I wanted to ask Slashdotters what they thought about the recent clashes between the US, China, and Google. We know the Bush Administration is seeking the search records of users from Google, under the guise of unconstitutional pornography legislation, but it could involve much deeper questions given that the scope of their request is so wide (and not just from Google, who is resisting at this time, but also from Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL, all of whom already surrendered your data without a fight). Now, it seems, the American government is sabre-rattling about potential bribery in relation to Google’s recent compliance with Chinese censors.

Why did Google seek to fight the US? Why did Google choose not to fight China?

Is the US exacting revenge by pursuing litigation, implying possible bribery charges and deflating stock valuation (admittedly, by key stock holders and not by the government, per se)? And does Google deserve it? Probably and maybe, in that order.

As the discussion ensues, the most insightful posts so far are:

Retribution against Google by Anonymous Coward

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.

and

Good 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. They’ve a record of human rights violations, which is definitely evil by any stretch. I mean, shooting dead protesters and imprisoning and torturing people for speaking out - this is what Google is abetting a government to hide and keep away from its own citizens.

Like the article said, the Internet was something new, something that was a new medium that might help bring about a change and bring to light these things. Companies like Google and Yahoo! had the power to do something about it, the power to stand up to it and say NO. To say that despite everything, we’ve values and we have a backbone.

Instead, they gave in. More than anything, I’m disappointed in Google. I’m saddened that a company that preached so much about “doing no evil” turned out to be a bloody hypocrite. You know, deep down you knew that it was a corporation and like most corporations, its driven by greedy ass executives who don’t care two hoots about anything - but you always had a hope that it would stand upto something and show some nerve.

Nope.

“All that is needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing” — Edmund Burke.

That quote has never seemed so apropos.

and

I must be insane by Anonymous Cowardbut I don’t get it. If Google did refuse to alter search results in Nation X, wouldn’t most people applaud? Granted, they might have some local legal manueverings, but they have the relatively little cash needed for that.

Besides, I thought this bleeds into the MUCH larger concepts of who controls the internet, nation-states or individuals (in this case, an individual corporation).

For example, if Google just kept serving, how many nation-states would/could go through the effort to lock Google out? How many of their citizens would increasingly object during the lock-out phase (since it couldn’t be overnight)? And would it even really work in the end, anyway?

Seems to me that Google *could* stand up for full results and let the chips fall where they may… eventually surviving any temporary turbulence. Without inviting venomous responses, how am I wrong here?

and

Re:What are they talking about here? by crymeph0 (682581)

The wonderful DMCA has forced them to filter out results. For example This query [google.com] displays a DMCA takedown notice at the bottom of the page.

and

I know how to sidestep the whole issue! by mmell (832646)

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

and, interestingly,

Bribery by AK Marc (707885)

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.

and, sadly,

I was going to make a joke… by revery (456516)

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.

or

Isnt it a little late? by night_flyer (453866)

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…

It will be interesting to see how the discussion ensues. I, for one, think this whole situation is a big, ugly mess. It has broad implications, since we have all come to rely on Google (and Yahoo, to a lesser extent), not only for the US and China, but also for Europe, in general, and more specifically for Romania. If PSD came back to power, could they demand Google start omitting politically sensitive results from Google.ro searches in Romania? How about desires to block UDMR information? Or other sites?

Is this pandora’s box? Does this not set serious precedents which need to be talked about by the internet-at-large? What do you think?

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 28th, 2006 at 12:28 am and is filed under Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.