Google Turns Up the China Burner, Microsoft Feels the Heat
- By Ryan Singel
- March 24, 2010 |
- 7:54 pm |
- Categories: Commerce, Enterprise, Search
Google is urging the U.S. government to make net censorship a part of its trade and diplomatic negotiations, even as it holds out hope that China does not start blocking its uncensored Hong Kong servers, where Google.cn users have been diverted since Monday.
Not unexpectedly, Google came in for heavy congressional praise Wednesday at a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China. But perhaps more telling for industry at large is that Google has seemingly set a precedent that other companies — namely Microsoft — are being measured against and that pressure on the software giant is likely just starting.
New Jersey Congressman Chris Smith (R), a sponsor of the Global Internet Freedom Act, lashed out at Microsoft, whose executives have scoffed at Google’s decision to leave China.
“They need to get with the program and join with the side of human rights, instead of being on the side of tyranny as they are today,” Smith said in his opening remarks.
By contrast, Smith called Google’s decision to re-route its censored China site to its largely unfiltered Hong Kong site, “a remarkable, historic and welcome action.” Google entered China in 2006, agreeing to censor sensitive political search results so long as they could tell users when that was happening, but found that censorship got even tighter, rather than loosening — leading it to declare in January it could no longer compromise its principles.
Microsoft, it seems, now finds itself on the wrong side of the engagement/boycott debate, at least as far as the political winds are blowing, even though its search share in China is minuscule compared to the 20 percent Google share has had and the 60 percent the Chinese-owned Baidu enjoys.
Like so many manufacturing companies before it, Microsoft argues that its business in countries like China has a liberalizing effect.
In an e-mailed statement, Microsoft said:
We appreciate that different companies may make different decisions based on their own experiences and views. At Microsoft we remain committed to advancing free expression through active engagement in over 100 countries, even as we comply with the laws in every country in which we operate. We have done business in China for more than 20 years and we intend to continue our business there. We also regularly communicate with governments, including the Chinese, to advocate for free expression, transparency, and the rule of law. We will continue to do so. We believe engagement in global markets is important, as an open and healthy Internet involves not only access to information, but access to network connectivity, computing power, innovative and easy-to-use software applications, and the basic IT skills needed to leverage these capabilities.
But on Wednesday, the pressure increased even more as yet another online giant — GoDaddy, the world’s largest domain registrar, announced it was ceasing its business with China over internet censorship. GoDaddy announced it would stop selling .cn domain names, since it found China’s new dictates that it collect detailed personal information, including a photograph, on every domain holder too invasive.
“We decided we didn’t want to become an agent of the Chinese government,” GoDaddy general counsel Christine Jones told the committee.
Other companies will soon begin to feel the same pressure as Microsoft, according to Eddan Katz, the international affairs director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“What Google did sets a certain threshold for the responsibility that companies have to contributing to an infrastructure of repression,” Katz told Wired.com in a phone interview. “Other companies will be asked to disclose what they are dong, and how far they are complicated in the machinery of the surveillance system.”
Some tech companies have already found themselves in that spotlight, well before Google’s decision. Cisco has been widely criticized for selling its router and firewall technology to the Chinese, knowing that it would be used for filtering. Yahoo executives found themselves hauled in front of Congress after it aided the Chinese government’s arrest of dissidents including by turning over e-mails, despite having good reason to suspect the inquiries were politically motivated. Yahoo has since joined the Global Network Initiative, reduced its presence in China, and in Vietnam, kept its e-mail servers outside of the Communist country and thus, out of the reach of legal orders.
Google’s Alan Davidson told the panel that it had only seen intermittent censorship so far of Chinese mainland users using its Google.com.hk site, though it realizes that the Chinese government could expand the censorship at any time.
Tests using WebSitePulse show that many formerly blocked searches, such as one for the blocked religion Falun Gong, return full search results to Chinese users. However, many of the results, such as Falun Gong’s Wikipedia entry, are blocked.
Davidson, formerly of the Center for Democracy and Technology, described internet censorship as a “growing threat” that requires coordinated responses from companies, governments and civil society groups.
And while Google has taken pains to say that it made its decision independently of the U.S. government, Davidson says that the U.S. government needs to be involved.
“We believe internet freedom needs to become a plank of our foreign diplomacy and should be part of trade negotiations,” Davidson said.
That message was well-received, at least by the self-selected group of Washington lawmakers at the hearing.
Chairman Byron Dorgan, a Democratic senator from North Dakota, argued that China couldn’t reap the rewards of being a dominant player in the manufacture of goods, while placing unfair restrictions on the information industry.
“The truth is the world is made up of more than just products, there is also a marketplace of ideas in the world,” Dorgan said. “Respected countries don’t censor their citizens; respected countries don’t put their citizens in jail without trial, and respected countries don’t fear speech or ideas.”
It’s not clear whether pressure from foreign companies can change China’s censorship rules, as divestment in apartheid South Africa did with racial policies.
But that’s certainly the hope of Google among others.
“We are hoping that we can offer our service uncensored in China,” Davidson said. “A bad-case scenario is that others rush in to fill the void with products that don’t provide unfiltered information to Chinese users.”
See Also:
I’m glad you point out the Apartheid issue. Microsoft should be asked to demonstrate how their policy of economic engagement helped end South Africa’s racist policies, to better back up how their policy of economic engagement is helping end China’s intellectual tyranny. I don’t think they quite understand what most people mean by “tyranny” and the fact that tyranny isn’t just ideological; it can be economic, as well.
Google’s Done Good.
Google has challenged the smug corporate assumption that business alone will liberate.
It will not.
Fellow traveling businesses will allow corrupt, inefficient and doltish coteries, cliques and regimes to bask from the reflected glory of hard won wars for equity, freedom, enlightenment and excellence that have been fought in societies that have produced such new, thoughtful responses.
Fellow traveling businesses, that squander their freedom and slip into cozy relationships with the authorities betray the ” poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak” in the case of even democracies these are all those without a vote – children, the environment and the future.
Such businesses produce cynicism, and conformism, not innovation and wonder.
Such businesses die slow, inglorious deaths.
Google’s decisions – first to engage and then draw the lakshmanrekha – the line in the sand – are both that will inspire life conscious people.
Creative people are quixotic.
Mahatma Gandhi was when he took on the might of the empire with stubbed pencils and recycled envelopes.
Erich Fromm characterizes revolutionaries as those imbued with “a passion for independence, a passion for justice, a passion to serve the unfolding of life” . He may have been describing the quintessential Quixote.
This is not to underestimate to quantum of insanity on this planet.
It takes the whole village to create fun alternatives to psychotic behaviour.
In other words, this is not a moment for corporate schadenfreude or voyuerism.
Remember the lessons from Nazi Germany. They first came for the trade unions. Remember apartheid South Africa.
Abuse of power often happens in plain sight, since to the busy and self absorbed lay person, the powerful appear glamorous and formidable and their prey appear to be rebellious, despicable and in many ways, to be asking for it.
As somebody who has conscientiously refused to do business the way it “normally” is in so called democratic societies - “Go along to get along” -and who has been almost destroyed for my pains, I can appreciate the doubt and ambivalence with which Google may currently be viewed.
But when big, influential corporates begin to value innocence and say “no” it portends interesting times.
Since the past two decades, the Government of India, the Government of my own state, Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court , the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner have combined to impress on me that what works in India is what I have called the “patronage paradigm” – the paradigm of shoddiness, irresponsibility, cronyism and corruption” – and that ideas of the rule of law and democratic processes are merely spectacles to lull the gullible.
I have been denied the recognition that were commended to me by one former Chief Minister of my state, one former minister of home affairs, one speaker of the Lok Sabha, several prominent ministers of the central cabinet, eminent intellectuals and freedom fighters.
I have been unable to earn a decent living.
The office of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh incited my neighbours to cut off my water supply.
The information commissions in the state and at the centre denied me my right to information on spurious, brazenly illegal grounds and punished me for daring to object.
The high court denied me my right to competent counsel and punished me for complaining.
Even as we speak, Dr Manmohan Singh”s office, “Daredevil” Pratibha Patil’s Rashtrapati Bhavan, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, State Information Commissioner CD Arha are all locked in a most perverse and ignominious conspiracy of silence to deny me justice.
Even as the Prime Minister’s Office maintains a guilty silence in my case, it appears to have jumped through hoops to heap honour on a businessman alleged to be a serial swindler.
India’s editorial class is as dense, amoral and narcissistic.
Variations of this comment have appeared in almost every major Indian online publication plus in a few abroad.
However, not a single editor or reporter has had the professionalism to pick it up and make it “impact”.
My credentials are strong and I have taken much trouble to meet many editors personally, usually on impeccable referrals.
Our “know-it-all-in -chiefs” have had nothing but smirks to offer.
When I sought the solidarity of the press, Shekhar Gupta (editor in chief of New Indian Express) advised me, “You cannot go around taking pangas (quarrels) with people, yaar.”
Even my comments are mutilated.
Vinod Mehta’s “Outlook” has banned my comments on risible grounds.
The Hindu crawled.
It published “spin” by corrupt officials and got hissy with me for pointing out, with evidence, its craven, yellow soul.
The Indian Press (with a solitary exception) blacked out the fervent open letter written by Padma Vibhushan Kaloji Narayana Rao.
Quelle surprise… Microsoft being tarred as something.
Sure, Wired. But what does Apple think about all this?
This is all nice and entertaining. But what about the iPad?
and how exactly has Google been fighting for human rights prior to this fiasco?
@David09, excellent point. AAPL gleefully uses the cheap labor (sometimes not even of legal age - oops Steve!) to increase their bottom line. But of course Microsoft is - once again - made to be the heavy from the biased media. And I can’t wait for Barry (oops I did it again, Obama) to tell GM to stop selling Buicks in China.
I would like to see the same pressure applied to Siemens and Nokia who aided censorship during the uprising after the Iranian elections. Without a great deal of technical expertise, censorship simply does not work.
see also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html
Google has played this so well. They aren’t concerned with the Chinese people. This was business. This sacrifice (giving up a dwindling position) will buy them years worth of political goodwill here on the home front. When google begins abusing its market position and throwing around its monopolistic muscle, what politician is going to step forward and suggest reigning in on this “patriot corporation, this bastion of free thought and democracy?” I can see the talking points already. Well played google. Well, let me get back to finishing my email on their excellent gmail service.
““Respected countries don’t censor their citizens; respected countries don’t put their citizens in jail without trial, and respected countries don’t fear speech or ideas.”
Is it me or does that set of odd word choices sound like it was parsed specifically for ease and impact of English to Chinese translation?
How many American companies build something in China? Apple, Nike, etc? Why the hate for microsoft, where’s the same hate for every other company that is contributing to China’s tyranny?
This is just more of the same PR-drivel from Microsoft in line with its original decision guaranteeing its unconditional dedication to China:
“Noting that most countries exert some sort of control over information, Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer said Friday his company must comply with the laws and customs of any country where it does business…”(1)
As it sits now, if China disregards human rights, if they hack into mail systems, steal human rights activists’ personal data, then hunt them down and exterminate them, Microsoft will be right there to help them. China do anything now, and Microsoft has stated they will be right at their side.
If they change the laws of the land to require any companies doing business in China to furnish personal information on human rights activists or other citizens of interest in the USA (or other countries), Microsoft’s original statement indicates they will then continue to abide by the laws of China in order to be faithful business partners.
Ballmer is a man of his word, as long as there is a buck to be made, and competitors to extinguish.
And Bill Gates parrots the same line (2).
Makes you proud to be an American.
(1) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/china-loves-ballmer-hates-google-rails-against-us.ars
(2) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60O33O20100125
@samagon I think because it’s clear now that other companies don’t necessarily have to abide this particular aspect of China’s tyranny, and choose to anyway.
My company has already pulled out of China — we simply do not allow people from their country to access our information through the censors. Instead, we divert people in that area to a secondary domain that contains links to access our site via TOR, giving them uncensored and unrestricted access to it.
Essentially, this allows them to view everything without the government getting in the way. We have gotten a lot of praise for offering these services, allowing people in censored countries to see the Internet how it was supposed to be.
I hope that other companies both large and small can follow the lead of the big corporations like Google and not offer the restricted services to people in China. The services should still be offered, but creating a way to get around the blocks is what’s important.
Nice to hear Byron Dorgan expressing the sentiment that “Respected countries don’t censor their citizens; respected countries don’t put their citizens in jail without trial, and respected countries don’t fear speech or ideas.”
Hopefully one of these days the US Congress will put a stop to the censorship and jailing without trial also practiced daily by the US government.
Posted by: eliatic | 03/25/10 | 8:05 pm |
Nice to hear Byron Dorgan expressing the sentiment that “Respected countries don’t censor their citizens; respected countries don’t put their citizens in jail without trial, and respected countries don’t fear speech or ideas.”
Hopefully one of these days the US Congress will put a stop to the censorship and jailing without trial also practiced daily by the US government.
___________________________
We don’t do that. Name ONE case where that has been done by the United States government. I doubt you can, because simply put, our government doesn’t do that.
This report may yield a half-full half-empty situation for google. BIG G gaining respect of the masses, having a personified image
that they won’t be dictated by anyone in the name of freedom of speech
The caveat though is the effects of Google losing its chinese business profits should china won’t settle for a yes with Google’s
new approach to make their searches ‘uncensored’ on google china. .More details: http://bit.ly/google-vs-china-verdict
@Lerianis2
“Name ONE case where that has been done by the United States government. I doubt you can, because simply put, our government doesn’t do that.”
Try the Kevin Mitnick case
@divakarssathya - I certainly enjoyed your excellent comments about the computing world in India. I agree also that the Google decision is a very good thing!
@CandyMan - It’s obvious Apple will never grow a pear!
Isn’t Google’s phone made in China? If they want to hurt the Chinese government, they will pressure the manufacturer (I think it’s Nokia) too produce Google phones in non-Chinese factories. I realize that making phones in china does not equate to censoring information for China, but they must pay taxes to China.