Internet censorship

[scaeagles]

There was some anger (understandable, though I didn't share in it) regarding the feds wanting access to search engine records from Yahoo and Google, etc.

I find it interesting that Google, so outraged by the government attempt to access these records, has struck a deal with China to restrict access to sites and searches critical of China or on topics that the Chinese government regards as objectionable.

I do see a difference between the two governments, certainly. The argument against the feds accessing the records is most certainly sound. However, for a company whose motto is "don't be evil", I find it ironic that they are willingly participating in government censorship anywhere.

I find the justification to be lame at best. "The chinese will have more access to information" goes the company line. Who the hell cares if they can read about carrot farming, but are not allowed to read dissenting opinions to that of the official government line?

I believe this to be a strictly monetary position. I'm all for the almighty dollar and improving ones bottom line, but this does seem to me to be an extremely hypocritical thing to do. This is not in line with their own motto of "do no evil".

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/25/D8FBONMG7.html

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, hypocritical in my book, too. But corporations will follow the money. No surprise there.

It's only if there's no particular windfall to be had or lost that we might see some action indicating corporate spine. Just because Google is dead-wrong (imo) on the China issue does not mean that they are precluded from taking the proper stand (imo) with other governments.

[Alex]

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.

[scaeagles]

Yes, there is a difference between censorship and surveillance, but I would suspect that Google does turn over information to the Chinese government regarding who is searching for what.

[Alex]

Why would you suspect that? Because you like to think the worst of a company that has flouted the U.S. government?

Since China's government likely owns the entire telecommunications infrastructure that allows a computer to talk to Google in the first place it would also be entirely unnecessary to get the information from Google.

[scaeagles]

Not at all - I actually applaud Google for standing up to the government if they don't think it is the correct course of action. THis is why we have courts. I have stated that I understand their reasoning, though I don't consider it to be a threat.

I suspect the worst from Google not because of that, but because they are participating in active censorship with a Communist and oppressive government. This is by their own admission, and clearly against their own motto of "don't be evil".

My argument was hyperbole. You are most certainly correct that China probably has the info already.

I simply find it amazing that, in the name of freeedom and privacy (both exceptionally worthy things to pursue) Google has said they will not give the info to the US government. OK. However, the same thing isn't a high priority in dealing with the Chinese.

[Alex]

Except that they are different things. Or, put another way, they are the same thing. In both cases Google is withholding information.

Every company that is doing business with China is in some way complicit with the government's oppression. The governments of the world are complicit in China's oppression by treating them as equals and clamoring for access.

The argument has long been that engagement is better than embargo as it will slowly crack open the corridors of power and bring the country around. If it is better to have manufacturing in there (and complying with Chinese laws) than not then I don't see why it isn't similarly better to have information technology in there than not (and also complying with Chinese laws).

I have no problem with a company saying "we'd rather miss out on the market than conform to Beijing's requirements" (and like to think I'd be willing to do so) but I don't see why Google would be held to a higher standard, unless we think that all the other companies doing business there are "doing evil" and therefore Google is violating it's anti-evil position.

Just because they've made a policy decision I disagree with, I don't think that automatically renders it evil.

[scaeagles]

I guess that's one place we differ. I do believe government censorship, particularly and most extremely in cases of political speech, is evil. I believe participating in restriction of political speech, most explicitly in politically oppressive countries, is evil. (This is one reason I laugh at Harry Belefonte, standing next to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, talking about Bush being like a nazi and calling him a terrorist, when if he said that about Venezuela's government as a Venezuelan citizen, he'd be imprisoned. That's a different subject, though.)

Other companies do business in China all the time. I am not in favor of most favored nation status for China, but that's the situation, so they can do business as they wish. However, does building a car there contribute to an oppressvie regime? Does giving them McDonalds (if they are there - I don't know) help keep a communist regime in power? I suppose arguments could be made to that effect, but I would argue that giving oppressed peoples an opportunity to see some western style business and products as they open their economy only makes them want more.

One interesting thing that I read once (and I can't even remember his name, but it was a former Soviet dissident) was regarding the TV show Dallas and Levis jeans being allowed into the USSR. Soviet citizens were fascinated by both and wanted more of the west. He said that introduction of western products and media into their culture really assisted in sparking the end of the USSR as we know it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Other companies do business in China all the time. I am not in favor of most favored nation status for China, but that's the situation, so they can do business as they wish. However, does building a car there contribute to an oppressvie regime? Does giving them McDonalds (if they are there - I don't know) help keep a communist regime in power? I suppose arguments could be made to that effect, but I would argue that giving oppressed peoples an opportunity to see some western style business and products as they open their economy only makes them want more.

I see a major disconnect in your thinking here. "Building cars under Chinese rule, which includes working conditions we would consider inhumane and beyond illegal here, is good because at least it's exposing them to some ideas of the western world, but providing internet access under similar opressive rules is evil." I'm with Alex, it's one or the other.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we should not be doing any business in a country that is not at least demonstrating progress towards improvement of civil and human rights. As far as I'm concerned, we missed the boat long ago when we began as a country to enact labor laws within our country, but turned a blind eye to it abroad. By taking that hypocritical path, we gradually funded corrupt and opressive regimes over the decades, while putting ourselves at a competetive disadvantage. Now we find ourselves facing a world that has the technology to match (or surpass) our manufacturing standards (thanks to the billions of dollars we've pumped into these worlds), and instead of them being dependent on us, we are dependent on them. All at the expense of the working class of those countries.

Simply moving in and starting inudstry under their rules is not enough. We need to have the backbone to say that we will not do business unless it's done at a level of ethics equal to (or at least on path towards) our own.

[Gemini Cricket]

Patrick Duffy brought down the USSR? I knew it!