Agents of repression: Google,Microsoft,Yahoo,Cisco

[welshTerrier2]

this is really disgraceful ... we need to ask whether US-based corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want to internationally just to make money ... is that what globalization, "free markets" and capitalism have been reduced to?

the article below captures the incredible arrogance of some of the giants of internet technology ... the internet should be used to promote better communication and access to information for all people all over the globe ... instead, after a little software tweak or two, it's being used as an agent of repression ...

it's time for the US government to step in and let these corporate jackasses know that this will not be tolerated ... if America is going to continue selling itself as a promoter of democracy, the hypocrisy of internet companies aiding repression of the Chinese people reaches new heights ...

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060129/pl_afp/uschinauscongressgooglerightsinternetmedia_060129024601

The leading US-based Internet companies are showing little interest in attending a Congressional briefing on worries that the firms are bending to the wishes of China's censors. Microsoft and Cisco Systems have refused to attend the event, while Google and Yahoo are non-committal, officials said.

The firms were asked to attend the February 1 briefing by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus following uproar caused by search giant Google's decision last week to censor websites and content banned by China's propaganda chiefs. <skip>

Cisco's technology-savvy machinery allegedly censors Internet messages and helps Beijing track down Chinese cyber dissidents.

Americans believed Internet growth will bring about greater freedom of expression and political openness in China but instead of promoting these values, some US firms have been charged with aiding -- or at least complying -- with Chinese Internet censorship, said a statement by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus. <skip>

"If you search Tiananmen Square on the google.cn, you get these colorful pictures of a place that looks like Disneyland but if you search google.com for Tiananmen Square, you will find the pretty pictures but will see the real story of the government led slaughter as well," Dayspring said.

"The story of the students who stood up to their government and were consequently slaughtered should not be erased from history as Google has empowered the Chinese government to do," he added.

[mydreamcametrue]

1. I agree with much of what you say

[welshTerrier2]

4. it's all about money ...

welcome to DU, mydreamcametrue !! ... nice to have another Groucho fan on-board ...

[Deja Q]

2. The gub'mint supports corporations fully.

Change will not happen.

[Berserker]

3. Long Live Google

[thoughtanarchist]

5. You got it backward!

It's not Cisco or Google's fault that China is a repressive state!
The US carries a friggin' trade deficit with China for chrissakes!

:wtf:

[welshTerrier2]

8. it's wrong to sell them software to enable the repression

i didn't get it backwards at all ... selling the Chinese government tools to enable them to be more repressive is unacceptable ...

[thoughtanarchist]

9. You're suggesting suicide.

It's not Cisco or Google's place to take issue with the political stance or policies of China. That is the job of the US govt. ...and it's something we are not -- and have not been -- doing.

Why in god's name would you expect more from Google than you'd get from Bill Clinton?

[welshTerrier2]

13. it's not a "political stance"; it's clearly aiding repression

i'm not arguing that we shouldn't allow American corporations to do business with China ... but when the clear intent of customizing the software, e.g. Google, is to repress the Chinese people, American corporations then become partners in the repression ...

when you say addressing Chinese repression is the job of the US government, that's exactly the point i'm making ... the government should NOT allow US-based corporations to provide direct assistance to Chinese repression ... we may not be able to tell the Chinese what policies to employ but we shouldn't allow American-based corporations to contribute to what the Chinese government is doing ...

i hesitate to use an analogy because they are never the same as the situation they are supposed to mirror ... but consider this example: should private US arms merchants be able to sell weapons to any foreign government they want to? what if that government was guilty of broad-scale genocide? should the US government have a right to restrict these arms sales by US-based arms merchants? i would say "yes" ... what would you say?

[thoughtanarchist]

21. Now it gets complicated...

The US has been sitting on it's hands for a long long time while China oppresses it's own...

Ever seen that footage of that lone student having a standoff with the tank in Tienanmen square? I saw that live in '89 and was outraged that we continued to allow them "most favored trade nation" status.

When Big Dawg took office I thought we'd finally see a change regarding this policy. When it never came I got real cynical and quit following politics. In 2001 I saw what happens when you stop paying attention.

I'm not trying to argue that we got bigger problems here at home (even though we do) I'm just sayin' that it gets real complicated when you want to identify exactly what policy the US can undertake to try to bring democracy to China.

At this point it starts to approach Bush's "spreading freedom" rhetoric. How far are we willing to stick out our necks for this one? Are we going to be isolationists regarding the middle east but hawks regarding the far east?

Also, note that China just happens to have us by the short hairs with all this debt. The best course of action would have been to form a policy on this 15 years ago.

But today we're walking on eggshells.

All that said, I'd feel more comfortable with Cisco routers embedded in their infrastructure than a foreign technology that we'd be "less familiar with" if you know what I mean.

;)

[emdee]

27. I agree.....

I know that even Bush knows he cannot "spread democracy" to China.

At another board that I was posting on earlier, I was amazed that someone questioned the enforcement of the one-child law. I thought that was common knowledge.

:shrug:

[thoughtanarchist]

36. Bush wouldn't even think about it...

Nod and a wink and an electronic wire transfer... it's a perfect example of where the ideology meets reality. Clinton was just as bad in that respect. That's the DLC in him. That and NAFTA. His two real faults.

...but the more I think about it the more I actually LIKE the idea of US technology inside their systems...speaking as someone familiar with the foibles commonly found in commercial technology.

know what I mean?

[emdee]

38. I guess I'm aging myself....

but I wouldn't have expected internet access to be available to the common man in China anyway. If the people are able to get more information than they currently get from their books, television, and newspapers it's a positive step, although small, and maybe will have an opportunity to grow as time goes by. I don't see them becoming a free people, by any means, though.

And, I think you're right on target as far as technology goes. It could possibly, if handled correctly, provide a window inside the area that we haven't had before.

emdee

[emdee]

6. At least they are taking money OUT of the Chinese economy....

With every cheap tv or dvd player we purchase, we're putting money back INTO their economy. For what? Forced abortions, sterilizations, and a stronger military.

Our government is so in debt with China, it's really scary. The number of imports from China has been rising at an unbelievable rate during the Bush years.

The search engines are the least of our worries, in my opinion.

emdee :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Not Sure How Many Agree, But I For One Don't Have Any Problem With Them.

I think they have every right to tailor their product to the customer's needs no matter how against the customer's views we are. Business is business and to do business globally you have to adhere to that culture. I find nothing wrong with google, MSN etc.'s behavior.

I do, however, have a problem with China itself for demanding such policies and think it is wrong for many reasons.

[welshTerrier2]

10. so your argument is ...

that even though it's wrong for China to use these products as they intend to use them, it's OK for American corporations to sell the products because they have a profit motive?

you said that they "have every right to tailor their product ..." why do they have "every right"?

if the purpose of the products, i.e. the clearly intended purpose of the products, is to impose more repression, why should we tolerate the sale of those products to China??? i don't see why "commerce" is an excuse to allow corporations to assist in these crimes against humanity ...

it sounds like you're justifying the "anything for a buck" school of free enterprise ...

[emdee]

11. And, along with that same reasoning...

why should WE benefit from the repression of the Chinese by being able to purchase cheap merchandise?
:shrug:
emdee

[thoughtanarchist]

12. You hit it on the head right there.

Trade policy is set by the government. That is where the standard should be set.

When we set US trade policy to benefit US labor to the detriment of Chinese oppression, instead of screwing US labor to the benefit of the Chinese government, THEN we can nod in satisfaction as we watch China get it's routers from India, who stole our technology when we started outsourcing.

[welshTerrier2]

16. "Trade policy is set by the government."

that is exactly the argument i'm making ... and the US government asked these companies to attend hearings on the subject so that the issue could be analyzed ... they refused to attend ...

[thoughtanarchist]

24. Hear ya loud and clear...

see post 21.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

17. I'm Saying I Think The Anger Is Misguided.

I feel the anger should be at China for their policies.

Yes, I feel corporations have the right to compete globally within international law. That doesn't mean I support or condone 'anything for a buck'. I do not agree with China's policies, but China as a sovereign nation has a right to make their policies though I hope someday they reconsider their position. But it is China that makes that policy and China who is responsible for them, and therefore China who deserves the negativity. Google and MSN are businesses and the #1 priority of a business is to make profit, period. If they can expand their market globally even though the country they are entering has different values than ours that we find offensive, they have every right to do so in my opinion.

I understand the other side of this argument and can relate to it, I just don't 100% agree with it. I know ethically there can be some issues with google choosing to filter results but they are a business with an opportunity to expand into a huge market. They aren't making China policy and they aren't making it harder for those against the policy to fight for change. They are merely selling a product that adheres to current policy. Attack the policy itself, that's my view.

I think too often we expect business to operate like servants of god with halos and all. I don't expect that from them, I just expect them to not hurt anybody. This venture in my opinion doesn't hurt anybody since it is existing policy that their action does nothing to change, make worse, or make harder to fight. Therefore, I have no issue with it.

[bpilgrim]

20. so if they needed an order of Zyklon-B

or tracking systems to deal with dissidents you got no problem with that?

i think we expect corporations to be regulated and that the first regulation would be sell nothing that represses freedom or human rights.

this laze-fair idea of economics is not only intellectually lazy it is also dangerous for all our health.

peace

[bpilgrim]

14. this kind of thinking has led us to the disaster we are in right now

corporations can do whatever they want to make a buck, eh?

time we grow up from this childish black & white mentality before it kills us all, imho.

peace

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Corporations should be able to do anything to make a buck, as long as

it adheres to applicable laws and doesn't hurt anybody. If they don't break any laws, engage in predatory practices or engage in business that hurts people, places or things, than they should be able to market however they please.

I do not feel this hurts anybody, as the policy of China is already in place and Google entering their market doesn't in any way make the policy more severe or harder to fight if the people of China chose to.

They're just a business, they have a market, they tailored their product for that market. I don't have a problem with them at all regardless of the fact that I disagree with China's policy.

[bpilgrim]

22. suppressing peoples FREEDOM hurts everybody - fyi

if you don't think this type of technology won't be used against us, too you are only kidding yourself.

ignorance brings the world to disaster every-time.

you disagree with chinas policy but you support those that enable it, seems rather hypocritical to me.

as i said above, unregulated business has led us to the mess we now find ourselves in by justifying anything to make a buck.

PROFIT OVER PEOPLE is always WRONG.

peace

[emdee]

23. When we purchase items made in China....

we are financing their forced abortions, sterilizations, and increased military power.

Who among us is not watching a TV made in China?

I'm actually surprised that their government is allowing any internet access into the country, to be honest.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Do You Work?

If you do you pay taxes. If you pay taxes than you are supporting and helping to enable an illegal war in Iraq that is murdering thousands of innocents, and financing programs in the US that only hurt the less fortunate.

Do you also buy any products from China? I bet you do. So you are supporting them as well. You could take this to the Nth degree if you want and overdramatize it, and I can see where you're coming from, but in the end it is China making the policy, not Google. You are acting in a way that seems to raise a point that if Google didn't sell to them that China wouldn't be able to continue its policy. Well you and I both know that's horseshit. And since google entering their market on China's terms in NO WAY WHATSOEVER would change the policy one way or the other whether they entered the market or not, I have no problem with it.

And for the record, if that technology starts being used here it would still be the US government mandating its use that we would be rallying against would it not? Wouldn't it be our responsibility to ensure our freedom wasn't censored here? I don't see it happening anytime in any foreseeable future, but if and when it ever did occur I would fight the policy but would still leave Google the hell alone.

[welshTerrier2]

32. take a shot at this one ...

i asked this in an earlier post upthread ... i'm not trying to argue that the following example is analagous but rather asking whether your reasoning would still make sense in this context ...

consider this example: should private US arms merchants be able to sell weapons to any foreign government they want to? what if that government was guilty of broad-scale genocide? should the US government have a right to restrict these arms sales by US-based arms merchants? i would say "yes" ... what would you say?

would you make the same argument you made in your last post that, since the government in question was already slaughtering their people, selling the weapons would really make no difference?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. Not A Valid Analogy By ANY Stretch Of The Imagination.

Comparing not being able to read an article on tiananmen square to genocide is absurd.

Since I've stated my case enough already and have nothing further to add this is my last post on the subject. You have your opinion, others have theirs and I have mine. I don't expect them to line up all the time.

Goodnight.

[welshTerrier2]

40. i didn't compare them !!

the question remains, however ... at what point, if any, should actions of a US corporation in the quest for profits be restricted by the US government?

that's the question ... your argument that "it's fine since they would do it anyway" does not seem to be an adequate standard ...

if you're content to apply that in the case raised in the OP, fine ... i disagree ... i also think a policy much broader in scope than the one you proposed needs to be defined ... "they're doing it anyway so we might as well make a buck on it" is not the policy i would support ...

directly participating in keeping billions of Chinese citizens from obtaining the truth is abhorrent ... you sound like you see it as blocking a few urls so what's the big deal ... the big deal is that the Chinese people will not emerge from oppression, nor will any peoples, until their right to non-corporate, non-governmental information is ensured ... to be sure, the policy is first and foremost controlled by the Chinese government ... it is they who are most responsible for it ... but those who provide enabling technologies, i.e. technologies not in the generic sense but rather technologies specific designed to enable repression, are accessories to the crimes ...

we are not talking here about merely selling a search engine; we are talking about customizations designed to keep the truth from the Chinese people ... there's a huge difference there ...

[bpilgrim]

34. fortunately

and my point is larger than just this one issue, it is the destructive policy of ANYTHING for a BUCK, it is harmful to all our health and this is just another example of that short sighted policy.

some find it hard to see the connection i suppose.

as far as it happening here, it already does and every american corp should asked to state for the record if they co-operated with big bro on spying and censoring americans.

can we challenge them or are we supposed to go along thinking whatever they gotta do to make a buck is all right for america?

it's waaaay past time for change.

peace

[thoughtanarchist]

42. To put a finer point on it (with a broader brush)

you're talking about our own special red white and blue brand of fascism...

The same problem that has energy companies writing the language of our national energy policy and the defense industry in charge of our foreign policy etc, etc, etc...

It's the undue influence of industry on our government that leads to the lack of regulation responsible for so many of our problems.

That is why K street needs to be burned to the ground and the scorched earth salted so that nothing ever grows there again.

[emdee]

19. Do you think...

that had the search engines said "no" to the regulations, the Chinese government would have said, "oh, well, we tried" and let uncensored information get in? They've never let uncensored materials get in.

The amount of money that our government has borrowed from China is a most scary issue. They have a hold on us now that they've never had.

[bpilgrim]

25. no

but so what? by following the current business model has led to the 'scary issue' you noted.

unrestricted trade with china has sold out not only american workers but our values as well and the 'it's only business' childish refrain ain't sell'n like it used to.



peace

[emdee]

30. And, so....

probably the smallest industry dealing with them is supposed to fight the battle while the rest of us continue to purchase their merchandise happily?

I don't say that in a rude tone - I just don't understand why *this* is the battle that should be fought --- Wal-Mart and our own Government has us so entwined with China it's embarrassing and yet little ol' Google is supposed to be the one to stand up against Communism?

I don't get it.
Sorry.

:-)

[bpilgrim]

31. in case you haven't noticed SPYGATE in the papers recently

it has a direct bearing on us here in america not to mention the larger point of unregulated business that is leading to the destruction of the american middle class, hello...

just because i can't avoid buying products from china because of this corrupt, in the name of business, mentality doesn't mean i can't speak up & point it out whenever i see it.

peace

[emdee]

33. Why, yes, I have noticed Spygate......

and thank you for trying not sounding snotty, hello! :sarcasm:

Spygate has nothing to do with China, does it? No, it's a Bush issue. And, so is the fact that China has such a hold on us.

emdee

[bpilgrim]

37. 'I just don't understand why *this* is the battle that should be fought'

i was just replying to your question, i'm sorry for being snarky, but this is a touchy subject for me.

"yet little ol' Google is supposed to be the one to stand up against Communism?"

google ain't so little, in case you haven't noticed... you should check out their market capitalization

SpyGate & Censoring has everything to do with corporations doing anything for a buck, just the latest example.

peace

[emdee]

41. I'm just sayin.....

that China is a bit different when it comes to the idea of spreading democracy. Their people aren't free and won't be, probably, in our lifetime. I don't mean to come across as a defeatist type because I'm not. But, I do know that some battles can't be won and, as of right now, this is one of them.

Google turns them down, Yahoo turns them down, etc, they probably don't care - I'm surprised they let them in anyway, under any set of circumstances.

They have grown so strong militarily and we owe them so much money (and this infuriates me) that we are at their mercy. It's not right but I don't think it is a battle that Google can fight for the world.

I read a biography from a woman who came here with her husband. He was in school and he was allowed to come and study. They were watched intently while here. She had one child. They began to like our way of life. She became pregnant again and representatives from China were on their heels almost from the moment of conception. She *would* have an abortion and they *would* return home immediately. I've tried for years to remember the name of this book and can't. I just did a (Google) search quickly and it didn't come up immediately. Anyway, she described life in China. They pick your job, where you live, what you read, what you know, make sure that you only have one child, everything. Oh, the family defected but know they are continually being sought - I think I put that book into a box to be donated to the library and have wanted to reread it ever since.

So, while I'm not in agreement with the regulations, I'm not surprised by them. And, I'm very passionate about the lifestyle the citizens in China endure. I know that when I pay for a Chinese-made item, most of the money goes to the government not the worker who made it. They live in squalor and we probably aren't talking about the majority when we discuss internet access.

Right now, in this world, China is not free. And, our government owes them too much money to speak boldly to them, which is a shame.

I hope I don't come across as argumentative - I simply haven't understood why Google is being singled out when dealing with the most powerful Communist government in the world (I don't say "most powerful Communist government" with respect, btw).

:web:

emdee

[bpilgrim]

43. it doesn't matter what china does, hello...

it matters what OUR policies are.

peace

[emdee]

44. Hello,again.....

Don't you imagine that there are trade laws between the US and China? And, I would also bet that those trade laws specify what can be brought into the country and what cannot.

OUR policies, evidently, allow us to accept so many imports from China that our industries suffer greatly. I'm fairly certain that they do not allow enough of our exports to hurt them in any way, shape, or form.

So, while our policies do matter, it is between the governments and trade agreements, hello.

Chances are that if our government tried to make changes, they would allow none of our exports and yet we'd still take their imports. We just keep shooting ourselves in the foot.

emdee

[emdee]

46. An interesting study....

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/

<snip>Overview

The government of the People's Republic of China has a longstanding set of policies restricting the information to which citizens are exposed, and that which they may themselves publicly say. The Internet poses a new challenge to such censorship, both because of the sheer breadth of content typically available, and because sources of content are so often remote from Chinese jurisdiction, and thus much more difficult to penalize for breaching restrictions on permissible materials. There is some evidence that the government has attempted to prevent the spread of unwanted material by preventing the spread of the Internet itself, but a concomitant desire to capture the economic benefits of networked computing has led to a variety of strategies to split the difference. For example, the government might encourage Internet access through cybercafes rather than in private spaces so that customers' surfing can be physically monitored by others in the cafe. As a technical matter, anecdotal reports have described a shifting set of barriers to surfing the web from Chinese points of access -- sites that are reported unavailable or domain names that are unknown to the system or that lead to unexpected destinations, individual pages that are blocked, and the use of search keywords that results in temporary limits to further searches.

As with most filtering regimes, whether implemented at the client, ISP, or government level, no list is made available of the sites blocked or of the methodologies used to block them. Further, while the government-connected Internet Society of China (not a chapter of the international Internet Society) has asked Internet service providers and content creators to sign a pledge including self-filtering, few official statements document the existence of government-maintained web filtering, much less the criteria employed and thresholds necessary to elicit a block. We therefore sought to investigate the growing set of methods by which Internet filtering is accomplished, and to collect and distribute a list of blocked sites and pages -- a list that is large in absolute terms even if small relative to the size of the Internet and to the total amount of blocked content, and a list that is diverse even if not perfectly representative of all blocked content. Such a list allows us and others to begin to assess the nature and scope of filtering within China, with particular attention to non-sexually explicit web sites rendered inaccessible there.

Having requested some 204,012 distinct web sites, we found more than 50,000 to be inaccessible from at least one point in China on at least one occasion. Adopting a more conservative standard for determining which inaccessible sites were intentionally blocked and which were unreachable solely due to temporary glitches, we find that 18,931 sites were inaccessible from at least two distinct proxy servers within China on at least two distinct days. We conclude that China does indeed block a range of web content beyond that which is sexually explicit. For example, we found blocking of thousands of sites offering information about news, health, education, and entertainment, as well as some 3,284 sites from Taiwan. A look at the list beyond sexually explicit content yields insight into the particular areas the Chinese government appears to find most sensitive.

[emdee]

47. And, it looks like the Chinese people....

may start speaking out.

<snip> "I've received unheard of support from so many people, especially journalists, because they saw Freezing Point as virtually the last breathing space for proper journalism," Li told Reuters on Thursday.

"The whole intellectual community is outraged. The denunciations will grow, because this was a step too far."

The China Youth Daily is the official paper of the Chinese Communist Party's youth wing, and its reporters have sometimes used their official status to test censorship limits.

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-01-26T220033Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-233968-1.xml&archived=False

[emdee]

48. One more study....

interesting info....

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:Wq9UgrnahosJ:www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/ONI_China_Country_Study.pdf+China+censorship+internet&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Internet Filtering in China 2004/2005 Study

[dailykoff]

15. Yep, and we're next.

So enjoy it while you can, because it won't be around much longer.

[KakistocracyHater]

26. This software is neutral & can be used on us at the flick of a switch

that I find deeply disturbing. It seems they designed it with such things in mind; I hope hackers start writing 'decensoring' worms

[oscarguy]

39. Are There Not Some Freedom Loving Hackers ?

I spend so much time trying to protect myself from right wing types on the web, is there not a few computer savvy types on our side ? I have a hard time using E-mail properly and am not up for it. Anyway, I appreciate all at DU. It does take at least some courage to be a Democrat now days . What a sad statement that is. Oscar

[InsultComicDog]

49. Absolutely

In fact with the assistance of some people who really know their stuff, I have helped a couple of people in China get around some of the censorship issues.

[oscarguy]

28. Did Yahoo help send Chinese Journalist to prison for 10 Years ?

I am not sure. I have read articles that said they did, but others that say NOT SO. Anyone have follow up on that story? Oscar

[Greyhound]

45. We of the OG IT industry tried to warn you for years about these

assholes, but in amerika cheap is better than good. So go out and buy your new Dell dude cause the case is really cool and the M$ extortion is built into the price so you won't have to think about how much you paid to spread a world-wide virus.