Forum Moderators: Robert Charlton & goodroi
[breitbart.com...]
Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.
Interesting stuff here.
Let's face it: every US company there has to obey the Chinese laws, and keep their mouth shut as China does X or Y.
[edited by: engine at 8:44 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]
[news.yahoo.com...]
China is not a free society. (I'm sure King George already has a plan to change that though)
If Google want's to play in their yard, you do as they ask or you don't play. I'm surprised China even let's them serve up any results at all.
So what if Google makes money from porn. What the US govermnment is doing has nothing to do with protecting kids. It's about ridding all porn in the US over the Internet. It will take decades to recover from the damage this administration has done to the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.
uh huh.
"don't be evil to shareholders"
...
I thought there was a rule against getting political.
Knowing your CEO or bigger boss disfavors someone with solid merit or not, making you react in some way or the other (e.g. you don't want to be that guy's ambassador or be recommended by him to that very CEO/boss etc.) ...
Doesn't sound too far away from reality for most of us, but this is 100% politics isn't it?
Bigger scale, bigger impact, bigger publicity, bigger deal.
Don't forget their rightful statement that the pure availability of high tech (Google offering) will impact that society big time, RIGHT ON THE MONEY I say. Better take the back door as to be locked out entirely both in business sense and politically (although not being any motivation for a public company of course).
Remember Glasnost in Eastern Europe, it'll take time but eventually rocks will crack.
Its e-mail, chat room and blogging services will not be available because of concerns the government could demand users' personal information.
What, like the Government did in the US? If Google are forced to hand over that data to the feds in the end, will they withdraw these services completely?
Couldn't they just say NO to China like they did in the US. Double standards or what.
while google purports to fight the US govt...
Actually, Google's legal beagles are fighting the U.S. government. There's no "purported" about it.
And whether you (or we) approve of it or not, their stance is consistent: They expect to honor Chinese laws in China, and they expect the U.S. government to honor U.S. laws in the U.S.
If they just say NO to China, they will NOT be doing business in China! If you want to do business in China, you have to do it as per China law. If you do business in the US, you have to do it as per US law. If you do not want to do business under certain law, you just don't do it. It is simple as that!
US Government, however, wants Google to break the law in the US!
But it would be interesting to see if Google did withdraw it's e-mail, chat room (i assume this means Google Groups) and blogging services if they are forced to compromise their users privacy. I suspect they wouldn't.
>>>So, what would have happened if Google, Yahoo, MSN, et al, had all told the Chinese to get stuffed "sorry pal, but we won't kowtow to your demands"...<<<
In answer to your question:
Baidu.com would have been the #1 search technology in just 2 years!
US Government, however, wants Google to break the law in the US!
Which law, specifically?
I know you don't want to overwhelm us with all those laws, but feel to mention one or two; we can handle it.
Notwithstanding the censorship, the internet will not and cannot be controlled. History will judge, but this move may prove to be one of the most significant developments ever in the opening up of free access to information in China.
Once all appeals have been exercised, expect Google to do what the court orders, even if it includes turning over the data. They are following the law of the land.
Could someone tell me what the court procedures are in China for resisting the government if you don't want to behave as they tell you to while operating in their country?
My guess is that they have exhausted all possibilities.
Yeah it sucks, but if they want to play in China's sandbox they have to play by China's rules.
But what's more relevant to this discussion is the fact that the DOJ is trying to subpoena materials in connection with a law whose enforcement has already been blocked by the Supreme Court:
[nytimes.com...]
Under U.S. law, Google has the right to challenge the DOJ's questionable fishing expedition. (That's why the matter is in court.) Does Google have the same right to challenge government censorship in China? If not, why would anyone think that the two issues being discussed here are the same?
It's legitimate to argue that Google should pull out of countries that practice censorship (whether the censorship involves Chinese attempts to suppress dissent, German "hate laws," or other laws). But such arguments are likely to carry more weight if they're based on logic instead of specious comparisons.
People continue to play the good and bad and black and white game! China is bad and the US Government is good because they *requested* first while Google can say no! Hmmm... lets see.
BigDave, the US Government should know perfectly well that they have no right to *requested* such an information! It is well known fact what GWB real perception is that "if you're not with us you're against us". This was repeated many times in regards to "war on terror". That is why so dangerous such *requests* are right now. Well, Google is against US Government because they used their right to decline this request?! If people are ready to trade their rights against security, they do not deserve neither rights nor security.
[edited by: wildbest at 7:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2006]
I'd imagine that the First Amendment would apply. (The part that says Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of the press.)
How so?
But what's more relevant to this discussion is the fact that the DOJ is trying to subpoena materials in connection with a law whose enforcement has already been blocked by the Supreme Court:[nytimes.com...]
To be more exact, the government is trying to gauge the viability of the argument against COPA that internet filters are enough to protect children from accessing pornography.
Just saw a thing on Headline News about Google in China. It appears that they're offering Adwords and Adsense to Chinese users. Joy.
Just In: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Govt' is allowed to ask for, not us. One side says yes, the other no, and the judges decide who is "right."
Ahha, now I get it!
(CBS/AP) Supreme Court hopeful Samuel Alito headed toward a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsement Tuesday as majority Republicans called him "one of the most qualified" nominees ever and Democrats warned that he could swing the court to the right.
Just In: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Govt' is allowed to ask for, not us. One side says yes, the other no, and the judges decide who is "right."
What does this have to do with censorship in China?
>>>To be more exact, the government is trying to gauge the viability of the argument against COPA that internet filters are enough to protect children from accessing pornography.<<<
Oh well, to be more exact, am I supposed to enter my Social Security Numbers on my ISP to allow me surf the Web if Internet filters are not enough?
No. You'd just have to prove your age like you do at an offline store.
Thanks for your comment, motorhaven. You may wish to note though, that politics are there from the very beginning in this thread. Lets hope your comment will add value to that *intelligent* thread that's enjoyable to read.
