Are Web Firms Giving in to China?

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Google and other Internet companies are sending executives to Capitol Hill for a hearing next week seeking to answer the question: Are U.S. companies giving in to China's censorship demands too easily? Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.' The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."

money is money...

[scenestar]

China has one of the fastest growing markets

Don't expect a company to take ethics over profits.

America is not a democracy itself

[Cryofan]

The people who designed the American constitution said they did not want democracy for America because democracy was not good for stability and the interests of the wealthy. James madison, hamilton, Jay and Jefferson all wanted something less than democracy--they wanted a REPUBLIC.

James Madison, the father of our constitution, said this:
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property"

So China is now putting property over people. And that has ALWAYS been A-OK with those at the top in America!

Let's spread "freedom" to the entire world!

How about some historical context

[miletus]

Pontificating about corporate "morality" might benefit from some historical analysis, particularly regarding the relationship between corporations and dictatorship. German corporations like Krupp and I.G. Farben certainly bankrolled and profited from the Nazi dictatorship until their factories got burned down.

If we restrict ourselves to U.S. corporations, then we can recall the handsome profits Ford and ITT made in Nazi Germany, even when the war was going on. Or we can recall the role of IBM supplying their Hollerith technology [ibmandtheholocaust.com] to aid the holocaust. More recently, we can look at the role of corporations like ITT (again!) and Anaconda copper in pushing for the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, or United Fruit in Guatemala, etc.

War and dictatorship provide excellent opportunities for corporate profit. Just ask the board of Bechtel or Halliburton.

The only time this comes up is when the press/politicians talk about China or Cuba or Iran, etc. Hell, the same politicians who get on their high horse about prisoners in China used as slaves advocate exactly the same stuff here for American prisoners.

Where ever someone is being locked up, killed or tortured, someone else is making a profit. Take a look at the U.S. prison system if you don't believe me.

Re:The law

[TechieHermit]

Well, what they COULD have done is implement a technical solution. For example, they COULD simply NOT LOG anything. If they aren't tracking what people are looking at, it simply isn't possible for them to give anybody up, which solves the whole problem -- temporarily. China could demand that they implement some tracking technology, they could answer that they will do their best, but that they can't promise anything, and maintain an impasse for some time.

Of course, what China would probably do is start logging things at some intermediate point between the user and Google, and set up some sort of scheme to identify and track all packets touching Google's site (they probably already do this, mind you). And then we'd be right back where we started, with people getting nailed for their internet searches.

At that point, Google could respond by forcing SSL for all visits to their site, so that even if packets are tracked by an ISP, they can't be read. At which point the Chinese government could either shut them down entirely, or imprison all their staffers in-country and "nationalize" all Google's assets in country, turning them into a state-run Google which is much worse than the Google that's already there.

It's a hopeless situation, unless you're willing to simply refuse to offer service to China. I think what Google is saying is, this is a situation we can't do anything about, and having SOME access to internet searches is better than none, even if certain searches may be singled out by the government.

Sometimes, it may not be possible or practical to do what you consider to be the "right" thing. Sometimes, you have to accept the "least awful" thing.

Chinese labor standards

[Anonymous Coward]

I live and work in China and my customers are Chinese factories. I've seen the good (US owned factories that are clean and well lighted with good food and dorms that are far better than the houses the workers would live in at home) and the bad (a factory that used underage girls for QC work since their eyes were better and had dorms I wouldn't put a dog in). But even the worst is far better than the alternative for its workers. Those underage QC girls were farm girls from the back of beyond. They were making more money every month than both their parents put together. If they weren't working in that factory (illegally) they would have been back on the farm (and if you've ever seen a Chinese farm you'll know that's pretty hellish) or working on their backs in Zhuhai which is the Southern center for underage prostitution and which was withing 100 miles of that factory. When you buy consumer goods from China you aren't hurting the Chinese people. Collaborating with Internet censorship is a whole different story. There you are cooperating in repression.

Re:Our schools are.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this - but it is just a fad. Just like 20 years ago it was Japanese, and 10 years ago it was Spanish.

  Why always people like to get hysterical? :/

But dictators are so much easier to deal with....

[Tungbo]

'But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.'

THAT's a good one...
considering how many dictatorship the US has propped up in the last half centuries.

Hot from the headline today, Rumsfeld is visiting Algeria to considering selling weapons to them.

From the CIA World Fact book in Algeria:
"The army placed Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA in the presidency in 1999 in a fraudulent election but claimed neutrality in his 2004 landslide reelection victory."
I don't know enough to say whether Algeria is a dictatorship or not.
But this is clearly another case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend..."