decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Google On
Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:29 AM EST

You probably think I'm taking time off. Actually, I'm deep in a very slow, painstaking research quest, for information about SCO's attempt to trademark the mark UNIX SYSTEM LABORATORIES. I probably won't finish the research until later today, so I'm letting you know what I'm up to, where I've been, and when to look for me again.

Meanwhile, I have been noticing out of the corner of my eye a lot of criticism of Google over censorship in China. I don't know anything about politics, or know what should be done in such situations, so I have nothing useful to say about that. Anyway, Groklaw isn't about politics.

But I can't help but note that Microsoft and Yahoo also go along with whatever the law of the land is wherever they park their servers, including in China, without the firestorm of criticism that Google is now experiencing. Why, I ask myself? What option is there for any of them? Break the law? Do you remember what happened to Yahoo in France? Here's the latest on that. They surely tried. Here's the ruling itself, if you'd like to read it. So what do people suggest? Boycott China? Do you seriously believe China cares if every American search engine on planet earth stays out of China forever? Even I, naif that I am, know the answer to that. Like I say, this isn't my area of expertise.

What I know is FUD. Would you like to see some Chinese anti-Google, pro-Microsoft FUD?

Here you go, "Google Is Destined To Fail In China," by Perry Wu. First the author states that Google can never succeed in China because it's not Chinese, and then he praises Microsoft, and says it will eat Google's lunch in China. Um, Perry. Microsoft isn't Chinese either. It's as hilarious as such things usually are:

Google's inability to succeed in China instead resides in it not being a Chinese company.

Even with the hype surrounding Google's hire of the former Microsoft executive, Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, and other top grabs from Chinese companies like 1pai, Google's fundamental stumbling block in China comes from its failure to adapt to being a true Chinese Internet company. ....

In the bigger picture, Google's inability to conquer the China market is an indication of its eventual demise around the world. In the same way that Microsoft kicked Netscape into oblivion by looking at the company's services, and then adding them on to its proprietary operating system, Microsoft will do the same thing to Google. When the Vista operating system launches, Google's desktop and browser add-ons will be old-school programs we do not need anymore.

Funny, no? Maybe the censors haven't let them know in China yet that the Netscape caper ended up in an antitrust action in which Microsoft got spanked. The author seems to deeply admire Microsoft's behavior.

Kidding about the censors. The publisher is in Hong Kong. But the beneficiary of this FUD? There is also a dire warning about using any part of the website, and that doing so will lead to legal action. This is America, however, where so far, at least, fair use continues to breathe, and I will rely upon that. Happily, he didn't DRM his article, or I probably couldn't tell you what he said. By the way, remember we covered the UK All Party Parliamentary Internet Group's [APIG] inquiry into DRM? They have scheduled a hearing for Feb. 2. Here's a Wiki with info on who will be presenting. I see EMI plans to be there. That should be a hoot.

Here in the US, however, we are censored. Read your ISP contract some time, and you'll see a list of things you can't say. And there was that recent law passed, regarding annoying Internet speech. Not that I think it's Constitutional, but there it is, at least until the first time someone tries to use it and it gets challenged in the courts.

But my point is, freedom of speech is a continuum. For that matter, so is evil. Here's Google's statement on how they decided what to do. So I ask myself, why such a strong reaction to Google? Is it real or is it manufactured? I can't know that, although I notice there's been bad press from here to China.

Here's what I have observed:

When you compete with Microsoft,
your reputation will be sullied in the press.

Having experienced something similar, I can smell it a mile away when it happens to others. And I'm starting to get that whiff...


  


Google On | 188 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Google On
Authored by: blacklight on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:55 AM EST
"But I can't help but note that Microsoft and Yahoo also go along with
whatever the law of the land is wherever they park their servers, including in
China, without the firestorm of criticism that Google is now experiencing."
PJ

Well, yahoo was severely criticized for giving on demand to the PRC key
information that was instrumental in tracking down a dissident Chinese
journalist. The man is serving ten years in a PRC prison, even as we speak. PJ:
I am sorely tempted at this moment to toss your comment posting policy overboard
and say what I really think of these slimeballs from yahoo. After all, the worst
you could do to me is to obliterate this post: to me, this is nothing compared
to a human serving ten years in jail. I understand that you don't do politics,
but advocating freedom is just about the most political activity there is.

EU commissioner unhappy with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5809.html


---
Know your enemies well, because that's the only way you are going to defeat
them. And know your friends even better, just in case they become your enemies.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 12:59 AM EST
So PJ can find them

---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2005 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:23 AM EST
Google continues to resist Gonzalez' demand for its customers' data. The
hearing is scheduled for Feb 27.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Good for them - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:10 AM EST
Google On
Authored by: Peter Smith on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:33 AM EST
PJ, You are spot on. I too had noticed many anti-Google FUD articles and was
wondering when people would start talking about it.

Happily Microsoft FUD is so badly done that it invariably backfires. I am always
amazed that they are so inept at creating credible FUD. I suppose when you don't
have the truth to work with it must be really difficult.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • not this one... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 08:16 AM EST
Sorry, I could not find any FUD...
Authored by: blang on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:35 AM EST
The article was pretty straight up as far as I coudl tell. And it did not
predict that MSFT wold succeed.

The FUD, or hypocricy I have seen has come from US congress, adn Fox News. They
are up in arms about google bending to chinese rules. Amazing how these crooks
are worried sick about the human rights of the chinese, while happily chipping
away the rights of americans.

The article writer makes several points that are very true. There is a free
market, but it is still regulated. Companies are part state owned, with
executives and board politically appointed. And they are not run just according
to the invisible hand of market economy. Coming from the outside, breaking
into that market is almost impossible. Even when you have the best price and
product, a party bigwig can still overturn a purchase.

To be accepted, you might need to show a long track record of creating
opportinities, sharing business with chinese, training and sharing technology
and business knowhow. If google fails, not being chinese wold be reason number
one. The company I work for took the long view, and after many years we were
finally rewarded. The competitors who came in with trumpets blazing and dollar
signs in their eyes are now long since gone.

But I have to disagree with the article author for a different reason. I believe
they will succeed.

Google has a powerful brand, and the powerful "extras", such as
translation, and google earth, google movies, will help, too. Google is now a
verb in many languages. I used to seay search. Then I grew up and said grep.
But now we all just say google, whether we actually use google or not. That
reminfs me. I need to go in the basement and google for my fish gear.

Nestle is doing fine in China, as does Disney, Coca Cola. Google is another
brand. They might not end up as the 800LB gorilla, but they will be big enough
to say that they get a large portion of their revenue from China.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: gemsling on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:46 AM EST
"But I can't help but note that Microsoft and Yahoo also go along with
whatever the law of the land is wherever they park their servers, including in
China, without the firestorm of criticism that Google is now
experiencing."

There are a couple of differences between Google and the others. Google promotes
itself as a "do no evil" company and is known for it. Also, they are
proactively announcing the filtering they need to implement to operate in China.
Others would do it quietly, thus not prompting people to stir up debate.

Google knew there would be some negative reaction, but they handled it as well
as they could... Of course, people who haven't read Google's blog post wouldn't
see the move from Google's point of view, or understand that Google is not happy
about filtering, but is doing so to create other benefits.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Google On - Authored by: N. on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:04 AM EST
    • Google On - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 07 2006 @ 12:03 PM EST
  • Google On - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:49 PM EST
Google was lambasted because of their moto 'Do no evil'
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 01:54 AM EST
They went along with the censorship because they felt it was better to be
providing as much information to people as possible rather than deny them
everything. Also censorship is like DRM, it's easily gotten around. On the
other hand China is heading for a complete collapse in their food production.
If that doesn't happen, the heavy metals getting into the food supply is going
to wreak havoc on the next generation of chinese. So if things in China don't
change dramatically and very soon, it's bubble could burst just like the .com
did.


---
TTFN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do no evil
Authored by: cmc on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:10 AM EST
I've read some very emotional responses from both sides (pro-Google and
anti-Google), and I am anti-Google on this issue for one very simple fact.
Google's unofficial motto is "Do no evil", and they pride themselves
on it, and garner huge amounts of support from all types of people for it. Many
people view the government-mandated censorship in China as evil. Hence, Google
is (in these people's eyes) directly going against the motto which they
supposedly hold sacred and publicly proclaim.

There are also people who view Google's decision to do business in China as
supporting the government of China, and by extension supporting the government's
views on human rights (which most people would tell you are very lacking).

I'm with the first group of people. If Google wants to do business in China, of
course they have to follow the country's laws. To go against a country's laws
would be foolish. However, don't proclaim that you "do no evil" when
you are actively censoring the material people are allowed access to (such terms
as "democracy" or "Tibet"). When you start censoring
people, or supporting the censorship of people (at least in this manner, in my
opinion), you can no longer problem that you "do no evil".

That's the way I see it at least. Perhaps equating censorship with
"evil" is an exaggeration, but then again the definition of
"evil" is open to interpretation and depends on whom is speaking.

To answer your question about why Google is getting a backlash because of this,
whereas Microsoft and Yahoo didn't: because Microsoft and Yahoo do not proclaim
to "do no evil", and to be honest, some of us expect it from them
(note that expecting it does not condone it, justify it, or accept it).

cmc

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic here
Authored by: fudisbad on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:42 AM EST
For current events and legal filings. Please make links clickable.

---
See my bio for copyright details re: this post.
Darl McBride, show your evidence!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On - who is Perry Wu
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:22 AM EST
This is from the linked website.

House Commentator: Perry Wu (a pen name for our editorial and guest pundits)

Wonder who employs this pundit?

[ Reply to This | # ]

***Human Rights*** then Laws
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:59 AM EST
Think of the Laws of Nazi Germany in the 1940’s

Nope… you have to go to a higher level.. “Human Rights” first then set Laws
under them.

If you know your neighbour is abusing his wife and you still go out drinking
with him then you are complicit.

---
Not all filtering is necessarily evil.
BUT filtering the word “democracy “… well that’s got to be close.


---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"

Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 04:20 AM EST
"But I can't help but note that Microsoft and Yahoo also go along with
whatever the law of the land is wherever they park their servers, including in
China, without the firestorm of criticism that Google is now experiencing. Why,
I ask myself?"

Because Google have adopted an "holier than thou" attitude with their
"Do no evil" motto. http://www.google.co.uk/corporate/tenthings.html

If you set yourself up as having higher standards than most, then you will get
judged accordingly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Google On - Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 09:16 AM EST
Politics
Authored by: Duster on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 04:21 AM EST
PJ - The perennial debate between liberty and control IS political and cannot be
otherwise. Freedom IS a political issue and so to are the antics of Microsoft.
Since we cannot avoid politics, we need to try and understand them: US, EU, RU,
or PRC. Ideally, politics is the practice of compromise. It may not, indeed
should not leave anyone happy. If anyone walks away from a political settlement
happy, we need to worry that the debate may be reiniated using "other
means" to quote Bismarck I believe.

Duster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Compromising freedoms in order to turn a profit
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:01 AM EST
Is the very antithesis of the Free software movement. That's why Open Source
isn't Free.

I don't know what else to say. You either grok that, or you don't.

I'm very, very disappointed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Aim Here on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:22 AM EST
"So I ask myself, why such a strong reaction to Google? Is it real or is it
manufactured? I can't know that, although I notice there's been bad press from
here to China. "

Well certainly, Yahoo seems to be the worst offender re: China, but even without
the tinfoil hat, I can think of good reasons why honest supporters of Chinese
democracy might target google first. There's no need for some shady Microsoft
puppetmaster to explain that (although there could well be such a thing).

Boycotts generally work by damaging a corporation's public image among it's
customers. Which means that they're only really effective against corporations
which deal with the general public, and they're most effective against
corporations who have some sort of 'ethical' brand image.

It would be much easier for a campaign to have an effect against the likes of
the Body Shop or Starbucks (which heavily advertise whatever so-called 'ethical'
qualities they possess, and therefore attracts customers who actually care about
those things) than it would be to have a go at your average oil company or
investment banker, say.

Similarly, Google does have a 'nicer' public image (google says 'Do no evil'
while Microsoft is the byword for inflicting broken software on the world via
unethical business practices in a lot of places), and is much more well-known
for it's search engine than yahoo or Microsoft. It would presumably therefore be
a bit easier and more effective to try to dent Google's image and exert some
sort of influence on what it does, just purely for tactical reasons.

Personally, I think that the most ethical thing for all of these companies would
be to show extreme bad faith when it comes to enforcing China's police state and
implementing the Great Firewall of China - offer all sorts of loopholes, easter
eggs and workarounds in order to let information seep into (and out of) China
and close them down with the greatest reluctance whenever the government finds
out about it.

I don't see it happening though, since the unspoken assumption is that somehow
these corporations actually care about the democratic rights of the Chinese (or
American or European) people. I'd be much more inclined to believe they'd
happily censor and spy on us on behalf of our governments, if they could get
away with it. Perhaps China is just a trial run...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Google On - Authored by: Peter Smith on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:48 AM EST
    • Google On - Authored by: Aim Here on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 02:32 PM EST
      • Google On - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 12:24 PM EST
    • Google On - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:35 PM EST
It is a matter of expectations
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 05:43 AM EST
We all expect M$ to do whatever it takes to turn a (dis)honest dollar. So when
they ebnd the knee to dictators we are simply confirmed in our opinion. Yahoo
did get a lot of stick I seem to remember both for censoring content and for
handing over data.
We expect better things from better companies. Google are a commercial company,
but are usually a rather better behaved one. This just reminds us that they are
in some respects not as much better than their opponents as we would like.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Law and Ethics
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:11 AM EST
One definition of politics from Google: "the process by which a community's
decisions are made".
The law provides a framework for those decisions, so I reckon it makes the law a
political actor.

One of the reasons I admire Groklaw is because its position on ethics ("the
study of fundamental principles that defines values and determines moral duty
and obligation").

A good citizen abides by the law, a person with ethical values acts according to
his moral principles and ideas of justice. What happens when a good citizen with
ethical values encounters an unethical law?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Griffin3 on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:21 AM EST
Actually, I got a real giggle from "I'm deep in a very slow, painstaking
research quest" -- during which PJ has been laying low for a weekend. How
long has she been working on this, a week or two? It's just amusing how
perpectives have changed: before the 'net, I seem to remember when long research
quests described months or years ... :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Google On - Authored by: PJ on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 09:07 AM EST
  • Google On - Authored by: pogson on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:19 AM EST
US == China ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:21 AM EST
I understand that Google don't want to provide information regarding its users'
search patterns to US authorities and I hope Google take the same position with
the Chinese government if they were required to disclose similar information of
their chinese users.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Different Expectations
Authored by: emmenjay on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:00 AM EST
We expect Microsoft and Yahoo to act like weasels, so nobody is surprised when
they do.

Some of us have higher hopes for Google, so we are disappointed when they don't
meet our ideals.

Such is life.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The LFOD Browser
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:05 AM EST
A business venture proposal:

Inspired by the NH license plate, I propose we
launch the Live Free of Die Browser (LFOD).

Ideas for ads:

"We're pro free speech. Period."
"We really do no evil"
"We will never filter the word 'democracy' "

Ok, so we sacrifice the Chinese market but we'll
corner the rest of the FREE world.

Who's with me? We'll use Open Source software of course...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • typo - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:10 AM EST
Don't forget Walmart in all of this.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:16 AM EST
They have factories in China producing goods only for Walmart. They utilize
prisoners (slave labor)and are in deep with the RED CHINESE. Forget the
politically correct.. And down the road we will have to fight them as they
enslave other societies. So every time you buy something at Walmart you are
putting another bullet in the Red Chinese arsenal that will cost American lives
down the road.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why the fear of Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:20 AM EST
Google has been cool and I have no real complaints. However I am somewhat
concerned at how much I have come to depend on them. Yes there are other search
engines, but an awful lot of them are actually just google in the background
with fancy packaging in front. There are very few real alternatives and none are
as good. Google deserves its success, but with it has come a frightening power.

Recently an experience brought home to me just how dangerous it is to depend on
one search engine, even one as good as google. I arrange music for my a cappella
group to sing. This of course makes me a habitual criminal since it is pretty
much impossible to arrange or sing music at all these days without continually
breaking the law which has obviously been written by someone who has never sung
a note in his life because it is totally unworkable but I digress.

I was about halfway through arranging the song - a couple of evenings of hard
work on the computer - and I couldn't remember the words to part of the second
verse. Now while I do in fact have a CD with the song on it buried somewhere in
my collection, finding it would be a chore since my CDs are in no particular
order and after years of untidiness half of them seem to have ended up in the
wrong cases. Anyway rather than hunt for it I did my usual trick of typing a few
words from the song into google expecting to be able to pop up the rest.

Now usually this works just fine. However there has been a change in the net
over the last year. The RIAA has been going after websites with lyrics and
chords, and what used to be a thriving online community of amateur musicians
helping each other out has dried up and turned into a desert of fear and greed.
In any case no lyrics were forthcoming, the first time I have completely lucked
out when seeking lyrics. Instead google directed me to an endless stream of
greedy and expensive commercial sites offering to sell me (at VAST expense) CDs
or books or arrangements for instruments I don't own - totally useless to me
since I'd STILL have to rearrange the song to make it suitable for the voices in
my group.

Anyway, my point is the feeling of total frustration in finding that google
seemed to be blocking or hiding the content I was seeking and sending me to
places I didn't want to go instead. It made me aware of just how dependant I had
become on google for finding things on the net. It wasn't a nice feeling. I have
a lot of sympathy for how people must feel in repressive places which don't have
feedom of speech. It took me an hour or so walking the shadier side of the net
to ferret out the information I wanted, and I am now very interested in
alternative search engines.

Now you can all berate me for my criminal tendencies. Me and all the other
people hanging out here at Alice's restaurant. If you don't know what I mean -
look it up. Just take care not to get caught.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Doing Less Evil
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 07:20 AM EST
I support Google's decision, as explained on their blog (from News Picks).

It's not simply a matter of "doing the right thing". Given the
constraints enforced by the Chinese dictatorship, Google had a stark, naked
choice: stay out of China completely, or go in, but play by the rules. The only
question that needed answering was: of the two choices, which is worse?

By staying out, Google would to some extent hinder the dictatorship, but also
hinder the controlled Chinese population. How many actual individuals does that
dictatorship comprise, compared to the full Chinese population? Of the two,
which is the greater good, for the greater number of people?

Consider this: before the internet - still recently in terms of China's history
- all information distribution within China was strictly controlled. Much
better for controlling the populace. Now, at least some of the populace (soon
to be much, much more) have the chance to sniff what is out there on the other
side of the firewall - that which they are allowed to sniff. That, at least, is
something. That controlled "sniff" still comprises a vast education
they otherwise would be denied. It makes available to them alternate viewpoints
and may get a few minds to think - minds which otherwise might not. In the
longer term, that foretaste can only have one effect - to create the demand for
more. A demand which not even the likes of the dictatorship will be able to
deny indefinitely, try as it might.

And occasionally, the odd snippet slips through, even if only seen by one of the
thousands of full-time human censors working inside the firewall. Those
"odd snippets" at least get seen by someone, and they, in time, will
have an effect. China is trying to keep the cap on the bottle holding the
internet genie, but that cap already leaks. And if the pressure inside builds
up, it will leak a little more. By being inside as well as outside, Google adds
to that pressure. It may take a while yet, but eventually, something's gotta
give. You can't fool all of the people all of the time, not even in a
dictatorship.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the
accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

...and add to it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 10:16 AM EST
There is something very wrong when it becomes okay, having seen an evil, to add
to it.
Yeah Yahoo and Microsoft have done it ( Yahoo will rat out journalists ) so
Google is right to join the party?
I don't think so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Business as usual
Authored by: tizan on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:51 AM EST
instead of business with a difference.

My issue with the whole chinese flap...is my own disappointment.

Google apppeared as a group who wanted to do busines slightly differently. From
the nice and plain interface with no in your face ad to the 'do no evil'
statement...it made me feel good.

But now as everybody is pointing out ..Yahoo is doing the same thing so its
justified for google too... then its just money before any other
priciples...that is fine ...its just sad for me as i thought it was a bit
different.


So by the same argument ...it'll be okay for search engines to do business in
Saudi Arabia and agree to block information about women/human rights to
education etc...Business has to be profitable.

Do you know how frustrating it can be to get partial information and the whole
thing or you can continue to look around for something that is bugging you ? Its
like going to the library to do some research on Winston Churchill, say, and
given only a few pages on his death !!


My 2 cents of naivety...









---
tizan: What's the point of knowledge if you don't pass it on. Its like storing
all your data on a 1-bit write only memory !

[ Reply to This | # ]

Rampant Hypocricy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 03:51 PM EST
Having experienced it I know hypocrisy when I hear it. Google made a big deal
about releasing anonymous search info to the US Government as part of a child
porn study and acted so holy.

Then they turn around and cooperate with Chinese censorship.

Give me a break.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Rampant Hypocricy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 04:29 PM EST
    • Rampant Hypocricy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 10:33 PM EST
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
Authored by: elronxenu on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 06:14 PM EST
The problems here:
  • It's the thin end of the wedge.

    • First comes the censorship of search results according to Chinese Government demands. Then comes the alteration of cached pages to remove links to banned sites. Finally full details of users who type subversive search terms will be delivered to the Chinese Government.

    If all these things are requested by the Chinese Government, will Google comply?

  • Google says they don't do evil

    • This is why Google has come in for more flak than Microsoft and Yahoo in a similar situation. Google has a specific policy against doing evil, and many people feel that adoption of censorship according to the wishes of an oppressive government in order to do business in that country is an evil act. Most people expect Microsoft to do evil because we have so many well-documented examples of them doing evil in the past.

  • Google doesn't need China

    • Plenty of corporations do just fine without doing business in China. Certainly China represents an opportunity for Google to make even more money - but only at the expense of doing evil deeds. Bringing internet censorship into China is like exporting munitions to the Middle East.

  • Half a service is worse than none at all

    • How many of you refuse to buy devices which come with DRM (Digital Restrictions Management) on principle? Most, I would think. Even though the non-DRM portions of the device work fine, you wish to send a message to the manufacturer that DRM is not acceptable. Google's censored Chinese search results are just like a device with DRM, why would you buy it?

  • Does China need Google?

    • The question is whether a censored google is of higher value than no google at all, for the Chinese. And whether the absence of google from the Chinese market could further the cause of removing the censorship regime.

  • The target: removal of internet censorship

    • Ultimately the question is whether this appeasement of the Chinese Government will lengthen or shorten the life of the censorship regime.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: jjock on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 08:47 PM EST
I have flown into China on a regular basis since 1984
and have talked to as many people as I could meet in the
limited amount of time available to me on each layover.
The people who could speak english, and who were brave
enough to talk, know the pervasive power of the government
very well. That doesn't make them afraid to say what is
on their mind, it just makes them very careful to ensure
that they are not overheard by the "authorities". There
is a very large contingent of ordinary people that hunger
deeply for the freedom that we take for granted,and they
know they must bide their time.
I believe that the genie is out of the bottle, and
that it is only a matter of time before the old guard lose
the reigns, and that any piece of information these people
can get from the outside world will only accelerate the
process. It isn't a perfect solution but it is like
making sausage meat, it isn't a pretty process but the end
result is devine. How long do you think it will be before
those Chinese computer "nurds" will find away around the
censoring? This step by Google wasn't what we want but
I'll bet you that if you were asking a kid in China that
if given the option of restricted access to the outside
world or no access at all, I believe I know which choice
he will make. I can still remember watching TV the day
that the Berlin wall came down, those people didn't know
everything about freedom, but they knew they wanted it.
I don't think PJ is about politics on this blog, I think
she is talking about freedom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 30 2006 @ 11:12 PM EST
Well, for a slightly different twist on things, have a look at this article from the Washington Post (login required). As noted in another post, Google is openly announcing that it is complying with Chinese law. As described in the article though, Google realizes that "Some forms of engagement hasten liberal trends; others empower jailers."

[ Reply to This | # ]

I fear I could tire of the Groklaw slant
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 02:39 PM EST
An odd experience.

Looking at the front page of Groklaw over time, what do we see? A lot of
articles about patents, DRM and other nasties which infringe on people's
practical freedom to share and recieve information. Which are rightfully
condemned here.

But then we get the old "... but they're our friends!" problem, which
shows up here a lot. What Google have been doing lately has been no less evil
than Microsoft - they've been inventing their own DRM standards, censoring
search results in China... but because they're somehow an official Friend Of
Groklaw they're worthy of defence? Do we defend Microsoft's censorship in
China, or Microsoft's DRM efforts? No we certainly don't. So why do we excuse
Google the same just because Microsoft do it?

Here's the deal. Google is a public company which, of late, has been doing what
it is supposed to do: making money for its shareholders. So is Microsoft. They
are in competition, and unfortunately in the business world competition between
public companies so often means a race for the moral low-ground. This is a race
that Microsoft is still winning, but you'd be a fool to think Google doesn't
want to compete.

[ Reply to This | # ]

People react becaue they trust google
Authored by: GreenDuck on Tuesday, January 31 2006 @ 03:03 PM EST
When Microsoft does something considered dubious, people shrug and accept the status quo. When Google does something considered dubious, people stress about it. I think this is perfectly natural because there are two groups in this world: those you trust, and those you don't. Since Google fits into the former category, we expect it to uphold our standards. When they don't, we complain.

Now, Microsoft and thier shills will naturally take advantage of this - just look at the article you referenced for one example. But I think the reason they are successful is that people genuinely expect more from Google, and don't notice the double-standard they are imposing. I'm not going to attempt to say how Google should have behaved in China, I doubt there is any answer that would satisfy both Americans and Chinese. My argument is simply that what is acceptable for Microsoft is not acceptable for Google.

Getting sidetracked for a moment, the same is true in numerous other areas of life. When the worst department at university gets a bad report for corruption, incompertence, etc... they barely get a slap on the wrist because a bad report was expected. When the best department slips even slightly they get jumped on, because people expect more from them. The same is true for public figures - how surprised would you be if Keanu Reeves got into a fight tomorrow? But what if Allan Greenspan did?

[ Reply to This | # ]

One World, One Internet
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, February 01 2006 @ 10:35 AM EST

Happening today: a briefing on the subject of human rights and the internet in China.

And from an article at Tom's Hardware, apparently Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco have declined to attend.

Now there's a coincidence. Looks like you can take Google's heart rending soul search posted on their blog with a pinch of salt. Actions (or a lack thereof) speak louder than words.

You may compare and contrast what I have written here with what I posted above in defence of Google. I stand by what I said earlier, but it looks like Google have something else on their mind than what they speak.

---
Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google On
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 05 2006 @ 10:14 PM EST
Not FUD, FUX, Fear Uncertainty, Xenophobia.

Eli Rabett
http://rabett.blogspot.com

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.04 seconds