|
I'm not particularly bothered by it. Pretty much every company that does business in China has to decide to do things the way they're told or leave.
Google already complies with "censorship" laws in various countries and will do so in the United States where they're found constitutional (should Google fold rather than block searches for child pornography if a law passed muster here that required such?).
Complete freedom of information is a relatively novel idea in the world and telling information companies that they should only work in countries with complete freedom of information is quite the limitation(for example, Canadian courts have powers to squash publication that would never fly in the U.S. and it isn't hard to imagine a requirement that Google News, in Canada, filter out articles that would be illegal).
Should NBC refuse to do business in Saudi Arabia because of a requirement that they not broadcast swearing?
I don't approve of China's government or censorship, but globally some form of censorship is the norm and considering that the alternative is either no internet searching or no internet access then it doesn't seem that big of an issue to me.
I see this as a completely separate issue from the subpoena. There is a huge difference between censorship and surveillance.
|