As someone who often describes himself as something of a free speech absolutist (which is a bit of a misnomer, really—I’m closer to a free speech pragmatist with absolutist tendencies), I’ve really kept up only peripherally with the Google / China / US conflict. In fact, it wasn’t until dinner last night, when my wife mentioned something to me about the DoJ handing out subpoenas to Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc.—and I realized I had nothing of substance to say on the matter—that I began looking into the situation closely. Even now, I have only the most general ideas about what is driving the conflict.
To begin, here’s how at least one part of the issue is being framed, first, by Tammy Bruce
[…]Google’s hypocrisy could not be more evident as they refuse to cooperate with American officials trying to crack down on child porn, citing “privacy” issues, but then for their Google China version, agree to censor search coverage of issues deemed “subversive” by the Chinese government-like the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
…with the predictable and pragmatic rejoinder—which represents a kind of market version of foreign policy realism—offered immediately in Ms Bruce’s comments by ahwatukeejohn:
A dollar is a dollar. It is as simple as that. Google is not being hypocritical. The business morality involved would probably not even consider this a moral issue. There is money in porn if you can get the governing body to cave (we did not create a situation where they would have to close down if they did not comply). There is no money in not being able to operate in the most populous country in the world.
Money is simple. If it is going in your pocket, pick the big number. If it is going out of your pocket, pick the small number. On Google’s end that is all the consideration that is involved.
It is up to us to be as strong as China and say not here.
The question of ethics (or, as ahwatukeejohn would have it, “business morality,” that “does not even consider this a moral issue”—a formulation that hides the human element behind corporate decision-making and turns the business itself into a kind of autonomous, sentient being that “considers” before it acts on its single-minded profit impulse) is an interesting one—and one that I’m sure drove the thinking behind CNN’s Hussein-era relationship with Iraq and media access, and a billion other handshake deals between a billion other mutually interested parties before that; but the suggestion that no hypocrisy is involved rings false, I’m afraid, once one recognizes that these business choices, which appear to be at odds, are being made by people (not a monolithic market force), and that the appearance of hypocrisy has to be factored into the company’s calculus.
All of which means that Google’s desire to make money in two very differently-run corporate environments is not so much the source of the hypocrisy as are its justifications for doing so.
Many libertarians, I’m sure, will be quick to applaud Google’s refusal to share records with the US government (for my part, I’m not so quick to celebrate such steadfast and superficial “privacy” advocacy, because I’m not yet convinced Google isn’t simply hiding behind a principled and emotionally powerful posture—the protection of privacy—even as it, itself, hoardes troves of information). The government’s position—that it needs the information to revive an “overturned 1998 statute making it a crime for websites to allow minors access to adult material online such as pornography” (The Child Online Protection Act), is a badly flawed and lazy legal argument, it seems to me. But if the information is only used for trend analysis—which can then be marshaled into an argument for the necessity of the COPA—I’m not sure I have a problem with it, from a privacy standpoint. Which is to say, I have no problem, in theory, with the government asking for the records, and no problem, in theory, with Google’s refusal to comply.
But as Rob Port notes, “Google still doesn’t get to claim any moral high ground here.” And the reason for that is that Google itself appears selective in its posturing over privacy concerns—and to argue that such disparate decisions that they are making here between the US and Chinese situations are merely “realistic” manifestations of the market place, while certainly a truism, is nevertheless irrelevant, particularly with regard to charges of hypocrisy, when those individual appeals operate under separate paradigms—the first, emotional and ethical (an appeal to our culture’s careful guarding of its individuals’ privacy); the second, financial and pragmatic (the way of doing business in other countries dictates the way a company has to do business).
Like Rob, I believe:
The Child Online Protection Act is a stinker. Its stated goal—to protect children from pornography by “making it a crime for websites to allow minors access to adult material online‗sounds about as stupid as holding tobacco companies criminally liable for kids smoking their parent’s cigarettes. Or gun companies liable for the crimes citizens commit with their products
—though I’m liable to agree that making it more difficult for children to access hard-core porn (“Do you super dooper super dooper dooper swear you are 18? Because if not, no ice dong shots for you, bub”) is not an unreasonable function of federal law enforceent so long as we have laws that demand such a separation of minors from exposure to, say, double-anal or otter gratification, and our current protections are laughably prophylactic.
But the point is, the entire argument over COPA, when it comes to Google’s protestations over privacy and intellectual property (and in light of their other business practices), is a rather large (and disingenuous, to the point a fish can be so) red herring.
Here’s how Editor and Publisher’s Thomas Lipscomb puts it. From ”The Real Cost of Google’s Sellout to China”:
Last week Google announced its intention to resist a Department of Justice court action underway. DOJ wanted Google to allow a surveillance test of millions of its users’ search queries as part of its effort to enforce online pornography legislation passed by Congress to protect children. Yahoo, AOL, and MSN had already agreed to cooperate. But now, in an extraordinary development, Google has announced its decision to join the largest internet censorship effort in the world, being run by Communist China.
Google will actively assist the Chinese government in barring access to thousands of Web sites and search terms, in fact anything on the World Wide Web the Chinese feel might destablize its authoritarian government. It will also eliminate the blogging and e-mail services it offers elsewhere in the world. According to the Associated Press: “Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted ‘don’t be evil’ as a motto.”
Does Google’s concept of “evil” exclude surpressing the free access it currently offers the 100 million Chinese estimated to be on the internet? What’s going on here?
It is simple enough. Google is talking out of both sides of its mouth. Google is perfectly willing to posture as a brave defender of the privacy of its users in the U.S. marketplace it already dominates while caving to the immense commercial opportunity awaiting it in China. Booming China is already the second largest Internet market in the world and soon will pass the largest—the United States.
Google has been badly hampered by the filters placed on access to it by the Chinese government. They slow its search speeds to a crawl, make it undependable, and would keep Google at a competitive commercial disadvantage unless it complied with China’s demands. But it now seems more than likely that if some U.S. administration decided to turn Google into a Patriot Act censorship engine or put it under similar restrictions, Google would suddenly find that wasn’t “evil” either.
[My emphasis]
If Lipscomb is correct—and Google’s refusal to comply with the DoJ is simply a cynincal ploy to achieve a degree of cheap public grace (because let’s face it: one of the easiest things to do in the US is to proudly pronounce your commitment to “privacy,” and one of the most difficult is deciding when—and what kind—of privacy to trade for legitimate and useful social ends) and protect its intellectual property rights (the company is worried, ironically, about giving away how they grab and filter data)—even while, overseas, they are content to censor as a price of doing business, then they are deserving of the kind of PR backfiring that can happen when one claims the moral highground only to be found out as crassly opportunistic and selectively “realistic” and “pragmatic.”
Censorship, in nearly all its forms, is anathema to liberty; meanwhile, the appeal to a universal right of privacy, while a liberty we proclaim to hold truly dear, is ripe for exploitation by those who hold agendas that are quite a bit less than idealistic (and regular readers of this site can surely guess how I believe this story, as it is unfolding on a political level speaks to the NSA “domestic spying” story).
At any rate, these are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter—and for the time being at least (and again, my libertarianism, which is often questioned by some of my more showy libertarian friends, will be called to account), I am siding with the government’s desire to review the records (even if I disagree with the legislation that hopes to use the information to bolster its case, and with the heavy-handed use of the subpoena) over the privacy posturings of Google.
And I am not doing so because of any hypocrisy necessarily—my point is that being shown to be hypocritical affects how your case plays, not that hypocrisy by itself is always evil (it is often simply pragmatism spun by moralists into an implied crime)—but rather because a) I believe the knee-jerk fear of privacy violations has become too easy to exploit in order to demonize certain political decisions and policies that are not, de facto, violations of personal privacy, as we understand it, and that this cynical use of emotional appeals is dangerous; and b) because I believe that we are in no actual danger of losing our liberties and becoming a fascist state, but that other authoritarian states exist, to the detriment of our own short-term and long-term interests—and that those companies that benefit from freedom who, in the current global climate, actively aid in maintaining the status quo of censorship and intellectual slavery, are deserving of our scorn.
For those of you who are interested in following this story more closely, Pajamas Media has a very comprehensive and useful dedicated section, “The China Syndrome,” which aggregates media and blogosphere reaction (with comments now enabled).
Here’s more, from Slashdot:
Romerican writes, “The U.S. Government is questioning Google in relation to corporate behavior under anti-bribery laws. The government is also questioning Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco about their dealings with the Chinese government. Where do Slashdotters see this going?” From the Red Herring article: “There is precedent for the U.S. government establishing laws governing the conduct of U.S. companies abroad. During 1977 the U.S. government enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which was substantially revised during 1988. The provisions of the FCPA prohibit the bribery of foreign government officials by U.S. citizens and prescribe accounting and record-keeping practices. Opponents of the law said it would severely restrict the ability of U.S. companies to compete in many countries where bribery was part of the commercial fabric.” ats-tech wrote to give us the link to Google’s response to these events, via the Googleblog.
And from the Search Engine Journal.
(h/t Severe Writers Block; and this made me chuckle)
Interesting. Where’s the liberal outcry over eeevil corporate greed at the expense of individual liberties and freedoms? And where’s the same fire-spitting that’s accompanied the outrage over the “illegal” monitoring of “domestic” US communications? I see the Chinese government’s actions as being very close to what the Bush Administration is being accused of. So where’s the associated liberal outcry?
Oh, yeah. I forgot. Just like Kyoto, China’s exempt from that as well. Silly me.
As for China; same ‘ol, same ‘ol. A couple hundred decades ago it was the “Great Wall of China.” Today it’s the “Great Firewall of China.” Gotta keep those barbarians out.
That Google’s posing out in the US and cashing in in China is so obvious it’s not interesting. Anyone who’s spotted the disharmony between the Google image and its post-IPO actuality (as a borderline pump-and-dump Doubleclick-alike with a sideline in press releases for half-assed Windows-only database frontends) would predict they’d do exactly what they’ve done. Yawn.
The comedy here is in watching people who’ve fallen for the Google fantasy so hard that they’ve made it a part of themselvesâ€â€an external global-evangelical sign of their own progressive (in every sense) do-gooderyâ€â€spinning the company’s dishonest (or “pragmatic,” whatever) money-grab as something else. That that case can’t be made makes every effort to proffer it psychologically revealing. And watching a million Slashdotters chant “A corporation’s only responsibility is to profit its shareholders” is plain hilarious.
I wouldn’t cut a deal with the Chinese government (or any other) myself, because I actually believe that wacky “liberty” junk. Google doesn’t. And that’s fine. Almost no one does. If their search engine hadn’t stopped giving decent results a couple years ago, I’d still be using it.
And if there were two balls to rub together at Google HQ, they’d drop the lame Alvin Toffler meets Ben and Jerry schtick, and roll under the banner of America’s greatest philosopher: “You ain’t got to lie to kick it.”
Be evil. No one gives a rat’s.
i…don’t….care!!!! if your teens and preteens are accessing porn on the Web.
Quit whining, grow up, and do some fricking parenting.
And, like Stephen Green says Google is really putting Chinese R&D in hobbles.
just wait.
We’re on the cusp of the Nanotech Event.
China’s gonna have to run like hell to keep up.
I could be wrong about this, but I thought I saw a brief item on CNN Headline News that suggested that Google/China was not allowing linking to the “censored” sites, but was allowing the URLs of these sites to be seen by the users. (I only caught this at work, and only once at break time.)
It would seem to me that if this is true, the Chinese Google user could simply write down the URL of the “forbidden” site, or just drag-n-drop it into the address line of their browser; they could still get access to those sites, and Google isn’t “helping” them.
Is it possible that Google isn’t doing this “just for the money”?
It appears Google’s thumbing its nose at the DOJ may have been nothing more than a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from it’s caving in to China’s demands for censorship in return for access.
Sure one can say, “A dollar is a dollar. “ You can look at the fact that Google was loosing share in the second largest and soon to be largest market for its product in the world. And Yahoo and others may have already complied.
But let’s set the corprate entity blindly going after profit idea aside for a moment.
The corporation is made up of real people who live in this world, not in some isolated corporate bubble. The people who make up this corporation adopted as Mr. Lipscomb says, “‘don’t be evil’ as a motto.†To have caved to a repressive regieme like China for any reason, let alone the dollar motive is rank hypocrisy and there is no excuse for it. They can’t have it both ways.
This also confirms the opinion that I’ve held about ‘constructive engagement.’ The idea that doing business with repressive regiemes will open them up to our free market ways and ventually free their society. It doesn’t work and the short term gain is not worth the long term damage to our freedoms.
Jeff: I immediately thought of the FCPA when first reading your post; I’m glad to see it mentioned in relation to this issue.
One of the main points to acting ethically, or with “business morals” as it was put above, is that your business practices don’t vary situationally. To believe that a practice outlawed in the US is “ethical” merely because it is not illegal when practiced in a foreign country is the height of hypocrisy. Moreso, acting ethically is not simply acting in a legal manner. Nor is it as simplistic as “that which is not prohibited is permitted.” Though, unfortunately, as in the FCPA, it requires legislation in order to ensure consistency of said practices.
Google would have a fit (putting it mildly) if the US government even suggested limiting search access to matters considered inconvenient. To acquiesce to China’s demand is to admit to having no ethics or “business morals” whatsoever, no matter what pretzel such logic is twisted to explain Google’s action.
The child porn issue is a distraction that provides cover for such unethical behavior.
The left doesn’t raise a fuss about such requests by communist autocrats because the left is on the side of these autocrats, be it China, Fidel, Chavez, Pol Pot, Saddam. The examples go on and on, making up an all-star team of murderous dictators.
Anyone with half a degree of decency will stop patronizing Google’s services, and utilize alternative search engines, etc.
One factor that you did not consider, which I expected, is the idea that the government is here helping itself to data collected by the private sector. Is that a worry on the economic grounds?
The complete phonies at Google continue to hide behind a privacy veil when what is really at issue for them is the fear that trade secrets will be revealed. Nothing more. I think it was yesterday’s (1/26) front page wherein the NYTimes stated that no private information would be divulged other than possibly some of Google’s secrets. They are probably going to lose this one and the retards will never know that they were total whores caving to the almighty dollar. Nothing wrong with that if you own it but spare us the jive.
Take that stupid show on the “road” Jack, it don’t play here.
Or maybe worried over people realizing the treasure trove of information Google catalogues on individual’s online interests and habits via Gmail (cellphone#s????), site analytics, google ads, gmaps,… etc.
Google censors for communist governments, will Google eventually hand over info on individual’s political activities to stay in business in China?
Aren’t you the one constantly bitching about govt collecting data for itself? Then there’s the oceans of data collected on behalf of your Socialist States of Amerika, actus.
Perhaps you can straighten all these various ills and ideals out for us. Without the Collective’s scorecard it’s damn hard for normal folks to follow.
tw: Inside information.
Google has been censoring searches outside of the US for years. It’s for that very reason that every country gets it’s own version of Google – so that the search engine can be tailored to local legal requirements. That they would comply with the Chinese government’s censorship requirements was to be entirely expected. Here’s an article that I found (via Google, of course) mentioning the company’s history of censoring searches in Germany and France, as an example.
Google is striking a pose. Don’t use them if you can avoid it.
And otters are very caring and loving companions, dammit…
Every company that does business with China is supporting their political system one way or another. So Google is censoring, but any other company with employees there is sending money into the country so the political leaders can continue to run the country as they see fit.
And any expat that lives there with a US job lives by the rules of the country. One couldn’t protest a political decision while living there, for example. Journalists that live there have to report according to Chinese censorship laws, not by US laws. The NYTs still has an employee in prison, and the NYT reporter I know has a minder when he goes there with his family on vacation. If he is allowed in.
I guess I don’t see how google is different than any other company that does business in China. And I say, either Chinese people get a little bit at a time or nothing at all. Which would you choose for yourself?
There’s a difference, I believe, b/t aiding the governement out of some sort of personal necessity, or by way of secondary effects of the commerce—and actively engaging in the very ideological devices that keep the authoritarian government viable.
I grant you that the difference may be subtle and redound to a set of personal ethics that can differ widely depending upon the circumstances individuals find themselves in, but I stand by the broader point: that Google is behaving cynically and trying to have it both ways—hero here, martyr there.
I keep hoping that, deep in the heart of the Silicon Valley, there is a cabal of tech company officers….
“OK, on such-and-such a date, at such-and-such a time, we blow their doors open!”
The only trouble with that is, the Silicon Valley has no heart.
I really have no idea for sure, but I suspect this sort of thing goes on all the time for EPA related stuff, and the laws and regulations they make. If I’m right, how would the Google case be different (so long as personally identifiable stuff is removed)?
Would it make a difference to Google if someone was willing to pay big bucks in the US for this “porn research”? It seems to me that if you a pure capitalist, don’t need to make moral judgements but just consider shareholder value, and it isn’t patently illegal, then why not sell this info to the highest bidder? Thus, all DoJ has to do is offer enough dollars to get their attention and the hypocrisy vanishes.
I agree that there is a difference, but one very close parallel I see are the news agencies. I’ve seen CNN Beijing go black and/or switch to another story. One example was the introduction of a story about the democracy movement in Hong Kong, but it was quickly switched to a piece on how well-received the PLA was at parade day in Stanley (Hong Kong).
More stories get ignored or under-reported (sars, the current peasant riots, any changes in government) because the Chinese government won’t talk and will happily arrest or deport those that do. And the US press, eager to get any bit of information, doesn’t rock the boat. So in a way, the information that gets out to us is also filtered by the Chinese government, and the US press is very quiet about that.
As for other businesses, I don’t begrudge them the need to play by China’s rules, and I do feel for the Chinese people who really do need economic opportunity as well as political freedom. It is a fine balancing act.
I agree with you completely on that point.
Much like it was with Iraq, and still is with Cuba, Iran, ad nauseum. The press only strikes its pose of journalistic ethics when it’s dealing with the governments it knows won’t resort to firing squads.
Not that I don’t understand that, but the constant posing as the champions of free speech, unfettered flow of information, and as the ultimate watchdogs grates when compared to the reality.
Am I? But my question wasnt’ about the data collection as a privacy issue. But as an economic one. Do you think the government is entitled to this data and to not have to pay for it? I’m assuming its not reducing the value of what google owns—just growing its own wealth.
All the more reason not to give a president absolute authority; even in time of war, to gather information from American citizens.
You made the case.
Carl, your comment is completely incoherent. COPA was congressional legislation.