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)."

Comments

Did I miss something?

[elrous0]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Conception]

Same country, different laws regarding censorship.

Re:Did I miss something?

[kz45]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[guabah]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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...

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[DaMP12000]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[ktappe]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[chentiangemalc]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[TooMuchToDo]

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?

Re:Did I miss something?

[SuperQ]

Try http://www.google.com/adwords

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[jpmorgan]

Google is not responsible for China's response.

Re:Did I miss something?

[selven]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[randomlogin]

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...

Re:Did I miss something?

[geekoid]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[MozeeToby]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[NotBornYesterday]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[skine]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Applekid]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Rivalz]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[hey!]

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".

Re:Did I miss something?

[smist08]

More like New York to Peuto Rico or Guam.

Re:Did I miss something?

[gtbritishskull]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[shentino]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[drougie]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Did I miss something?

[bynary]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[BlackSnake112]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[NotBornYesterday]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

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?

Re:Did I miss something?

[rent]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[gRa]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[kjart]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Xest]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[selven]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[mrcleaver]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[piemcfly]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[randomlogin]

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...

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[lobsterturd]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[jonbryce]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[fusiongyro]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[jonadab]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[wigaloo]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[SakuraDreams]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[caluml]

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>

Re:Did I miss something?

[caluml]

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

You need to have your reality sensors calibrated.

Re:Did I miss something?

[owlnation]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Angostura]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[Moridin42]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[sych]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[Buelldozer]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Idiomatick]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[mjwx]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[mjwx]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[bloodhawk]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[OrwellianLurker]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[danielsfca2]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[webminer]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[JordanL]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[rts008]

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! :-)

Re:Did I miss something?

[Xest]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Xest]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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).

Re:Did I miss something?

[caluml]

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?

Re:Did I miss something?

[jwietelmann]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[HeckRuler]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[AntiDragon]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[AntiDragon]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[plague3106]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[plague3106]

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?

Re:Did I miss something?

[plague3106]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[HungWeiLo]

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

Re:Did I miss something?

[HungWeiLo]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[Buelldozer]

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?

Re:Did I miss something?

[Aram Fingal]

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.

Re:Did I miss something?

[religious freak]

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!

Re:Did I miss something?

[rts008]

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). :-)

 

Re:Did I miss something?

[|TheMAN]

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).

Re:Did I miss something?

[|TheMAN]

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).

Re:Did I miss something?

[HungWeiLo]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[Daetrin]

"Invade, conquer and annex Hong Kong."

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

China's next move

[Kohenkatz]

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

Re:China's next move

[calmofthestorm]

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.

Re:China's next move

[nmosfet]

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!

Re:China's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:China's next move

[Murmel84]

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).

Re:China's next move

[Volante3192]

Horsey to pointy guy six.

Hmm... Get him, boys!

Re:China's next move

[Arancaytar]

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.

Re:China's next move

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:China's next move

[Onymous Coward]

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

Re:China's next move

[BhaKi]

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

Re:China's next move

[nmosfet]

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).

Re:China's next move

[Jaqenn]

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.

Re:China's next move

[spyfrog]

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.

Re:China's next move

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:China's next move

[Jenming]

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.

Re:China's next move

[BhaKi]

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?

Re:China's next move

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:China's next move

[calmofthestorm]

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

Re:China's next move

[spyfrog]

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.

Re:China's next move

[loners]

And the threat of not honoring those bonds?

Economic sanctions and reduce the national debt in one act.

Re:China's next move

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

Re:China's next move

[sp0tter]

good move

Re:China's next move

[Buelldozer]

Yes China owns billions. So do the Japanese.

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

Re:China's next move

[linhares]

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.

Re:China's next move

[jdc18]

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

Re:China's next move

[religious freak]

+1 wonderful analogy

Re:China's next move

[Reservoir Penguin]

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

Re:China's next move

[yuhong]

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

Re:China's next move

[BhaKi]

What do u say to this? http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/0118228/New-Legislation-Would-Crack-Down-On-Online-Criminal-Havens

i'm getting a premonition

[shadowrat]

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

Re:i'm getting a premonition

[Nick Number]

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

Re:i'm getting a premonition

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a fat ass at Walmart?

Re:i'm getting a premonition

[BhaKi]

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.

Re:i'm getting a premonition

[game kid]

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

Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[goombah99]

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?

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[Conception]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Just 37 more years to go.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[yuhong]

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

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[the linux geek]

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

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[oatworm]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[mad_minstrel]

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

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[kclittle]

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

Yessssssssssss!

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[jonadab]

> 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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[SakuraDreams]

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?

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[jonwil]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[oatworm]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[ffreeloader]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[plague3106]

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

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[HungWeiLo]

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.

Re:Yes but how does this mechaincally work

[jonadab]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[bsDaemon]

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.

And yes, it's completely legal...BUT...

[daveschroeder]

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.

They already own it

[maroberts]

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

Re:They already own it

[theurge14]

Hong Kong makes money. Tibet does not.

Re:They already own it

[rve]

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.

google.com.tw

[Arancaytar]

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

Re:google.com.tw

[sl149q]

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.

Re:google.com.tw

[benjfowler]

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

Re:google.com.tw

[linzeal]

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.

Re:google.com.tw

[sych]

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!".

Re:google.com.tw

[sych]

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.

Re:google.com.tw

[The Atog Lord]

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.

Market Share

[zero0ne]

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.

Re:Market Share

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Market Share

[NevarMore]

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.

Re:Market Share

[qw0ntum]

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!).

Re:Market Share

[Toze]

A small minority of people

porn

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

Re:Market Share

[wanchai]

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.

Re:Market Share

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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...

Re:Market Share

[cyfer2000]

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.

Re:Market Share

[ljgshkg]

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.)

Re:Market Share

[ibsteve2u]

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.

Re:Market Share

[religious freak]

(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).

Re:Market Share

[2obvious4u]

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)

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

97

Re:So....

[betterunixthanunix]

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

Re:So....

[shutdown -p now]

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

The point?

[happysand]

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.

Re:The point?

[betterunixthanunix]

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?

Re:The point?

[happysand]

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

Unintended consequences?

[dave562]

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?

Re:Unintended consequences?

[justkeeper]

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.

Re:Unintended consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Unintended consequences?

[DDLKermit007]

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.

Re:Unintended consequences?

[ljgshkg]

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.

Logic please?

[forand]

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....

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[blai]

can't enforce the law there.

Re:So....

[blai]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Sit down my son.....

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[kubitus]

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

How difficult

[Exception Duck]

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 ?

Re:How difficult

[John Hasler]

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.

Re:How difficult

[rmm4pi8]

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.

Re:How difficult

[koxkoxkox]

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).

Re:So....

[Shoe Puppet]

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

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[jonbryce]

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

Different, but the same.

[MaWeiTao]

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.

Re:Different, but the same.

[ljgshkg]

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.

Google's new logo image for China services

[kheldan]

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

Re:Google's new logo image for China services

[kheldan]

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

It's a rather lovely solution

[goldcd]

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).

Re:It's a rather lovely solution

[tsa]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[besalope]

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

Re:So....

[Weedhopper]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[mirix]

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.

Well makes an ineresting point from HK

[Sycraft-fu]

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?

Asking slashdot...

[Megaport]

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

Who is the "new web page" for?

[Clifton Beach]

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.

HK sites have been blocked for long long time

[hackingbear]

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.

Re:HK sites have been blocked for long long time

[hackingbear]

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.

Is Google Even Serious?

[peterindistantland]

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.

Complete misunderstandings

[kamapuaa]

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).

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[bronney]

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

Can This Sense

[PulkitGoel]

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

Re:Can This Sense

[SnowZero]

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).

Baidu sucks

[jdc18]

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.

This is NOT a solution!

[200_success]

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.

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[opposabledumbs]

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

Re:Next up on the Chinese agenda

[francium de neobie]

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

Ten 9's reliability factor!!!!!!!

[rts008]

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!

The Owl and the Mouse....

[rclandrum]

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".

Re:Censorship

[makomk]

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.

Mine, all mine I say....

[Ponyegg]

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'.

Alliances

[Tubal-Cain]

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.

Maintaining the theocracy

[maroberts]

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