Slashdot Mirror
Google Enumerates Government Requests
D H NG writes "In the aftermath of Google's exit from mainland China, it had sought to be more open about what it censors. Google has launched a new tool to track the number of government requests targeted at Google and YouTube. These include both requests for data and requests to take down data. A quick look at the tool shows that Brazil is the top country in both categories (largely because Orkut is popular there), and information for China cannot be disclosed because 'Chinese officials consider censorship demands as state secrets.' As part of its four-part plan, Google hopes to change the behavior of repressive governments, establish guiding principles for dealing with issues of free expression, build support online to protest repression, and better provide resources and support for developing technology designed to combat and circumvent Internet censorship."
Queue the people explaining how this is evil because its "not enough".
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
So if Google's already shown if a state considers that information a state secret they'll recind publishing it, who wants to bet there will be a bill in Congress by tomorrow classifying it in the states too?
This
I'd saw specifically because China says "state secret" you should do it.
And tell them where they can put their "state secrets". Maybe if they disclose all their "requests", they'll stop making them.. But no... appeasement is the word of the day.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
So why can't Google tell China to go pound sand and post them anyway? They can always blame it on some anonymous hacker, say the data was found in a bar, or just slip it to Wiki Leaks.
"I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
If you are in a minority that believes Child Porn is OK and Hate speech is OK...
I don't believe those things are OK, but I do know that censorship is much worse. Find another way to deal with the problem..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Without China, other governments will get the same idea, and the tool becomes completely useless. C'mon Google, grow some balls.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
As a Brazilian, I'm glad this exposes a situation which isn't usually discussed but should be given more attention now that Brazil is trying to gain additional worldwide relevance (through G20 and all that).
Brazilian courts have been extremely unreasonable and have forced Google to hand over private information and take down pages without much fanfare. Even though none of the data is actually hosted in Brazil, the courts have fined and threatened to fine Google several times because of this.
In Brazil, service providers have liability for their users actions and there are laws protecting the "private image" of individuals (even celebrities). In effect, paparazzi can be sued around here. Journalists can be sued and bloggers aren't considered journalists. Writing a story denouncing a politician can get you a lawsuit.
All this mess accounts for a lot of these requests. Google isn't being evil, but I wish there was more international pressure against the Brazilian government.
Maybe Huxley was closer to the mark.
Yes, I forgot to mention this in my previous reply.
I personally think it's very "amusing" to read the law where it says that freedom of expression is guaranteed but anonomity is forbidden. No anonimity boils down to no freedom of expression, because your freedom is limited by whatever the judge's interpretation of the law is.
Again, I really wish all these issues are brought to light by someone. Maybe Brazil is next in Google's crusade against censorship?
I imagine their actions could potentially be more successful around here when compared to China. As bad as it is, our government is probably in better shape than China's.
Speech of any kind should be ok. Speech never harms anyone - actions do. The state (of any nation) has no business limiting any speech, unless it is slanderous.
Really? Is it possible for a profit motivated organisation to be benign?
If you buy a burger for lunch, do you consider the seller of the burger to be malign? Even though they probably turned up to either make a paycheck or profit rather than an altruistic desire to feed you that day? It is the normal course of most people's day to provide a good or service in order to make gain, whether they provide it to an employer or to the general public. It is generally considered the most likely way to persuade others to give you money is to provide some sort of value. Unless you can get a monopoly position or government backing/subsidies.
At some point you must value the acquisition of possessions as necessary to survival, food, clothes, shelter. Unless you want to live as a subsistence farmer or hunter/gatherer, that acquisition will involve the division of labour and trade for mutual benefit, ie: profit.
If the profit motivation is inherently malign, and our lifestyle and civilisation depends on it for our survival, that would make all of us inherently malign. That might appeal to some of the religious but most of us aren't up for that view of ourselves.
And there was Google reprehending Australia's government for wanting to censor data. But here we have Google's home country the USA giving 23 times the data requests and 7 times the censorship requests.
This doesn't change the fact that the internet filter is a stupid idea.
It does give a better view of how things are right now - one situation (the internet filter) is a possibility, it may happen, and one (current Google censoring requests) is reality, it's happening right now.