I am sure most of you are now aware the Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have all agreed to participate in restricting freedom in order to do business in China.

They have admitted that..


source

The article I quoted from is about a new bill being drafted that will make it no longer legal for companies to keep servers in nations the State department deems too repressive.

It seems more or less a protective measure against reversed engineering than one on favor of Human Rights, but it would make it more difficult for companies to tailor to these restrictive censorships.

But what is our Government's role in all this? Should we be seeking to end companies collusions with governments who restrict and even punish freedom of speech? In fact our government does actively pursue freedom of information in China through programs like this one....FreeGate:

source


Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?

If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?

I personally see this bill as a waste as they wont protect anything. Moving servers from one location to another wont keep them from being exploited. You don't have to have physical access to a server to access the data. If they're worried about reverse engineering, theirs nothing stopping them from buying the same server out on the market and figuring out how it works.

I fully support trying to improve human rights in any country. However, I don't think this is the way to do it. Why punish Google and Yahoo while Wal-Mart and other companies continue to buy and sell tons and tons of crap to China? If you really want to support human rights, cut off all ties until they get it together. And why stop at China, how about Saudi Arabia too? Of course the problem with this is obvious but are we going to champion human rights or not? I don't see putting a leash on Google or Yahoo as doing much of anything.

It isn't the servers themselves that is the concern..but rather the information on the servers.

From the article....
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights. Moving servers would keep personal data they house from government reach.

See when we discuss Human Rights in regards to this issue it is not just freedom of speech but also the concept of privacy that is not "granted" by these countries.

I think this story takes on an even stranger twist with the fact that Google has denied the Bush admin access to the data of what people search for online citing privacy rights, and yet somehow in China these principles of theirs relax?

Again from the article....
Google's site launch came days after it rebuffed a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding that it turn over data on how millions of users search the Internet.

In contrast, Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all cooperated with Justice.



I asked if you didn't agree what did you think could be done instead?

The House will be holding a hearing on this tomorrow....

Executives from Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., Google Inc., and Cisco Systems Inc. will testify tomorrow before the human rights subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations. The hearing will consider whether the companies have gone too far in censoring the Chinese Internet, and handing over information about Internet users under investigation by Chinese authorities.

source

Right, and I said, you don't have to have physical access to get the information off the server. What good is changing the physical location other than improved physical security for the box?

If the reason is that the Chineese government will access the information of Americans, well, we do the exact same thing. If a US company working abroad collects information, that information is subject to the rules of the Patriot Act So is every country going to start kicking out US companies?



I tried to make the point that we'd probably have to do this all or nothing. What good is regulating a few companies when others get off the hook? Is it the right thing to do? I don't know for sure but trying to send a message by regulating google and yahoo isn't going to do anything.

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights? If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?

I've been reading about this story. I brought up the implications of restricting free speech in China on another message board. The response was depressing: If American companies don't play by China's rules other companies will step in and reap the financial rewards. So glad our priorities are in order.

I don't believe the bottom line should guide corporate principles, but the standard should apply evenly. U.S. congressmen complaining about Yahoo cooperating with China's secret police when it won't hold the president to the same high standard? Give me a break.

On the technical side I don't know much about networking. It sounds like DIT and UltraReach will work as long as Google and company aren't banned by China. If any of the search engines decide not to bow to China's demands will DIT and UltraReach work as well on a smaller search engine or work at all?

I'm not sure what the solution is. It is analogous to Cuba. The embargo hasn't kep Castro from allegedly tucking away millions (some estimate billions) of dollars in a Swiss bank account, while common Cubans suffer. European countries doing business in Cuba alleviated some of that.


That's precisely why the government will draft a corporate foreign policy for you.


I don't know if DeLong is right. If it comes down to it I'd choose limiting our corporations' access to profit than enriching and empowering an oppressive government, then waiting for that government to liberalize itself. Then again I'd also ban the sale of tasers to most Mid East countries, including our "allies."

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?
I have to admit, once I got over my outrage about this, I realized a potentially far greater value in allowing these restrictions to happen. Yes, it is reprehensible that Yahoo would help Chinese authorities prosecute a man who did the unthinkable act of speaking his mind. But consider this:

Sunlight is the greatest disinfectant of all. Allowing companies like Google, Yahoo & Microsoft to operate there gives us far better insight into the machinations of that repressive regime than we would have had otherwise. Each repressive act gets more and more press. Eventually, the people of China won't take it anymore. Revolution. Maybe not in a year, or two, but eventually the government fails the people long enough and the whole world watches as China reacts.

Imagine a Tiananmen Square today, in the age of the Internet.

Yes, following the dollar is reprehensible, but I can't help but wonder if a greater good is being served here. This legislation won't help.

Doc

Lesly, you and I agree on almost everything and I'm critical that the corporate bottom line often overrides the corporate conscious. But I’d like to take a snip from your Boston Globe story.


As I’ve read about ‘progress” in countries like Qatar and India I’ve noticed a striking similarity. Younger, wealthier citizens are starting to make social changes and the extra cash in their pockets is often noted as the catalyst (similar to the 60’s here in the states).

As their standard of living increases and disposable income rises they have a tendency to purchase Western products and embrace Western culture. My manager who had to take a family emergency trip to India emailed me over the weekend and couldn’t believe how much has changed since his last visit two years ago.

With carefully consideration I like the partnering approach and believe by focusing on the economic status in China the liberties and freedoms will follow. Not only is this similar to the 60’s movement but it’s very much like the founding of this country.

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?

Not necessarily, and Bucket I think you hit on one of the keys in your opening sentence:


It appears they at least will have more freedoms than they do now, real change isn’t going to happen over night.

When I first read the question I found similarities with the Mohamed cartoon fiasco. In American and other free thinking societies we have the right to publish our satire but that doesn’t always make it appropriate, we must be sensitive to other cultures and we have to place context around our actions. We can't flip a switch and expect things to change. Whether we’re concerned over the law of the land or the law of religion we must find a way to engage the other side and plant the seeds of freedom.

A concept our forefathers called diplomacy or middle ground.

With China I don’t believe social/political freedoms will come before economic freedom. I think it’s a sound approach to economically enrich the lives of the Chinese and hope it’s the stepping stone to political freedom.

If we partner with them in business then it raises the interaction level with American citizens and our culture. My company is currently doing huge business in China and several co-workers have spent considerable time over there.

Many have commented that in the right situations the Chinese would let their guards down and ask question after question about life in the states and of course one of their favorite subjects Yao Ming (NBA player here in the states).

In our life time China will become either a reliable partner or formidable nemisis and progress is being made, slowly but it’s progress and it should be nurtured.

And it certainly beats the alternative.

I never said that this would completely make any system safe BUT physical location does account for something doesn't it? I mean if I was the Chinese Secret Police and I was tired of certain internet users doing what they weren't supposed to do I think it would be a lot easier for me to enter the Google office, confiscate the machines and by force retrieve the information I would need in order to find those I wished to persecute. So in that sense yes I would imagine that physical location, as is the case for all high secure systems would be somewhat important.
My husband works on machines that have two armed guard checkpoints on entrance and are located two stories underground.




From how I understand it the DIT and UltraReach distribute the software Freegate which disguises sites for the readers to then log onto. They then email enmasse these site locations to people in China. In the article the man who was too frightened to tell us anything about himself, said that the sites usually get shut down within 72 hrs. I believe it my husband says he believes China is crazy active on the web and that is where their army is running "exercises"

I don't think their operation relies too much on Google.CN. Perhaps Google.com but I would imagine the Chinese government will no longer allow access to Google.com now that they have Google.CN to offer.

Which brings me to a point I wanted to make that I feel also addresses your argument Fife and Drum...
Sure this information being made available, begins what will at current pace be a very slow and arduous push towards liberalisation, but prior to Google's buckle into China's demands....China was reluctantly offering Google.COM (on and off) to it's citizens because it was the only alternative. Now that they have this mock set of freedom being constructed on the internet for them by American companies...the pressure has been greatly lifted. Not to mention Fife and Drum ...India disproves a lot of your argument.

As I said to my husband I had wished they would have stood their ground and the alleged promise to "do no evil" and say either take Google as is or don't take it at all. The people in China who would find no Google would have not only a far more stark reminder of their lack of freedom and the costs this restriction has, as that is what was already happening and it was pressuring the Chinese government into allowing access. They would also know that the American people don't support their repression and that none of this repression was occurring at our hands. We can't say that now can we?

Now I don't think we should make legislation just yet, I am waiting to hear what is said at the hearing tomorrow to get a better idea of all of this.

Here is info for the hearing tomorow:
February 15, 2006:
10:00 a.m., 2172 Rayburn House Office Building
Hearing: The Internet in China: A Tool for Freedom or Suppression?
Hearing Notice, The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, Mr. James Keith, The Honorable David Gross, Mr. Michael Callahan, Mr. Jack Krumholtz, Mr. Elliot Schrage, Mr. Mark Chandler, Ms. Libby Liu, Mr. Xiao Qiang, Ms. Lucie Morillon, Mr. Harry Wu, Ms. Sharon Hom

It seems there is a little bit of a misunderstanding about what google and other search engines actually do. The web sites which contain information the Chinese government doesn't want you to see are not owned or controlled by Google. They might potentially come up in a search based on the PageRank™ and the search terms you used.

All google is doing is filtering our certain web sites and search terms the Chinese government doesn't like (other search engines work essentially the same way). Even if Google wasn't in China these web sites would still likely be blocked because the Chinese government has an extremely sophisticated firewall system (developed with the help of large American telecomm companies and Cisco - so really if you want to be outraged at someone you should take that up with companies like Cisco and At&T) that can block pretty much whatever they wanted to.

Even if google's servers were physically located outside of China that wouldn't matter, the Chinese could block all access to Google and other search engines if they didn't comply with their requirements. Up until recently that is exactly what they did. The search engine companies decided to comply so Chinese would use them, they were not previously available.

Now regarding this bill, it is pointless and counter to our principles. The idea behind this bill shows the ignorance that Congress has about technology and is about as ridiculous and impractical an idea as banning pornography on the internet.

I'm still trying to form my opinion on what I think about the whole thing but my initial opinion was one of anger towards these search companies. But that aside this bill is not only a bad idea, it shows a complete lack of understanding of technology.

I understand how Google works...do you ? Because they do have all kinds of services other than just web searching. I have no idea what is or is not available in the Chinese market..well no not true I know you can't do searches on freedom or democracy.

You can make discussion groups, they call it Google Groups, which usually include making an account which if my small female brain is working properly usually means you have to supply an email account.
Along with Gmail, Blogger etc. .... all Google services.

Besides this debate isn't just about Google and if you read the articles I have provided..it is not just Google's activity that this subcommittee is looking into...and yes Cisco has been asked to testify to the committee tomorrow also.

I already put this information in a past posting, in bold type no less, but here it is again....

Executives from Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., Google Inc., and Cisco Systems Inc. will testify tomorrow before the human rights subcommittee of the House Committee on International Relations. The hearing will consider whether the companies have gone too far in censoring the Chinese Internet, and handing over information about Internet users under investigation by Chinese authorities.

Yes Bucket as a matter of fact I do know how it works and have a few friends that actually work there. Must you be so condescending in every single post you make? It is getting really old.



Yes I understand that, Google Groups has been out for a while. I also know about a lot of other services google offers, even some that are fairly underground right now which you probably don't know about, but how is that relevant?

It does not matter if Google has servers physically within China or not. If they want to do business with the Chinese they must follow the rules the Chinese set. Up until recently they and other search providers didn't and so they were blocked and inaccessible from China. Recently many of these search providers agreed to play by China's rules to get in. The location of their servers is irrelevant.

There isn't a middle ground here, either you play by China's rules or you don't, it is that simple. As long as one understands that then this debate is really about whether or not the US Government intends to ban companies from doing business with China or not, but not all of them (we still need our cheap clothes from Wal-Mart) just companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.

You'll notice that nowhere in my post am I commenting on the ethics of censorship or doing business with China, the jury is still out there for me and I said that. What I am saying is that if you believe there is some sort of way for these companies to continue doing business with China and not engage in censorship then you don't understand the situation. No law passed by Congress can change that and no testimony before the senate will change it.

Read the articles and you will know. The legislators wish to keep personal information out of the hands of Chinese authorities because they have already, with the cooperation of American companies, used this information to locate and persecute Chinese citizens. I am guessing the logic is if the servers who collect and house all this data (Google collects gobs of data on us all, that is it's entire business model) should be more secure and safe from government tampering and access and one way to help secure this is physically. I asked my husband about this and he says that is the first step when securing systems...physical security.




That is not the least bit true. Even Google admits they made the move to a local presence because Google.com was unreliable and not up to standards, but it was accessible.

Google's official reasoning....
Google users in China today struggle with a service that, to be blunt, isn't very good. Google.com appears to be down around 10% of the time. Even when users can reach it, the website is slow, and sometimes produces results that when clicked on, stall out the user's browser. Our Google News service is never available; Google Images is accessible only half the time. At Google we work hard to create a great experience for our users, and the level of service we've been able to provide in China is not something we're proud of.

This problem could only be resolved by creating a local presence, and this week we did so, by launching Google.cn, our website for the People's Republic of China. In order to do so, we have agreed to remove certain sensitive information from our search results. We know that many people are upset about this decision, and frankly, we understand their point of view. This wasn't an easy choice, but in the end, we believe the course of action we've chosen will prove to be the right one.
source




So apparently there was a middle ground but Google wasn't happy with this "experience".



No this debate, which I started, is not about the government wanting to ban companies from doing business, that would be sanctions and I don't see any one calling for sanctions. It has to do with the fact that American companies have in fact been instrumental and assisted a dictatorship in restricting freedoms to such a degree that we believe they are in fact helping to commit human rights abuses. That is why the hearing is before the subcommittee of Human Rights.
So what is our role in all this? <-----that is what the debate is focusing on.

And I think the concept or idea about products that are brought in or imported from nations like China should follow some sort of standard or ethics in regards to Child labor or other Human Rights abuses is very common. So exactly how is this proof of hypocrisy? I think like most consumers in America would prefer to not buy sneakers made by abused little children they would also not like to see American technology being used in China for the purpose of restricting freedoms or prosecuting government critics.

Why is it that Google should get a free pass when we have been extremely reluctant to allow others?

Apparently some of the sunlight is working...
From NYT:

I know this isn't specifically related to the internet issues, but I definitely think its related.

Even if they had allowed these companies to initially setup their equipment and search engines with 100% access it wouldn’t be too difficult for the Chinese government to control a global catalog for every ISP (assuming they control the ISP’s). That would allow them to restrict DNS resolution and in affect control the content of the web.

I have no doubt they would have eventually accomplish their goals of internet censorship, it’s just a matter of doing it with our without us. We can’t under estimate the value they have actively engaged our companies to give them assistance

But the larger question regarding American/China economic partnership is why does Google have to be the fall guy? Because they are directly involved with censorship? If China is still not meeting the American standard of freedom why should we allow any of our companies the right to do business?

In my mind it’s either all or nothing, anything short is being hypocritical. If you purchase any product that’s made in China you’re indirectly supporting censorship.

By the way Bucket, this is an excellent topic.

I am not so much concerned about our role or involvement in censorship, altho. I think it really really stinks. I am more concerned about the information on users...again Google's whole business is collecting data on how and what we do on the internet...being given or shared or even forcibly taken by the Chinese government. People in China get imprisoned and persecuted for freely using the web, should we be complacent in the fact that US companies help this form of political persecution?

I am sure if Nike had responded to the child labour issue by telling us ...
"This wasn't an easy choice, but in the end, we believe the course of action we've chosen will prove to be the right one." or hearing supporters of Nike tell us that they are just being considerate to other nation's cultures or that when doing business in China they are obligated to follow Chinese law. Would we accept these same excuses...who is being hypocritical?

And I understand your point that any support of China is a support for her human rights abuses, yes that is true. I started a debate here at AD about shared prosperity, and how we have to lower our own standards and principles in order to find a place we all share.

I do not support trade sanctions in situations such as these, I am a believer in shared prosperity and free trade but I also believe in fair trade and we should have some things or some principles that we will not compromise.

In some cases I believe prosperity will not be achieved unless we stand firm and that not every accomplishment is achieved by accommodating.

Bucket, I think you're mixing two different points here:


This is much different than Google censoring/not returning results for various searches. Any information that is collected by google which might interest the Chinese can alse collected by the Chinese. The information is going to be out there for anyone to pick up and keep track of as it's all going over the same copper wires. So the idea of the government breaking down Google's doors to get access to a server is probably far fetched. Of course, the bill you sited in the OP I guess was supposed to address this concern. This is of course why I (and CJ and I'm sure others) don't like it when politicians try to make laws about stuff they don't understand. Moving the servers from China isn't going to protect their people anymore than having them in the country.

The idea of google partaking in censorship for China is probably the real issue here but it doesn't seem like the bill does anything to address that. Should google bend to China's laws? Well, google does it for France and Germany, why should China be any different?

As for services such as email and blogging information being turned over, Google has this to say:



So, it seems such services may not even be available yet, or ever.




Right, this explains why Nike is hurting for cash, no one buys Nestle's chocolate, no one drinks coffee, and no one is wearing GAP jeans.

Bucket for the last time, I have read your articles, please stop repeating yourself. I do not agree with your interpretation of them.

I'll state once again that having servers which are not local will not keep information out of the hands of the Chinese authorities. In order to do business in China you must play by China's rules. Yahoo and Microsoft have willingly censored information on blogs they host (microsoft) and turned over emails from their users (Yahoo). They did this because the Chinese government demanded it and the punishment for not complying would be getting kicked out of the country. The Chinese police didn't march into the datacenter and take them, they did these things willingly to preserve the business relationship.

Physical security does not matter one bit when the country you are doing business with can simply say "comply with this request or you aren't doing business here any more".


I'm not sure I even understand what you are getting at here. Wal-Mart is one of China's largest business partners and you can bet they are engaging in all kinds of unsavory business practices over there, much of it is well documented. I don't see anyone complaining about that as long as they can buy their cheap goods. I personally don't agree with it and don't shop there but the vast majority of americans are ok with it. So I don't see where this "free pass" when we've raised objections about others comes into play.

Not just anybody can collect, retrieve and organize data just like Google because Google is in fact a product that uses a patented algorithm. If the Chinese already had this ability to search, collect and organize data on the internet why bother with Google at all? Probably and I said this right from the start...in order to reverse engineer. The Chinese could care less about IP rights even tho it was part of their agreement to WTO membership. We have always been very reluctant and careful about what data and information can and can not be shared with China, and rightfully so.

Do you always feel this free about trade when it comes to China? How about the US arms embargo?
Business is business right?


The bill will be released sometime tomorrow..so I have read. Then we will all have a better idea.

Also from what I have read this bill will establish a legal standing in which anyone can sue companies like Google, or Yahoo et al. if it is believed they assisted a government in the brutal beating or imprisonment of yourself or a family member.



You are still missing the point and question I posed for this debate..what is our role in all of this? Does the government of America have a role in this business relationship...and the pursuit of greater internet freedoms in China? Google and co. seem to think so. They said so over and over again today.
“Let me make one final comment about the role of the U.S. government. We urge the U.S. government to take a leadership role on a government-to-government basis.
---Yahoo senior VP

The United States government has a role to play in contributing to the global expansion of free expression. For example. the U.S. Departments of State and commerce and the office of the U.S. Trade Representative should continue to make censorship a central element of our bilateral and multilateral agendas.
----Google

Or what is our role in all of this? Should American consumers demand that Google and et al. practice some form of ethical and/or social responsibility?

I think it´s a disgrace that countries put a limit on the people and companies rights of free expression. I think it shows that it takes a long time before China can be considered a modern and free country.

You can´t blame google. It a money making company and of cause they only look at the profits.

I will re-iterate that I was clearing up what I thought were some incorrect assumptions about this bill and the technology involved in general.

But let me ask you this. You've stated more than a few times that I don't understand what this debate is about so I have a question for you. If Congress intends to pass a bill on the subject what exactly do you believe will be the content of that bill? The news coverage I have seen so far suggests it would be more sanction oriented, preventing these businesses from doing business with China. You've stated that clearly that's not what it is about so what is it about? Is it some resolution to engage china diplomatically? What is it?


Sounds to me like they are stating that the US government should pressure China on the censorship topic through diplomatic channels, not interfere with their business. Do you have some other interpretation of these statements?


Well that certainly everyone's right as a consumer, to not do business with companies they don't feel are in line with their political and moral beliefs. If customers want to give up their Hotmail, Yahoo and Gmail accounts I still don't see what this has to do with the government and passing legislation. I'm assuming those that have a problem with these business practices are working to make their objections known.

1.) America should have no meddling in any company dealing with another government. I think that the American system should leave corporations alone and corporations should be permitted to do what they will in a country as they would within reason in that nation's legal system. Human Rights be flogged, government cannot restrict free enterprise just because of an opinion... that is like trying to change a government indirectly by refusing international industry without actual occupying/invading.

2.) By opening up some kind of dialog in order to work with China to remedy/alleviate some of our grievances.

It is to establish, recognize and approach online rights as human rights issues. Or as it is appropriately titled..
Global Online Freedom Act of 2006

I already said in my last post that the bill is supposed to be released tomorrow.... then we will all know won't we.

But here is some info that is already up on the web from a Discussion Draft that was released today...

http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversati...TNJ_094_XML.pdf
pssst it's not sanctions oriented.


As a matter of fact I do ...they said several times a leadership role..meaning what? Were they asking the government to lead by setting an expected example or guideline and they will follow?

And through diplomatic channels ..such as what? The other piece of this debate is to offer up some idea of what you believe could be alternatively done.

I am going to address these questions from a generic perspective, because I feel the answer to the questions is the same irrespective of company or product involved....probably this applies even more so to Internet companies.

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?

No, I do not. If you are not interacting with these regimes, you lose your ability to influence them. The question, to me, should really be worded as follows:

Do you support getting as much influence as possible via trade with repressive governments, or do you think we should sit idly by on the sidelines, allowing others to gain influence?

The concept of coercion through restriction of trade is based on the assumption that other nations need our goods and services, and will change their ways to get them. In today's world economy, this is a completely flawed assumption. We will gain far more influence being their provider of any good or service than we will by not doing so. So, if influencing things for the better is the goal, then trade is the vehicle to achieve that. Nothing provides a better example of this than Cuba. We restricted trade to them for decades...how much have conditions improved there?

Another fallacy in the application of trade restrictions for human rights violations is that other countries function as we do. We are a capitalistic, democratic society--if the economy is suffering, the people will put a new government in place. Trade restrictions are essentially designed to hasten this process (although the fact that they do so by attempting to create economic instability and therefore suffering amongst the populace is usually hidden behind proclaimations that we are doing it for principle). In general, the countries with human rights issues are run by ruthless dictators, who really don't care about the plight of their people and will ruthlessly put down any attempted rebellion. In short, trade sanctions have little to no effect in such countries (again, consider Cuba), even if other countries followed with them, which seldom happens---there is always somebody who is willing to provide a desired good or service, rendering the trade sanction essentially useless.

If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?

History shows that trade is the vehicle through which change can be enacted. If you are doing business with someone, you are by defaulting interacting with them, exchanging information, exchanging values, etc. This is the surest path to making other countries/cultures aware of whatever values you seek to convery.

I'm an issue or two behind on my Economist subscription but finally got around to reading an article in the Jan 28, 2006 issue titled Here be Dragons on this exact subject. I found a copy of the article here. Given the facts here it puts Google's position atleast in a whole new light.



This continues to address several of the misconceptions floating around earlier in this thread, primarily advanced by Bucket. The following apply only to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are in a different boat.

1. The end result is not going to be that much different than the status quo other than the fact that Google will be a more reliable service and will bring more information to the Chinese. Previously users could sometimes access cached pages for things the Chinese government didn't want them to see and in this agreement I don't see how that isn't still possible unless google.com is blocked completely.

After this deal Google will offer Google.cn which will filter out certain results and that will be disclosed at the bottom of the page. That is completely consistent wiith conforming to the laws in other countries such as France and Germany where Nazi sites are banned. We may not like what China is doing but this proves Google is not being inconsistent. One could even make the argument that the statement that results were censored from a search is progress because it let's Chinese users know that where they may have been ignorant of it before. That knowledge alone pretty much defeats the government's position.

2. Google will only offer its search engine and its news service and not things like email, blogs and groups. As they state in the article this removes the possibility of being put in the position of censoring articles written by users or revealing their information. So Bucket, that pretty much makes your earlier rant about Google groups, etc a moot point.

3. As noted in this ZDNet article Google does capture some information abbout how people use their services that could potentially be assembled into profiles. However, I find it highly hypocritical that we'd have a problem with China doing that (when they likely have similar measures in place anyway) when these very same lawmakers have absolutely no problem with our own government doing that (see google's case with the Feds).

So with all of that in mind I'm now comfortable supporting Google in their endeavors here because they have compromised little and gained much. With the flow of information ignorance is always defeated eventually.



Let's get right down to the meat of this:


So now that we have this in plain terms, item 2 could include sanctions and item 3 is by definition sanctions Bucket. If China wouldn't do business with an American company without them restricting certain content then that is the defintion of sanctions or if you prefer an embargo. And actually France and Germany could potentially kiss Google and other services goodbye based on this law because of their censorship of Nazism.

So, if you'd like me to pass some salt and pepper to go with that crow I'd be happy to.



Ok I can answer this now. First the US government should stay out of it. Second companies like Microsoft and Yahoo can follow the lead of Google and compromise with the Chinese but not allow services like email, etc so they don't have to completely compromise their principles. You as a consumer can boycott any of these companies if you so choose.

I said I did not know what services they offer, still the search engine alone collects gobs of "personal data" that is the whole objective of Google.




Completely consistent? Do you have any proof that how China chooses to censor and silence unwanted political views is consistent to how it is done in France and Germany? That is quite an accusation. It is not about the laws themselves obviously, it is about how and what the laws do, how they are enforced and what their objectives are..are they a violation of Human Rights? Do you honestly feel that Germany and France are a completely consistent comparison?

And you don't think Chinese citizens knew their government was censoring the internet before...you think they needed Google to tell them this?



Um no it does not because what Google really says is they are still working out how they will offer these services with the Chinese Government.
Other products – such as Gmail and Blogger – that involve personal and confidential information will be introduced only when we are comfortable that we can provide them in a way that protects users’ expectations about that information.
source
So again if you apply this to the actual topic of debate...what is our role in this? Should the US government define what would be considered a comfortable protection for Chinese users? Or should we allow Google et al. to self regulate? How is that moot? Shouldn't the world's largest superpower have some kind of foreign policy for promoting Human Rights ?

And my "rant" is not supposed to be about Google only. You are the one that keeps insisting on talking on about all google google google.


Google has refused to cooperate so much for their little excuse about just following the local government's demands. I already commented on this issue in a past posting.


Cube Jockey I didn't know if you were aware of this but all trade in the US is subject to sanctions and embargoes in accordance to set guidelines or rules the US government has designed. So essentially our entire foreign policy on trade is sanction or embargo "oriented".

My point was that it appears the objective of this bill is to not place sanctions on US companies..but instead to restrict or establish guidelines for US companies to follow in order to protect and promote online freedom. Of course sanctions could ultimately be implemented...as they could in most cases dealing with trade, but that is not the intended purpose here.

We installed an arms embargo on China as a result or reaction to the Tiananmen Square incident, as a direct response to human rights concerns. Do you object to these sanctions too? How does this restriction of goods and services differentiate from any others? And if we could implement such a sweeping and long lasting embargoes on China for Human Rights concerns, even under immense political pressure, why would we need to reconsider the same principle here?

I'm only going to respond to this and I'm going to say that you need to re-read the bill because it is right there in black and white and in plain english. You are coming up with some pretty creative interpretations if you believe otherwise, that or you have some inside information from the congressmen who wrote it.


I've answered that question a few times now, it isn't my fault if you care to ignore it.

Bucket, as I stated earlier, the personal data that Google collects can also be collected by China. The special algorithms that Google uses that you mentioned previously data are just mining techniques used to build a user profile to enhance marketing, namely to serve up Google Ads that you're more likely to buy. I really don't think that this is the kind of information that China is interested in. If it is, I'm sure they'd go straight to the source and grab all the credit card transactions you made. China is probably more interested in what person is writing to the "Democracy for China Now" blog...which is information China can obtain without google's help.


Should the US government define what would be considered a comfortable protection for Chinese users?

I really don't see what this bill has to do with this question but I'll answer it anyways. China is a soverign nation. We can't do anything to change their laws just like they can't change ours. Trying to use companies such as Google as a proxy to change laws wont and shouldn't happen. That should be left to the politicians.

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?

I think part of doing international business is respecting the host country's culture and practices, whether you like them or not. Point is this, if google, yahoo, etc don't abide by these other countries policies you can be darn sure that another search engine company will and, in a market a big as China, that engine will probably by-pass those that chose not to participate in the market. The U.S. government should not be able to choose which U.S. companies can and which companies Can not do business with China or any country that we do not have any set restrictions with.

If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?

I think that we already champion of principles of freedom enough

I am sure the bill will go through many changes, in fact Rep. Chris Smith has welcomed and invited comments and suggestions from all parties involved.

This is only the beginning and I personally welcome any opening of dialogue on this subject, it is an important issue in regards to Human Rights and what our role is in promoting it. I don't understand your reluctance and refusal to discuss and consider the fact that we might have more that we can do, or require other's to do.

So in keeping with the topic of debate...do you have any comments or suggestions about the bill itself and how it could better address human rights issues?

EFF does here is their open letter to the committee:
A Code of Conduct for Internet Companies in Authoritarian Regimes

In considering how these companies might construct their services to best serve global human rights, we believe that simple guidelines, consciously followed, could significantly limit the damage caused by corporate engagement with these regimes. Both the U.S. government and American Internet corporations have a opportunity, and a duty, to defend human rights.

You stated earlier ..The news coverage I have seen so far suggests it would be more sanction oriented, preventing these businesses from doing business with China.

I have shown that it appears that really isn’t the intention of the bill, if it was then the bill would seek to sanction internet businesses from operating in designated restrictive countries completely. Instead this bill appears to seek to define a code of conduct, or guidelines for companies who are still being permitted to do business in China, or any other designated restrictive country, to abide by. How is that sanctions ? How is that an embargo? It isn’t, it is trade regulations, something that I have been reminding you and you have been ignoring, that we apply and participate and require quite regularly.

I find it very telling that those who claim they oppose any restriction or guidelines being set for international trade, especially when it concerns Human Rights abuses, will not address my questions on the arms embargo on China that was a direct response to our government's concerns about Human Rights in China. How is the principle not the same in regards to this issue?


Psyclist I have no idea what data the Chinese government finds important or not important but what exactly is this “user profile” ? Isn’t it a collection of the data that people search on and what links they click on...or their personal activity? Isn’t it a form of internet monitoring software? And I don’t care if China or any other nation for that matter can collect this data themselves..great then let them implement and enforce their own despotic totalitarian regime. That is the entire point of this issue..should the government restrict American companies from assisting them?

And since when have we not enforced, implemented and practiced international trade regulations?

Bucket, let's look at the text of the current bill that you linked again.


Now I'm not a lawyer but if a bill says that it will prohibit US Businesses from allowing a given country to engage in political censorship with their services then what exactly do you feel the outcome of that will be on the enforcement side? Is it your opinion that this is a feel-good measure or that item 3 above is simply optional? What happens if a business such as the ones being discussed here do engage in this kind of behavior? The only option I really see here is some kind of embargo.

It is fine to have a code of conduct, but what happens if that code is broken or if it ismply isn't possible to do business with a country and follow those rules? That is the question that you keep dodging and the reason why we are talking in circles around each other.

I'm of the opinion that the United States should not be using US Companies as an arm of their foreign policy, period. If there is a compelling reason to not sell a technology to a country in the interest of national security or something else that is one thing. If a company is violating international laws that is also one thing. But to expect that the laws of the US should apply in other countries doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm not arguing with you that China is a bad actor in all of this. But the appropriate way to address the problem is not by using US companies as pawns in some sort of foreign policy standoff. The appropriate thing to do is to engage the company, government to government, through diplomacy and in parallel get the appropriate UN committees involved.

If you believe that US Companies should be used as pawns in this foreign policy game then we are never going to agree on this subject regardless of shared feelings about China.

Do you support laws being written to restrict US companies involvement and cooperation with information housing and distribution in nation's that our government feels are repressive to Human Rights?

It depends on how they're written and implemented, but I don't object to it on principle.

If not how do you feel we could better address our concerns and champion our principles of freedom?

Engagement at all levels: individuals, companies, and governments.

It's a difficult problem to avoid enabling the bad behavior, without destroying your chance to influence it. I think Google is trying to do the right thing. Yahoo!'s behavior looks quite a bit worse (handing over identifying information about dissidents).


This is similar to the restrictions we put on chemical companies under the Chemical Weapons Convention. We don't prevent companies from dealing in the technology (which can also be used for pesticides and other peaceful purposes), but we do require them to make sure their services aren't being used to make chemical weapons. If the recipient countries try to use them for chemical weapons anyway, I guess we're in an embargo situation.


OK, chemical weapons are the subject of a UN convention, while censorship isn't. I think our foreign policy should go beyond the least-common-denominator recognition of human rights that the UN can agree to.

That is reasonable as well. I just really don't like the way the law is written right now and it shows evidence of being written by people that don't have a firm grasp of technology and more specifically web technology.

For example, this law could be applied to places like Germany and France which exercise a form of political censorship by not allowing anything related to nazism. It could also apply to places like Turkey which by law don't even allow you to talk about certain parts of history, like the armenian massacre. There are certainly degrees of difference here, but poorly written laws get us into trouble and this one is not solid.

With regard to this specific situation I'd say that the standards Google has applied are acceptable, while the standards Microsoft and Yahoo have applied are not. There can be benefit by exposing the Chinese to more information, even if a company must play by their rules to a certain extent. However, when that crosses over into things like handing over emails to the government (yahoo) and going on to blogs and physically censoring them (microsoft) that is a different ballgame in my opinion.

This law does not distinguish between those situations and to me there is a huge difference.

I can also say that it would be nice if the Republicans (e.g. Rep Chris Smith and others) didn't exhibit such a high degree of hypocrisy in matters like this. They appear to be championing this iniative in the guise of human rights but here at home they are pressuring these same companies to hand over records to them in order to wage war on pornography. Once again Google has distinguished itself by going to court over the matter.

Also just to add to what Jobius offered as an example of trade laws, or regulations. I feel the bill proposes restrictions and guidelines to be implemented to still allow trade in China, we have to still allow trade with China we do have trade agreements with them. It is restrictions yes but we have always had trade laws, restrictions and regulations in place in order to protect human rights when dealing with international trade.
Did you know certain trade of crime control devices and devices that can be considered dual use for torture or abuse require special oversight for export to designated countries? Some of these laws are implemented by our own country's government or as Jobius showed by international law.

Do you oppose these as well? And if not why are you asking for special consideration and treatment for internet companies?


It isn't a law...it is a bill, still just a bill.

I just responded to that bucket and I believe I was pretty clear about it. See this quote:


And this post.

Political censorship violates no international law that I am aware of Bucket. It is not the same as laws governing the use of weapons, nuclear technology, chemicals, torture, etc. It is certainly a value that our nation hopes to spread, but it is not something that we should be in the business of forcing upon other countries. If we do get into that business then there are a lot more concerns than just China although they are certainly one of the worst violators.

As I also said in my previous posts this bill doesn't get the job done it is too broad and undefined and it shows a lack of understanding of the actual situation. It is pretty typical of our politicians actually - create some bill for a perceived political problem that is overly broad and undefined and doesn't address the actual problem.

I believe that we this law is helpful and may be necessary in the future but is not currently needed. Look at what happened to Google after it cooperated with the Chinese government to censure certain search words, it stocks have tumbled. Though it seems impossible, Google stocks have suffered lately and I do not think that it is coincidence that it happened just after Google cooperated with China. I as well as many other apparently are disgusted with Google's pandering to China, all American companies should be in the business of exporting freedom before they seek to gain the respect of outsiders. Fortunately people have responded the right way to Google's poor decision making. Google has been punished for what they did and hopeful other companies will suffer if they refuse to export freedom to other nations.

I don't think I have to go too far out on a limb to say that investors for the most part don't care about whether a company "exports freedom" or not, they care about money. If they did then Wal-Mart's stock wouldn't be worth a cent!

But as for the explanation for Google's stock, this may be a minor contributing factor but it isn't the cause. Google's stock first took a dive when they released their 4th quarter earnings because they exceeded expectations but didn't exceed them enough. I think the value fell something like 8%. They also took a little bit of a hit when they announced thhey were going to battle the feds in court, wall street doesn't like legal battles because they get expensive. But what we are seeing is probably much more a result of people saying "the stock is at $368, its looking like the ride may be ending, time to sell" than people saying "I'm not going to support a company that doesn't export freedom!" Don't believe me? Go read the reports and look at the stock history, this started earlier this year.

Also for your theory to hold any water we'dd have to see Microsoft, Yahoo, Cisco and others taking a hit and I don't see that.

I am interested in what leads you to think this (other than the article on TheStreet.com). As someone who follows the market very closely (near obession) I don't see this being the case. Traders could care less about ethics unless it involves cooking the books. They would never sell shares to "punish" a company. If they do, they wouldn't last long on the street (Wall Street that is) as they'd lose tons of money. The Google pullback was expected, everyone knew it was coming. You can't expect that kind of run and not expect a sell off. It's worht mentioning that the pull back occured the same time all the other "hot stocks" had their pull back (energy, gold/metals, semis and drilling). They all took a hit and they're already bouncing back (most of the price points I've seen for google are around $500). By all measures, Google has the fastest growth of any company probably in the history of the market and the market loves growth. Most tech people just brush this bill off as another ill informed piece of legislation.

Exactly how is a nation's foreign policy separated and from it's foreign trade policy? American companies have gobs of laws that apply to them when they operate internationally. Are you against all of those too? Even the US Constitution disagrees with you:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ....
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;





I have been trying to explain that my position is that human rights are a collective group of principles, and that we use language like this word "rights" in order to express our interpretation and value of these principles to such a degree we believe they deserve legal standing.

So essentially what is the difference from torture, slavery, or political suppression? They are all part of these rights we claim all humans deserve. It is not something we define separately by rank or order of importance and it is not something we define by state or nation. In fact the opposite as it is the rejection that local laws or territory can restrict these universal freedoms or rights that all humans deserve.

I suggest you read the UN The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which China is a participant.
The opening Preamble states:
Recognizing that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedoms,

Realizing that the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of the rights recognized in the present Covenant,

Their is a difference between regulating the commerce that a company does with a foreign nation and using the company as a proxy for political means. Promoting free speech is not Google's job. That's not why they started their company. They are not politicians. Their responsibility is to their share holders. Can you imagine if every company had their own "foreign policy"? Bucket, seriously, what kind of message are we sending China when we say: "Google, Micro$oft, Yahoo, Cisco can't play because we don't like China's Human Rights record but Wal-Mart and Toy-R-US and tons of other retailers you can continue to trade." You think the message is going to get through to China? Why didn't the CEOs of those retail companies have to get grilled by Congress? Doesn't Section 8 apply to them as well?

In my opinion we have two options that make sense:

1.) The US makes it so NO company can play with China until China gets their Human Rights up to speed. This makes it so ALL US companies are abiding by the same set of standards. (In theory, we'd do the same with Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as well) This sends a clear message to China that we mean umm (no) business.

or

2.) We allow the US companies to continue to do business with China (obviously we wont be selling them any arms or anything) and the US POLITICIANS try and push for Human Rights issues in China.





You're exactly right, their is no order of importance for Human Rights. So, if Google can't do business with China because China has Human Rights problems, then Wal-Mart can't either.

I don't understand your argument at all. First you seem to reject the idea that companies do have other responsibilities other than to their share holders, and that is not the least bit true. Putting aside the "feel good" obligations they have through social responsibility to their consumers, legally they have many things our government holds them accountable and yes responsible for. And they are required to promote "rights" our government has chosen to legally require of them. Their share holders are one of many parties holding their behavior and actions accountable. Why do you in this debate continually ignore and pretend that American companies do not already have tons of legislation and trade laws already holding them accountable for the US government's political means?
Either you're not being intellectually honest or you are arguing from the point of principle, not reality.