AT&T Tech Support 360
- Related Stories
-
Google fixes China search bugs
January 27, 2006 -
No booze or jokes for Googlers in China
January 26, 2006 -
Google to censor China Web searches
January 24, 2006 -
Congress looks askance at firms that bow to China
January 12, 2006
"I didn't think I would come to this conclusion--but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see," Brin told Reuters at the World Economic Forum.
In other words, half a loaf was better than none and pragmatism produces profit. (Left unanswered is what would principle earn you?) The agreement allows the company to continue operating its China search site. The quid pro quo: Google can't offer e-mail, chat or blog publishing services--and it will block politically sensitive terms.
To be sure, this was not Google's finest hour. But let's resist the opportunity to tweak Page and Brin for their sappy "Do No Evil" pledge when the company went public. That's too easy. (Square Google's China policy with the pledge on its English Help Center page that "it's our policy not to police or censor content.") The problem goes a lot deeper than failing to live up to a dubious promise. The bigger issue is why not a peep out of the larger Silicon Valley community?
Sorry to say, but nearly every other computer or Internet company also would have taken the deal, no questions asked. When it comes to China, too much money is involved. By now, free-speech and human rights campaigners barely register real surprise when the technology industry willingly collaborates with Beijing.
Just this month, Microsoft acknowledged bouncing a blog written by an outspoken Chinese journalist from its MSN Spaces site, saying the company was only conforming with local laws. What's more, in 2005 the company agreed to censor words like "freedom" and "democracy" from its Chinese MSN portal site. (I'd like to see Microsoft's house blogger Robert Scoble tackle that one.)
And let's not forget the notorious case of Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for supposedly leaking state secrets. Reporters Without Borders said Yahoo turned over information that local authorities used to trace the message to Shi Tao's e-mail account and computer. At the time, Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang said he wasn't fond of the outcome "but we have to follow the law."
When it comes down to take it or leave it, appeasement translates into shareholder value. No one from among our celestial constellations of high-tech luminaries is going to stick out his or her necks and play hero--not when their nearest competitor is ready to immediately fill any resulting vacuum.
Since nobody's willing to take the first step, tech companies might instead try adopting a set of industrywide guidelines. This idea has been circulating for a while, and business trade groups like TechNet or the Information Technology Association of America have the industry contacts to make it happen. At the very least, this document can be a jumping-off point for discussions with governments that have notions of human rights and free speech at odds with ours.
Let's not be naive and believe these regimes won't still do what they view to be in their national interests. But every journey starts with small steps.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
Sergey Brin,
Larry Page,
Yahoo! Inc.,
China,
Google Inc.
Thanks for your common sense in not pinning the blame on Google. As you point out, censorship is something that the industry needs to tackle collectively -- and I hope that your column serves as a rallying point.
Glenn Smith
Baton Rouge, LA
user boycotts, ostracism and possibly local us legislation should be used to punish companies that send innocent people to prison camps
What I don't understand is how people can realistically expect any single company (Google, Microsoft, anyone) to resist the Chinese government and somehow get China to capitulate to any foreign corporate demands. This is no different than any other country, whether it's France or England or Lichtenstein - if you, as a company, want to do business in another country you will comply with the laws of that country, irrespective of how you persnally feel about their type of government. Would the US government allow any foreign company to violate any US law because they don't philosophically agree with it? Please! Just look at the consumer privacy difference between Europe and the US (where personal privacy is much more protected in Europe and in the US the corporations are protected, not the consumers) and what the impact is of that to any company operating in both regions. They must comply with local laws. Period.
Is too much to imagine that this little taste of democracy and freedom will, ultimately, push Chinese culture just a little closer to a free society?
Baby steps, people, baby steps.......
Oh yeah, I forgot, their company motto: "Don't be Evil." Well, I guess that means that they should avoid trying to run a business in any situation where something could possibly be construed as 'evil' - like following the law.
If people are so upset about China's communist regime, there are much more effective ways of protesting them than telling a big company to do your protesting for you. You could, for instance, refuse to buy anything made in China. You could write to your senator telling them you support trade restrictions or other such policy. You could learn Chinese and write your own political blog using codewords for words like 'freedom'. You could take a trip to China and hand out money to the peasants... You get the picture.
If you want to do something, do it. Don't expect someone else to do it for you.
Google has been always cencoring Nazi contents in Germany but no one said anything about that.
What Google is doing is following the local laws in the country they are operating, for example there is no image safe-search filter for Google Japan because it is a non issue with the Japanese government.
After all Google is a search company, "a-search-company", not a "goverment-changing-company"
It is not Google's job to impose US laws in other countries. I am sure that when the laws will be different Google China will be different too.
Giuseppe
http://www.senzaspam.com
In many countries in Europe, especially Germany, Google has to censor searches to cut out references (especially visual) to the Nazi Party of the 1930s and 1940s. This is censorship, even if it is censoring something that many people consider bad to censor. (Many people argue that anything about Nazism should not be censored because that is clouding history and encouraging it to be repeated.)
This means that Google is having to conform to local laws in order to make their search engine acceptable to the local government. There you go. They're practicing censorship. This means they've already compromised their so-called integrity.
If suddenly a company stops conforming to local laws, what do you normally think? They're crooks! Not conforming to local laws means they're criminals by definition. We may not agree with Chinese laws, but they're their laws. No business has the right to charge around telling a country to change their laws.
2) Right now, Google is unstable in China.
If my choice is between unstable-but-can-access-nearly-anything Google and stable-but-limited I do pick stable-but-limited -- because ultimately, my other choice is really nothing. Google is a business, not a religion, and I don't expect them to be saints by any particular group's standards. (Oh, and one of the things China is trying to block is pornography -- in fact, that's one of their biggest priorities.)
And finally...
I don't think Google is upholding a "double standard" by fighting the U.S. government over handing over data while agreeing to work with the Chinese government on searches.
Again, this is a matter of local law. The U.S. government demanding the Google search data sits in a bad spot. It's demanding private information -- and there are specific laws in the U.S. banning the government from taking private information. So Google is fighting it.
In short, Google is just trying not to be a crook. I don't see why people are so upset.
If Google will adjust the search results of their product for this case, what will they do with your search results?