Slashdot Mirror


Google's New Approach For China Is To Serve From Hong Kong

abs0lutz3ro writes with a major update to the Google/China situation we've been discussing so much lately: "Google has stopped censoring simplified Chinese search results on google.cn by redirecting users to google.com.hk, which Google maintains is entirely legal. From the official blog: 'We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services. We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have created this new web page, which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China.' Seems like google.cn got served (from google.com.hk)."

295 comments

  1. Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Invade, conquer and annex Hong Kong.

    1. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Daetrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Invade, conquer and annex Hong Kong."

      Good thing they didn't redirect towards their servers in Taiwan!

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then they will be serving man.

    3. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The British already gave .hk back to the PRC back in 2000 (i think that's the right year), so they already have it. It's just maintained as a semi-autonomous "free-enterprise zone" iirc. They don't need to invade it, conquer it or annex it. They just need to enforce the law there in the same way they do everywhere else.

    4. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      97

    5. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they gave ".hk" back to the PRC. They gave Hong Kong back to the PRC.

      I'm not entirely sure the .hk TLD was theirs (the British, I mean) to give....

      And I'm not sure the .hk TLD is the theirs (the Chinese, I mean) to take....

    6. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by blai · · Score: 1

      can't enforce the law there.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    7. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Sit down my son.....

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think you mean 1997. The year 97 was 1913 years ago.

    9. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by kubitus · · Score: 1
      agreed

      but office space, manpower and electricity is more costly in HK

      and for sure there are more NSA & CIA guys in HK than in Beijing

    10. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the Basic Law in Hong Kong means the democratically elected Hong Kong government has the final say in these sorts of matters.

    11. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by besalope · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the the GP AC is a COBOL programmer... to them it is 97!

    12. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by mirix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, but if memory serves me correct, some sort of agreement was signed with the British; The laws of HK cannot be changed (grossly, at least) for a 50 year period, or something along those lines.

      I'm not sure if that would apply to this, though?

      here it is:

      Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, the constitutional document of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, reads:[2]

      "The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years."

      I suppose this could fall under "way of life". I don't know.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    13. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by bronney · · Score: 1

      I am sorry bro but this is EXACTLY what we're driving for at the moment, we're no where close to "democratically elected Hong Kong government".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Hong_Kong#Universal_suffrage

      http://socialistworld.net/eng/2009/11/1902.html

    14. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by opposabledumbs · · Score: 1

      Kind of hard to invade, conquer and annex a territory that already belongs to them, though.

    15. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      They can't change the laws, correct. But they can interpret the laws in any way they like.

    16. Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they gave ".hk" back to the PRC. They gave Hong Kong back to the PRC

      Let me introduce you to metonymy, a little concept that is widespread amongst those of us without Aspergers.

  2. Did I miss something? by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was transfered to full Chinese control about 13 years ago. So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something? Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Did I miss something? by Conception · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same country, different laws regarding censorship.

    2. Re:Did I miss something? by kz45 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It would have made more sense to do it from Taiwan.

    3. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I recall correctly, China is under obligation to at least pretend that Hong Kong is still free. Which is to say, citizens of Hong Kong technically maintain all the freedom they enjoyed under British control. When the authorities manipulate HK media or harass citizens, they keep it secretive. China has to be a lot more low-profile when they oppress the people of Hong Kong, so that the global community doesn't suddenly start to care again and call shenanigans.

    4. Re:Did I miss something? by guabah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Last time I checked, Hong Kong was was transfered to full Chinese control about 13 years ago. So is this some sort of symbolic stunt done for some obscure reason, or is it actually supposed to accomplish something? Saying you're going to defy Chinese control by moving your HQ from Beijing to Hong Kong is like saying you're going to get out from under U.S. control by moving from New York to Chicago.

      More like moving to Guam, Northern Marianas, or maybe, Puerto Rico or USVI given the 'non-State' status of those.

    5. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, exactly. But this is *very* interesting from a geopolitical perspective. Because of Hong Kong's former status of a British colony, it has always enjoyed a separate set of rules, apart from "mainland" China. The censorship laws are generally less intrusive and citizens there have much more free reign over their affairs. I believe there are even elected officials who are not mandatorily members of the Communist party.

      My interpretation of this is that Google is REALLY pissing China off intentionally by doing this - exploiting the schism between Hong Kong and mainland China, forcing issues to the forefront which the Chinese like to ignore (like why does Hong Kong get less centralized control than other parts of China). This could be quite a large issue in China and Hong Kong should China decide to dictate terms to the more autonomous Hong Kong.

      Very interesting development...

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    6. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Given this aggressive posture Google has taken, that might be next...

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    7. Re:Did I miss something? by DaMP12000 · · Score: 1

      Actually Hong Kong (such as other parts of China like Macau) is a SAR - Special Autonomous Region. It maintains a high degree of freedom compared to the main land and will do for another 35 years or so

    8. Re:Did I miss something? by ktappe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because of Hong Kong's former status of a British colony, it has always enjoyed a separate set of rules, apart from "mainland" China. The censorship laws are generally less intrusive and citizens there have much more free reign over their affairs. My interpretation of this is that Google is REALLY pissing China off intentionally by doing this - exploiting the schism between Hong Kong and mainland China, forcing issues to the forefront which the Chinese like to ignore (like why does Hong Kong get less centralized control than other parts of China). This could be quite a large issue in China and Hong Kong should China decide to dictate terms to the more autonomous Hong Kong.

      How is Google's "Don't Be Evil" mantra going to be viewed if they end up causing the censorship of all of Hong Kong's internet access? Ouch.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    9. Re:Did I miss something? by chentiangemalc · · Score: 5, Informative

      China has 5 different types of Autonomous areas: 1) Autonomous banner (in Inner Mongolia) 2) Autonomous County 3) Autonomous Prefecture 4) Autonomous Region. Autonomous region has its own local government with the right to appoint the governer (from the local minority) For example Tibetan people in Tibet, the Zhuang in Guangxi, the Uyghur in Xinjiang, the Mongols in Inner Mongolia, and the Hui in Ningxia. 5) Special Administrative Region Special Administrative Regions of China include Hong Kong and Macau. Special Administrative Regions are responsible for everything except diplomatic relations and national defence. So effectively Hong Kong and Macau have their own legal system, completely different from the rest of the country. More importantly unlike in mainland China in Hong Kong it is possible to watch Youtube and use Facebook.

    10. Re:Did I miss something? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Did China think Google was simply pack it's shit and leave? Is there some jar somewhere I can throw $100-$1000 in to have Google continue to fark with China?

    11. Re:Did I miss something? by SuperQ · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      One could easily make a counter-argument that Google is advocating an open system for all of China that only Hong Kong now enjoys. But either way, the gloves are off.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    13. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to live in HK before and slightly after the handover.

      IIRC basically at 1997 China replaced the UK in terms of who did things like national defense and who appointed the governor/chief-executive.

      For another 50 years after the handover (until 2047) HK operates the same government it had before, which mean it's own legislature, judicial, etc.

      So from a US perspective, it's like moving your server-farm to a Native American reservation.

    14. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real question is... did Google consult the local Hong Kong officials before doing this? If they planned it correctly, this could turn into a big, hot (interesting) mess. If they did this on a whim, one phone call to a "local official" will have them pull the plug on Google before anything comes of the situation.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    15. Re:Did I miss something? by jpmorgan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google is not responsible for China's response.

    16. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6754415431004017927

      BOOOOORRRRINGGG

    17. Re:Did I miss something? by selven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a robber points a gun at a child and tells you to hand over all your money, and you refuse, and the child gets shot, you are NOT responsible for the child's death. That would be ridiculous, and would essentially give criminals legal force. The robber alone is responsible.

      Pragmatically, this might cause trouble for Hong Kong, but morally, Google's in the right here.

    18. Re:Did I miss something? by randomlogin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My interpretation of this is that Google is REALLY pissing China off intentionally by doing this - exploiting the schism between Hong Kong and mainland China, forcing issues to the forefront which the Chinese like to ignore (like why does Hong Kong get less centralized control than other parts of China). This could be quite a large issue in China and Hong Kong should China decide to dictate terms to the more autonomous Hong Kong.

      Personally, I'd have gone for +1 Insightful for this. It potentially serves to emphasise to the mainlanders that they are somehow second class to the citizens of HK. A former colleague once described going from HK to the mainland to visit a supplier as like going from West Berlin to communist East Berlin. He was talking about all the security involved - and having to be followed around by a communist party apparatchik all the time. However, you do have to wonder if there are other parallels to be drawn there...

    19. Re:Did I miss something? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      OK.
      Along time ago, It was taken by the British empire.
      A long time passes and they have been enjoying an open society with a free market and almost no censorship.

      The it was given back to China, who had plans to basically censor it and treat it like every place else in China
      The Tienanmen Square happened. The events outraged people. The last time that happened China underwent a revolution.

      So they made a social deal. Hong Kong gets to keep it's free market, and no one in China ever mentions Tienanmen Sqr.

      The seemed like a fair deal to the Citizens. As luck would ahve it, ding that also allowed China to have the growth it has enjoyed since then.

      Had that man not stood up to that tank, China would not be the power house it is today. IT has, in effect, given China a more reasonable face.

      There is an long, and interesting, history to the event that was happening at Tienanmen Sqr, that stem back much farther the just that event. Also, the Military Moral was falling very fast, and there was a risk of wide spread desertion. To many to lock up and hide.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Did I miss something? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love this play by Google, China is forced into one of two things: Either A, admit the people of Hong Kong are a significantly different culture than the rest of the country (in that they can handle uncensored access to information but the rest of China cannot). Or B, trying to enforce the mainland censorship laws on a large, prosperous group of Chinese people who are have been without this kind of interference from the mainland for a long, long time.

      They'll be reluctant to do B because it's entirely possible that Hong Kong is politically powerful enough to actually do something to change the status quo. Of course, if they do A, then they are saying Hong Kong's success is partially explained by their more open culture, which they absolutely cannot have since it implies that the mainland culture is inferior. And they did it in such a way that they are obeying the letter of the law in China, telling the Chinese people the reason for the move, and just plain rubbing China's face in the duplicity of it all.

    21. Re:Did I miss something? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Think of this as a verbal fight escalating to a fistfight. AFAIK/IANAL, where I live, if you taunt a person into punching you, you share responsibility for the physical assault.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    22. Re:Did I miss something? by skine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since the Sino-British Joint Declaration stipulates that China cannot interfere with the economic system, rights or freedoms of Hong Kong until 2047, I'm sure Google won't be kicked out too soon.

    23. Re:Did I miss something? by Applekid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China has to be a lot more low-profile when they oppress the people of Hong Kong, so that the global community doesn't suddenly start to care again and call shenanigans.

      Or do what, exactly? Implement an embargo? Impose sanctions? Go to war?

      China is pretty embedded in the world at this point, unlike where it was a mere 13 years ago when they got Hong Kong back from the Brits. How much manufacturing and raw materials come out from China? How much foreign currency and debt do they control?

      At least with questions about Taiwan there's a de facto stalemate. Google is putting its employees in China at risk (remember, they "treated" opium addiction with a bullet to the head) and forcing the issue. And, because of how powerful China is right now on the global stage, I can't see a bunch of UN and NATO finger wagging is going to swing their actions towards those of freedom and human rights.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    24. Re:Did I miss something? by Rivalz · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply to you in binary but the damn slashdot filter wouldn't let me. Your right. But it's a slippery slope and I don't think china is ever gonna let this one slide.

    25. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. you can bet I was surprised too to go through passport control from China into HK... then again to Macau and once more back into the mainland! Sure glad I had the multi-entry Chinese visa! Luckily HK and Macau are visa on entry ( at least for me ).

        Of course.. the airport-sized x-ray machine at the walking border to Vietnam was a surprise.. as was the confiscation of my Lonely Planet due to it's references to Taiwan.

      BTW - anyone else notice the cute female HK-Macau border agent with the "Sin Candy" nametag? I really had to bite my tongue!

    26. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's not like they are serving from Taiwan.

    27. Re:Did I miss something? by hey! · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Google has just raised the stakes in the "one country, two systems game."

      Google is probably technically right, but I can't see China allowing firms to evade censorship by moving to Hong Kong. The stakes are huge when you factor in Taiwan. If China cracks down on Hong Kong, it could give new impetus to the Taiwan independence question, potentially destabilizing the region.

      On the other hand, if nobody calls the Chinese bluff, people will eventually begin to forget the promise of "one country two systems".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    28. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all Hong Kong is an significantly different culture than the rest of china. Both agree they are chinese, but they both understand that they live under different laws. Hell, they both have different dialects!

      It's like comparing a new yorker and a texan. Both are american, but both are different creatures.

      So no this cheeky move by google will not cause an issue for china to admit your case A. Also this will serve to piss off China, and yes they are obeying the law, but remember china can just rewrite any damn law they want.

      To be honest with you, China can wait until 2047 and make the next move. They've been here forever already, what's another 100 years?

    29. Re:Did I miss something? by smist08 · · Score: 1

      More like New York to Peuto Rico or Guam.

    30. Re:Did I miss something? by MechaStreisand · · Score: 0

      Who would possibly enforce that, though? There is absolutely nothing to stop China from simply putting Hong Kong under their heel like the rest of the country. Nobody would do anything: they all care too much about trade with China to give a shit about the people who suffer as a result.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    31. Re:Did I miss something? by HeckRuler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      HAHA! By slaying that bandit lord, his goons seek vengeance on the inn you slept last night. That's accomplice to arson. That's EVIL, your paladin FALLS!

    32. Re:Did I miss something? by gtbritishskull · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I think this might only be if you have legally assaulted the person. At that point you have broken a crime and are therefore liable for the outcome of it. But, the argument could be made that Google has broken the law, so I am not saying that you are wrong.

    33. Re:Did I miss something? by shentino · · Score: 1

      If China is so hell bent on censoring that it would actually pull a dick move like that, then I say it's on China.

      Put another way...

      A bank robber takes a customer hostage. The police try to sharpshoot the robber and in the robber's last moments somehow gets enough adrenaline to squeeze off a scorched earth shot that kills the hostage a split second after the police take him down.

      I for one would praise Google for finding a loophole, and condemn China alone for squashing innocent bystanders in the process of closing said loophole.

    34. Re:Did I miss something? by drougie · · Score: 1

      good information.

      Worth noting, on the human end of this, if you ask someone born in Hong Kong if they're Chinese, the answer is often no while they judge you as being ignorant.

    35. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Special Administration Region
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_administrative_region_(People%27s_Republic_of_China)
      >The two special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau (created in 1997 and 1999 respectively) each have a codified constitution called Basic Law.[1] The law provides the regions with a high degree of autonomy, a separate political system, and a capitalist economy under the principle of "one country, two systems" proposed by Deng Xiaoping

      It is like living in your parent's basement, same house but they recognized that you are an adult with some need of privacy and basic respects. They still reserve all the rights to do things to you as you are living under their roof.

    36. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You live someplace extraordinarily corrupt and unjust, then. Where exactly? Not the US, Canada, or any country in Europe whose laws I am familiar with (which isn't to say that those are a lot).

    37. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a bit off-topic, but I find the scenario you described to be troubling. Ultimately, the robber is responsible for pulling the trigger, but if the parent is explicitly given the option to choose between keeping his wallet and allowing his child to be murdered, and if he chooses the former, how should we view the parent?

      Obviously if such a scenario were to occur in a real-world context, there would be many factors to complicate the matter (adrenaline, emotions, etc.), but in an abstract, philosophical sense, is it really acceptable to choose to allow the greater of two evils to occur-- even if through mere inaction or refusal to cooperate-- just because the other party is unjustified?

    38. Re:Did I miss something? by bynary · · Score: 1

      If China decides to censor Hong Kong's Internet access, that is not Google doing evil but the central Chinese government doing evil. If someone antagonizes you on the street and you punch them, guess who gets jailtime? Every entity, be it individual, corporation, city or national government, is responsible for its own actions. And don't tell me that "Google made them do it". That's just as lame as "He made me punch him!" It just doesn't work that way.

      --
      http://www.bynarystudio.com
    39. Re:Did I miss something? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd have gone for +1 Insightful for this. It potentially serves to emphasise to the mainlanders that they are somehow second class to the citizens of HK. A former colleague once described going from HK to the mainland to visit a supplier as like going from West Berlin to communist East Berlin. He was talking about all the security involved - and having to be followed around by a communist party apparatchik all the time. However, you do have to wonder if there are other parallels to be drawn there...

      I don't know. Was the the apparatchchik a good looking woman? That could have been a good thing.

    40. Re:Did I miss something? by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless the Chinese government declares them a terrorist organization for subverting the government.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    41. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't mean to be snarky here, but how is this any different than how Israel/Palestine handle things? Hamas goes and hides among civilians, Israel bombs them wherever they are, and we all agree that the collateral damage is the fault of Hamas for dragging innocent parties in to this.

      What Google is doing is the same thing. They're hiding behind Hong Kong trying to get what they want, so if there's collateral damage, how is Google not in some way responsible? Sure it's China pulling the trigger, but we have always looked down at people who would use innocent parties as a type of human shield.

    42. Re:Did I miss something? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      That logic is ridiculous. In the scope of international affairs does that mean an armed assault is an appropriate and legal response to a taunting?

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    43. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be "if the parent is explicitly given the option to choose between losing his wallet and allowing his child to be murdered, and if he chooses the latter..."

    44. Re:Did I miss something? by rent · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily increasing censorship; I'm worried that the government there will start to impose more strict regulation on the IT companies and introduce other laws and regulation that make my business more difficult to operate there.

    45. Re:Did I miss something? by gRa · · Score: 1

      You would be responsible in such situation. You are always responsible for your actions of will. You would not be guilty, but you still would be responsible.

    46. Re:Did I miss something? by kjart · · Score: 1

      If a robber points a gun at a child and tells you to hand over all your money, and you refuse, and the child gets shot, you are NOT responsible for the child's death. That would be ridiculous, and would essentially give criminals legal force. The robber alone is responsible.

      Pragmatically, this might cause trouble for Hong Kong, but morally, Google's in the right here.

      Sure, you might not be legally responsible, but not feeling morally responsible would be inhuman.

    47. Re:Did I miss something? by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hong Kong was a British colony for over a hundred years, the people of Hong Kong aren't as hook line and sinker for the old following of the party line- they had a fairly British education system run there for the best part of a hundred years. Also, as part of the hand back to China, Hong Kong has 50 years protection (so what, around 37 left?) to self-govern, any attempts to change that by China would be a big deal internationally, pretty much akin to China anexing a neighbouring country on the political scale. They could do it, but it wouldn't be pretty for them.

      For the Americans, I suppose it would be akin to federal government taking full control of the state of Texas and disposing of state powers or something like that.

    48. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, more like from Texas, Alabama, Mississippi or Florida to New York or California.
      We have our own discrepancies between state laws.

    49. Re:Did I miss something? by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say yes, it is acceptable. Consider the full consequences, not just the immediate:

      1) You don't give him the money. A child dies, but leaving behind a lot of evidence and likely causing the criminal to go to jail (or at least get really psychologically shaken up and maybe change his ways)

      2) You do give him the money. No one dies, but the criminal gets a few hundred dollars and gets away. Encouraged by his success, he goes out and does it again, and so do his friends. Even more people will give the criminals money, and one or more children will die along the way.

      It's like blackmail, going along only makes sense in the short term.

    50. Re:Did I miss something? by mrcleaver · · Score: 1

      Everyone in the mainland knows that Hong Kong is subject to different laws, this is not a mystery to them, and nobody's raised a fuss yet.

    51. Re:Did I miss something? by piemcfly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another interpretation could be that this move to hong kong allows the Chinese government to save face. They've been very public about their issues with google's operation in mainland China, while google is far from the biggest player in the market.
      The idea of the censorship is not just to totally block access to certain information. Reminding people where the line is drawn (no matter how vaguely) by public shows of power is just as important. Chinese censorship, afaik, is more concerned with the broadcasting side of communication than with the receiving end. It's hard to prevent people from looking for information (see ToR / proxies etc).

      It's easier to go after the source ('dissidents') and scare people into not spreading information. Going after google in the state newspaper and on tv etc. is also a way of communicating to the chinese people that 'our rules are still in place'.

      Moving to Hong Kong might allow google to continue their service to China, while at the same time the Chinese government can say that it 'won' the discussion and reach its goal of reminding it's public (the Chinese population) about its position on freedom of information / opinion.

      If it works out that way it's a pretty smart business move from google, allowing for a way out of the zero-sum game they were in.

    52. Re:Did I miss something? by randomlogin · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you - but from what I can gather, most Chinese communist party apparatchiks don't look much like this. Don't go trading in your human rights just yet...

    53. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell would want Texas?

    54. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but you are making the assumption that surrendering your wallet lets him get away with no chance of getting caught. In reality, you would likely file a police report and describe the robber to the police. Even if your report and description didn't lead to his immediate arrest, if more parents followed the same course of action, his chances of getting caught would increase with each incident. It is therefore possible to justice to be served with all parties (minus the robber) choosing the lesser of the two evils.

      That said, I'm more interested in the abstract idea in my second paragraph than in the robber scenario. What if we assume that neither choice will lead to a greater chance of the evil party being brought to justice?

    55. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hamas goes and hides among civilians, Israel bombs them wherever they are, and we all agree that the collateral damage is the fault of Hamas for dragging innocent parties in to this.

      WTF? Um no. We do not all agree on that at all.

    56. Re:Did I miss something? by lobsterturd · · Score: 1

      For most purposes other than things like defense and foreign policy, Hong Kong might as well be a separate country. Hongkongers speak different, look different, and most importantly think differently from their cousins up north. Kinda like Texas, but in a positive way.

    57. Re:Did I miss something? by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The culture is different. They speak a different language for starters.

      If you go to google.com.hk, you may notice the site is in Traditional Chinese, with links near the bottom for versions in Simplified Chinese (which the mainlanders use) and English.

    58. Re:Did I miss something? by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

      A principal difference would be that lives are not literally at stake here.

    59. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the you are backed into a corner you have two choices: die or hit back.

      There are always various ways to see things.

    60. Re:Did I miss something? by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what China will probably end up doing is blocking access to Google's Hong Kong site from mainland China. But blocking access to a site operated legally "within China" might be more controversial in China than making a foreign company leave if they refuse to play by the government's rules. It's a gambit: Google is forcing the Chinese government to decide exactly how stubborn they're willing to be.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    61. Re:Did I miss something? by wigaloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also a brilliant strategic move by Google. They are still planning to compete in the Chinese market, and their competitive advantage will be that their search results are uncensored.

    62. Re:Did I miss something? by SakuraDreams · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the Sino-British Joint Declaration stipulates that China cannot interfere with the economic system, rights or freedoms of Hong Kong until 2047, I'm sure Google won't be kicked out too soon.

      And why should China obey that declaration. Doesn't the UK need China more than China needs the UK? Is the UK going to invade China? China can do what it wants in Hong Kong and they will do it if they think it's necessary.

    63. Re:Did I miss something? by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 0

      If I'm reading the situation right(and I might not be), the Google-China clash is somewhat different. From what I've read on the conflict, China taking action on Google now would be less "Google made us do it" and more "We've defined this to be just and right, so we did it" - consequences ignored, however.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
    64. Re:Did I miss something? by caluml · · Score: 1

      If a robber points a gun at a child and tells you to hand over all your money, and you refuse, and the child gets shot, you are NOT responsible for the child's death.

      Is it my kid, or just some random that's walking by? :)

      By the way, it's interesting that you said "and the child gets shot" - sort of hints that it could be the child's fault - wouldn't "and the robber shoots the child" be better? </anal mode>

    65. Re:Did I miss something? by caluml · · Score: 1

      So it's better to have a child killed than part with a few hundred dollars?

      You need to have your reality sensors calibrated.

    66. Re:Did I miss something? by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Which is to say, citizens of Hong Kong technically maintain all the freedom they enjoyed under British control.

      I don't think there's any "technically" here. They were under British "Control" -- the Crown appointed a Governor. The citizens of Hong Kong weren't entitled to any more or less democracy than they are now. Now, you could argue the regimes were different, although were Hong Kong under current British rule, I'm not so sure it would actually be all that different today. The UK is not a freedom-friendly state either, at present.

    67. Re:Did I miss something? by Angostura · · Score: 1

      C. Block www.google.com.hk from mainland China.

    68. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the argument is that it's better to commit a great evil than to allow many lesser evils to occur until someone else commits the greater evil anyway. Of course, this assumes that a child MUST be murdered before the criminal can be caught; if that is indeed the case, then the argument is valid, and the first victim to allow their child to be murdered is actually sacrificing their child for the greater good. But that's going in a different direction than I intended.

    69. Re:Did I miss something? by Moridin42 · · Score: 1

      Google is highly unlikely to cause all of HK's internet links to be censored anymore than they already are, however much that might be.

      What may happen is that the link between HK and other parts of China may be censored. Traffic originating from HK for destinations internationally probably won't be affected.

      Functional effect? China's traffic is censored much like it always has been. Responsible party? Government of China, like it always has been.

      In other words.. same shit, different day.

      --
      I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
    70. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a tricky argument. Suppose you found a child lying bleeding heavily on the sidewalk, possibly an accident, or not, who knows. The child says, "Please sir/madam, call 911." And you refuse. The child dies.

      Legally, you might be in the clear, but morally it's probably the wrong thing to do.

      In my opinion, there's a large grey area depending on the circumstances. If the robber demands your life savings and you refuse (because there's no guarantee it'll actually save the child's life), that would probably be somewhat understandable. On the other hand, if the robber was asking for $1 to buy a candy bar (criminals aren't always the most sane bunch), then not handing over the dollar (even though you still don't know if it'll protect the child) would make you look like a monster. You have to show at least a little bit of responsibility/respect for the well-being of other people.

      Again, it all depends on the scope. It's hard to say where Google falls in this case, if they provoke the Chinese government into instituting more censorship in Hong Kong.

    71. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely C: Nothing is going to happen. You're A and B show you don't understand what you're talking about.

      "Either A, admit the people of Hong Kong are a significantly different culture than the rest of the country (in that they can handle uncensored access to information but the rest of China cannot)."

      A: there's nothing to admit, HK is very different from mainland China and everybody in China views it as a seperate entity within the country or formally know as "One Country Two Systems", the argument of what information who can't or can handle is thus irrevelant.

      B: China doesn't need to enforce censorship in HK, as it already censors Google's .hk site. So moving the operation there changes nothing for a user in China. Google however comes out of this looking saintly even though it threatened to pull out of China completely, but it appears the bulk of their operation (R&D, sales, ads) and thus revenue won't be moving out of China.

    72. Re:Did I miss something? by sych · · Score: 1

      I had a conversation with a Chinese friend once about censorship of anti-government sentiment in China, he agreed with me that there are a lot of things Chinese people don't like about their government. Guess what his number one gripe with the government was? "That I have to get a visa to go to Hong Kong! It's the same damn country!".

      So you're right, I think feeling second class to Hong Kong is an issue for the mainlanders.

    73. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      Unless one well placed and sufficiently threatening and/or flattering phone call is made to a Hong Kong official...

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    74. Re:Did I miss something? by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      What is with the "For the Americans" line? I'm insulted. Most Americans would be perfectly capable of understanding the issue from your first paragraph. My fellow countrymen don't lack understanding, they just don't care.

      Anyway, I'm sure there's far more people in China that would need a simplified explanation than there are people in America who do.

    75. Re:Did I miss something? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Google better have data destruction plan ready in the event equipment might be seized. Properly low-level formatting drives can take several hours to complete. Several more hours before hand to coordinate.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    76. Re:Did I miss something? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Israel is an asshole?... I don't know how that proves china isn't being similar.

    77. Re:Did I miss something? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Yes you missed something,

      Hong Kong, just like Macau is a SAR or Special Administrative Region and maintains a very high degree of autonomy from the PRC government. Hong Kong has its own commerce laws as well as it's own currency (Hong Kong Dollar or HKD). Pretty much all the PRC controls is the military and foreign policy in HK.

      Your analogy is wrong because for all intents and purposes Hong Kong is another country, it's like moving from England to Scotland, despite being part of the same geo political group (UK), they are separate countries with their own laws (Scots, in my experience do not like to accept Pounds issued by English banks). Or moving from Malaysia to Singapore, same language but different governments and currencies.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    78. Re:Did I miss something? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Since the Sino-British Joint Declaration stipulates that China cannot interfere with the economic system, rights or freedoms of Hong Kong until 2047, I'm sure Google won't be kicked out too soon.

      Given the state of NATO at this point in time, are the British really in a position to enforce this?

      It is far more likely that China will simply "wall off" google.com.hk and not violate the pact. The PRC don't want a conflict any more then England because despite the near certainty that China will win, all the fighting will take place on Chinese soil.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    79. Re:Did I miss something? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      I think the point however poorly put is that both sides should be considered responible. China for enacting such laws and censorship and google for involving previously uncensored people in such a public way as to place their freedom at risk. You do not throw innocents in front of bombs and then get to claim your entirely innocent just cause the other side are arssholes.

    80. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from a criminal standpoint you may not be responsible. From a moral standpoint you are most definitely responsible and are probably legally in a very bad situation for civil lawsuits and I doubt there is a jury/judge anywhere that would have muc sympathy for your decision.

    81. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save face? This is about as big a public slap in the face to china as you can get, not only have they given chinese a way to circumvent their laws google have done it as publically as possible to make china look bad no matter what they do. Chinese gov would be fuming and I bet there is a severe response before the end of the week, at a minimum google.hk will be blocked at worst google may have risked the freedom of hong kong nationals.

    82. Re:Did I miss something? by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 1

      So it's better to have a child killed than part with a few hundred dollars? You need to have your reality sensors calibrated.

      Way to twist his words. He merely stated that you would not be responsible for the child's death. He was not saying that you should not "part with a few hundred dollars." Moral obligations and responsibility are not the same thing. What if someone puts a gun to your child's head and says if you don't hand over classified intelligence that could lead to American lives being lost? If you hand over the information, are you responsible for the deaths of the Americans killed in the resulting attack? Or if you refuse to hand over the information, and your child is shot, are you responsible? What if you hand over the information and your child is still killed (which is common in hostage for ransom situations)? Morality is not a simple thing.

      --
      'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    83. Re:Did I miss something? by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      under current British rule, I'm not so sure it would actually be all that different today.

      No matter how much you personally disagree with the policies of Her Majesty's Government, at least the officials who run it were duly elected by their constituents.

      China does not have real elections (in that you have a choice of more than one party to vote for).

      Please don't try to compare the UK with China.

    84. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you over-estimate the situation. It's very common in China for there be to discrimination. E.g. people in the countryside get free health insurance and more kids than people in the city. Though city folk are likely to make more money and enjoy some modernity that the countryside can't offer. And unlike in the west, you CANNOT change this by moving from the city to the countryside or vice versa. It's bound by birth. (There are some exceptions for student who get accepted to big universities, etc.)

      The same with minorities in China who aren't bound by one child policies and enjoy many other privileges, but at the same time are forced to open up their villages as if they were Disneyland.

      Your idea that an open culture if superior to a closed one is extremely western and will have most Chinese simply shrug their shoulder should you mention it to them. One reason is that people actually side with their government (call it nationalism or just ignorant), the other is that things in China are never as black and white as they seem. While porn online may be blocked, you can still get porn DVD's pretty much anywhere at extremely low prices. The same goes for 99% of other blocked stuff. The only thing the government reacts strongly to are politics, which is really in the interest of just a very, very minor amount of people.

    85. Re:Did I miss something? by webminer · · Score: 1

      Anyone one in their right mind! 15th Largest economy in the world!

    86. Re:Did I miss something? by JordanL · · Score: 1

      For the Americans, I suppose it would be akin to federal government taking full control of the state of Texas and disposing of state powers or something like that.

      In the US that would instantly result in civil war and secession. The Federal Government would have to invalidate the Constitution to do so, which would in effect void the contract the states signed with the Federal Government.

      I don't know if there's an analogous situation in the US, because the people here view this sort of thing in a much more black-and-white, free-or-oppressed manner.

    87. Re:Did I miss something? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Well, you can be insulted to your heart's content, but that won't change the way things are now days.

      I find your attitude quite naive to the reality I frequently experience.

      If I had a dime for every comment since Nov. 2008 about us 'being turned into Muslim slaves', I could retire now.
      If I received a nickel for every, 'Obama is taking over the country; we'll be turned into Socialists/Communists/Muslim slaves'(take your pick, I hear them all frequently), or the ever entertaining: 'a vote for the health care bill is a vote for communism' line, I could retire filthy, stinking rich today.

      A little true story:
      Back in Nov. 2008 the day after the presidential election, I go into work and my boss was sitting there crying. Literally in tears.
      I asked her what had happened to make her cry.
      She replied, 'We are all going to be Islamic slaves to that Muslim in the White House. I'm a good Christian woman, I can't be a Muslim slave and still get into Heaven.'
      And she was serious!

      Another cow-orker was stomping back and forth, muttering something like:'No Good American® would allow that nigger in the White House...he'll be shot if he tries, even if I have to do it myself!'

      I was truly astounded, and quite taken aback.
      (this was on campus at a university...the alleged breeding grounds of liberal thinking in America)
      It was an eye-opening experience for me, as I used to somewhat share your view...not anymore. I started paying more attention to the people around me, and frankly, I'm not liking what I have been seeing.

      Where are you? (I may want to move there!)
      For the record, and my sins, I'm in central Oklahoma.

      Take joy in your current surroundings! :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    88. Re:Did I miss something? by Xest · · Score: 1

      There are few other places in the world where you can give such a close analogy, few countries have the same sorts of zealotry against government that the US has and particularly the state of Texas is a good example state. I'm pretty sure based on comments over the years that the majority of Slashdots population are from the US, so it's really an example that a large part of Slashdot's community should be able to understand well because they can imagine how much uproar they'd be if the US government did take such an action, it's a situation a good portion of the Slashdot community could relate to.

      I could've used the example of Britain taking back powers from Wales or something, but as there's only like 5 people or something that live in Wales, it wouldn't have had much benefit and wouldn't have related to more than a handful of the community here. Most people who aren't from the US but who have witnessed discussions on healthcare and the fear of central government displayed often in that discussions will also be able to understand the analogy of Texas and the US government well too, so it's not as if non-Americans couldn't clearly understand the analogy too, whilst again, with something like Wales for example, most people would probably not have understood the importance.

      Now despite all that, I'll admit I do think that generally people from the US have less of a grip on global politics and geography, and I say this as someone who has travelled widely across the world and met many people of many cultures, including multiple US states, although I'll admit I haven't travelled through Asia much. I think the fact that someone like Sarah Palin could get as far up the tree of power as she did, almost becoming VP whilst not understanding that Africa is a continent, not a country is a demonstration of how little respect the American population puts in to an understanding of global politics- in many other parts of the world, anyone with that much ignorance of the world would be lucky to get a job at all, let alone reach the level of VP candidate.

      So, it wasn't intended as offence, but I think you overstate the average American's understanding of global politics too - although yes, certainly most people here are smart enough to have a better than average understanding. Even then though, I'm not even saying such ignorance is necessarily a bad thing- when I travelled through the US one realisation I came to is why would half the people there give a damn about the rest of the world when they have a beautiful country and nice houses and standards of living right at their fingertips? Arizona for example is my favourite place on Earth that I've been to so far (or close to, I guess it probably shares joint first with Bahia, Brazil), it's such a beautiful state, but it'd still be wrong to pretend there was a good understanding of the outside world there. What struck me by suprise however, although only because I had a rather unfair preconceived notion at the time, was that one of the people I was best able to have a discussion about world politics with was a native American guy just on the Utah/Arizona border in Navajo territory whilst some of the richer white Americans from supposedly much better educated backgrounds were the ones consistently making comments to me when they found I was British assuming I was from London as if London was the only city in the UK and having little understanding of the world outside the US.

    89. Re:Did I miss something? by Xest · · Score: 1

      That was primarily my point though, the reason the 50 years of self-governing clause exists in Hong Kong is not for the sake of the British, but because the people of Hong Kong were much happy with the British way of life, the British education system than they were with the Chinese. They simply weren't willing to just change to the Chinese way of doing things, or fall under the Chinese government. The people of Hong Kong don't have the same view of having to serve the government no matter what that has been forced across large parts of mainland China, they've got their taste of freedom.

      Besides, I think China probably realises they have enough on their plate already anyway- internally they've got Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, then they've got the countless internal dissidents, territorial disputes with Russia, Japan and India. I doubt they'd want to add Hong Kong to the list, but we'll see I susppose as it could well mean they'd be biting off more than they can chew. I suspect they'll just merely block mainland China's access to google.com.hk though.

    90. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      I've made a similar mistake/test with Taiwanese. They REALLY don't like being called Chinese (I've tried this on three Taiwanese - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    91. Re:Did I miss something? by caluml · · Score: 1

      What if someone puts a gun to your child's head and says if you don't hand over classified intelligence that could lead to American lives being lost?

      Why American lives, out of interest?

    92. Re:Did I miss something? by Dionysus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why American lives, out of interest?

      No other kind of lives matters to Americans?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    93. Re:Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same as with terrorists. We've now learned that the correct response is not "Ok, I'll do whatever you say, please don't hurt me" , but instead "Let's Roll!"

    94. Re:Did I miss something? by jwietelmann · · Score: 1

      I think part of the deal in Hong Kong's reunification was supposed to be that Hong Kong would continue to have freedom of speech, the press, etc. Hong Kong journalists will tell you that this has not really happened in practice, but Chinese officials must at the very least tread lightly when they do their dirty business in Hong Kong. China, then, cannot overtly infringe on Hong Kong citizens' rights, and therefore it cannot afford a move as high profile as censoring or shutting off google.com.hk.

    95. Re:Did I miss something? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It's an allegory people! Seeking out any possible way that Google's actions can be deemed evil is a dick thing to do.... like DMs that make up convoluted reasons to make paladins lose their powers.
      Yay, verily, dost thou get-ith it?

      Also, damn the typo to hell along with the inn.

    96. Re:Did I miss something? by AntiDragon · · Score: 1

      My initial response is "how callous, how cold" but stepping back I can't argue that your're completely wrong. I see many "how can you justify killing a child" type responses below and once again I find myself gritting my teeth at how we all want and need simple black and white answers to complex moral dilemmas.

      Is a child's life worth a few hundred dollars or whatever? Of course not.
      Will capitulating to such a demand encourage such acts in the future? Very likely.

      What's the answer? I don't think there is one. I both envy and fear the fact that you can make such a judgement call so solidly but I think I'd never be able to make such a decision until I was thrust into such a position for real.

      Scale it up from a singel criminal versus a man and child to whole countries, communities and nations and it gets more complex, not less.

      --
      "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
    97. Re:Did I miss something? by AntiDragon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my response was to parent. Fat-fingered click-itis today....

      --
      "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
    98. Re:Did I miss something? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Can you cite the law which provides this as a valid defense? Personally I expect people to not punch another, regardless of what was said.

    99. Re:Did I miss something? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure about the morality aspect. This line of reasoning could be followed such that I am morally wrong for not giving money to someone to use for life saving medical care. Following that line, you could argue that unless I give up absoltely everything but basic necessities, I'm morally responsible for said patient dying.

      I don't really think that's where we want to go.

      As far as handing over the dollar, why would I be a monster for refusing when the robber is making the decision to end a life over a $1 candy bar? Why does someone clearly morally wrong get to push some of that unethical behavior onto me?

    100. Re:Did I miss something? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Its better that one child die than one or more die, and hundreds of other people are also stolen from, I think is the point.

    101. Re:Did I miss something? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      People from Hong Kong need a visa to visit China too.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    102. Re:Did I miss something? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      This was true...10-15 years ago. While Shenzhen just across the border isn't quite as glitzy as Hong Kong, it's a high-rise-filled metropolis of 10 million residents. The East Berlin comparison no longer applies.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    103. Re:Did I miss something? by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      W.T.F.?

      I'm flabbergasted at your stories about the reactions to Obama's election!

      I'm located in Central Wyoming, not precisely a known bastion for clear, or even liberal, thinking and I didn't see a single reaction like what you describe.

      Yes there was lots of dark muttering. Yes there were lots of nutjobs writing "Letters to the Editor" in the paper. I'm a consultant so I'm a lot offices, typically medical, throughout the day and I can honestly say I didn't see this reaction anywhere that I went.

      I have heard stories but reactions like what you describe but I had assumed they were exaggerations. No one is really that stupid, are they?

    104. Re:Did I miss something? by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 1

      I have as well. Actually they want it both ways. They want to be recognized as Chinese but not associated with the mainland Chinese government. To cover all the bases, you have to call them Taiwan-Chinese.

    105. Re:Did I miss something? by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      And to add to the confusion, when speaking to a Chinese person, referring to Taiwan as distinct from China will make the Chinese angry! That's why I was careful to make the two sound the same when speaking to the first Taiwanese person I met - but that only served to annoy them. Oh well!

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    106. Re:Did I miss something? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I did not exaggerate due it sounding so ludicrous, but yes, it's true.

      I'm flabbergasted at your stories about the reactions to Obama's election!

      'Nuff said.

      No one is really that stupid, are they?

      *sigh*Sadly, they are.

      I'm not an native Okie, but I know them well. I've lived here 20 years, 3 months, and 3 days.
      Most days it is actually a neat place.
      Some days though....

      Wyoming...nice country from what little I've seen passing through a few times heading for Montana. I have considered both as escape routes if Oklahoma becomes too crowded(or strange). :-)

       

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    107. Re:Did I miss something? by |TheMAN · · Score: 1

      No they don't, unless they are foreign nationals.

      Chinese nationals of Hong Kong origins (meaning they were born there and are eligible of holding Hong Kong passports), obtain a thing called a "Home Return Permit" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Return_Permit in which ever since the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong, it is practically an extension of their Hong Kong Identity Cards. As the wikipedia article states, it is not a requirement to have a Home Return Permit but is a requirement to have a HKID card. Current issues of Home Return Permits are tied to the holder's HKID card number which results in the practical extension of HKID card and therefore acts as their Mainland China identity card in practice. This allows a Hong Konger to almost enjoy all the things that a Mainland Chinese could do such as own real estate (but usually denied loans for practicality reasons), have a driver's license (must have HK driver's license because it is also an extension of it), go to places foreigners are denied going to (such as Tibet AFAIK), etc.

      The reason for such a scheme is because travelling to/from Hong Kong is considered "domestic" travel and despite the fact that there is a border between HK and the Mainland, the Chinese government doesn't want to make it appear as an international border. This means they don't want to make Chinese nationals from either side of the border use passports. This is where those goofy permits come to play (which even applies if you got on a plane from HK and flew to Beijing, you still can't use a Chinese passport) in order to require documentation to pass the checkpoints while avoiding the appearance of international travel (passports). Despite the fact that this sounds all so complicated, it actually works out quite well to a Hong Konger as there are special lines for them to pass through quickly instead of the slower lines for foreigners (where passport usage and stamping is required).

    108. Re:Did I miss something? by |TheMAN · · Score: 1

      The culture is different. They speak a different language for starters.

      If you go to google.com.hk, you may notice the site is in Traditional Chinese, with links near the bottom for versions in Simplified Chinese (which the mainlanders use) and English.

      Not entirely correct. Natives of Guangdong province *usually* speak Cantonese as a home/native language, which is what Hong Kongers speak (while it can be said that the Hong Kong "sub-dialect" is different not due to just accent but words/terminologies used).

    109. Re:Did I miss something? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Home Return Permit is required for entry into China for Hong Kong citizens. It must be applied and paid for like a visa. It may or may not be granted, whether the individual has Hong Kong ID Card or not, at the discretion of the Chinese authorities.

      It's basically a visa but in name. Even if you don't like the term "visa", that doesn't change the fact that a person from Hong Kong still has to apply for permission to go to China. Pro-democracy activists and politicians from Hong Kong have been known to have been denied Home Return Permits.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  3. So.... by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They moved their servers from China to... China.

    1. Re:So.... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hong Kong is not like the rest of China. The censorship laws are less restrictive, and the people enjoy a greater degree of freedom.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:So.... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They moved their servers to an autonomous region of the country which has its own laws, distinct from those in the rest of PRC.

    3. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how Austin isn't like the rest of Texas? Kind of like that, but moreso, and in China.

    4. Re:So.... by blai · · Score: 1

      Hong Kong is not like the rest of China. The censorship laws are less restrictive, and the people enjoy a greater degree of freedom.

      Hong Kong is the world's freest economy. Less Restrictive is much underrated.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    5. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/underrated/understated/

    6. Re:So.... by Shoe+Puppet · · Score: 1

      You need political and civil freedom here, not economic freedom.

      --
      (+1, Disagree)
    7. Re:So.... by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      The chart on that wiki page is all messed up. If you go to the Heritage site, very few of those numbers match up with the WSJ and Heritage numbers.

  4. China's next move by Kohenkatz · · Score: 1

    China's next move will be to block access to google.com.hk for all Internet users in China ... so how does this help?

    1. Re:China's next move by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think of it like a game of chess, where you spend a long time making opening moves, a careful dance of threats and counter-threats. Then, one player sees an opportunity, and move after move occurs, piece after piece taken in rapid succession.

      Personally I believe we're just watching a dance that has long ago been choreographed to its conclusion.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:China's next move by nmosfet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This whole censorship thing is mainly a marketing ploy. Google is making a gamble that this will help them gain market share in China.

      Don't get me wrong I'm in favor of what Google is doing and I hope this leads to the end of censorship in China. But from a business persepctive, Google is threatening to pull out because it's not making much headway in gaining marketshare, while Baidu consistently have 60% marketshare. They are earning only about 1.5% of their profit from China. This recent strategy to threaten to drop censorship not only differentiate Google's search engine product from others in China, but also generates alot of news over there and over here. As much I would like to believe that a company is putting ethics above profit, the reality is giving uncensored search access to China is the last of Google's concerns (esp. since they still offer censored search to numerous other countries). But since Google's goals and my hopes coincide, go Google!

    3. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just like chess, one player (China) will eventually decide it's had enough and just flip the board over, declaring victory.

    4. Re:China's next move by Murmel84 · · Score: 1

      Well, even if they block it, there's still proxies to get access for the people who know how to use them, as well as the very big community of chinese speakers in foreign countries who don't lose google in their native language.

      I think this whole move is more about preserving the service for the chinese "language community", not the chinese country (even if the country makes up most of the language community).

    5. Re:China's next move by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Horsey to pointy guy six.

      Hmm... Get him, boys!

    6. Re:China's next move by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just because Google has an ulterior motive to provide uncensored access does not mean that it is not a concern. As you said, the move to oppose censorship differentiates their product and generates attention.

      It's nice when what is right coincides with what is lucrative.

    7. Re:China's next move by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not so much a moral high ground of not dealing with people you don't like. Google wants to play ball with China, but it intends to beat them on fair terms; China intends to cheat. Rather than leave and let all the other players deal with China's unsportsmanlike conduct, Google is sitting around figuring out how to stay in the game and beat China regardless of their behavior.

      In other words, they're not doing anything unethical themselves; and they're strategizing their business maneuvers to both be profitable and attempt to follow an ethical basis. They have many choices, some blatantly evil and some where they throw their weight around to maximize their profits while either not hurting anyone or performing a humanitarian service; although these are business decisions, they can be made on more tasteful basis than squeezing the last few dollars out of an already profitable operation.

    8. Re:China's next move by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Making an enemy of the government might somehow end up putting a dampener on your business, though. Risky advertising, innit?

    9. Re:China's next move by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      For the most part, I agree with you. And guess what? I know the conclusion also. It will be economic sanctions on China.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    10. Re:China's next move by nmosfet · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I'm not saying that because Google had an ulterior motive that we shouldn't support it. I think Google's tactic here is brilliant. Would be nice if they had more leverage in this situation (but of course that would have meant they would be less likely to make this kind of risk).

    11. Re:China's next move by Jaqenn · · Score: 1

      Google isn't fighting China because they love us.

      They want to make lots of money.

      But I'll be a happier little pawn in Google's world, so I hope they win.

      --
      You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
    12. Re:China's next move by spyfrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Economic sanctions against China? Are we talking about the country called "Peoples republic of China"?
      A country that export tons off stuff towards USA and Europe? The country that owns billions in US treasury bonds?

      No, there will be no economic sanctions.

    13. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, the Chinese government badly played their hand. Rather than simply being satisfied with Google's voluntary censoring, they tried to throw up obstacles to protect domestic competitors, and then had the gall to employ hackers to hack into Google to steal IP and harass dissidents.

      It's a pity Western corporations and governments have been so tolerant of the Chinese government, apparently in the belief that the Chinese Communist Party would reciprocate. The CCP are hostile and dishonest towards foreigners not because it's in their interests, but because it's in their nature. With any luck, as the geriatric clowns brought up to beleive Maoism die off, the Chinese government may mature politically, and some day reach the level of development found in other Chinese societies like Taiwan, which weren't retarded by Maoist idiocy.

    14. Re:China's next move by Jenming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It might be. Local human rights violations, global economic shenagins, global environmental problems. Its possible that they could push the rest of the world too far. On the other hand a China that wasn't economically entangled with the rest of the world might become very dangerous.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    15. Re:China's next move by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      There will be, eventually. It's an empirical fact. The bonds are just bits of paper. They won't carry any value in the final stages of the dance. We'll just say "we owed you XX billion, your actions caused XX billion damage to our corporations, we're even." See?

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    16. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baidu has the market share only because you can search for MP3's, cracked downloads and such. Not because is better.

    17. Re:China's next move by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect that the Chinese response will be to silently block all traffic to Google, and then stop mentioning Google anymore in the news. Completely drop the subject. Because they've been backed into a corner where they can't actually make themselves look good anymore, it will be best (from the government perspective) to drop the topic completely and move on to a different subject. Maybe there will be a lot of stories in the Chinese newspaper about how evil Taiwan is, just to get people distracted.

      --
      Qxe4
    18. Re:China's next move by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Funny

      *sigh* I guess we've always been at war with Eurasia.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    19. Re:China's next move by spyfrog · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't understand the pressure you have when you own one nations debts, please read this Wikipedia article that describes how USA with economic pressure ended United Kingdoms status as world power in 1956:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

      That action of an "allied" power should learn each person how important financial power is and clearly tell you why the Chinese owns USA.

    20. Re:China's next move by loners · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the threat of not honoring those bonds?

      Economic sanctions and reduce the national debt in one act.

    21. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that's a good idea! Watch out, Gary Kasparov! I'm coming for you!

    22. Re:China's next move by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      The CCP are hostile and dishonest towards foreigners not because it's in their interests, but because it's in their nature.

      It's also in the (perceived and possibly actual) best interests of the tyrants in power (even if not in the best interests of China as a whole).

      They're keeping a quarter of the world's population under control by force and by suppression of information. A free flow of information is likely to collapse their power structure - and circulate the news of their past crimes so they end up under the rubble or dancing at the ends of ropes.

      From the standpoint of China, several billion growing pies is better than several billion very small pies. From the standpoint of the leaders a big piece of several billion small pies is better than being dead while there are several billion growing pies being consumed by happy Chinese.

      The trick is for a new generation of leaders to make a big point of opening things up before they accumulate an unforgivable backlog of "bad karma". Then, though the empire might partially collapse, the governmental hunk of the pie end up smaller, and the people who opened things might be viewed as having fumbled the ball politically, they also get to be heroes and live through the shakeup.

      The Chinese rulers have the (ongoing) example of the Former Soviet Union to show they what can happen if they open the information floodgates. They can try that. Or they can try to hold on to power and see if they can patch the leaks in the dam fast enough to avoid a flood.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    23. Re:China's next move by sp0tter · · Score: 1

      good move

      --
      you don't eat crackers in the bed of your future--or else you'll get all scratchy
    24. Re:China's next move by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      Yes China owns billions. So do the Japanese.

      The threat of China melting down our economy is drastically over rated.

    25. Re:China's next move by Nick_13ro · · Score: 0

      If you don't understand the pressure you have when you own one nations debts, please read this Wikipedia article that describes how USA with economic pressure ended United Kingdoms status as world power in 1956: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

      That action of an "allied" power should learn each person how important financial power is and clearly tell you why the Chinese owns USA.

      And the reason the UK buckled under the pressure was because it couldn't calculate a winning military strategy in the conflict that would follow repudiating the debt. The US is not in any danger of being invaded by China. Now redo the math.

    26. Re:China's next move by Nick_13ro · · Score: 0

      The Chinese rulers have the (ongoing) example of the Former Soviet Union to show they what can happen if they open the information floodgates. They can try that. Or they can try to hold on to power and see if they can patch the leaks in the dam fast enough to avoid a flood.

      Given the soviet example you just quoted how can you rationally support changing the system as beneficial either for the people, for its rulers or for the country ? It was an unmitigated disaster in every way, a race between local oligarchs and foreign companies to rape the place. At the only point Russia saw improvement was when when Putin took over and imposed his will with his "anti-democratic tendencies" much condemned in the west. Why would any rational person living in either Russia or China support a system that lets him starve ? I'm sorry but your views are naive: it's better to have one master with stakes in keeping the place in reasonable shape than a bunch of jackals fighting "freely and democratically" over the carcass of the country.

    27. Re:China's next move by linhares · · Score: 1

      That would make one euro worth 100 USD. Hyperinflation and a massive, unprecedented crisis of confidence. Imagine everyone and everything (companies, governments) having a three year long panic attacks and you might be able to see what could happen in this crazy monkeysphere. Today is a day of darkness.

    28. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Google has just cut off their nose to spite their face. Honest truth is that they were not winning in China, and after years of deep investment in China they were still in second place. To be quite honest, they were in second place because their chinese search sucked, and still lags behind Baidu. Most people who use g.cn tend to do so for english search, translation, etc.

      Their down-fall seems to be that they assumed that you could take US values and business model and paste them in China and make things work. Additionally that their new gained allies in the US government could spearhead the 'change' that they wanted. It just doesn't work so well here in Asia. Lastly they underestimated Beijing's response as well, China is still a very nationalistic country (as are most countries in Asia). By pulling strings and favors with the US government, they came off looking as a US company trying to write Chinese law visa vi the state department. This just does not work. The problem is that the US has a long history of trying to change foreign governments and laws in order to better serve their companies. Lets not forget all the wonderful governments that were propped up in South America.

      If google had kept their discussions internal and behind closed doors there would have been greater leverage into some changes. Shaming a country into changing their law just does not work well here. Especially when you pit the government in the corner. There is 0% possibility of Beijing caving into Google's demands, if they had than the people in China would think that US companies have a free pass at changing the law. Remember that most people in China think that they already have little say in politics, however to be quite honest this does not seem to bother them. The only thing google can expect is for Beijing to completely shut down their Chinese operation. Additionally they will no longer be able to re-enter the Chinese market in the future. Additionally future plans on Android might also hit the fan. Remember that China Netcom and China Unicom are both state companies. Once again a windfall for MS and Apple. This will cost them big in 15-20 years time. When you exit China on such a public note, than you will never be welcome back. What Google has just missed out on is a growing internet usage population that exceeds the total US population. They had managed to gain a 33% market share in China. In 20 years time, even if this goes unchanged, this market share would spell billions in revenue and would rival gains made in the US.

      The other view is that this was all intentional, in which point this is the biggest face-palm moment in business history. They might have pandered to their users in the US and Europe. However they just lost out on any money to be made in China. Remember that this is a corporation, which is suppose to focus on profit. A lot of people invested a lot of money in Google, they expect the company to increase their revenue streams, not cut out entire market sectors on a whim of a golden heart and regained moral compass.

      The companies that stand to gain are Microsoft, Yahoo, Baidu, and the myriad of small Chinese search engines. Also remember that in China Baidu is also a WOFE (Wholly Owned Foreign Enterprise), they are officially not incorporated in China (most likely to save on tax). The key difference is that in China who you know is damn important, and you do business in China like the Chinese do it.

      And don't seem so shocked, the same applies in the US. Who you know is important and it pays to have friends in high places. Case and point being Lehman, it isn't a big secret that the guy that ran Lehman Brothers was a dick, and when it came around to bailouts the head of the fed decided to make an example out of the firm. Remember that Goldman Sachs was in the same position as Lehman. Yet Lehman got hung up, while Goldman secured a federal bailout and guarantees. Or take a look at the whole USAF tanker fiasco. It breaks down to Boeing getting caugh

    29. Re:China's next move by jdc18 · · Score: 1

      Most of the proxies are gone now here in china, they last a little

    30. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, so when will Google stop censoring results in France and Germany?

      Oh wait, when it's about Nazi's censorship is good. We love being hypocrites, and so does Google.

    31. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • France and Germany have laws the public can read about what is censored; China's (much larger) list of censored topics is a state secret.
      • France and Germany have governments elected by the people, so there is a better chance they reflect the collective will of the population.
      • France and Germany have not hacked into Google to steal source code and attempted track Nazi sympathizers.
    32. Re:China's next move by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      +1 wonderful analogy

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    33. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit of a stretch. The collapse of the Soviet Union was far from a disaster for Russia's colonies, such as the Baltic states, which regained the independence taken by the Hitler-Stalin pact. Second, the Soviet economic stagnation started long before the USSR fell apart, with unsustainable investment in ever more military production facilities delaying the inevitable collapse. The break-up of the USSR was just the gust of wind that brought down the house of cards

      The size of the Soviet GDP before the break-up is anyway often exaggerated, based on inflated official statistics that were largely meaningless and CIA estimates derived from them. An apt comparison is the DDR. Officially, it had a GDP per capita about 60% as high as West Germany, but after re-unification, it became apparent that this had been an illusion. The actual GDP per capita had been only about 30% of the West German level. Using official statistics, an equal level of output before and after re-unification would appear to be a catastrophic drop in output of 50%.

      Apart from the illusions of Soviet economic success, the Russian economic collapse was so severe because the entire Soviet economy had been based on a military-industrial complex distributed 'strategically' (ie based on military rather than economic requirements) throughout Russia and its colonial empire. When the military spending declined, most of this industry became redundant. The concentration of narrow industrial complexes in Russia and its colonies made things worse, since many of the colonies had no interest in continuing to serve as assembly plants for Russian military equipment.

      As for Yeltsin, he was a failure because he naively believed the people around him had the best interests of Russia in mind (which Yeltsin actually did, he just wasn't competent to realise them). Moreover, just as the Soviet economic stagnation started before Yeltsin or the break-up of the USSR, the Russian economic recovery started before Putin. It essentially began after the crisis in 1998, and the subsequent rise in the oil price. Putin takes the credit, but had virtually nothing to do with it.

      On the whole, the Soviet example isn't really relevant to China. China is effectively a fascist state with a mixed economy, rather than a centrally planned one, and Chinese military spending is a negligible part of overall GDP compared with the Soviet Union. Democratisation of China might result in the loss of colonies like Tibet and Xinjiang, but they're actually unimportant to China's development, and most other fascist states that adopted market reforms (eg Spain) have made the transition to democracy relatively smoothly.

      Ultimately the CCP oppose democratisation solely because it would mean giving up their monopoly on power. It has nothing to do with the best interests of China or the Chinese people. The CCP have dumped Maoism into the dustbin of history in all but name, and more or less adopted the economic development policies of the KMT (several decades late). By their actions, they've admitted that the KMT were right all along and that Maoism was a dismal failure. They refuse to take the last step of officially saying so because they have to pretend they were right all along, or else the Chinese people will start to question whether they're right about everything now.

    34. Re:China's next move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, you seem to be missing the basic point that US debt held by China is denominated in US dollars, and the US can print however many dollars it likes.

      In 1956, the world was still operating under the Bretton Woods system, through which both the US dollar and the pound were theoretically convertible to gold. The UK had an obligation to maintain the official exchange rate, which is why the US threats to sell UK debt had leverage.

      The US has no obligation (or wish) to maintain a fixed exchange rate with China. None. It's the Chinese who are trying to maintain a peg. Preventing a devaluation of the US dollar vis-à-vis the Chinese yuan is why the Chinese (a) don't allow the yuan to be freely traded and (b) hoard low-interest American debt.

      Selling the US debt it holds would destroy China's competitiveness, and lead to a collapse in Chinese exports. In the US, it would just lead to slightly higher inflation and interest rates, coupled with a massive increase in export competitiveness.

      Chinese threats to sell US debt would be like threatening to cut off their own nose to spite their face. Not even a true believer in Chinese propaganda would be stupid enough to do that.

    35. Re:China's next move by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      On the other hand it would be a godsend for American exporters, might actually bring some industry back to the USA.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    36. Re:China's next move by yuhong · · Score: 1

      And remember that Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders, was born there!

    37. Re:China's next move by BhaKi · · Score: 1
      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
  5. i'm getting a premonition by shadowrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anytime google says, "china", it's going to be front page news on slashdot.

    1. Re:i'm getting a premonition by Nick+Number · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's going to disrupt things like a bovine male in some kind of retail establishment.

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
    2. Re:i'm getting a premonition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like a fat ass at Walmart?

    3. Re:i'm getting a premonition by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      That's called jingoism. Usually, jingoism wears off after certain period of time - usually a week. But some flavors of jingoism - especially the ones arising from propaganda - will last untill the objectives of the propagandist are fulfilled.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    4. Re:i'm getting a premonition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next up: Google Dining Room Invests in Fine China

    5. Re:i'm getting a premonition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, walmart has new wider isles

    6. Re:i'm getting a premonition by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Or like a fat ass at Duane Reade, at least until Walgreens draws their new blueprints.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  6. Yes but how does this mechaincally work by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    How does this actually work? does the mainland china google just have links to the hong kong web site? which when you go there then has links to banned content?

    Or what exactly?

    I was under the impression the great firewall of china did not have it's barn door open. e.g. if the Falun Gong or Uhgers had a Hong kong web page would it be visible all over china?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by Conception · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China would, and probably will, manually block Google.hk. But it'll be fairly embarrassing that it's legal in some parts of their country but not others.

    2. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW! People are finally asking "how"!

    3. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      A lot of things are legal in Hong Kong that are not legal in China.

      Just 37 more years to go.

    4. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by yuhong · · Score: 1

      And that is quite a long time, probably enough time for a revolution to happen in the PRC.

    5. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by the+linux+geek · · Score: 1

      Or for the legitimate government of China to retake the mainland.

    6. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by oatworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chiang Kai-Shek's only virtue was that he wasn't Mao. Past that, neither he nor the Kuomintang were exemplars of good governance, which is why Mao was able to overrun China in the first place. The only reason the KMT (and, by association, Taiwan) hasn't revoked its claim to the mainland is because doing so would be interpreted by the PRC as a declaration of independence. Past that, the KMT is about as likely to retake the mainland as the Tories are to retake the US.

    7. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by mad_minstrel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Embarrassing? Why? The US has many regional laws too.

      --
      May the source be with you.
    8. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by kclittle · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Past that, the KMT is about as likely to retake the mainland as the Tories are to retake the US.

      Yessssssssssss!

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    9. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Chiang Kai-Shek's only virtue was that he wasn't Mao.

      Okay, but that isn't exactly a small thing.

      > The only reason the KMT (and, by association, Taiwan) hasn't
      > revoked its claim to the mainland is because doing so would
      > be interpreted by the PRC as a declaration of independence.

      It would also be domestically very controversial in Taiwan.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    10. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by SakuraDreams · · Score: 1

      Can someone tell me who would stop China from doing what it wants to Hong Kong - after all it was all Chinese territory originally before the British came. Of course nothing and no-one can stop them. Is the UK going to start a nuclear war over Hong Kong?

    11. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. He wasn't of the same calibre as Sun Yat Sen, but Chiang managed to hold off the Japanese far longer and more effectively than anyone had expected. Given the attacks from both sides, the Communists under Mao on one and then the Japanese on the other, it wasn't exactly easy to govern China.

      Virtually all of the fighting against the Japanese was done by KMT forces, as CCP reports to Stalin show. Japanese reports also universally highlight the KMT as the enemy, with little attention paid to the CCP. The main impact of the CCP's guerrilla tactics was actually to stoke up Japanese atrocities against civilians.

      According to Japanese sources, Mao allegedly even thanked the Japenese for invading China. Responding to Japanese Prime Minister Tanaka's (vague and empty) "apology" for the invasion of China, Mao allegedly said that without the Japanese invasion, the CCP would never have been able to overthrow the KMT, and then thanked Japan for invading and allowing the CCP to 'make China great'.

    12. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by jonwil · · Score: 1

      The more likely option for China would be to do keyword filtering on searches made through Google. So if someone searches for a keyword the chinese government doesn't like, the firewall can pick that up via parsing the Google URLs and will block things.

    13. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by oatworm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Chiang Kai-Shek's only virtue was that he wasn't Mao.

      Okay, but that isn't exactly a small thing.

      Well, no, but he wasn't exactly a freedom-fighter or a lover of civil liberties. He gained power by a military coup and kept it with an iron fist. Look up Taiwan's White Terror sometime. The only real difference between him and Mao was that he was a power hungry conservative that embraced tried-and-true Chinese tradition as his ideological touchstone instead of the murderously destructive interpretation of Communism that Mao adopted. Point being, if China actually chose to create a government that answered to the will of its people, the KMT would be the second-to-last political party that they'd probably call upon to lead them.

      The only reason the KMT (and, by association, Taiwan) hasn't revoked its claim to the mainland is because doing so would be interpreted by the PRC as a declaration of independence.

      It would also be domestically very controversial in Taiwan.

      True, in no small part because doing so would effectively be a declaration of war against a much larger and more powerful opponent that can obliterate it at will, something which the PRC has made very clear for the past 30 years or so. The only thing keeping Taiwan from getting the Hong Kong treatment itself is the US' insistence, backed with a carrier group or two and considerable military assistance to Taiwan, that the PRC and Taiwan maintain the status quo. Under the circumstances, if I were Taiwanese, I'd find any change to the status quo to be controversial, too, if not brazenly suicidal.

    14. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Well, no, but he wasn't exactly a freedom-fighter or a lover of civil liberties.

      This is true, but Chiang wasn't a pedophile like Mao either. Mao liked 11 and 12 year old virgins and had men(his pimps) constantly searching the country for them so he could deflower them.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    15. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by mshih · · Score: 0

      Chiang was just a power hungry dictator, not much different than Mao. Mao and other CCP members were also members of the KMT. Chiang like most KMT members, were trained by the Russians. Chiang only fought the Japanese because Chang Hsueh-liang and a few other generals kidnapped him to force him to fight the Japanese. Chiang didn't give a damn about the people, he just wanted to consolidate his power by killing Mao. The second front against the Japanese was a joke and the KMT killed a lot of Chinese people while trying to slow down the Japanese, just check out the 1938 yellow river flood. The KMT were corrupt and used terror to rule. They continued to do that in Taiwan with 40 years of martial law and political killings. The only reason the KMT survived is with the support of other nations.

    16. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but no where do we have flat out commuism running in one of the States.

    17. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      The only thing keeping Taiwan from getting the Hong Kong treatment itself is the US' insistence, backed with a carrier group or two and considerable military assistance to Taiwan

      It's not quite that simple. More likely, the deterrent is economic. Taiwan and the mainland are basically in bed with each other economically - they are one of the top trading partners of each other. An estimated 2-3 million Taiwanese citizens (roughly 5-10% of the population) regularly commute or live as alien residents in Shanghai for work.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    18. Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work by jonadab · · Score: 1

      It's both of those things, and there are also some additional politics involved.

      For one thing, the major Western nations (particularly the US) have made a number of significant diplomatic concessions to the PROC, with the *understanding* that military action must not become a factor in PROC/ROC relations. Concessions like officially not recognizing the ROC or having formal embassies and official diplomatic relations with them. Concessions like issuing formal statements in recognition of important Chinese philosophical positions (e.g., the One China Policy). If China so much as *looked* like it was going to move against Taiwan, those concessions, which despite having little material significance are nonetheless far more important to the PROC than most Westerners could possibly understand, would be in jeopardy. The Chinese government would lose face in the eyes of its own citizens.

      For another, any move to attack Taiwan militarily would be viewed within China as a military action against Chinese citizens, with all the controversy that entails in the modern era. This by itself wouldn't be an effective deterrent, because the government would hope to spin and control the news. But in combination with the international politics, the potential for US military intervention, and the economic disincentive, it's just one more reason why China isn't planning to do anything military against Taiwan.

      What they *are* planning is to keep repeating, loudly and often, that Taiwan always has been and always will be a part of China, and to censor (at least within their area of actual control) any suggestion to the contrary, and to continue browbeating and wheedling and cajoling and bribing (with concessions on other issues) other nations into officially agreeing with or at least not officially gainsaying this position. This will continue to work because Westerners generally just see it as so much posturing of the sort that it's best not to try to argue with, because there's nothing to be gained by arguing about it. And the Chinese will continue to see it as an important moral victory that nobody (well, nobody important) is officially disputing their nonsense^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H statement of historical fact.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  7. Streisand Effect by Tokolosh · · Score: 0

    What's Chinese for Streisand Effect?

    You couldn't pay for such publicity.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  8. And yes, it's completely legal...BUT... by daveschroeder · · Score: 1

    It may be "completely legal" to provide uncensored Simplified Chinese search in Hong Kong, but that doesn't mean "mainland"[1] China won't just block google.com.hk in response (which it probably will, soon).

    [1] Yes, this is accepted term for it.

  9. They already own it by maroberts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hong Kong is part of China, it has different regulations however as a result of being handed over by the UK. I believe the phrase is "one country, two systems". In all fairness its not a bad idea; if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:They already own it by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Hong Kong makes money. Tibet does not.

    2. Re:They already own it by quenda · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hong Kong is part of China,

      In name only. In reality it is no more part of China than it was previously part of the UK. It is "owned" by the PRC, but has its own laws, citizenship, currency, foreign reserves, TLD etc. And people regularly protest without being shot or threatened by tanks.

      if China were this flexible over Tibet

      What? Still maintain the old theocracy?

    3. Re:They already own it by rve · · Score: 1

      if China were this flexible over Tibet they would be getting a lot of International Brownie points

      Tibet wasn't exactly a free market democracy before the PRC took over.

    4. Re:They already own it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May Hong Kong, but mustn't Tibet. Hong Kong is adjacent mainland, the Pacific, and nothing else. Tibet is another thing. Though many people, scholar, culture researcher want to see a living example how the serf system run, how the surf's hands and eyes were cut as the master's freedom and democracy, for culture protection reason, they never show us how witches were executed by burning themselves.

  10. google.com.tw by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they wanted to piss off the PRC, they might have redirected to Google Taiwan instead. :P

    1. Re:google.com.tw by sl149q · · Score: 1

      That would be the underlying threat. They are moving to HK so that everyone can save face.... but if there are further issues then they can move to Taiwan. And that would be very embarrassing to the Chinese government.

    2. Re:google.com.tw by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      That would be tantamount, in the CCP's eyes, to a declaration of war. Then you would REALLY see their true colours.

    3. Re:google.com.tw by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I think they want to confront China with the fact that part of the country has utterly distinct laws between the two countries not start an international armed conflict.

    4. Re:google.com.tw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't quite work since Google Taiwan is in Traditional Chinese not Simplified Chinese.

    5. Re:google.com.tw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they wouldn't be able to read it! The PRC uses Simplified Chinese, ROC uses Traditional.

    6. Re:google.com.tw by sych · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hong Kong also uses Traditional Chinese, and there are differences in word usages etc between HK written Chinese and mainland written Chinese.

      Google have specially made a Simplified Chinese version and are hosting it out of google.com.hk, aimed at mainlanders. When you access google.com.hk from a browser that is configured to ask for pages in Simplified Chinese, google.com.hk delivers you that version.

      It even says under the search box (in simplified Chinese), "Welcome to the new home of Google in China!".

    7. Re:google.com.tw by sych · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. There's more of a tradition of censoring websites from Taiwan, not as much of a precedent for doing it for websites from HK.

    8. Re:google.com.tw by The+Atog+Lord · · Score: 1

      Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese. Mainland China uses Simplified Chinese. So, that wouldn't work. Mao changed the written form of the language some years back.

  11. Market Share by zero0ne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, what % of the search market will Google now own after this change?

    I would imagine a LOT of people would start using Google if they found out it was uncensored.

    It will be interesting to watch how their market share changes from this.

    1. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would imagine a LOT of people would start using Google if they found out it was uncensored.

      Definitely, but if you were on a Chinese ISP, wouldn't you be a little bit afraid to browse any of the search results?

    2. Re:Market Share by NevarMore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I bet not.

      A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use Google.

      People who want to find the usual search engine stuff will use whatever is most popular and/or gives them the results they find most useful. Which may very well be Baidu, Yahoo, Bing or Google.

    3. Re:Market Share by qw0ntum · · Score: 4, Informative

      Right. Also remember that a large number of Chinese citizens are on the side of their government, hard to believe as that may be. The prevailing attitude seems to be "they should not do business here if they don't respect our local laws", and moreover many people there see Google as an extension of the US government's foreign policy (state media has played up ties between Googlers and the US government.

      Surprising as it may seem, a large, large number (maybe majority, I don't have statistics) are perfectly fine with censorship, and are immensely proud of their country despite its flaws (nationalism strikes again!).

      --
      'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
    4. Re:Market Share by Toze · · Score: 5, Funny

      A small minority of people

      porn

      Sir, I believe I have discovered a flaw in your argument.

      --
      No OS on the planet can protect itself from a user with the admin password. - Yvan256
    5. Re:Market Share by wanchai · · Score: 1

      I think it's the reverse.

      even if China doesn't block the access of google.com.hk, individual who search (or do anything online) inside china can still be traced. I think the move to redirect search to google.com.hk will immediately reduce the usage of google, cos the general public, who knows a bit of what is being censored, may prefer not to see these materials at all.

      still don't get it? imagine there's a search engine that returns NSFW materials for sure. will you use it at work? will you avoid using it?

      yes, there's internet cafe. but there's highly efficient people's police, and net cafe owners who won't think twice to report to the authority.

    6. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has been serving uncensored results from Google.COM for a while. People who wanted to (try) to access it from Mainland could. But, it had to cross the great firewall, and be served from outside of China (read: blocking of sensitive terms and results and high latency). So what has changed? Just that Google.CN has (effectively) been redirected to that uncensored Google.com page.

      What will happen now? You guessed it.. Google WILL get blocked. Unless this was negotiated with the Chinese government, it will get blocked A LOT. Google's availability will go way down, only the hard-core will attempt to use it - and game over.

      At least Google is trying (but I don't think they will have any effect). The real villain here is Cisco, who helped build the great firewall, and Yahoo, who bowed down to the government and turned over a dissident Y! mail user who is still (I think) in jail..

    7. Re:Market Share by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      yes, there's internet cafe. but there's highly efficient people's police, and net cafe owners who won't think twice to report to the authority.

      I seem to recall a previous /. article about the Chinese requiring the internet cafes to record I.D. on the users and log their activity...

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Market Share by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

      I bet only a tiny pinch of people will be looking for politics, history and related stuff. But the number of people looking for the good old sweet p()rn will be just huge.

      --
      There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    9. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like we don't have just as many jingoidiots in the USA.

    10. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Surprising as it may seem, a large, large number (maybe majority, I don't have statistics) are perfectly fine with censorship, and are immensely proud of their country despite its flaws (nationalism strikes again!).

      You're talking out of your ass. The majority of people _do_not_ support censorship. What you're referring to is a Pew opinion survey of China where a majority supported censorship for violence and harmful content for children, not other kinds of censorship. More importantly if you want to generalize then it should be noted the _majority_ of people in China support their government on topic such as Tibet and Taiwan however censorship is one topic everyone hates. A prominent example includes internet memes like Grass Mud Horse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_Mud_Horse which is used to mock censorship. It's gotten to the point where if you follow the wiki link it shows people have turned the meme into a plush toy that can be bought online from Taobao (China's eBay). There's also the example of Green Dam where popular disdain stopped the government from launching the program, especially when people mocked Green Dam with anime such as Green Dam Girl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_dam6.jpg

    11. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in China. Disclosure : I am French.

      Actually, most people here do not see uncensored results as real bonus.

      Many people here even argue that some degree of "information management" by the state is a good thing, and tend to see censorship and freedom of speech as western concerns that do not apply to their own country.

    12. Re:Market Share by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      lol, you actually get right on. Likely a minority care about censorship about politics and history unless it hurts them. And for news, I don't think the censorship is so successful neither because news pass everywhere before gov are aware of the news itself in many cases. On the other side of the picture, a large number of people (well, Chinese probably) inside and outside mainland China are angry on their "control"/"censor"/"cleanse" in (online) games and their recent serious crack down on materials that violate copyright (e.g. all those "free" stuff that Chinese all over the world bit-torrent etc.)

    13. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've even seen that attitude here in the Netherlands from young people of Chinese descent. Even though they've lived their entire lives over here, China is the best country in the world and always was and can't do anything wrong. Baffling.

    14. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8575476.stm), only 20% of Chinese even know internet access in China is censored (up from 5% two years ago), and only 2% know how to circumvent the Great Firewall. So, I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. Google are making a lot of noise and waking up Chinese to the reality of CCP censorship of Chinese internet access. Most Chinese can't support censorship, because most of them don't even know about it.

    15. Re:Market Share by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      A small minority of people that want to find uncensored material (porn, politics, history, in that order) will use Google

      Think your list of desired "finds" should have included anonymous proxy servers, encryption software, directions on how to beam Wi-Fi...you know, the standard stuff people want when thinking out loud the "wrong" way will get you a straw mat in prison...

      Or shot.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    16. Re:Market Share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we Chinese wanna search for porn, we go to Baidu instead of Google. Google is for tech and English info (as well as politics, but nobody around me does that).

    17. Re:Market Share by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      (See responses to parent above) I find it amazing that so many (IMO) arrogant /.ers say Chinese don't stick with their government... they do. Parent is exactly, 100% correct. I've spoken to enough Chinese and read enough over the years from sources like The Economist to know this is the truth.

      The view of us as arrogant intruders is largely supported by the population. And no, it's not the "ignorant farmer", it's the up and coming young educated workers who support their government the most. Really... believe it. And if anyone wishes to understand the situation, I'd suggest you take off your American colored glasses and put yourself in the position of the Chinese who have risen from destitution to living in wonderful high rises in beautiful Shanghai. I say this as a very proud American, but Jesus people, we don't know everything...

      China "suffers" from the same symptoms any large nation does (incl. the USA). It is nearly incapable of seeing anything outside of its cultural lens. We think they're oppressed, but by and large they don't feel that way at all (for now, but these actions by Google may or may not make a small push toward change).

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    18. Re:Market Share by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      There market share may go down. Here is why: Even though the search results aren't blocked, China still blocks the site. So you search for something on Google.hk and you get pages of the best results, all of which give you a 404 since the page itself is blocked by PRC. So what good is an uncensored search when the pages themselves are blocked? (source: npr)

  12. The point? by happysand · · Score: 1

    How do the Chinese people feel about what is going on? I understand that their government has X stance and is sticking with it, but Google seems hell bent on getting around this because ..... why? Do they just want to piss off the Chinese government or are they just trying to make a name for themselves in China? It seems like they are trying to subvert the government for their own well being without thinking of the consequences it could have on the culture of the country.

    1. Re:The point? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      Possibilities:
      1. They want to liberate the Chinese people, and will do everything in their power to bring censorship-free search results to them
      2. Their investors would be too angry if they completely ditched China
      3. They just wanted a good laugh

      Which seems most likely?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:The point? by happysand · · Score: 1

      1) That isn't there job
      2) They should continue doing their job
      3) Now they're doing their job.

  13. 2nd round of attacks likely? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we all back up your e-mail and documents on Google's services in case the Aurora attacks were by non-goverment-sponsored Chinese nationalists? (I am assuming that the government would not be so stupid as to try to do something potentially incriminating for the second time in a row).

  14. Unintended consequences? by dave562 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits. Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China. I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.

    In a nutshell it seems like they're saying, "Nahy nahy, we're in Hong Kong now. You can't touch us." That seems rather short sighted to me. On the other hand, they have a fairly defensible position. Would the Chinese risk looking like even more severe tyrants by disrupting the dynamics that govern companies in Hong Kong?

    1. Re:Unintended consequences? by justkeeper · · Score: 1

      You probably don't know that Falun Gong has already set up their billboard in Hong Kong for many years without running into any problem.

    2. Re:Unintended consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nahy nahy

      Are you implying that Google employees are of the Horse species?

    3. Re:Unintended consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      My limited understanding of Hong Kong vis a vi China is that the Chinese allow a certain amount of economic freedom to Hong Kong in order to reap the benefits. Although Hong Kong might enjoy more freedom than the rest of China, there is no doubt that the Chinese do in fact own Hong Kong and Hong Kong is in fact part of China. I wonder if there will be any backlash against Hong Kong as a whole because of what Google is doing.

      Yes and no. Yes, China officially has some power over Hong Kong. Unofficially, Hong Kong rules itself, and any attempt by China to exert even the slightest power over it would result in uproar, if not uprising.

    4. Re:Unintended consequences? by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Oh it's a little more complex than that. China is treating Hong Kong well almost purely because they want Taiwan back so badly. A move like putting a choke-hold on Hong Kong would make that whole political mess even more impossible. This whole thing should be interesting, or it will fade away to be forgotten in a few weeks when China decides to block Hong Kong Google & does nothing else.

    5. Re:Unintended consequences? by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      When they decided to make Hong Kong a special area twenty something years ago, it was desgined to be a show case to Taiwan. Today, it's still an important bridge and middle land between PRC controlled area and RoC (Republic of China, i.e. Taiwan) controlled area. Its importance is in this politics. So even if Google land there, mainland won't do anything to altern the current situation in HK.

      Google's matter is far from having enough strength to altern their HK policy. Nowhere near.

    6. Re:Unintended consequences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in Hong Kong linking to porn is just as illegal. Which doesn't mean they'll Google to censor, but "someone" may well sue Google for breaking HK law.

  15. dynamite by Mekkah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And BOOM goes the DYNAMITE!

    --
    ~Mekkah
  16. Logic please? by forand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This type of logic is inane. If a spouse says "Don't make me hit you," and then proceeds to beat their spouse for not having dinner ready the person doing the beating is at fault. China is responsible for China's actions pure and simple. What Google has does in perfectly LEGAL within the current legal structure of China, if they don't like their own laws....

  17. How difficult by Exception+Duck · · Score: 1

    how difficult is it to gain unrestricted internet access in china ? do you have to be a computer hacker or can anyone download some sort of onion thingy and just browse ?

    1. Re:How difficult by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, most people consider "downloading some sort of onion thingy" to constitute "being a computer hacker".

      I'd bet that most Chinese don't even know that there is censorship.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:How difficult by rmm4pi8 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wasn't quite able to figure out the attitudes there. Where I was (Chengdu), everyone used anonymous proxies like crazy, and while they were quickly blocked more would spring up, with DNS/IPs often distributed on email lists. It was treated a bit like speeding in the U.S. I guess--technically illegal, best to avoid the cops, but everyone does it. I was using my corporate VPN as an easier access method, and even though VPNs are, as best I can tell, in the same sort of legal grey area, my usage really freaked people out. The very idea of encryption (even used to view the same exact material) gave them visions of visitors in the night.

      --
      U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
    3. Re:How difficult by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      For a simple access to a blocked website, it is possible to use proxies website, but you have to find new ones very regularly because they are blocked pretty fast.

      Tor is an option, I heard good reports about Freegate, but I don't know if it is still valid.

      The best way is to have a VPN, either by a geek friend elsewhere (not convenient for most Chinese) or a company like Witopia (but the prices are expensive compared to the cost of life here).

    4. Re:How difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Chinese know it is there and know how to get around it for things like Facebook.

  18. But what if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is all of us that live with censorship and fabricated news whereas China and North Korea are free?

  19. Different, but the same. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ever since Hong Kong return to China politicians and activists have tried to preserve the region's freedoms. The consensus seems to be that Hong Kong has been losing those freedoms, China has done a lot of meddling and the government has generally sided with the PRC. I don't recall the precise details but recently a number of politicians have openly protested China trying to exert more control. If I remember correctly, I think they suggested Hong Kong's politicians resigning en masse bringing about new elections with the hope that people would vote in those who would preserve the region's autonomy. I don't think much of anything came of it.

    From a business perspective Hong Kong is, without question, a far more mature market. They wont face the same kind of cut-throat market still rampant in China. The problem in China for Google isn't simply one of hackers. A company will try to set up a partnership with a Chinese company and that company will turn on them, stealing whatever they can in the process. And the foreign company will be powerless to do anything about it because the Chinese courts almost always side with their own companies. Punishments for Chinese companies tend to amount to a slap on the wrist. Some very successful people have gotten burned badly in China. Certainly, there's success to be had, but you'd better be vigilant and have a very trusted networks. I have friends who have dipped their toes in China and have decided that the potential for success wasn't worth the trouble.

    The nature of Google's business gives them the luxury of not having to be physically present in China. But the fact is that they still are in China, they're going to be facing many of the same issues they were facing in the mainland.

    If they were serious about making a statement they'd base themselves in Taiwan. But then again, the Taiwanese government probably doesn't want to get involved, especially given the current administration.

    1. Re:Different, but the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was never about hackers...wtf is wrong with you

    2. Re:Different, but the same. by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      Those few/several Hong Kong politicians are not fighting to preserve the region's autonomy nor anywhere near that. Those few person are fighting for "real-election" for the city's mayor in 2012 instead of the determined 2017 (which is writen in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, and is agreed upon by the mainland government). The exact situation is that Hong Kong does not have a law that allows *Referendum*, so they resign and claim that they'll use it as a *Referendum*, so if they get elect again, it means people support having "real-election" in 2012 instead of 2017. Their action, even Hong Kong's biggest democratic party (The Democratic Party, it is actually called) oppose. Mainland government, Hong Kong government, and the Hong Kong political parties that maintain close relationship to the Communist Party are pretty much just saying that it is technically legal to resign and re-elect, but using that as *Referendum* is just not respecting the Basic Law and is affecting the operation of the Legistrative Council of Hong Kong (which is like the parliment of the city). But they didn't say much more than that, and what they say have no power on affecting the election etc and are far from meddling Hong Kong government's operation.

      Now on google's matter. They've a team in Taiwan already I think? I don't believe it matters so much even if they base themselves in Taiwan. Taiwan and HK have been a strategic place to land on when companies are eyesing mainland China anyway. And if they're really rebasing, Taiwan is actually much more reasonable than HK because it's still considered to be part of "Greater China Area" and I believe Taiwan business's reach in mainland is stronger than many of those from HK. TW also seem to have an edge in software/web-business also. I don't think any Chinese including the mainland government will see anything wrong with that.

      This, however, is just redirecting. Then of course, you'd redirect to somewhere within the same political power.

    3. Re:Different, but the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "side with their own companies" may just be your western interpretation. Chinese courts tend to think very differently about what is common sense or reasonable. E.g. if my truck supplying you with goods runs off the road, you can't sue me for late delivery or lost goods. Instead the court may rule that we should both share the cost of both goods and the replacement truck. Which probably works out in my favor, not yours. You may argue that my driver ran off the road, but in the Chinese mind it's you who asked me to take that road in the first place. My truck would not be lost if you had not hired me.

  20. Google's new logo image for China services by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Here's the new graphic Google is planning on using on their Hong Kong-based services for mainland China:

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:Google's new logo image for China services by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Damnit, forgot that ./ doesn't let me post images as images, have to post the link instead: http://animeotaku.animeblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/coolface.jpg

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  21. It's a rather lovely solution by goldcd · · Score: 1

    when you think about it.
    China can either draw attention to the fact that they treat the residents of Hong Kong differently to the Chinese mainland by blocking internet traffic within 'China' or raise the ire of the HK residents (who they are so so wanting to keep happy) by cutting them off.
    Personally whilst I'm all for the 'internet being without censorship' - I think the kicking of China is somewhat unfair. Whilst China may be quite upfront about saying "this is wrong, we don't want you to see it" - pretty much every other government on the planet is keeping tabs on visits to 'certain sites' (or hell-bent on pushing legislation/monitoring through).

    1. Re:It's a rather lovely solution by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's a brilliant move. This is a company that proves so powerfull it can say Fsck You to China and even get away with it, if only for a short while. This is one of the best things Google can do to show that it cares about human rights.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  22. Google's failing in Korean and Japan. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a very similar reason as Google China, local government, politicians and businesses are more than welling to restrict the influence of Google. They will find many different way to restrict Google simply every government has its own form of censorship.

  23. Well makes an ineresting point from HK by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    One of the big things China is banging on about is that Google needs to obey their laws. Ok, fine, they are. They are locating themselves in Hong Kong and obeying the law there, which as China will happily tell you is a part of China.

    May make people ask why China is being so bitchy if Google is IN China and obeying the laws. All one country... right?

  24. Can't get to Google.COM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am in mainland PRC, and I never used google.cn, I always just used google.COM because most of what I'm looking for is in English anyway.

    Well, I can't get to Google.COM this morning. Everything redirects to google.hk.

    Even if I click the link at the bottom that says "Go to Google.com" it doesn't work.

    Here's hoping they will fix this soon.

  25. Asking slashdot... by Megaport · · Score: 1

    My daughter just moved to china to work for a year. Our family has a google app domain that we all use for email. Before she left I configured her laptop so she could send and receive mail but I'm worried that google's china dispute might escalate.

    Does anyone know the mechanism used by the "great firewall"? For example, if our MX records are aspmx.l.google.com (and from memory google run their SMTP/IMAP on non-standard ports too) is this likely to be caught up in a series of tit-for-tat blocking or will it just be things like good old port 80 to gmail.com?

    The webpage report linked in the article still shows gmail as not blocked, but if it does get blocked will my daughter be cut off from her email address at our family's google-hosted domain?

    --M

    --
    # grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
  26. Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so easy to be blinded by our own perspective on things. Where is the balance between law and censorship? Today we tell China they shouldn't censor and allow pornography. Tomorrow, other countries tell the United States that they shouldn't censor child pornography. After all, child porn isn't illegal in most countries http://www.informationweek.com/news/global-cio/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184429489

    How do we justify the illegality of child pornography in our country while we harp on the laws of another land?

    1. Re:Censorship by makomk · · Score: 1

      Today we tell China they shouldn't censor and allow pornography. Tomorrow, other countries tell the United States that they shouldn't censor child pornography.

      Slippery slope argument. Child porn is illegal in the US because its production involves raping kids. Anything that doesn't - for example, fictional drawings of child porn - is potentially protected by the First Amendment. (The Supreme Court has ruled that this is the case and everything.)

      After all, child porn isn't illegal in most countries

      Actually, that's kinda misleading. The usual statistics on that only count it as illegal if there's a specific law against child porn, not just a law against all pornography. In fact, there's only a handful of countries in the world where it is actually fully legal.

  27. Who is the "new web page" for? by Clifton+Beach · · Score: 1

    The date is formatted "M/D/YY".
    It's only the two little countries above Central America and a couple of small islands that use that format. I expected Google to be a bit more worldly than this.

    --
    42 hidden comments
  28. HK sites have been blocked for long long time by hackingbear · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually almost all HK news sites are not accessible in the mainland since the people start using Internet. China does not care about embarrassment but control.

    The strange things are that the mainland cable TV networks (in the southern provinces) carry full TV programs from HK, because they are more popular than the politically correct programs from the mainland TV networks, but block only during the broadcast of certain sensitive news item. Of course, even a fool would tell something bad has happened by this type of blunt actions. And therefore nobody really believes whatever the government is saying. Yet at the same time, majority of the same people seem to agree that (a) social stability is more important than anything else; (b) some truths are better kept as open secrets.

    The only good is that the Chinese government's propaganda control is largely still very blunt and kaming it easy to tell it is progranda. When they fully learned American style political marketing and packaging, it would be worse.

    1. Re:HK sites have been blocked for long long time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > When they fully learned American style political marketing and packaging, it would be worse.

      You mean they would start willingly watching and believing their equivalents of Fox News?

    2. Re:HK sites have been blocked for long long time by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Fox News is worst political packaging I have seen in the US. For examples, see the many ear marking clauses being included in a congress bill with an appealing title.

  29. Very little, that's why Google is doing this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It had hard time in gaining market share in China because it's late entry in the Chinese language search market.

    1. Re:Very little, that's why Google is doing this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Google had 30+% of the market there, right?

  30. Hong Kong is being squeezed also. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hong Kong is losing it's influence to Shanghai. It's harder and harder for the business in Hong Kong to compete with the business in China.

  31. Yes, you got quiet a bit of misinfo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    British signed the 100-year lease with Qing Emperor with a gun pointing to Emperor's head. The least would end in 1997. China told British in early 80s that they want HK back. British said, I got bigger guns and bad a$$ Navy. China said, I got nukes and China ran two nuke tests right before the negotiations. British said, ok HK is yours.
    As the man stood before the tank, he is still alive and well. What does that tells you?

  32. Is Google Even Serious? by peterindistantland · · Score: 1

    The results are shown in the search results, but can't be open because they are still blocked by the Great Firewall... How useless this is! If Google is serious, they should ship a "censorship resistant browser" to the Chinese, and provide proxy service to make this possible.

    1. Re:Is Google Even Serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem a little confused as to googles intent here. The freedom of chinese citizens does not come into it, publicity and advertising dollars from china and the rest of the world is all it is about, They won't mention that this doesn't actually let people browse those censored sites, all that matters for them is they can publically say that the chinese can search for their existance. After all google are more than happy to censor search results in numerous other countries, when can we expect Google to withdraw from all the other countries where they bow to censorship laws?

  33. Google.com.hk is still blocked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but by the Great Firewall of China instead of Google themselves. Google have moved to HK and are providing an uncensored version of Chinese search results and news, they have essentially in-sourced censoring back to the Chinese government. Sat in mainland China if you search on google.* for anything about the TianAnMen 'Incident' or Fulan Gong, and you get a connection reset and are blocked from the search site for a minute or so. This is probably the best stalemate between Google and the PRC. Google gets the PR kudos for providing uncensored results, like they said they would, and right under the Chinese government's nose. China expels the foreign invader not playing by its laws, looks like the hurt party for google being so brazen for running their shop in HK, and *still* gets to filter all China mainland usage of google.* through its firewall (as provided by your friends Cisco). Another sad thing is that folks using google.com.hk, that are no longer being explicitly told "these search results are being censored by the law of the Chinese government", that's what happened on the old .cn site. I'd prefer being told things are being censored by the demands of a third party than a connection reset and a 1 minute GoogleBan.

  34. google.com also redirected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The really bad thing is that google.com now also gets redirected to google.com.hk, which is not what I want at all.

    I hope they will fix this.

  35. Complete misunderstandings by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Informative

    For what it's worth, because basically every single post in this discussion is wrong: 1) Hong Kong Google provides uncensored Internet search results. However, the websites themselves are still censored. For instance, using Hong Kong Google won't be a magic way to access blocked porn sites. Really the uncensored results are kind of a pain for normal use, it just means a bunch of broken links. 2) Hong Kong Google isn't anything new to China. Before Google set up a PRC Google, 3 years ago or so, that was the way PRC China users accessed Google. And for the past 3 years, Hong Kong Google has always been accessible. 3) Hong Kong is China, but the government in effect is guaranteed independence until 2047. Obviously there's some caveats and whatnot, but the PRC wouldn't just renege on this and tell HK Google what to do, because it would look bad internationally, and because they'd like Taiwan to agree to something similar. 4) Really, what this will do is slow Google searches by .03 seconds, and search results will provide a lot of links to websites that have been blocked (which if you're searching non-sensitive items in Chinese language, doesn't happen all that often - if you're searching non-sensitive English items, there are a fair number of false positives). I'm guessing a lot of localizations also will be lost or left undeveloped (for instance, Google Maps can tell you which subways to take to get around Shanghai).

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  36. Can This Sense by PulkitGoel · · Score: 1

    What This link report that ?? http://www.google.com/prc/report.html Its Shows the Status of 3/21/10 But at the END of Page "©2010 Google - Last updated: March 20, 2010 9:52:32 PM PDT" Hows this possible that Site Updated 1Day before that Data is Showing.. :D

    1. Re:Can This Sense by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      The international date line causes this. The top date is for China (though it really should use a more international format such as 2010-03-21), while the bottom one is local time in PDT (i.e. the time of the western US mainland).

  37. Baidu sucks by jdc18 · · Score: 1

    Well i dont know how can anyone use baidu, it is so crappy, you can pay to rank higher, so the searchs are all tampered. China will have to realize what are they doing by letting google go.

  38. Why dont you let us use Google.com ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We live in China and cant access Google.com anymore because of their stupid redirect to HK - that is terrible, google is terrible. How can you discount entire expat community? who want to use google hk?? Jesus

  39. This is NOT a solution! by 200_success · · Score: 1

    Although Hong Kong is technically part of China, it is still in many ways independent. Physically, there is a border control between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. In terms of Internet topology, Hong Kong is outside the Great Firewall of China. The PRC government can block access from mainland China to google.com.hk, just as it can block access to google.com or any other site. This sounds more like a face-saving statement by Google to claim that they are still technically operating in China than a strategic move.

  40. Ten 9's reliability factor!!!!!!! by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Thermite is your friend.

    When you have to actually implement that Go To Hell Plan® whilst up to your ass in gators, remember...Thermite is your friend.
    Hell, it may even keep some of the gators away!
    BTW, there is no such thing as 'too much Thermite'[1], but there have been cases of 'not enough Thermite'....something to ponder.

    [1] Hint: 'The Goggles! They do NOTHING!' is the effect you should be striving for.
    Also, the obligatory disclaimer.

    Remember kiddies, don't try this at home...save it for the data centers and server rooms!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  41. The Owl and the Mouse.... by rclandrum · · Score: 1

    Remember the hippie-era cartoon that shows an owl swooping down on a mouse who is gamely flipping off the owl? The caption was "The last great act of defiance". The mouse knows he is totally toast but wants to go out while he still has a pair.

    Right, wrong, makes no difference whatsoever. If China wants Google to disappear, they will be gone faster than a Republican can say "No".

  42. Mine, all mine I say.... by Ponyegg · · Score: 1

    There's another side to this isn't there? Hong Kong tax rates are notoriously low. And knowing how Google avoids paying tax at any costs in some countries (they paid no tax in the UK last year on UK ad revenues of almost $2bn - http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/apr/20/google-uk-tax-avoidance) what's to say they aren't doing exactly the same here, still milking the Chinese market whilst enjoying the tax breaks of locating/serving from Hong Kong. This has never been about ethics or morals and has always been only about 'business'.

  43. Alliances by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

    And why should China obey that declaration. Doesn't the UK need China more than China needs the UK? Is the UK going to invade China? China can do what it wants in Hong Kong and they will do it if they think it's necessary.

    If the British decide to press the issue, it could easily turn into WW3.

  44. Maintaining the theocracy by maroberts · · Score: 1

    I personally am not against other forms of Government apart from democracy, as long as it appears that they have the general support in the population of the country concerned.

    In other words, as long as there were some periodic indication that Tibetans wanted a Theocracy, thats what they would get

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon