I don't know Paul, I think you all may be blowing this just a bit out of proportion. It's not like Google is without a good faith basis to refuse to turn over the infromation requested by the US government. You and others may disagree with the decision they have made, but they are not thwarting the government or refusing to support it's interests. Companies refuse requests for information all of the time, including by challenging the legality of government subpeonas in court. Does that make them anti-US government; in my opinion, no. Perhaps one could question their decision from a purely business standpoint, but legally, until a court declares otherwise, they are well within their rights under US law.
Same with China. One can fairly, I think, question Google's decision to do business in China under the conditions imposed. Every indication, however, is that the result was reached after Google's initial refusal, lengthy negotiations, and compromise by both parties. Plenty of US companies do business in other countries pursuant to the rules of the foreign nation, just as plenty of foreign companies do business in the US purusant to our rules, laws and regulations. At times those rules conflict with the rules of the company's home country. We would, and rightly so, fully expect compliance with our own rules as part of the "cost of doing business" within our boarders. Why should China, or anyplace else for that matter, be denied that right? Respectfully, because we don't agree with their policies is not a sufficient answer. We can't have it both ways. Again, I don't think Google's decision in any way makes them pro-China or anti-American, it's a business decision plain and simple. If ones wants to disagree, fine, but Google is merely doing what thousands of other businesses currently do, and no one has said anything at all about them or thier loyalities.
Excellent post, Paul. Thanks for highlighting the hypocrisy.
As for you, Mouldy:
Again, I don't think Google's decision in any way makes them pro-China or anti-American, it's a business decision plain and simple. . . . Google is merely doing what thousands of other businesses currently do, and no one has said anything at all about them or [their] loyalities.
I must respectfully disagree, for one primary reason: Google's business is making information available. We are not talking about an employee or business owner that puts its personal beliefs or policy interests aside to do business in a foreign country. We are talking about a company that has decided to dilute (or even subvert) its own product in order to accommodate an unreasonable and tyrannical request. Is it really any different conceptually than if the People's Republic of China had asked Maytag to sell defective washing machines and dryers to Chinese citizens? Or asked Ford to sell substandard automobiles to Chinese citizens? I think not.
In short, Google has decided to become an extension of an abusive government by corrupting itself and its product in order to cozy up to Communists. The only thing that gives me solace is that the Chinese people, like all oppressed peoples past and present, have, and are no doubt using, the tools to bypass this fraud. There are already probably hack codes available to help Chinese Internet users circumvent Google's restrictions. If I could write code and do it myself, I would do it and then send it to PRC citizens free of charge.
In a related story, does anyone out there have a non-Google search engine that they like?
Here is Google's answer on China straight from the horse's mouth, and a fairly forthright on at that:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/...ortune/?
cnn=yes
We are talking about a company that has decided to dilute (or even subvert) its own product in order to accommodate an unreasonable and tyrannical request.
Obviously Google doesn't agree, and that was my point, they, not us and not the US government get to make that decision. Besides your examples of Maytag and Ford don't wash (pun intended). In short, China could, in theory, set standards for products that we would deem defective. Thus, Ford and Maytag would be free to determine if they want to do business under those conditions. If they want to take that chance under Chinese laws and regulations, so be it. Again the point is that businesses make these decisions all the time, Google isn't unique in that respect. Like I said, I can sympathize with people not liking Google's decisons, but they are not in any way hypocritical. Google has the right to do business in the US and with that right comes the legal ability to challenge government requests for information. Google also has the right to do business in China, however, apparently that right comes with some restrictions that we here, myself included, find abhorrent. Nevertheless, Google has to make that call and has done nothing wrong by choosing to accept them.
Mouldfan, you're making the kind of argument that drives me batty. Yes, Google has the right to make these decisions, and Google can choose whatever the hell it wants to do. That's not the point. Google made a decision to stand up to one government on a much less weighty issue when it did not adversely affect its bottom line, while kow-towing to another one on a much more grievous violation of fundamental rights. And their defense doesn't exactly wash with me.
fair enough, but that doesn't make them hypocrites.
[Y]our examples of Maytag and Ford don't wash . . . . [The People's Republic of China (PRC); editor's note: China is the nation that pre-dates the 1949 Communist revolution; the PRC is the current mainland Communist nation, while the Republic of China (ROC) is basically Taiwan] could, in theory, set standards for products that we would deem defective. Thus, Ford and Maytag would be free to determine if they want to do business under those conditions.
First, Google should be forbidden from declaring itself the "world's" search engine if in fact it, in Orwellian fashion, tailors the searchable reality from nation to nation.
Second, Google is no less responsible for the oppression of Chinese citizens than I.G. Farber was responsible for the murder of concentration camp victims by selling toxic gas to the Nazis. It might be less severe, and they can cry Pontius Pilate all they want, but the principle is identical.
Third, people who make money off of others' misery are generally very good at rationalizing, nor do they see their commerce as abusive. Nineteenth-century American slaveowners justified their inhumane abuse of human beings by saying that it was not only good for the overall economy, but it was also good for the slaves. I hope the people who run Google feel comfortable rationalizing their blood money in like fashion.
Fourth, I want you to flip it around and think of it this way: If the PRC told an American company that they were, for example, free to not hire women (or, worse, force women who work for them in the PRC to have abortions so that they could keep working) or exploit child laborers, how much of an uproar would you be in now? You and the rest of the left would be livid. Senator Camera, er, Schumer would be screaming bloody murder from the top of the Capitol Dome, demanding hearing after hearing into the inappropriate conduct of Company X. I ask you, how is this any different?
Google has the right to do business in the US and with that right comes the legal ability to challenge government requests for information.
We don't disagree on this point, but the juxtaposition makes Google look awful, especially if they are patting themselves on the back for standing up to big, bad Uncle Sam while bending over for the Chi-Coms.
Deuce, read the CNN piece (figures that CNN would run interference for Google here). Brin said that their firewall is carefully tailored to block only "sensitive queries." How grotesquely Orwellian. You mean facts, don't you, Mr. Brin?
If the PRC told an American company that they were, for example, free to not hire women (or, worse, force women who work for them in the PRC to have abortions so that they could keep working) or exploit child laborers, how much of an uproar would you be in now? You and the rest of the left would be livid.
Not me personally, though I would hope that the company opted to stay out of the country under those conditions, the same way I tend to agree that Google shouldn't have caved to the PRC's request here. My point was and remains, that you can't reasonably or rationally juxtapose the two decisions. There is nothing to juxtapose they are both exercises of the same principle. US law allows Google to challenge the subpeona, PRC law does not allow Google to opearate except under certain conditions. Google has opted to comply. Disapprove if you want, I do on the PRC issue, but don't make more of this than there is.
I tend to agree with Mr. Anonymous. The only reason this is a story is because Google has generally been more socially conscious than its competitors (e.g., Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. all operate in China under the same conditions). It's either limited information or no information from that perspective. Further, economically speaking, the company, as a business matter, cannot afford to disregard the Chinese market. All in all, their entre' isn't going to facilite the Chinese people being kept in the dark any more than they already are--in fact, quite the opposite.
Sorry about that, Mr. Anonymous and I share many things in common.
Commenting by HaloScan
