Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mum's the Word On Google Attack At Davos

Posted by timothy on from the still-deciding-on-culprit-perhaps dept.

theodp writes "BusinessWeek reports that the cyber attack on Google was the elephant-in-the-room at the annual meeting of world leaders in Davos. 'China didn't want to discuss Google,' Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank AG and a co-chair of this year's World Economic Forum, said in an interview. China's Vice Premier Li Keqiang made that clear, he added. Even Google CEO Eric Schmidt didn't bring up China, and Bill Gates was mum on the topic in an interview. The reluctance of companies to talk about China illustrates the pressure on them to protect their business in the country, while the US government doesn't want to upset Chinese investors, said Andy Mok of Red Pagoda Concepts LLC. 'People have their commercial interests,' explained Deutsche Bank's Ackermann."

7 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Soooo.... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So they can just get away with it, right? Somehow I think what's -not- being said is far more interesting. I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

    --
    Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
    altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    1. Re:Soooo.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's all about power and self-interest with these guys.

      Look, for the time being these "guys" (big corporations) own and run the world.

      Until we're really ready to throw off our yokes, the best we can do is learn to discern the companies that are behaving decently and those that are not. There's a lot of information out there that we can use in the cause of this sort of discernment.

      Yes, Google is "all about self-interest". But until we learn that they've done something evil like fund a coup in Nigeria or Haiti or the Honduras or plunder some third world country or poison a water supply, or contribute to the Republicans (kidding, relax), we might as well give them the benefit of the doubt and judge them on their actions.

      Exxon, ADM, Monsanto, Haliburton, Blackwater, DuPont...well, it's not such a pretty picture there. But if a corporation behaves there's no reason that their "self-interest" should damn them (again, not until we're ready to throw of our yokes).

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Soooo.... by IorDMUX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The American people chose to go to war by supporting Bush.

      Except for the part where Bush originally ran on a platform of non-intervention, diplomatic involvement, and "we are not the world's police force".

      Not that I enjoyed a single thing the guy did while crash landing my country over eight years, but you should see John Stewart's Bush vs. Bush debate, comparing the things he said on the campaign trail to the rhetoric he took in office. I know that politician campaign promises have a snowball's chance of making it into reality during their term, but I have never--not even with Obama and government openness--seen such a turnaround as Bush made on foreign policy... Bush didn't just fail to keep his promises, he made totally new ones. It's like some sort of presidential mental breakdown followed shortly after 9/11.

      Now, 2004? Well, there was no excuse for that except Kerry rolling a 1 on his Diplomacy check.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
  2. Re:Get used to it. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Imagine also the impact as an economical attack of Google saying "China won't let foreign companies do profit against local competitors, that's why we pulled up."

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  3. It makes sense by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 3, Interesting

    not to challenge China, an important global market, about cyber-attacks on google when there's no significant evidence that they were responsible. The first thing we did was accuse them, but since they deny culpability, and there isn't any evidence to contradict them, bringing it up again is at least arrogant and probably xenophobic too. If proof of their involvement surfaces, maybe then we'll have something to talk about.

  4. Much Easier to Trash the USA by geoffrobinson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It truly is a back-handed complement that people have no qualms trashing America in their public comments. It's as if they are saying "we don't like you or some of the things you do, but you aren't truly big enough bastards to retaliate against us."

    Truly evil regimes like China and Russia get different treatment.

    And if you are truly idiotic like Hugo Chavez, you get visits from Sean Penn and kudos from Oliver Stone.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  5. I have no doubt it's being discussed by mbone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh, you can bet it's being discussed. Just not publicly. That's why people go to Davos in the first place, to have the ability to discuss things privately.