Dissecting Localized Google Censorship 261
carpe_noctem writes "Linuxsecurity.com has a link to a rather interesting story regarding Google's use of localized censorship. While not much information is given from the political side of why Google might be censoring information likely to annoy certain governments, it certainly isn't the first time Google has come under fire for censoring results on account of external pressures. Makes one wonder how many pages get filtered out around the world."
Google is a private company (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like it (Score:4, Insightful)
Google isn't immune to everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclosure would be kinda nice though...
Not the first time this has happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just part of being a global supplier. (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is (legally) selling vodka in Saudi Arabia.
No one is (legally) selling swastikas in Germany.
Etcetera.
Google is just doing their best to play by the rules. Successfully, apparently.
Utopian Theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to earlier utopian theories of the Internet, it takes very little effort for governments to cause certain information simply to vanish for a huge number of people.
I'm not sure that this conclusion can be taken very seriously. First of all, it posits "earlier utopian theories of the Internet" and doesn't back up such a claim with any data. What were these theories, and how do they apply to Google's behavior? Second, the author claims that "very little effort" was made on behalf of certain governments to remove information. In the case study of the town of Chester, the information was removed at the behest of a local authority, not a national government. Thirdly, the information didn't "vanish" as the author suggested. If it had been completely removed from google, no traces would exist. And since google is under no obligation to store all the copies of web pages it indexes, claiming that the information "vanished" misinterprets how google stores the information to begin with. The site in question should be the focus, not google's cacheing mechanism.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:1, Insightful)
Google is a private multinational company (Score:5, Insightful)
Here in the US we have faced the same problem when Klan or other sites tried to get attention. If there are public decency laws are in place, how is it possible to both follow those laws (regardless of whether we think those laws are just or not) and provide free content? Should a whole country or region get a different search engine result based on its laws? In short, yes. To try and espouse American ideals to the planet doesn't work as the recent UN vote clearly shows. We don't have to agree with them, but they have a right to speak and vote regardless of what we think. Google has a responsibility as a multinational company to obey the laws of the countries it operates in, and given the legal right of people to sue internet companies according to the laws of their own country (Australia has a case like this), they damn well better learn what rules they need to play by.
It is somewhat loathsome that censorship be brought about, especially because the same rights used by the hatemongers to spread their intellectual bile is the same one I use to post here in disagreeance with their thoughts and, occasionally, the politics of the world at large. And anyone in the United States should also be guarding every right they have with vigilance given the blatant thirst for power of our current regime and their willingness to intrude on our rights and lives in the name of "security". Again, we should protect our rights here in the US and ensure that Google does the same by following the laws of other countries.
May the question of free speech and its legality in the face of "terrorism" never turn into a possible threat against the 1st amendment here in the US, lest we have to resort to the 2nd amendment to defend both...
Google is a public tool (Score:2, Insightful)
Google's role in society is no longer one of profit, it has become the navigator for millions of people to access free information. With great power comes great responsiblity.
Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.
It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.
Fight censorship on all fronts.
Capitalism: Refresher course (Score:4, Insightful)
So lets recap. Democratic and Capitalist.
So that means that
a) no matter how much you hate a company (MS, Google, AOL, whatever) you have a choice. Just because that choice involves moving to an arguably inferior product does not mean you have no choice. IE some other search engine, ie dial up with no "features", ie OS with less popular apps: linux.
b) You choice is not foced on you. You are allowed to use any service you want as long as that service does not provide products illegal in your state or in the USA.
With alternate choices available it makes sense that a company would do well to appease its users to increase its users or keep the current ones happy. To do this companies will do all sorts of things, some of which include eliminating irrelivant data, old data, offensive, or data that would cause unrest (ie everything about democracy, capatolism, or any religion in China).
Why are you complaining again?
robi
Re:Google Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
The karma system in my experience tends to keep away people that are too oppositional, too hostile... There is a certain point at which core debate overwhelms discussion. You can't discuss lutheran vs. calvinist theology if aggressive atheists or catholoics were barging in. You can't discuss Windows 2000 advanced Server vs. Windows datacenter server if aggressive pro linux people were barging in....
So for example if you bring up anti linux things on a thread about a particular linux related topic (like say a discussion of mandrake) of course that will get modded down as off topic. The discussion is mandrake vs. debian, mandrake vs. redhat... not mandrake vs. windows.
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The Value and Threat of the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
This allows the crackpots who were once spread thinly throughout society, to become a meaningful force within modern social styructures.
Google has positioned itself as one of the few gatekeepers between the majority of internet users, and these fringe ideas. It is neither right nor wrong, that the management of google has deemed certain material, not worthy of delivery to users. Google as a corporation has a mission; to deliver the greatest shareholder value. Google management has decided that in order to deliver the greatest value, they must provide results which the greatest number of users, find acceptable, appealing, or otherwise paletteable. They're in this to make money, not as a public service. That's what the Mozilla Directory Project [dmoz.org] is for.
--CTH
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:5, Insightful)
This is fundamentally wrong. If it is a public tool, it should be paid for by tax dollars and be institutionalized by the government.
Google is a company, and that is black and white. Regardless of ideological ideas of what a public tool should or should not do, it is there business what they do. People are not obligated to use Google, and Google is not obligated in any way to humor certain peoples thoughts on what is moral and just.
Therefore, as human beings, those who run google have moral and ethical obligations to protect the free flow of information.
At the sacrifice of their business? At which point does this free flow of information end? If someone posts a video of you doing something embarassing, is it your right to censor or attempt to? There is no moral obligation for any company to anybody outside of that company.
It may be legal for them to censor, but it is wrong as it damages the exchange of ideas which promote thought and freedom.
Take issue with the governments that require censorship, not with a tool that tries to reach as many people as possible. It's better that Google is available in China, even if it is censored, than if they don't have access to google at all.
You are fighting the wrong people here. You are shooting the messenger.
google.com (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think removing one page to appease the citizens of one village in the UK is that big of a deal.
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't agree with this. Unlike other replies, I do agree that it damages the exchange of ideas...sure they can still go to the site, but if they depend on google to find those sources, they will not know they exist. But if some government wants to ban a site that teaches you something rediculous, like how to abuse your children and not leave marks so you don't get caught, wouldn't it be moral and ethical to block such a site. Moral and ethical does not always equal freedom of speech and ideas. If a government decides somethings is harmful to its people, they will try to stop this information. Not everyone believes in absolute free speech as most (some?) people do in slashdot (and isn't freedom of speech allowing for people who believe freedom of speech is dangerous?). In any case, I think if it is a problem, it is up to the people of Germany to stand up against this policy. If the German people approve of this censoring, then we really have no right to tell them they are wrong.
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Insightful)
I would never argue that they don't have the right to do this, or filtering in such a way is morally wrong for them. Google is a company and can do whatever the hell it wants as far as censorship is concerned.
We should, however, be aware of their actions. If they are pushing a product (unbiased information searches) that product should be deliverd. If they don't, we, as users, should know about it so we can stop treating it as such.
Of course they have the right to do this, it's just that we, as users, should know about it. I am also not saying that Google is somehow obligated to tell us how it all works. I would prefer that they do so, but AFAIK, there is no law requiring that.
Google needs to be transparent (Score:5, Insightful)
Google should be completely transparent if they remove information. They should create a section called "Censored Sites" and list what sites (in text-format) these nazi's have asked them to not link to, with the threat of a lawsuite to back up. This way, everyone knows what draconian nazi's are forcing Google's hand by threatening them with impeding lawsuites. It should be like a news section, and they should post the following:
(1) Who (what corp., country, business, etc) requested what to be removed.
(2) Their letter requesting such.
(3) What Google decided to do about it.
(4) Why they decided to do such.
(5) The address and e-mail of the offending corporation, so we can let them know what we think.
Re:google.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Insightful)
Ford won't sell you a car in the colour you want? Buy something else. Burger King won't let you have it your way? Go to McD. Don't like Google's results? Search elsewhere.
Better Local than Global (Score:5, Insightful)
As I see it, Google is doing exactly what it should be doing. The company has an obligation to obey laws in each country about what material is and is not legal to view. Not every country has the same views about whether censorship is acceptable, and what things should be censored if it is. Google could get in very serious trouble if it chose to show people things that their governments have decided that they shouldn't have access to. At the same time, Google does seem to be trying hard to do the least damage it can in the process. Specifically, it's not censoring material everywhere just because it's considered objectionable in one place. Americans can still see Holocause denial sites (if they have some bizarre desire to do so), Germans can see Chinese dissident sites, etc.
Re:Google is a public tool (Score:4, Insightful)
A single company publishes phonebooks in every country in the world.
Some country, x, makes either certain content or specific phone numbers illegal.
The company then goes out of it's way to obey local laws by presenting different information based on your geographic location, so as not to have their entire service banned in that country.
Google is not filtering "unpopular views" in the case of Germany. They are filtering "illegal views." You'll notice they don't do any content filtering in the US, aside from the filtering done to provide "better" results (ie. filtering out searchking).
Germany is fucked up. So is most of the world. People in the US don't realize how lucky they are to have a Constitution giving them protected freedoms. Europeans have no such luck.
Most European government's constitution's read:
"You have permission to do specific activities x, y and z until such a time that the government chooses to pass laws restricting said activities."
Scary shit.
Justin Dubs
Re:Google is a private company (Score:5, Insightful)
That's very different from a moral censorship. As the post you totally ignored while replying to pointed out, if it were a moral censorship, why would they block it only in Germany?
Do monoply arguments apply here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is/may become a monopoly in the search space. As a previous discussion [slashdot.org] noted, it has entered into our common vocabulary. In such a situation, where do the rights of a private organization end, and that of the public good begin?
For instance, if PacBell (substitute your local phone company here) stops carrying calls over its physical network that use other long distance services, or Microsoft [redhat.com] tries putting roadblocks for third party applications on its platform .. umm- scratch the last one.
Re:The Value and Threat of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
--CTH