Slashdot Mirror
China Warns Google To Obey Or Leave
suraj.sun writes with this snippet from an Associated Press report:
"China's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that Google must obey its laws or 'pay the consequences,' giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking. 'If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences,' Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature. ... 'Whether they leave or not is up to them,' Li said. 'But if they leave, China's Internet market is still going to develop.' ... Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people. 'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,' he said."
Well Google should tell China they can deep throat it and choke. I'm all for companies having to comply with national and international laws, but censoring search results is NOT something they should comply with. I realize this gets into the grey area of "who are you to decide what's right and what's wrong", but still...government-sponsored censorship of search results? Nothing you could do or say could convince me that is a good idea.
Information yearns to be free.
Living With a Nerd
"Protecting the rights of the country and its people", brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
regardless of google leaves or stays, american companies are going to suck up to china, and american government is going to do that too. maybe only there will be a few weak statements regarding the state of human rights in china. it will be business as usual :
american companies are going to help chinese government in suppressing its own citizens for profit. american companies are going to help chinese government to do anything that conflicts with american constitution, and american ideals you people are so proud of.
and you get worked up everytime someone points that out ....
Read radical news here
Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people.
Li is a lying little tyrannical thug. What he would say if he were an honest man, is that the Chinese government is scared to death of what might happen to the party minions when ordinary Chinese realize that Mao killed more of them than Tojo.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Anything that would promote a different party is harming stability right? I mean, we can't afford to change our dictator too often if we wish to preserve stability!
Their government does not want the kind of "openness" and free exchange of information that is Google's trade. That is their prerogative. Google should pull out.
They won't, of course. Too much money to be made there.
They will cave in, compromise, and do (more) Evil.
It'll be interesting to see how Google's PR monkeys spin it, from a front-row-seat-at-the-Fall-of-Civilization perspective...
Governments are the enemy of its people in all cases and in all nations. The highest form of patriotism to ones country is to constantly question, challenge and investigate all government officials in every nation, in every circumstance. Don't let secrets be held.
You bitch about China, but you continue to buy their wares. You let the U.S. go farther into debt and let China lend us more cash.
Hypocrites.
As much as I hate to say it, China really has Google by the balls on this one. I'm sure there are a million companies with the right connections/deep enough pockets in China right now eagerly waiting to assume Google's spot on the hill and they are all willing to do whatever the government there says.
I really don't see how Google can adhere to its corporate mission statement and continue to do business with China, although part of me has a hunch that we'll find out since shareholders will demand Google not leave one of the largest markets in the world.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Compared to most big companies Google isn't that bad.
Compared to governments Google is a saint.
But that doesn't mean that they are right every time. In some way I expect that if they have to leave they do leave behind as little as possible.
What China should fear is instead the risk of having their connection to the rest of the internet cut off or at least limited.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
China's Internet market is still going to develop.. Without Google's help for the oppression part. Rights of it's country and people... Our country here has no rights it is composed of people who have rights unlike the people there. Block it.. Of course, anything that brings the day closer to China's dictatorship falling and their leaders heads on pikes must be subverted and assassinated in the most perverse manners to "Protect the Rights of the Country." Oh yeah, and I'm going to post anonymously because you can't do that there as well... After all people must be "responsible" for their words..
i get the odd feeling that google will leave
Read radical news here
Well, it poses a Catch-22 for Google...
In their first option, they can stand up to their philosophical beliefs --which is a VERY rare thing these days for any major company-- and keep up the fight. If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... If they lose, not only would they be kicked out and lose money, some of their people possibly could wind up in a Chinese prison (It is violating the law after all)...
In their second option, they can bow to the pressure and keep censoring content in China. If they do this, they are sacrificing their philosophical beliefs for the almighty dollar... This would be a crushing blow to the anti-censorship movement (as one of its most powerful allies will have bowed to the pressure)...
Finally, they could leave China altogether. This could have 2 paths. Either someone (MS with Bing?) would jump in their place right away and it would be like nothing ever happened (Which would also hurt the anti-censorship movement). Or, with luck, other companies that are not happy with the censorship will leave too. It could provide energy to the anti-censorship movement in China...
So, to me, the best option would be #1. In all 3 cases, there is potential to harm the anti-censorship movement. But only the first case has a significant chance to REALLY help it. If Google REALLY wants to promote freedom of information, #1 is the only way to go (Again, IMHO)...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... If they lose, not only would they be kicked out and lose money, some of their people possibly could wind up in a Chinese prison (It is violating the law after all)...
I'm pretty sure that if Google started an intellectual and philosophical movement in China that some of their people would definitely end up in a Chinese prison or worse.
Any government that is afraid of its people having information
(let's perhaps make an exception for specific information on how to make weapons of mass destruction
out of common household ingredients)
is inherently not a government "of the people for the people".
It is not confident in its own popularity, or in the inherent stability through general agreement
of its governmental system.
Does the Chinese government not realize that their insistence on censorship simply
highlights the inherent weakness in their government and system of government?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
They will stay... they are money whores just like everyone else.
Before I get modded troll, consider he does actually have a point. Openness and free exchange of information are serious threats to social stability in China (which is, as others have pointed out, what Google does best). China watched the fall of the Soviet Union as a result of glasnost and perestroika. They are eager to avoid the same mistake, as the costs of social instability (both human and economic) would be far too high, for the country, its people, and not least themselves.
This isn't about Tiananmen or the Great Leap Forward, which are pretty much open secrets. It's about suppressing free flow of information, and maintaining control over all mediums of information exchange. They had control of the traditional media, phones, SMS, etc. The internet is another beast. Finding out and sharing information about corruption and other major shortfalls is far too easy with an open, uncensored internet. They don't want peasants knowing too much about local corruption, and when they do know, they don't want them to be able to organize or share this information. Censorship is a key component; allowing criticism of the government even on such now-unimportant bygones as the Great Leap Forward would potentially open the floodgates on new criticism on issues that could result in instability.
So, Li is right. In order to suppress dissent, they must maintain control and continue censoring. Whether you think the cost imposed by censorship and lack of free speech is greater than the potential losses from any resulting social instability is another matter entirely. Many Chinese think, and I often agree, that while the Chinese government is too sensitive right now, maintaining a stable environment for economic growth is a bigger priority than free speech. The farmers I talked to in Shandong and Jilin also agreed- they know they're getting shafted in comparison to urban dwellers, but they're still doing better than at any time in history, and would rather not lose their chance at a new fridge, air conditioning, and a TV in return for some abstract ideas about freedom to criticize the government. In their minds, censorship and its evils are the lesser evil, when compared to potential civil strife.
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
I'm just not sure that Google, or we at /., should be the ones deciding that some of the Chinese people should start dying for this. I'm pretty sure that it should be their decision.
And one would think that Apple, with its high profit margins, would be able to manufacture its products somewhere else more civilized than China.
If they do this and win, they could start a intellectual and philosophical movement in China... ...It could provide energy to the anti-censorship movement in China...
Tiananmen.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Isn't their corporate motto "Do no evil"? So isn't also part of their corporate objective? And if you equate censorship as evil (As I personally do, and I am a Google shareholder), than Google's censoring results (even if it's the law) would be against their corporate objective. So if that's the case, they can either put up a fight, or leave...
And the chance of starting a movement by leaving is slim to none. Which is why in my OP I said they should fight (if it really mattered to them)...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
'If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it,'
If information can harm the stability of you're country, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!!
I am not sure that this is really about censorship. This is a staring contest.
Google called China out as a pack of thieves and thugs by revealing their hacking and break-ins.
Google made a statement that this was close to the 'last straw', and that they were thinking of leaving China.
This is an attempt by China to try to out stare Google. The topic on the table isn't really the question of 'Will Google stay in China an stop filtering the internet'? By changing the focus of the debate, China is trying to recast the issue as China's laws vs. a foreign company who doesn't want to follow them.
If Google leave under these terms, it doesn't look as bad for China.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Human rights have nothing to do with it. Google was hacked. If people can't trust the contents of their GMail inbox to remain out of the hands of Chinese intelligence, and Google can't ensure that some Chinese entity isn't stealing proprietary code, Google's profits will suffer. Pulling out of China will make this less of a threat. It's a cost-benefit analysis, and that's how it would be presented to the shareholders.
Are they doing the right thing by not censoring their results? According to us, and our culture they may be, but not according to the host which has accepted them as a dinner guest.
So? If your host offers you human flesh to eat (or whatever you regard as immoral) then leaving is a good response, along with expressing your horror at what's going on. The fact that they have different standards to you doesn't relieve you of the obligation to live up to your own standards yourself.
(If you don't regard participation as repugnant / offensive / wrong then that's another matter but in that case hiding behind your host's choices would be unnecessary and frankly pathetic).
China has a terrible reputation as a global citizen. At times, they've flooded the market with shoddy goods made of questionable, even dangerous, materials. Their wholesale destruction of the environment is shocking, even to non-environmentalists. They manipulate their currency to make it impossible for importers to compete on an even basis. They have instigated what amounts to a low-level cyber war against businesses and governments the world over. They routinely muzzle speech and dissent within their own borders, and force those who do business with them to do the same. They reportedly have thousands of political prisoners, and every time they want to "make nice" with the West they trot out one or two of them and let them go home to show how kind-hearted they are.
Personally, I've had just about all I care to take of such noxious behavior. I may not be able to completely avoid "Made in China", but there's no reason to encourage them. There are plenty of other people to buy goods from.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Besides China at odds with Google's mission as stated on the http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/ page: The name reflects the immense volume of information that exists, and the scope of Google's mission: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.
According to us, and our culture they may be, but not according to the host which has accepted them as a dinner guest. It's morally relative and looks a lot like a modern-day "The King and I".
The problem is you are comparing our culture to China's government, not China's culture. You may be right that China's culture says that censoring is the right thing to do. If China had a democracy, you could argue that its censorship rules reflected its culture (I would argue that you were wrong, but I would agree that you could make that case), but China does not have a government that even vaguely resembles a democracy, so the position of its government is not inherently a product of the culture of the majority of its people.
Actually, another problem with your idea that anti-censorship is a reflection of Western culture is that a large number of Westerners would support censorship of certain content if they could be sure that it would be limited to content that they oppose (see University speech codes).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Sometimes it's worth it... Not always, but given the wide belief that censorship is wrong, if that's what it takes to start a revolution, then perhaps it's necessary...
It is always easy to say it is worth it when you are not the person going to jail or having your family threatened. I can agree that morally it would be worth it, but if I were in such a position I don't know what fraction of Slashdot readers (myself included) would actually do anything. It is really easy to talk about doing the right thing against an oppressive regime when you're elsewhere.
Unfortunately, this would mean that Bing would quickly try to take China and ignore ethics, etc. American corporations bow to the laws of China regardless of their beliefs for profit. After all, if you don't try to move into China, your competitor certainly will.
I expect Microsoft to use this to their advantage bigtime. Do we really want MS to overtake Google because MS has less ethics? How is this fair at all?
What I'd LOVE to see is laws passed that provide some kind of tax break or advantage for companies that stand up to the censorship laws in other countries. I know, I know, I should expect companies to do this because it's the right thing to do. Corporations in the US were built because of the freedoms given to them in the US, yet they have no problem depriving others of those same freedoms for a few dollars.
The belief that censorship is wrong is not very wide at all. The first amendment would have no chance of passing anywhere in today's world, including the US. That whole part of "no Law" is a real stickler. Despite the supreme court's weasel words stating otherwise. The majority, and especially the middle class is very authoritarian. Nobody wants to rock the boat during sweeps week.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
" Li insisted the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people."
Censor to protect rights?
Someone remind me why we're even dealing with these people? Oh yeah, wait. Lots of money. It's pretty amazing how some people fear "socialism" here in the U.S. but are perfectly willing to do business with communists.
You're missing the point. While Google care about censorship what they are really upset about is the Chinese government's attacks on Google servers. If they stayed they would still be subject to these.
"...the government needs to censor Internet content to protect the rights of the country and its people."
Uh huh.
Maybe I am missing something, but since when were the rights of any country and its people protected by censorship?
O.K., that is a bit rhetorical, I admit.
Well, God help us. Can't have any of that there "instability," eh? Gotta have it all nice and stable and nailed down. Yeah. That's what tyrannies thrive on.
Here's a clue, Li, baby. The people don't exist to serve the state in the manner which the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides. It's supposed to be the converse. A true, thriving society is not about "stability."
Could China's government be worse? Yes, it could be a lot worse, and it HAS BEEN a lot worse, in recent memory. But it's still an ugly denial of human dignity and liberty, and acceptance of that ugliness is a participation in an evil.
Google for Peons (censored) vs. Google for Party Officials (non-censored)
Can we have one here in Australia too please!!
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
The problem is that Freenet is tough to use, I would argue it's tough even for geeks like us who read Slashdot.
The other issue is getting the app in the first place, and getting a list of peers that aren't blocked. And when you're risking life imprisonment, it's pretty damn important that you get peers that aren't controlled by the government.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Well, no matter what Google does, people dying isn't going to be Google's decision, /.'s decision, or their own. It's going to be the government's decision.
Let's not get confused about who is pointing the guns and would be responsible for murders. If Google decides, "fuck this," all they're doing is deciding "fuck this," not killing people.
I'm so surprised! A sovereign nation with an authoritarian government insists that foreign companies abide by its laws! Who woulda thunk...
Every single one of them can leave their job if they disagree with it.
Okay, well, lets say your CEO decides that America's drug laws are outdated and decides to start distributing marijuana with company resources. It can't be wrong, since you always have the option to quit, right?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it