, they are displaced by a revolt or an invasion.

Re:Shouldn't play?

[AlXtreme]

All governments are evil

The only way not to lose is not to play at all. If you don't want to be evil, don't start a company.

Re:Shouldn't play?

[Sobrique]

I just lost the game.

I appreciate that might not mean much to most, especially since it's finally been removed from wikipedia, but I just had to share that.

Re:Shouldn't play?

[humina]

All governments are evil I don't think the government of Denmark is evil.

That's not good, and that's not bad: it's a fact of life.

When a government does something immoral it is bad. It is not good, and it should not be accepted as a fact of life.

It is obvious that you have an extremely pessimistic point of view. Your pessimism feeds your defeatism. It is really quite sad that you would accept defeat and not strive for something better.

Re:Shouldn't play?

[rumith]

I don't think the government of Denmark is evil.

Then please define evil. Since our species began, males have been gathering into bands to fight for resources. As our population boosted, more successful bands started controlling production, research, and propaganda, and became called 'governments', and less fortunate ones became mafia, criminals, and other such characters. Moral is a set of rules developed in a given area, usually having simplistic roots, and carved into stone. You cannot expect inhabitants of different regions to have the same set of rules affirmed in their minds.

It is obvious that you have an extremely pessimistic point of view. Your pessimism feeds your defeatism. It is really quite sad that you would accept defeat and not strive for something better.

Since you've gone personal, I'll do the same: you're sinking in words - "evil", "immoral", "bad". You cannot look past them, you cannot defeat the thinking of a commoner and take things simple. You're not a scientist type, and probably will never be. Poor you, blah blah blah.

Re:Shouldn't play?

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong, people are evil. Goverments overall are for our good, though since they're run by people, they can't be perfect.

Then change the system, don't hold on to the old d

[SmallFurryCreature]

Then change the system, don't hold on to the old days when the real world didn't know about the internet.

I come from the BBS era and as such have gone through that magic time when the internet was just for techies. Nobody knew about it and it was a grand time. No ads, no spam, no leet speak, just men, real men and stuff geeks cared about. (Star Trek ASCII Porn mostly)

And then things changed, more people found out about it and with them came the coorperations, the criminals (often hard to tell the difference) and finally the politicians.

The early days of the net are over, no longer is it free and unregulated because nobody knew about it, it now has to live in the real world.

What you describe above has always been illegal, good or bad, that is the way your country is run. For a couple of years the internet was a safe heaven, a new playground were the rules were not yet enforced. Great BUT it sadly has made many of us think that this was going to last forever or even worse, that this was a normal state of affairs. That somehow it is NORMAL for there to be a HUGE and PUBLIC yet totally unregulated segment of daily life.

Simple example, child porn. Trading it in the real world has been illegal for decades in most countries, if you were caught sending it through the mail you would be prosecuted and the laws for the police to be able to check the mail are well established. I believe in the US they even got a special police force for doing that. NOBODY seems to protest this capability. Your postal mail CAN and will be checked, customs officials especially can open any package they want. When was the last time you succesfully protested your luggage being seached? Hell, they can even do a full cavity search with absolutly no evidence of wrong doing.

Yet somehow, for a period of time we could send digital data across the globe without anybody paying the slightest bit of attention. It was great but it was not going to last, sooner or later the real world would notice it and demand that the same laws that apply in the physical world be applied to the digital world. That email should be able to be checked in the same way as regular mail.

Just because the Internet operated in a grey area doesn't mean that this has become the law.

Think of it like this, if a black market operates in your area and stays unnoticed/unhindered for years that does NOT make it at any time legal, when the police after a decade finally moves in it is NOT a valid defence to say, "but we got so used to it, please let it stay the way it is".

We are now faced with the reality that real world laws are finally being applied to the net, no longer do we have this safe heaven that the police hadn't figured out yet.

We can now do two things, cry about it, pray that the police will somehow loose their memory and forget about the internet once again OR change the laws. Not just the laws regarding the internet but ALL laws that affect us.

Don't fight for the right of bloggers, fight for the rights of ALL journalists. Don't protest against snooping on email FIGHT against ALL snooping laws.

There was a time when you had publicly available usenet groups were people openly posted child porn without even bothering to hide were it came from. That era is past us. It would do a pedofile absolutly no good to protest an arrest because the internet should be free. If a pedophile wants to do what he does he should change the laws in the real world, just because the internet has given them a safe heaven for ten years does not mean that is going to continue.

Change the world, don't hang on to the past.

Game over for free-speech on the internet in India? No, it was game over for free-speech in India long ago, the internet just gave you an excuse to ignore it.

Who sets the rules, then?

[Moraelin]

Who sets the rules, then? Did Google do a referendum or even a poll and determine that, indeed, the vast majority of Indians vote for "we want to be censored, thank you very much"?

Now I'll admit that I have no experience with India or Indians, but I do have some first hand experience with the USSR (back when it was called that way) and eastern europe, and have co-workers from all over that area. Plus some from various arab countries. And I can tell you that so far I've yet to see major differences. People are people everywhere. Yeah, there are cultural and education differences all right, and even culture clashes when you put people from different cultures together, but at the end of the day most people want the same things.

Even the exceptions are, strangely enough, not much different from our or your exceptions. E.g., if you want to point out some of the religious fundamentalist nutcases from some area as somehow representative, I can point you to religious fundamentalist nutcases in the west (e.g., southern USA) which are strangely similar. For every Khoran-thumping "we should bomb America/Israel/whatever for Allah" nutcase, there'll be a Bible-thumping "we should nuke the Middle East for Jesus" nutcase on the other side.

Even if you want to point out some resistance to new ideas in some areas, I can point out at people ranting about the "good old days" and rejecting the new in the West too. There is the same resistance to change everywhere, some just got a head start in accepting it. But if you let them have what they want, overall all societies tend towards the same thing. E.g., for all the Party's moaning about western decadence, China tended to adopt Western consumerism and other supposed bad habits very very quickly when it had a half a choice.

Etc. As I was saying, I've yet to see any evidence that people are fundamentally different anywhere.

And more importantly, to get back to Freedom Of Speech, I've yet to see any evidence that people from any area actually cheer at the idea of having the police watching over their shoulder.

Sure, there'll be plenty who want to tell _you_ what you can and can't say. (Same as in the west.) But they'll tend to not appreciate when someone tells _them_ what they can and can't say.

And sure, group-think exists everywhere. Doubly so if you can bully them into an "if I say I disaggree, the others will think I'm a pervert/criminal/whatever and ostracize me" state of mind. You have them chest-thump and proclaim any idiocy just to seem like popular/responsible/whatever members of the community. (Again, in the west too.) But again, move them out of that environment, and they'll tend to snap out of it in no time.

In fact, the funny thing is, a lot (maybe most) cultural clashes with immigrants tend to be centered around their snapping out of it too fast and too far. People coming from areas where they have to watch out what they say or do all the time, often seem to turn to a sort of a "woohoo, here I can say and do _everything_ I want to" state of mind, and proceed to appear thoroughly impolite and disruptive to the locals. If you will, they end up appreciating the whole freedom ideas a bit too much, and not knowing where to stop exercising them.

So based on those impressions I'll go and say that the freedoms probably _are_ universal truths that all humans can appreciate.

I hate Google as much as the next guy, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

but nothing. Google sucks!

Screw Your American Values

[z-j-y]

Why do Americans always want to force their own stupid ideas on other countries? What is next? Eating beef? Meeting girls without parent arrangement? Having names of only two syllables?

Re:Screw Your American Values

[markiv34]

What has blocking content on Orkut or Google got to do with America or Western countries. By filtering out certain searches in google how is US forcing it's values on India, I fail to understand. What is wrong in eating beef, you don't want to eat fine but don't tell me what I can eat or cannot eat. There were many rite and rituals which were a part of Indian tradition that have been banned (outlawed) partially due to the western influence Sati, Dowry, caste system. We have learnt a lot from the west. If we want to progress we have to get away from that mob mentality and think more like individuals. Any government when fails to execute it's basic duties like providing potable water, electricity, dealing with corruption, dealing with high unemployment; it tries to distract attention by raising frivolous topics like the one mentioned. There is nothing wrong with love marriage or just live in relationship, please don't force your opinion on others. We support Indian way of life as that's all we know about, that goes for the rest of the world. There are many housing societies in India that wont rent a house to people of a particular faith or people who eat non-vegetarian food, isn't that discrimination. All governments are screw up but only America seem to be taking the heat, the reason being America is the No.1 economy in the world.

Re:Screw Your American Values

[z-j-y]

I just wanted to make a stereotypical joke on the expense of Indians which I think Indians can take it. Nothing serious.

Re:Screw Your American Values

[KudyardRipling]

Now having insulted all those who have names such as Ravi, Kumar, and Vijay and those whose surnames include Patel, Gupta and Singh...Oh, I know what the aggraviation is all about: Someone has not met their quota of immolating Christian missionaries, like the two Australians in their car some years ago.

Re:Criminal investigations should be allowed

[Canderel]

It seems to me that you all think that the Indian police are incompetent and evil. The way it's *supposed* to be is: Police = good guys. So helping police = good move. But we've all become cynical (probably with reason), and now helping police/governments = evil move. The real question is whether Google says in "Terms and Conditions" whether they are allowed to do it, and if they are, well, you "signed" it. This whole thing depends on what Google are willing to give, and what the Indian police are doing with the information. So from Google's point of view they are giving information (what their main aim is), what's being done with it is the Indian government's responsibility. Same as when you use Google to search for how to make a bomb... You're the evil one not them. As a side note... it says no-where that Google are getting paid for this, and I have no reason to believe they are.

Umm.. whats the mystery here ?

[l0cust]

The Indian police asked for information about some account holders which it suspected of doing something illegal and Google co-operated. I think I have read about similar stuff before. What was it? Right, MPAA and RIAA asking ISPs to turn over account info and traffic logs for IPs it suspected of "distributing" copyrighted content. Personally I would have preferred that the facade of anonymity was maintained in both the cases but when most of the people have started treating ISPs fully cooperating with RIAA and MPAA as totally normal and justified then why all the excitement over information being provided to Police?

Beware

[cheese-cube]

Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

Re:Screw Your American Values @markiv34

[Anonymous Coward]

@markiv34

Not to forget the Neo "Western Culture" of Colonialization under the garb of Trade, wiping out civilizations, breaking up countries , rewriting history books and dissing the Native Culture's, waging Crusades, projecting everything western as inherently superior.

"Any government when fails to execute it's basic duties like providing potable water, electricity, dealing with corruption, dealing with high unemployment; it tries to distract attention by raising frivolous topics like the one mentioned. "

- It's the Governments duty to provide security to "Water Tanks", "Electricity Substations", as they are being built. Please try this argument somewhere else, as India became "Independent" only in 1947, giving credit to what it has acheived, although a lot has to be done. The world has changed my "liberal" friend, a few Nukes from a lunatic will send us back to stone age.

"There is nothing wrong with love marriage or just live in relationship, please don't force your opinion on others."

- So aren't you forcing your opinion by declaring "There is nothing wrong " ?

"We support Indian way of life as that's all we know about, that goes for the rest of the world. There are many housing societies in India that wont rent a house to people of a particular faith or people who eat non-vegetarian food, isn't that discrimination. "

- Discrimination ?? In liberal speak isn't it "Freedom of Choice" ??. You cant have the cake and eat it too...

"All governments are screw up but only America seem to be taking the heat, the reason being America is the No.1 economy in the world."

- Oh poor America, If nobody buys, can America be No1 ?? ... LOL

That is exactly what they should do.

[cicho]

"So, should they stop their UK operations as well, since UK is a 'surveillance society'?"

Yes, especially if they are forced to do part of the surevilling. And why the heck not? When faced with a choice like this, with moral implications, a person can either decline or participate in the evildoing. Most people would refuse to participate in evil.

Most corporations will, of course, go ahead and do whatever brings them profit. Anyone who believes this is fine and dandy would apparently sell their own mother down the river - there are no two ways about it. Either profit is all, or there is still room for moral choices to be made.

Re:That is exactly what they should do.

[rumith]

Most people would refuse to participate in evil Maybe, in case they think that something is evil. And in case they believe that by doing something they'll be heroes to their motherland, they wouldn't. That's why billions are spent on propaganda, flags, PR, history schoolbooks, anthems, oaths and other rituals.

Best for whom?

[cicho]

Not best for the people living off the river that hypothetical corp is dumping waste into, no?

The "no liability" concept is the root of the corporate corruption. Think of a person who feels no guilt and fears no consequences of their actions: there's your serial killer, child abuser, tyrant ruler.

Freedom without liability is why Merck could market a drug they knew was going to kill people. Best of WHAT both worlds?

It's Hate Speech

[mike70]

The groups with banners like 'I hate India' are clearly enganged in hate speech. Tracking them down and stopping them is not cencorship, but is rather required of any responsible government. It is really disappointing to see a portion of usually enlightened slashdot crown defending hate speech or being flippant about it.

Re:It's Hate Speech

[SpaghettiCoder]

Oh yeah? Well who gets to decide whether it's hate speech and whether they're eligible for a good kicking? You?

Re:It's Hate Speech

[mike70]

"Oh yeah? Well who gets to decide whether it's hate speech and whether they're eligible for a good kicking? You?"
The judiciary. Just like if it was a theft, murder, etc. And, the citizens get to voice their OWN opinions, too. My opinion is that this is an action against hate speech, not censorship.

Re:It's Hate Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hate speach" is a relatively modern concept. Speach used to come in two simple flavors: the free kind, and the unfree kind.

Any kind that isn't free, is the other kind. Tracking down and stopping people who engage in free speach is not within the purvue of any responsible government. How could this be any simpler?

Re:It's Hate Speech

[SpaghettiCoder]

The separation of powers is a nonsense. You can't make any meaningful distinction between the so-called "judiciary" and the executive. EVERY so-called human right is abrogable (the world isn't a perfect place as you'll be sure to remind us), and isn't that just the way you like it? How else would you deal with those ENEMIES OF FREEDOM who don't like you and your fellow far right extremists?

It's the executive that has the muscle and gets to point the baton. All it has to do is say: "we were fighting against anarchy/terrorism/ant-Patriot Act/HATE SPEECH so the Constitution/Human Rights Act does not apply" and there go your civil/human rights. Monopoly on violent force is the only real principle that remains.

So don't come up here with your lies about the "judiciary". Without the power to be a genuine check and balance against executive abuses and excesses, it's just a toy rubber stamp. We're not in the 18th century, so why should we be interested in Whiggish crap if the powers that be aren't either. Unless you're in the elite, they consider you as eligible for a good kicking as any commoner, so please check again whose side you think you're on.

Re:It's Hate Speech

[mike70]

I think you are miles away from reality. Try creating a website themed 'I hate Jews' and you will be behind bars before you click SUBMIT. There are thousands of Islamists that live and breath hatred towards India. There is a serious terrorist attack every other month. I think it is reasonable for the police to enagage in the nit-picking and say this speech is harmful to public safety and this one is not.

I don't think, in general, you can get away without making such value judgements. 'All speech must be free speech' is a fantasy. So is the notion of the perfect antidote to totalitarianism.

The reality does not have an 'easy' button - billion speeches require billion evaluations. Some of them are hate speeches and some of them are not. In this case, both the hate sites and the 'fan' groups of Bin Laden type characters (Dawood Ibrahim was responsible for sevaral severe bomb blasts in Bombay) were over the line and the only responsible thing to do was to ban them. I applaud Google for that (and I know I am in minority here).

In the end, Humans have always made value judgements - that's what makes us different from animals. It's an evolutionary advantage, so if anything, we will be seeing more of it. No set of 'Though must' and 'Though must not' have had stellar success yet. Somewhere in subconcious, people understand that being 'good' is a good thing. And that is the only thing that has been keeping the civilization going, not some utopian, extreme, totally-free-something-or-other fantasy.

Look at slashdot. It needs moderators.

Tyranny of the Masses

[goodben]

Being a democracy does not preclude a country from tyrannous behavior. This was well known by the founders of the United States which is why the US constitution includes so many checks and balances. They haven't always worked here (and we have some pretty large black stains in our history that were popular at the time), but we're better off than if we didn't have them despite the inefficiencies that they cause. It makes me wonder whether "emerging democracies" such as Turkey and India have sufficient checks and balances in place or whether they are just sufferring "growing pains."

And incidentally, being the "World's Largest Democracy" means you have extra challenges because democracy works best in small, homogeneous communities (and India is much less homogenous than the US). To make it work in large countries requires extra effort. It's still better than the alternatives, but the risks for tyranny are high.

Re:Tyranny of the Masses

[TapeCutter]

I don't disagree with any of that but I was pointing out to someone that India is not a "pretend democracy", it's beginings are synonomous with "civil disobeidience" and the power of the British empire. The whole idea of carving up the globe into universaly recognised nation states that deal with each other through a national government is (historically) a very recent development.

Re:Criminal investigations should be allowed

[swillden]

Same as when you use Google to search for how to make a bomb... You're the evil one not them.

It is not evil to search for how to make a bomb. It is not even evil to make a bomb, or to set off a bomb. What's evil is to set off a bomb where it will hurt people or their property.

Assuming you do it with appropriate precautions in appropriate places and times and with appropriate permissions (per local laws), making big booms is good, clean fun.

So does this mean....

[TheNetAvenger]

Google = Microsoft 2.0?

Sadly in today's corporate world it is hard when companies are encouraged to abandon ethics in the wake of profits.

Maybe Google can do like Halliburton, and when we get pissed enough at them, they commit treason and fraud or they get involved in anti-trust issues, they can just move to India.

For the MS crowd, this is good news, it proves even the so called good companies can be evil.

I can remember when Sun was a 'good' company, and Oracle was a 'good' company, and AOL was a 'good' company, and even a time when MS was the anti-establishment and was the 'good' company.

Life moves on and we all learn that most corporations suck, and even if they don't try to suck, they either have a few bad apples in the company or they purposely suck and let their marketing machine spin them as the good guys anyway. Strange how Apple leeching off the OSS world, comes to mind on the last one. ;)

Feel proud as in Individual

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Javaisgreat,

Did you pass JEE yourself? If you did, be proud of that. If you did not, why be proud that "there are some Indians who passed JEE the world's toughest entrance examn?" Dah, JEE is open only to Indians. It is a ranking examn. Somebody must come out as the topper ok? So why are you proud that others are solving Irodov Problem in high school? If you solved it be proud. If not dont brag "my brother's neighbour's uncle's sister-in-law's driver's son can solve" it.

About India doing rocket sciecne on its own. May be it did. Why are you proud of it? I can be proud of it. I was in the aerodynamics design team for India's cruise missile. I got through JEE. I am not going to share the glory with you

Re:Criminal investigations should be allowed

[Jimithing DMB]

It seems to me that you all think that the Indian police are incompetent and evil.

Woah there, don't go attributing that to me. I said almost exactly the opposite. You are exactly correct that the police should be the good guys and that helping them should be good. I am myself somewhat cynical but I am definitely not in the "G00gl3 is teh 3v1l!!!" camp on this one.

Clusty

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Krusty, ya clown!

"Do No Evil"...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, Slashdot can really pick it's winners in it's war against all things Microsoft, huh?

They back that brutal and flagrant monopolist Apple. Heck, they are so bad, they CHARGE for their yearly service packs! I mean heck, at $150/year, you are essentially RENTING the operating system!

They look back on the salad eating days of paying Netscape $60 for a web browser... and a really slow and buggy one at that. Your software longs to be free... unless Microsoft is the one giving it away for free, it seems. THEN free software is teh evil!!!111

Let's see, there was also the old and buggy WordPerfect. There is the useless and insecure Lunix. The craptacular Open Office.

And now, the current poster-child of Slashdot Zealotry, the "Don't Be Evil" of Google. You know, the one who isn't doing evil by ratting out freedom of speech in China, the one who isn't doing evil by ratting out freedom of speech in India, and the one who isn't doing evil by storing every piece of info on you they can get... ad infinitum.

Yep, there don't seem to be any rights or freedoms Slashdotters won't sell out in their war against Microsoft.

Re:"Do No Evil"...

[cbiltcliffe]

I was going to mod you troll, but then I figured I'd feed you, instead....

They back that brutal and flagrant monopolist Apple. Heck, they are so bad, they CHARGE for their yearly service packs! I mean heck, at $150/year, you are essentially RENTING the operating system!

I don't see Apple quickly discontinuing security updates for older versions, so it's hardly necessary to upgrade.

Hell, the DST patch for Windows XP is the exact same patch as the one Microsoft is charging $4000 for for Windows 2000. It took me all of an hour and a half to whip up two DST patches, plus foolproof installers, for Windows 95, 98, and Me, and Windows NT4 and 2000. That includes the research time to figure out exactly what I needed to do to fix it. Yet Microsoft refuses to do it, and even the XP patch they did release, which would work just fine on 2000 and NT4, was specifically coded to crap out with an error on anything other than XP.

While Apple certainly has their flaws, they aren't even in the same league as MS.

They look back on the salad eating days of paying Netscape $60 for a web browser... and a really slow and buggy one at that. Your software longs to be free... unless Microsoft is the one giving it away for free, it seems. THEN free software is teh evil!!!111

When Netscape was charging for their Web browser, things were a little different in the software marketplace. Even now, MS doesn't give away IE for free, regardless of what it looks like to the average layman.
IE is forced upon you for part of the price of Windows. The licence for IE says you're not allowed to run it on anything other than Windows, which means you have to buy Windows to be able to run it legally. That means it's not free. It's a forced bundle.

If I could download IE and run it legally on Wine, or - heaven forbid - there was a Linux native version, then you could successfully argue that IE was free. But there isn't, so you can't.

Before you mention the Mac and Unix versions.....these were discontinued quite a while ago, and even when they were actively developed, they weren't bug-compatible with IE for Windows, so they were essentially a completely different browser.

Let's see, there was also the old and buggy WordPerfect. There is the useless and insecure Lunix. The craptacular Open Office.

The old and buggy WordPerfect? What exactly does that mean? I own a copy of WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS, and in some ways, it's still a more modern word processor than Word 2007. I've never had it crash, I've never had it do something stupid that I didn't want it to. And yes, I do still use it on occasion. I've also got a copy of WordPerfect Office X3. One of the nicest suites I've ever seen. And not even remotely old.

Here's one for you...back when I only had version 6.0 of WordPerfect, a buddy of mine sent me a file he'd saved in WordPerfect 2000's native format. I could open it no problem. Sure, there was a bit of formatting that was screwed up, because of newer features that mine didn't support, but I could still read it. Try that with Word.

Now, how exactly is Linux useless? I've been running my business on it primarily for several years. Hardly seems useless to me. I'd hardly call it insecure, either, as I've had servers online for all of that time, and never been hacked.
OpenOffice, I'll give you, isn't for everyone. However, just like Linux, I've been running my business on it for several years. Hasn't failed me yet. I haven't yet set it up for anyone that thinks it's "craptacular" either. Have you even used it?

the "Don't Be Evil" of Google. You know, the one who isn't doing evil by ratting out freedom of speech in China, the one who isn't doing evil by ratting out freedom of speech in India, and the one who isn't doing evil by storing every piece of info on you they can get... ad infinitum.

As compared to the Microsoft th

Here is how Leftist politics works...

[RexRhino]

A left-wing socialist government creates a bunch of speech codes, in order to "promote social justice" and "stop hate" and a bunch of other vague progressive sounding goals, not dissimilar to laws that are in effect in Western Europe, Canada, etc.

An American company then obeys those laws, as they are required to do by the laws in those countries as well as the laws in the United States (which require U.S. companies obey the laws in the countries they do business).

So then leftists in America blame the "evil corporation" for following the laws of India - while at the same time praising those laws and demanding those same sort of "social justice" and "anti-hate" laws to be passed in the United States.

And you know, if American companies didn't follow the laws in India, the Slashdot news story would be "American company breaks Indian laws to protect hate criminals!!!" and the same people would be just as outraged.

Now, I can respect people who have radically different world views from myself - but I expect that even those who disagree with me have some sort of internal consistency to their ideology. I understand that they might have a different viewpoint from me, but I expect them to not have a paradoxical viewpoint. I would say that since the fall of the Soviet Union, and resulting unpopularity of Marxism, that the left isn't really an ideological position - pretty much they are completely ideology free - they are more a purely emotional counter-reaction to anything in reality that they find emotionally disturbing. The left is becoming less and less of an ideology, and more and more of a neurosis.

I mean, get your shit straight. Either hate speech laws are good, and companies should follow government regulations, and American companies should respect the sovereignty of the countries where they are doing business... Or hate speech laws are bad, companies should ignore regulations they don't agree with, and U.S. companies should use their economic power to influence those countries. If you feel one way, or another, I might disagree with you - but we can rationally discuss your ideas, and I can respect your ideas. They have value to everyone in a democratic society, even if everyone doesn't agree with you. But the vast majority of the new left flip back and forth on issues like some weird political schizophrenia.

Re:Here is how Leftist politics works...

[YodaYid]

Different people on the left have different opinions. It's not schizophrenia - it's disagreement. Some people are more concerned about civil liberties (e.g. the ACLU), some are more worried about corporate malfeasance (e.g. Michael Moore, Ralph Nader), and some are more worried about political incorrectness (e.g. universities). Clearly you see the left as one giant oversimplified block, which is the basis for your misguided comments.

Re:Here is how Leftist politics works...

[RexRhino]

I am not confusing different opinions. I personally know people who have the contradictory belief system that I mentioned. Click on the names of some of the people posting on Slashdot and view their posting history and you will see the contradiction. Not all leftists believe the way I mentioned, of course, but the people with contradictory beliefs certainly make up the loudest voices.

But aside from that, your statement had flaws. The ACLU is not a leftist group... they are civil libertarians and have no official political stance outside of civil liberty issues. Nowadays, the ACLU is just as likely to be attacked by leftwing groups as they are by rightwing groups.

Michael Moore and Ralph Nadar both attack American companies for doing buisness with countries like China, and attack American companies for not doing buisness with countries like Cuba or for pulling investment out of Venezuala, which is essentially the same contradiction that I am talking about.

Ralph Nadar openly supports lifting all sactions on Cuba under the pretense that the U.S. shouldn't "force" its values on other countries and trade embargos are "economic imperialism", yet at the same time wants a whole new set of trade restrictions (which pretty much amounts to an embargo) on China over human rights issues and control of labor prices by the government (the same issues that exist with Cuba).
http://www.counterpunch.org/cuba0715.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/nad-j24. shtml

Ralph Nadar is a popular and mainstream figure on the left, and it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his view match those of many people on the left.

Re:Here is how Leftist politics works...

[YodaYid]

When it comes to China vs Cuba, there's just as much schizophrenia on the Right. It's the reverse question - why is it ok to trade with China but not with Cuba? They're both Communist countries with a history of human rights violations. I agree that there should be a consistent set of moral criteria for dealing with countries like this, but neither side, Right or Left, seems to have (or use) those. Instead it's about money - China is rich, Cuba is poor. So the Right apologizes for China and its evil, and the Left apologizes for Cuba and its evil.

By the way, the second link you put up had very little about China and specifically why Nader opposed normalizing relations with China (just that he did). The Cuba link didn't work (could be me).

My understanding is that the ACLU tends to identify more with the left, but maybe that's just in New York.

Re:Here is how Leftist politics works...

[RexRhino]

When it comes to China vs Cuba, there's just as much schizophrenia on the Right. It's the reverse question - why is it ok to trade with China but not with Cuba? They're both Communist countries with a history of human rights violations. It is not my job to defend the right - they are pretty much bastards... but since Slashdot leans to the left, bashing the right on Slashdot isn't much fun... everyone is likely to agree with me and that defeats the point of posting. And I don't think it is schizophrenia with the right, so much as it is just plain greed. Look at right wing websites and you will find plenty of China fearmongering... the right are pretty damn anti-China, it is just that the right pretty much sell out the second it hurts them as consumers. The right hate China, up until the point it means they can't get cheap electronics at Walmart. Another example would be the total fear of middle eastern countries that people on the right have, yet they essentially subsidize those middle east countries by driving big stinkin SUVs. It isn't inconsistancy, so much as moral weakness. The right have consistant views on China and Cuba, it is just that there is nothing in Cuba that they want to buy. The day they discover oil in Cuba the Republicans will be foaming at the mouth to drop the embargo.

My understanding is that the ACLU tends to identify more with the left, but maybe that's just in New York. The ACLU became associated with the Left to some right-wing people back in the days of Communist paranoia, because the ACLU was one of the few groups that would stick up for Communists right to free speech. People mistakenly thought that because the ACLU defended Communists, that they must be Communists. But the ACLU defending the rights of Communists isn't an endorcement of their ideology, as the ACLU also defended the rights of KKK members and neo-Nazis and Satanists and I definitly don't consider the ACLU to be Nazi or Satanic.

Wire tapping is better than censoring hate speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that Censorship is good but Censoring hate speech is any day better than approving Bush's wire tapping. At least I know what will be censored. If India is a pretend democracy so is US which preaches others on freedom.

The people of India set the rules...

[JurassicPizza]

...most definitely not Google, and certainly not the Constitution of the United States of America.

Corporations are not on a moral crusade to change the values of the world. They exist to create financial value for their shareholders. They do not exist to impose the values of their country of origin on every culture with which they want to do business.

If the people of India don't like the rules of their government, it's their responsibility to change them, India being a democracy. It's not Google's responsibility. Now if there are totalitarian regimes out there whose rules are simply too far from the international norm and whose people have no say in changing them, in those cases the "Do No Evil" mantra comes into play a bit more and the moral imperatives are much clearer. If Google were to start doing business in North Korea (work with me here), then it's worth harping on them for it.

Premature and Overstated Story

[dalesun]

How does a broad statement by a Mumbai city cop--likely overstating his ability to track down evildoers--become a news story about what Orkut is doing? (according to an Indian newspaper, according to what a city cop reportedly told them). Orkut has resisted this type of request in the past, and has only complied when they came from a court. Orkut sometimes has many small hate groups created by users in violation of Orkut's terms, which Orkut deletes when enough users have reported them as bogus. I doubt that Orkut is willing to respond to requests from city police departments on all the posts to these groups. Does Orkut even has any representatives in India--who the cop claimed to have met with?

About communication: speak.to

MOD it UP!

[Cigarra]

People seem to take the romantic "american hero" role Hollywood have always talked about when "americans" are involved anywhere in the world, as something real, that has to be enforced.

We would all love to see there is democracy, civil libertirs and free speech in India, but it's up to the Indians to do it, not Google.

My beef isn't as much with Google

[Moraelin]

I don't as much have a problem with Google, at least not in this topic, as with moral relativism run amok. The notion that maybe, you know, in other parts of the world they're so different from us that they actually want to be censored and oppressed. And that it's so unfair that we try to judge them through the goggles of human rights and freedoms, when they clearly don't want those.

And all that I'm saying is that it's a load of bull. People are people everywhere. If you took an American, a German, an Indian and an Arab (starts to sound like a joke already;) and put them in the same situation, free from group-think and peer-pressure influences, you'd discover that while there _are_ cultural differences in their views of the world do exist, ultimately they tend to end up wanting the same things. That's all I'm saying.

That said, as a completely tangential point, I have trouble viewing any country as a _true_ democracy if they're not free to criticize their government or their country. I don't care if they have an electoral farce going on, if you're given only the filtered, rose-coloured-glasses half of the story, you can't possibly make an informed choice there. Democracy isn't just about going and checking a random box on a ballot, it's about, yes, the power of the people to change what they don't like about their government or country. If it's illegal to even talk about what's wrong, on what would you base such a change? How would you even know that there's any need to change anything? That is ultimately what stuff like "freedom of speech" or "freedom of press" are for. Because without those, you might as well not even even bother with the rest of the farce, because a farce and a mockery of democracy is at best what you can get.

Once you can't say "India sucks", or, like in Turkey, Allah have mercy on you if you dare "insult turkishness" or even mention that Kurds even exist, how would you expect democracy to function? How would you expect the average Turk to even know about the problems of the Kurds, if it's illegal to even mention them. So who's going to risk their neck to tell them about it? Which politician is going to put any Kurd-related problem in their electoral platform, if it means being summarily being thrown in jail at the mere mention of it? (They did throw at least one member of their parliament in jail for even mentioning Kurds, btw, so it's not a fictional scenario.) It's simply put a whole domain which has been from the start excluded from any democratic process or debate.

Nicely abusable too, because such a poorly defined limitation is vague enough to cover any kind of dissidence. You spoke against corruption in the government? Weell, now, that looks to me like insulting your country and people. Round them up, boys.

But, yeah, ok, it's up to India to deal with it. Fine by me. Just don't tell me that whole cultures actually want to be oppressed and suppressed, because that's one thing I don't buy. If Google doesn't want to actually put its money where its motto is, fine, I can deal with that. But don't tell me that somehow, see, over there probably black is white and evil is good, so they're really happy that we hand them over to the authorities. That's all I'm saying.

Re:Then change the system, don't hold on to the ol

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about scale.

If everybody is doing it, then it shouldn't be illegal. That black market down the road is indeed illegal, but when it's pointed out that it's not just a few people using it, it's everyone - then's the time to change the law.

Laws are there to protect society. Society isn't there to obey the laws.