Google Asks US For WTO Block On China Censorship

An anonymous reader writes "Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize China's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade. The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China's rules discriminate against foreign competition. At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."

Comments

Google V China

[N3tRunner]

I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue. I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have. It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine. Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.

Re:Google V China

[maccallr]

Well personally I'd wait and see if they "do no evil" with regard to their blatantly obvious software patent for using geolocation info to target ads.

Re:Google V China

[wall0159]

First, I think you'll find that Google is an advocate of internet freedom not just in China, but in other countries also.
Second, in totalitarian regimes a country doesn't belong to its citizens, it belongs to the ruling class.
Third, believing in freedom is compatible with believing in the criticism of tyranny -- that is not imposing anything on anyone, and is ok even if you don't live in a perfect country yourself (otherwise even the worst dictator could use this defence!)
Finally, many people who criticize Chinese censorship are also critical of their own government's. While there is a bit of xenophobia and jingoism when it comes to China, that isn't the case for all criticism of the Chinese government, and doesn't represent an attack on the Chinese people.

Re:Google V China

[AlecC]

Not "just like everybody else". Yahoo and others were happy to censor their search results silently, while Google insisted that they be able to display the fact that they had been censored. In my opinion, this was the least bad option. If they had meekly followed Yahoo, the Chinese people would have no idea what was being censored and how often. If they had refused to censor, China would simply have thrown them out and walled them off, and Chinese searchers would have been limited to silently censored searches. Any change to China must come from inside China, from the Chinese people. But what they don't know they cannot change; Google's solution at least told them when something was being hidden from them, so they can ask if they want a government that does that. If Google pulls out of China, it will revert to the state that the Chinese will not even know what is being hidden from them.

Re:Google V China

[bberens]

Call me when they try to enforce it. It's just good policy to file defensive patents on seemingly stupid things. It stinks that the system is designed so that it's good policy, but it is good policy nonetheless.

Re:Google V China

[ubermiester]

when we don't have access to any of the really damaging information about government activity

• Pentagon Papers
• Nixon Tapes
• Iran-Contra Hearings
• Information Awareness Program
• Secret Detention Centers/Rendition
• Abu Ghraib Prison
• Waco

What do all of these things have in common? They are all exposed government scandals/controversies. The administrations involved (and some that were not) attempted to either squash any further investigation or simply punish those who did the exposing. But did they succeed? No. And why not? Because the courts/congress/press would not allow that to happen.

People in China and Iran are regularly arrested for doing nothing more than suggesting policy that the regime does not agree with. People in the US were carrying automatic weapons while burning the president in effigy last August. People still complain openly that Bush a) stole the 2000 election, b) enriched his oil buds, c) killed thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers based on a personal grudge, d) was in the grip of some kind of evil demon (Cheney?) And yet even those who disagree with these positions would defend - to the death - the right to express them without reprisal.

I echo Pojut's qualification that the US is by no means perfect (it's govt is, after all, responsible for the creation of these scandals). And there is always room for more openness. But to compare the US to China/Iran/N.Korea/Egypt/Zimbabwe/Russia/etc is to diminish the plight of the people living in those nations. We are outraged on principle. They suffer in reality.

Internet trade barriers

[wintercolby]

Internet based trade barriers are everywhere, what immediately also comes to mind are the US block on gambling websites.

The problem here is that it won't be easy to figth this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.

Re:Pull Out??

[bsDaemon]

well, no balls means no point in pulling out. (oh yeah... i went there)

Re:WTO reply

[Rogerborg]

Sorry, we only do evil.

Total, utter unmitigated uninformed bullshit. When have the WTO ever said "Sorry"?

Because Human Rights matter more than Sovereignty

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something?

Clasically, international law recognized the state's right to do whatever it wanted within its borders, but even then the creation of international law had to do with the problem of human rights, in a way. The thirty years war had wreaked havoc on Europe, and hundreds of towns and cities across the continent were burned or otherwise scourged by the war. Starting around 1648, after the Peace of Westphalia, nations could not longer do whatever they wanted.

The connection to human rights remained largely latent until WW2, however. Then we had the holocaust. War Crime prosecution at Nurenberg, the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR, and then the formation for the first time of transnational organizations (Amnesty International being one of the early starters) for the advancement of human rights, led us into a world where everyone agreed that it mattered what people did within their own country. Some things are illegal. Slavery, piracy, and aggressive war are the most obvious.

In our society, individuals have certain freedoms so long as they don't break the social contract, express or implied. In international society, nations have freedom so long as they don't break the social contract among nations, express or implied. In both cases, it's easier to get away with breaking the contract if you're bigger, you're stronger, you have more money, or nobody finds out about it.

As to your last point, if we knew how to fix our country, we would. We're trying, and we'll keep trying. But we still live in the world. We still have obligations--and so does China--not only on a moral level and arising out of our duty to our citizenry and our species, but also arising out of treaty obligations under the WTO. If China agrees to be part of the WTO, then it can expect to have a complaint filed against it if it violates WTO rules. The same is true for the United States, or Canada, or any other signatory to the relevant treaties.