View Full Version : Google pulling out of china?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm
Internet giant Google says it may end its operations in China after hackers targeted the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists...
Shortly after the news was announced, shares in Google fell by 1.9% to $579 (£358) in after-hours trading in New York.
I don't have tons of time at the moment, and no one reads this forum despite it being quite apropo IMO, but I will say that I think it would be good of google to pull out instead of compromising ethics further. Of course it would be better if they did not have to censor information at all.
digitalwanderer
14-Jan-2010, 15:35
I thought so too, until I read this (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1586126/white-house-steps-google-row-china)... :???:
The US President's office said that it backs the "right to a free Internet" and confirmed it has held talks with Google, which has threatened to pull up stakes in China over censorship.
But we should not be surprised as it is starting to look like the whole thing is as much an embarrassment to the US government as it is to Google. Suggestions are that the same software Google uses to snoop on customers for US law enforcement might have provided Chinese hackers with their attack vector.
When the US is doing it, it is not snooping or evil - it is to protect your freedom. Yea.. and the bankers.
I thought so too, until I read this (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1586126/white-house-steps-google-row-china)... :???:
The Inquirer has it wrong. "Google's cloud" wasn't hacked. It was specific Gmail accounts of human rights activists that was hacked. Every indice so far points at regular phishing and trojans (PDF vulnerabilities are mentioned).
Google hasn't specifically said that the Chinese goverment is behind the hacking, but since only human rights activists and system critics were targetted, inferring Chinese state involvement is fairly obvious.
Cheers
"If you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about."
-refrain of the right-wing media under Bush
To youguys I think moral equivocation of China and the US is not useful.
Yes the US does some stupid things, but the comparison is not really apt. There are many reasons why I think it is unjust, but they start with the fact that we at least have an elected government here. And while it is degenerating, and you might say they are progressing it doesn't justify or make the current situation comparable.
It took Europe (and the US as an extension) 500 years to embrace the enlightenment.
China has come most of the way in a single generation.
Kettle thou art black.
3dilettante
14-Jan-2010, 18:00
I guess Microsoft Bing is looking at a potential explosion in market share if it were to happen.
It took Europe (and the US as an extension) 500 years to embrace the enlightenment.
China has come most of the way in a single generation.
Kettle thou art black.
I art not a kettle my friend (though the melting pot is :) ). And that is once again a poor argument IMO. It took 500 years for a reason. We don't live in the middle ages, or the reconnaissance. Pretending we do and that change must take as long is silly. Other countries have transformed from dictatorships to functioning democracies much faster than China. They are not doing anything spectacular, unusual, fast, or progressive in comparison to many other countries.
And China has regressed, not moved forward lately, so if we want to base it on direction they are failing in reality as well. I know you like China, and I don't think they are spectacularly evil, but they do not impress me with their governance. They are attempting to become a somewhat benevolent dictatorship, but not enough.
I expect we don't have the entire story ... they probably suspect insiders at google china contributing to the hack, otherwise I don't see how it makes sense to pull out now. Nothing much has changed.
I art not a kettle my friend (though the melting pot is :) ). And that is once again a poor argument IMO. It took 500 years for a reason. We don't live in the middle ages, or the reconnaissance. Pretending we do and that change must take as long is silly. Other countries have transformed from dictatorships to functioning democracies much faster than China. They are not doing anything spectacular, unusual, fast, or progressive in comparison to many other countries.
And China has regressed, not moved forward lately, so if we want to base it on direction they are failing in reality as well. I know you like China, and I don't think they are spectacularly evil, but they do not impress me with their governance. They are attempting to become a somewhat benevolent dictatorship, but not enough.
What civilization of this size has progressed from basically the worst place on earth, in terms of poverty and hunger and oppression, to where China is today more quickly? The only one even close to China's size is Russia which has a fraction of the population with a thousand fold more infrastructure and they're hardly a democracy with human rights and freedoms. What nation is it you're thinking of?
It's not just that "I like" China, it's that I think, on many fronts (but far, far from all) they are really trying hard. Hell, they had search teams and assistance in Haiti BEFORE the US. That's sad.
They are trying hard, trying to hold onto power as all despots, and politicians in democracies or dictatorships do.
Japan swapped swapped to democracy much faster, Indonesia swapped and has all sorts of issues complicating this. Being large is not an excuse IMO.
I do not ascribe to the view that it is much harder to change with 1 million or 1 billion people. Technology makes it so that is no longer really relevant. I have no earthly idea why you think it matters so much. Europe was slow whether the country was big or small as of old.
As far as the latter comment I am not sure why you place great stock in it really. The US was already working there as well, but having good press to offset that of their abuse of human rights is always nice. I know that many teams from many countries are there. I know that what matters is how much use they are.
You don't see why the population matters?
Democracy requires laws and enforcement of those laws. The US has 1 lawyer for every 60 citizens. China has like 1 lawyer for every 10,000. Police, roads, infrastructure, courts, inspectors, auditors, etc. are all required for a flourishing democracy. So how do you police over 1 billion people with too few resources?
It's a macrocosm of the old West in North America. A shortage of law enforces led to horrific enforcement methods. Yet somehow we romanticize that...hmmm.
When you say they've regressed lately, of what are you speaking?
By the way, who is China's dictator anyway?
Mize population doesn't matter b/c other under developed countries still have few police. There were few in indonesia when you adjust for population. There are/were few in india. It is just a cop out it seems to me.
We in the US certainly do not need all those lawyers either :)
Now if you want to argue that China has to few resources in terms of energy resources and other raw materials then that seems a totally different tack. Lots of people are a problem in that case, but only in relation to the resources considered. We had a democracy during "the old west". It was brutal, but it still existed for at least a great percentage of the population.
In terms of regressed I mean the amount of effort the regime puts into censorship, and propaganda has increased. I don't care if it is run by a criminal organization, a dictator, a president, a premiere, a governor, a politburo, or anything else. The question is "How do they get the job?"
Whether you want to call it communist, a dictatorship of the proletariat or something else, the people do not have the freedom to vote, to demonstrate on issues. The power of the state is far greater than here. Corruption is worse on the local level.
As far as I can see those in power seek to remain in power. To do that in China they have to have some progress in certain areas. Otherwise the populace was unhappy with their society.
obonicus
15-Jan-2010, 23:41
It's fairly premature to assume that this has anything to do with ethics. Let's wait to see how this plays out. I was under the impression that google wasn't the largest search provider in China, though?
It's fairly premature to assume that this has anything to do with ethics. Let's wait to see how this plays out. I was under the impression that google wasn't the largest search provider in China, though?
Not even close.
:lol: <-- that is not intended to be rude, but I don't think it has much to do with ethics myself. I always found it naive and funny to believe that google is actually good as opposed to a company trying to get filthy rich just like all the rest. Though you can have some ethics and still try to make money I don't put them on much of a pedestal, they likely deserve more credit than I give them actually. I am reticent to give companies much credit ever though unless I know the individuals running them, or more than a casual observer might know.
obonicus
16-Jan-2010, 01:26
Sorry, I was responding to this:
good of google to pull out instead of compromising ethics further.
Which seemed to me as saying that ethics are at the heart of this issue.
Sorry, I was responding to this:
Which seemed to me as saying that ethics are at the heart of this issue.
Meh...according to reports I've read, Google was floundering in the market and might have seen a pull out as a way of reaping good PR points in markets where it is strong. At the end of the day Google chose to cooperate with the Chinese gov't to make $$ and there has to be a $$ connection to leaving.
sunscar
16-Jan-2010, 01:42
I feel I should warn that pulling out isn't always an effective method.... ah, Catholocism...
obonicus
16-Jan-2010, 01:49
Meh...according to reports I've read, Google was floundering in the market and might have seen a pull out as a way of reaping good PR points in markets where it is strong. At the end of the day Google chose to cooperate with the Chinese gov't to make $$ and there has to be a $$ connection to leaving.
Yeah, that's what I've seen as well. Ethics aren't at the heart of the issue, but they're a good focus for PR.
I feel I should warn that pulling out isn't always an effective method.... ah, Catholocism...
Almost only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades...and pulling out, but then it counts in kinda a bad way ;)
rpg.314
16-Jan-2010, 05:07
I think Google has detected/fears that the hackers were after it's IP. After all, what does Dow, Adobe, Symantec and MS have to do with chinese human rights activists?
Truth be told, in an information economy, Google's search IP is as valuable as nukes at the start of cold war. Anybody who has it immediately has a huge strategic advantage and I am prepared to bet that PRC is willing to do anything to lay their hands on it.
As for ethics, no for-profit megacorp gives a shit about privacy, human rights, free speech, the works.....
Yeah China is pretty free with the stealing IP thing. I don't know if that is really the reason as they can still try to steal it whether in China or not. They steal stuff from american corporations in america with persons who travel here. Thus I don't think it explains it either.
rpg.314
16-Jan-2010, 17:05
Yeah China is pretty free with the stealing IP thing. I don't know if that is really the reason as they can still try to steal it whether in China or not. They steal stuff from american corporations in america with persons who travel here. Thus I don't think it explains it either.
Sure, China can still try to steal whatever it wants. But if China is going after Google's IP, why bother pampering PRC? By pulling out of China completely, now they no longer have to pretend to have velvet gloves on and can aggressively filter out attacks from China.
obonicus
16-Mar-2010, 22:16
Looks like the game of chicken continues.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.