Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Google Government Microsoft Censorship Yahoo! Politics

Search Companies Questioned About Chinese Policy 312

Posted by Zonk from the this-will-be-bad-for-you-man dept.
Romerican writes "The U.S. Government is questioning Google in relation to corporate behavior under anti-bribery laws. The government is also questioning Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco about their dealings with the Chinese government. Where do Slashdotters see this going?" From the Red Herring article: "There is precedent for the U.S. government establishing laws governing the conduct of U.S. companies abroad. During 1977 the U.S. government enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which was substantially revised during 1988. The provisions of the FCPA prohibit the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. citizens and prescribe accounting and record-keeping practices. Opponents of the law said it would severely restrict the ability of U.S. companies to compete in many countries where bribery was part of the commercial fabric." ats-tech wrote to give us the link to Google's response to these events, via the Googleblog.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Search Companies Questioned About Chinese Policy More

Search Companies Questioned About Chinese Policy

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) *
    This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. The US is supposed to pride itself as being the beacon of light of democracy and the free world.

    Instead, everything here has become so much driven by money that ethics and values become irrelevant when it comes to business. Oh, please don't give me that relativistic bullshit.

    The Chinese government has killed thousands of its own citizens in massacres and throws its people into jail without a trial for speaking out against the establishment. The

    • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mr_stinky_britches ( 926212 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:39PM (#14583357) Homepage Journal
      You are disappointed in Google? Are you sure that you understand what their situation/predicament is? They simply do NOT have the option of providing an uncensored search engine in Chine at this time, so it is either a censored Google or no google at all. I don't know about you, but I will take whatever I can get. At least now they have a foot in the door.


      http://wi-fizzle.com [wi-fizzle.com] Fo' Shizzle Dizzle!
      • The problem is not google filtering results. Its that China or any other country can behave this way, censor its people, and instead of being rebuked, people work WITH them. That's wrong. When someone acts in a reprehensible way, but you still concede to their behavior, you are validating and even ENCOURAGING Them to continue to behave that way.

        What has China learned? That if they censor people, they get what they want. they get access to the largest commercial search engine.

        If Google had instead continued
        • If Google had instead continued to reject them, then China would miss out on Google. The onus would be on THEM to change, because they want google and recognize its value.

          I think you're really overestimating the uniqueness of Google. In this situation, China was fine with blocking Google forever. They'd either cut a deal with MSN, Yahoo, Altavista, etc. or let their own hundreds of thousands of engineers build a Chinese Google-like search tool.

          The other factor prompting Google to cave in is that they're

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CompSci101 ( 706779 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:45PM (#14583429)

      I agree with you. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that our own system is screwed.

      The likely scenario: Google stands up for freedom and says that China will not receive service. Great, but: 1) The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers; 2) The shareholders would also sue under American Law that makes it illegal for a corporation to do anything purely humanitarian (see: Henry Ford); 3) Google would be signing their own death warrant, as Microsoft and Yahoo! serve the Chinese market, making tons and tons of money and reinvesting at least part of it (if they were at all smart, enough to ensure that Google died) back into the search business.

      So, I can forgive Google to some extent. It's a shitty situation but they honestly had no choice from a business perspective. Until our government gives up this ridiculous idea that a little taste of democracy and freedom will have the rest of the world screaming for it in due course (see: recent Palestinian and other Middle Eastern elections), nothing will come of this. We'll continue to see our manufacturing and other industries outsourced to countries that have no labor protections and totalitarian governments with an agenda using our products to oppress their own people.

      This isn't something Google can fix. This is one of those things where the government has to wake up, realize that the invisible hand isn't doing a goddamn thing to change these people's lives for the better (Nixon opened our markets and diplomats to China, and we're talking about them 40 years later the same way we were in the 60's), and take action.

      The problem is that taking action means, literally, putting our money where our mouth is, which I don't think many Americans have the stomach for.

      C

      • Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)

        by quantum bit ( 225091 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:58PM (#14583550) Journal
        This isn't something Google can fix.

        You're right, it's too late for Google to fix it. It was too late the day of the IPO.

        The shareholders would also sue under American Law...

        Which is exactly why being a publicly held corporation and the motto "Do No Evil" are simply incompatible. The only way for Google to truly be able to maintain the moral high ground was for it to remain privately owned.

        The lesson here is that if you own a company and don't want it to be forced to mindlessly pursue profit at any expense, don't go public. Just don't do it.
        • You're right, it's too late for Google to fix it. It was too late the day of the IPO.

          It was too late the day that Google accepted the first investor. If they investors don't get what they want, they replace the company's execs. Considering that Google was started with VC funding, I'd say it was "too late" from day 1.
      • And when Nixon returns, he'll make things right!

      • Re:Good (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LordNimon ( 85072 )
        The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers

        You can't know this for certain. In fact, in this case, I think you're just plain wrong. Google has been very good to its shareholders. Google's executives could defend any action to not do business in China, and I don't think anyone would really complain.

        If Google decided not to do business in China, it wouldn't make much

      • Great, but: 1) The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers

        I noticed this notion spreading alot this morning during the earlier google story. I simply don't believe it. I don't believe most shareholders would have the gall to stand up and say "censorship now!!" - especially if the American public made it very clear that supporting Communism has costs of its own back h

      • Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mattwarden ( 699984 )

        1) The shareholders would oust the executive board immediately and install people who could see past all that "human rights" baggage to do business with 1.2 billion potential customers

        True in general. Not true for Google. http://www.logoogle.com/google-ipo.htm [logoogle.com]

    • I think you are looking at this all wrong. Glass half-empty sort of view. Despite the restrictions that China places on Google, the availability of a powerful search tool like that is going to pay huge dividends to the Chinese people in their ability to find information relevant to them and educate and empower themselves.

      Yes, there will be restrictions, and yes that will silence some important information, but the greater good is the wealth of information that will be readily available to an individual

    • Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by njmarine2001 ( 946297 )
      Giving the Chinese people another option from which to search is doing good overall for the chinese people. The ideas of the Chinese govt. is hardly the topis here. The fact of the matter is that the Chinese Govt. can completely ban google or any other company they wish to limit their people from using or having access to. Some of these other countries that we believe we know so much about are in fact going to do business as they please and are not going to give into American pressure. So, are we to hate G
    • So what benefit do you see to the Chinese people from not having any access to Google at all? It's not like the Chinese government would collapse without the ability to search the web, or like the Chinese people would rise up and overthrow the government if only they didn't have search engines. Chances are that dissidents would benefit more from a censored search engine than the government would, just because miscellaneous information is more useful for trying to do things than trying to prevent them.
    • Google had two options: either provide a subset of their services to users in China, or provide no service at all. If they're not misrepresenting the service to Chinese users, then I don't feel they've crossed the ethical line.

      They would, however, be evil if they gave a record of searches to the Chinese government, giving the government the ability to take action against citizens based on the search terms used. If a country were to demand that Google actively participate in repression against its own Cit

    • This does not make any sense to me. Google actually hires American workers, not Chinese, so why do I care if Google censors in China?

      Out of all the companies we decide to declare anti-American, Google is the first company that comes to your mind?! You have many companies which hire slave labor in China, and there are no huge slashdot debates about human rights when this happens. You have many big companies that outsource American jobs to China, and no one does anything about it. You have many situations whe
    • and throws its people into jail without a trial for speaking out against the establishment.

      Hmm, that reminds me of any country and "terrorists".

    • Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)

      by mattwarden ( 699984 )

      This is supposed to be the land of the free, home of the brave. The US is supposed to pride itself as being the beacon of light of democracy and the free world.

      Instead, everything here has become so much driven by money that ethics and values become irrelevant when it comes to business.

      I'm still trying to reconcile these two statements. When you say "ethics and values", you must mean your own ethics and your own values (and if not, whose are you referring to?). If this is the land of the free, then w

  • Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:25PM (#14583186)


    Exactly why do you think the U.S Government is interested in Google's dealings with China?

    Is it because:

    1. The government is concerned about Google's complicity in human rights violations by China?
      or...
    2. The government is looking for a little additional leverage is its upcoming court case against Google [slashdot.org].


    Please submit your answers below. Don't forget to show your work.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)

      by metlin ( 258108 ) *

      Actually, if you'd read the article, you'd have read that Google was not the only company that was called - Yahoo!, Google, Cisco and Microsoft were called -- all the top 4 companies with Internet presence.

      The submitter made it seem like it was just Google, but it seemed to be a human rights panel calling forth all the companies that could do something about censorship in China.

      • Actually, if you'd read the article, you'd have read that Google was not the only company that was called

        Actually, I did read the article, thanks. While Google wasn't the only company that was called, they are the only company that is currently holding out against the government's demands for search terms.

        Yahoo!, Cisco and Microsoft

        In the trade they call this collateral damage. Perfectly acceptable.
        • So, you're saying that any government interactions with Google are now due to Google's holdout?

          And you're saying that the government cares so much about this issue that they're willing to sacrifice other executives and companies who have complied?

          Wow, just give Google another reason to go along with this government anti-pornography campaign-- apparently, they can still get screwed even if they do cooperate.

          Tossing around completely baseless conspiracy theories is nothing if not counterproductive.
        • In the trade they call this collateral damage. Perfectly acceptable.

          Yeah, Iraqi civilians knows very, very well that collateral damage is "Perfectly acceptable".

        • While Google wasn't the only company that was called, they are the only company that is currently holding out against the government's demands for search terms.

          Uh, so what? You just said it yourself--they weren't the only company called. So doesn't that kind of damage your claim that this is punishment for holding out on the requested search results?

          In the trade they call this collateral damage. Perfectly acceptable.

          Oh, I see, you believe it so it must be true. This isn't exactly "showing your work" as y
    • 3. It's the federal government's responsibility to manage international relations.
    • Exactly why do you think the U.S Government is interested in Google's dealings with China?

      Oh they just can't get it into their heads that foreign countries are governed by foreign people and not by the US.

  • Indeed (Score:5, Funny)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:28PM (#14583217) Homepage Journal
    Opponents of the law said it would severely restrict the ability of U.S. companies to compete in many countries where bribery was part of the commercial fabric.

    Yep, the US is a pretty bad market to lose.

    • Re:Indeed (Score:2, Interesting)

      by IAAP ( 937607 )
      For those of you who don't get the parent's satire, replace "bribery" with campaign contributions, soft money, promises of really cushy consulting jobs when out of office, and anything else that's used to get a politician "on-board" to your or your company's agenda.
      • Umm, if someone is so naive as to not get the parent's satire, chances are , he/she will not get it even if he/she does what you suggest.

        Sometimes it's best to leave a good humor alone, those who get it, get it, those who don't, may probably never will.

  • ...maybe someone important went short on google instead of long! :)

  • Nothing New for Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MarkPNeyer ( 729607 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:33PM (#14583274)

    Schmidt and Brin both fly around in a personal Jet which uses an absurd amount of fuel. They've justified this by saying that they encourage their employees to buy hybrid cars, and so on the whole they're making a net decrease in fuel consumption. They make the same kind of argument with respect to their dealings China hear - "On the whole, we're doing more to benefit the chinese people than by just leaving them with the crappy system that was in place."

    The problem with google's line of ethical reasoning has to do with their predictive capabilities. How in hell do you evaluate which is better? The only widely recognized framework whereby decisions as to what is best for a large number of people can be made is a democratic election/governmental process. By entering the chinese market and agreeing to help the chinese government hide its hideous record, google is saying that they know what's best for the chinese people. Anyone who gets pissed off about right-wingers forcing their religion down other people's throats ought to be equally mad about this, becuase it's the same situation - one group of people deciding they know what's best for others.

    • A jet (Score:2)

      by phorm ( 591458 )
      It might be noted that a jet also gets you places a whole hell of a lot faster, and sometimes speed is a necessity. You can look at any company, even a relativistically good one, and pick apart some things that could be considered bad.

      So if they're taking their private jet home from work everyday, that would be bad. If they're using it to fly to meetings halfway around the country... what do you expect them to do, take a Greyhound?
    • There is one point that many people seem not to understand. Google.cn is an additional service, not a replacement for google.com. It is true that China may be able to block access to google.com with less of a backlash with google.cn in place but, in principle, Google has not reduced the information it makes available to Chinese users in any way. It has simply decided that, where the Chinese government allows, it will provide the information from within China with much greater reliability and performance.
    • Yes, it seems Google is a bit evil, but I don't think they're evil enough to take action against, like boycott, so that fact's not going to make much difference in my life.

      I was more interest in the statement by Google that they comply with similar (but much more limited) requests by the USA, France and Germany. I'd like some details on just what they would suppress in my searches.

  • Nothing to see here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:33PM (#14583275) Homepage
    This is a only political rhetoric by politicians who see a chance to look like a defender of freedom. The government understands that we too see some value in asking individuals and corporations to censor information for the public good. The difference is what information and how much. We ask ISPs to prevent speech that infringes on trademark and copyright, national security, hate crimes, ect... I can see very few instances in our history where we put the rights of foreign citizens above the desire for trade with the countries in which they live--why would we start now.
    • This is a only political rhetoric by politicians who see a chance to look like a defender of freedom.

      You're too cynical. There has been a long running debate in both Washington and Europe over whether trade with China will eventually help China democratize or not. Whether or not to allow China to join the WTO and be given Favored Nation Trading status and treat human rights as a separate issue or instead to link trade issues directly to human rights was fought out during the 1980s and 1990s with good

  • Haha! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AdamThirteenth ( 857966 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:33PM (#14583279)
    Like the government wouldn't bend over backwards for China if they suddenly decided they'd cash in their bonds if we didn't play nice with them.
    • Like the government wouldn't bend over backwards for China if they suddenly decided they'd cash in their bonds if we didn't play nice with them.

      I don't believe you can just cash in your government bonds before they're due. You would instead need to sell them on the bond market, which would drop quickly with such a sudden influx (supply and demand). While this would indirectly pressure the government due to the surplus of bonds making it harder to sell new issues, it would hurt the seller a lot more as t

      • China has bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of treasury bonds and straight US currency in order to keep its currency tied to the US currency. If they so wanted (for example during a war between US and China) they could dump all of their US bills on the open market and greatly depreciate the value of the US dollar, or call in all of the bonds at once and force the US government to default, thus ruining the credit of the US government.
        • Call in the Bonds?

          If we're at war, the U.S. will simply enact legislation that says that Chinese bonds are null and void, or no longer available for cashing in.

          During wartime, the Government keeps a very strict, conservative, and quite unfair grasp on the economies of the world. In WW2, everyone was mobilized for war. No cars, no phone service, nothing that was contrary to the war effort. Enemies will have ZERO leverage on U.S. assets.

  • What are they talking about here? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by psykocrime ( 61037 ) <mindcrime&cpphacker,co,uk> on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:34PM (#14583285) Homepage Journal
    just as we already do in those rare instances where we alter results in order to comply with local laws in France, Germany and the U.S.

    Does anybody here know exactly which laws - and what search results - they are referring to, relative to the U.S.? I never knew Google removed any results in the U.S. I find that idea a little unsettling, to be honest. What is the U.S. strong-arming Google into hiding???

  • I know how to sidestep the whole issue! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mmell ( 832646 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:35PM (#14583311)
    Google moves its corporate headquarters to the Cayman Islands.

    Circumvents the US Government prying into Google's databases, and permits Google to continue working in the American Way, by taking advantage of business opportunities without the US Government trying to legislate morality.

    Really . . . does our government think China will repent and come to the UN hat in hand seeking forgiveness of the world so that Google can provide them with a search engine? Or have I misunderstood what the government is ostensibly trying to say here, that Google has a moral obligation not to respect the sovereignity of the People's Republic of China because that conflicts with (US of) American ethics?

    Good grief, where were these ethical considerations when we were trying to put the whack on F. Castro and J. Stalin? Or more recently during the Iran/Contra debacle? (finding further examples is left as an exercise for the reader)

    Apologies to all present - I'll get off my soapbox now, closing with a quote:

    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - H. Mallow

    • Nah, Hober Mallow didn't say that. It was Salvor Hardin that said the quotes, but either way you should have just attributed it to Asimov.

      </scifi geek>
    • I think you have a point here. American society is based on the principles of capitalism. That is, that money (the never-ending pursuit of it...) drives us. People succeed or fail theoretically based on their ability to acquire and apply the power of their money.
      (ideally, this is supposed to become a kind of meritocracy - it doesn't due to cheating and the ability of corporations to suppress their competition through law, IE. everything the RIAA does...)

      In a COMMUNIST economy, theoretically the money is

  • Bribery (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:37PM (#14583327)
    These laws haven't ended bribery, but they have resulted in recipts for bribery. I know of people that illegally paid bribery to government officials. They paid "elevator rental fees" to police to gain access to their secured servers, and such. They just collected recipts and declared it as a cost of doing business. It is necessary in many places, and makes no more sense than declaring haggling illegal because it isn't popular in the US. I guess they should just call them "campaign contributions" and not worry about it, like they do in the US.
  • When in Rome... If you want to do business in China, you have to do business China's way.

  • So companies shouldn't follow the laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hsmith ( 818216 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:40PM (#14583367)
    of the countries they don't do business in? American law is now global law?

  • Do no evil - 404 (Score:2, Informative)

    by RoadDogTy ( 921208 )
    I'm not exactly sure why it would be the place of the US Government to regulate privately owned corporations this way. The article mentions the "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" but I'm not sure that uncensored internet search is a basic human right (don't get me wrong, I'm against the cencorship, but I'm also against the government meddling with the private sector).

    At the very least this is definetely a change in Google policy. As noted today on Google Blogoscoped [outer-court.com] Google has removed their entry on c

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:40PM (#14583376)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Can someone point me to a google query that indicates that its results were filtered in accordance wuth US laws?

      crymeph0 posted one further up on this page here [slashdot.org]. It has a DMCA takedown notice at the bottom.
    • Can someone point me to a google query that indicates that its results were filtered in accordance wuth US laws? Or am I misreading that?

      They're referring to take-downs resulting from copyright enforcement, especially under the DMCA. However, a private party fighting to keep its IP from being widely disseminated is a very different thing than outright censorhip, like in Germany and China.

      The US doesn't have actual censorship[1], at least not as far as Google results are concerned. This [google.com], this [google.com], and this [google.com] are a

  • Here is the crux of Google's response... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maillemaker ( 924053 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:41PM (#14583389)
    From TFA:

    >Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing
    >to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population,
    >however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with
    >our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users
    >trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the
    >choice we believe we faced. By launching Google.cn and making a major
    >ongoing investment of people and infrastructure within China, we intend
    >to change that.

    In other words, Google has put it's "mission" (its business interests) ahead of what is morally right. Rather than simply take the other, unmentioned option, that is, simply refusing to compromise and not provide any Google services at all, they have compromised so that they can have a market presence in China, lest someone else develop one internally that might come to rival Google later on down the road.

    To be fair, I think Google's response in TFA was fair and reasonable - from the perspective of a corporation. It was a hard decision, and they made the best they could - for the corporation. But dammit, I don't like it one bit. This idea of multi-national corporations setting up shop in repressive countries and then claiming, "We're just complying with the local laws" smacks way to much of the old "I was just following orders" line. As far as I'm concerned, such corporations are complicit in the repression and they are profiting off of it to boot.

    If corporations cannot be counted on to shun such morally bankrupt regimes then there should be consequences for them in the countries that have bled to preserve liberties.

    Steve

    P.S.
    Please no responses about how such liberties have declined even in countries like the USA. That is a separate discussion.
    • "Bled to preserve liberties?" So you're saying that instituting Islamic government in Iraq is "preserving liberties?" Creating a corrupt puppet government and then ripping it down to create another corrupt puppet government in S. Vietnam is "preserving liberties?" Supporting muhajadeen who would ultimately create the Taliban in Afghanistan is "preserving liberties?" (for the record, Reagan called the muhajadeen (incluing the #1 wanted Bin Laden) "freedom fighters.") Selling weapons to Iran so that the Contr
  • Is anyone else confused about this quote?

    When we do so, we'll disclose this to users, just as we already do in those rare instances where we alter results in order to comply with local laws in France, Germany and the U.S.

    I don't remember ever seeing that Google filters its results in the U.S. I checked on their TOS [google.com] and didn't see anything (other than Google disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the ... legality... of information or material displayed in the GOOGLE SERVICES results.), is

  • ...in the most disgusting, visible, blatant fashion. google is now an accomplices to one of the most evil governments in modern history, one that murders people, destroys families, and violates very noble principle that our country ostensibly stands for and protects. google just spat on the democratic values that the company exploited--clearly for economic reasons rather than out of ideological conviction--to establish good will among consumers. this is evidence that power just creates hunger for more po
    • Mod the parent up.
      His definition of the today US capitalism is really good and accurate. Sometimes you find jewels even on /.
    • Google's CEO would be fired if he didn't and be replaced by someone else who would get the job done. Its just business.

      Also as another poster posted, Google could be sued for violating laws that prohibit companies for being humanitarian? Henry Ford lost a case on this.

      Its absolutely disgusting that its illegal to not be evil and a requirment of supporting what you described. Money is the root of all evil and I surely agree with this.

      Google is the victim is how I see it. If they take a stand someone else lik
  • But while I was doing research on the PRC to find some fodder, I found myself getting sicker and sicker reading about China's treatment of families, particularly, women and children. What's worse, is that America seems to be moving toward China rather than away from them. So this is meant to be an anti-joke, a small dose of sobriety amidst my daily regimen of vanity.

  • Retribution against Google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:46PM (#14583440)
    When Bush administration demanded that Google turn over a list of search requests, it more or less expected them to behave the same way that Yahoo, AOL, etc. did. Namely, it thought that they would quickly and fearfully turn over the information and slink away like a swatted puppy. Instead, Google rolled their eyes, yawned, and told the DOJ to go fark itself. By all accounts, this response threw our good friend Abu Gonzo into a fit of rage.

    So now, Bush sees an opportunity to get revenge on Google. Don't get me wrong, I'm not any more happy about Google's deal with China than anybody else is. But let's not pretend that this administration has suddenly seen the light and cares about human rights. Let's call this what it is: an opportunity being taken by the Bush administration to go after a company they consider to be an enemy.
    • Also noteworthy is that George punished Nortel for supporting him AND KERRY in 2004. Now that can't bid on some contracts as punishment for not being republican.

      I see a very disturbing pattern here. You are either for him or agaisnt him and with this spying crap going on I see us literally turning fascist by the day.
  • Ok here's what I just don't get. People in China are Chinese citizens. They are bound and supported by Chinese law and government. If their government says they do not the right to certain parts of the internet then how is that a violation of their rights?

    Last I checked the Chinese government never agreed to any list of unalienable human rights. Did the UN or any other international body ever decree that the right to post blogs bitching about your government is a fundamental right belonging to all pe

  • Google has to restrict information in US? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ruvim ( 889012 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:52PM (#14583490)
    From the Googleblog: And yes, Chinese regulations will require us to remove some sensitive information from our search results. When we do so, we'll disclose this to users, just as we already do in those rare instances where we alter results in order to comply with local laws in France, Germany and the U.S.

    Google has to restrict information to comply with US laws? Are there something I am missing?

  • Isnt it a little late? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @05:59PM (#14583563) Homepage
    Mr Smith on Wednesday accused Google of "collaborating .. with persecutors" who imprison and torture Chinese citizens "in the service of truth".

    Everywhere I look, I see "Made in China"... if that isnt collaborating, its definitally financing the imprisonment and torture of Chinese citizens, as well as financing our own eventual demise...

  • Deal time (Score:3, Funny)

    by kmahan ( 80459 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @06:00PM (#14583570)
    The US Government probably said something along the lines of "We're questioning your actions in China. But if you were to turn over all that search information we want (and keep doing it) we might be convinced to ask fewer questions."
  • LAUNDRY WORKER: "We need more Calgon!"
    CUSTOMER (to Asian cashier): "Ancient Chinese Secret, huh?"

    http://dt2.prohosting.com/70s/adulttv/calgon.au [prohosting.com]
  • I keep seeing the argument that Google is helping the Chinese people by giving them access to any information at all, even if it is censored.

    This argument is nonsense: Google is not the only source for search engines in the world. If Google doesn't serve the Chinese market, someone else will. Even if Google, Yahoo, Altavista, Microsoft, and everyone else refuses to serve the Chinese market, believe it or not, but people in China could create a search engine. Or ipeople n some other country less hesitant
  • These companies should know better than to bribe foreign government officials -- only the CIA is allowed to do that ;-)
  • During 1977 the U.S. government enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which was substantially revised during 1988. The provisions of the FCPA prohibit the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. citizens

    No wonder the rest of the world hates us.

  • And raise you one "Most Favored Nation" trading status.

    How goddamned retarded do you gotta be to start poking at China while already having hands full with a bunch of other nations....

    Oh.. wait. Nevermind.
  • Perhaps they are furious that Google refused to hand over the search records of millions of people so now the whitehouse is going after them?

    I would not be surprised considering Bush punished several corporations who gave money to Kerry in 2004 so now they can't bid on government contracts but republican companies can.

    I smell a rat.
  • stan.

    Keep in mind Bush and co were kicked out and never faced the consequences of dealing with and cooperating with a government notorious for its human rights abuses.

    Looks like Google pissed Bush off and he's pulling out whatever tricks he can to punish Google. Wonder what happened to the party that supposedly is against government regulation.
  • I understand the search engines catching guff, but Cisco and their subsidiaries make networking equipment, while it can be used by evil governments, it also does lots of good, like securing large scale private networks with good reliability.

    At its most basic, Cisco stuff routes and switches, it doesnt censor unless the end user tells it to with ACLs and filters and whatnot, most of which are implemented by responsable and ethical sysadmins in a responsable and ethical way every day.

    China is using the e

  • Who supplies the Chinese w/ filtering equipment? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greyfeld ( 521548 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @06:57PM (#14584111) Journal
    Googles actions are logical. They are a business, one that is owned by shareholders, for which they must make a profit. It is simply a matter of getting a foothold into that market or lose out on the profits that can be made off of a billion people. You do the math. Corporations don't care about good and evil, it's all money. /. readers know this, so why is it shocking to so many of you. Don't tell me you really believed in Google's "Do No Evil" motto. What do you really think is going to end up happening with all that data [com.com] they have on you?

    The real question is who is selling China the infrastructure equipment to make all of the filtering they do possible. Now that is some company that is making a killing. They have got to be spending literally 100's of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, to do what they do. It's no wonder the US govt. wants to talk to Cisco. They will need one of their undocumented backdoors [cisco.com] so they can go in and spy on the Chinese.

    Look it's their country, right. If they were so worked up about it over there, why don't they do something about it. A billion people can't be wrong can they. And if a billion people want freedom why don't they have it already. You can't tell me that if they really wanted to be a democracy or whatever they couldn't make it happen.

    So in the end, Google is doing what most of us Americans do, look the other way, buy our cheap ass Chinese made plastic shit and poor quality Wal-Mart goods and go home to our cable TV or MMORPG and forget about what's really going on out there. It's just what the corporations want you to do - go to work everyday, spend your money on crap you really don't need, never have enough so you have to borrow more because you have to have the latest stuff and in the end that's what we call freedom. Yeah right.

    • Tiananmen Square (Score:3, Informative)

      by queenb**ch ( 446380 )
      You want to know why a billion people don't have freedom? I suggest that you read what happened to some students that started protesting for more food, better housing and better teachers at their universities.

      Frail humans on foot don't stand much of a chance against tanks...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 [wikipedia.org]

      Sadly, because I've mentioned Tiananmen Square here, we'll be blocked by Google from all of China. Except for the people who were there and saw what happened, this is one o

  • It's a Trap! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Friday January 27, 2006 @09:12PM (#14585223) Homepage
    Lissen, to do business in China, you have to bribe damned near everybody. IF that's an issue, everyone is screwed. I'd better start selling Google stock; apparently the administration's got a mad-on about China.

    In other news, nearly all the money spent in Iraq for recontruction was stolen by American contractors. Bribes are paid out in every direction. No news there.

    In other other news, the K Street Project has made the Republicans the most paid off people since the Teapot Dome scandal. Bush's people are stonewalling the investigation, and the pictures of Bush with Abramoff are being destroyed as the President says they aren't relevant to the investigation (which he is not cooperating with). Nice to know that the Unitary Executive can tell the Congress what is and isn't pertinent to any investigations of the Unitary Executive.

    But he can sure pull the switch on others. Yowza!

    Hamas. Snicker. Sorry, couldn't help that.

  • What will ultimately happen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xot ( 663131 ) <fragiledeath&gmail,com> on Saturday January 28, 2006 @12:05PM (#14588068) Journal
    Is that even american tech companies will start operating from outside the USA where they do not fall under American jurisdiction.The American offices will just be a part of the global company. Isn't this what most gambling and porn sites do anyways? Setup up offices in coutries where the standard laws dont apply?

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close