Does Google Censor Chinese News? 547
mOoZik writes "A story carried by New Scientist suggests that Google might be playing into the hands of the Chinese government by blocking certain news stories which may be deeded inappropriate. Some users recently reported that Google's Chinese news search returned different results depending when they searched using a computer based outside of China. The claims were substantiated by researchers who connected to computers inside the country. Read on and decide for yourself."
Do no evil? (Score:5, Informative)
This is not really news (Score:5, Informative)
China’s Internet Regulations (Score:5, Informative)
Google's Reply (Score:5, Informative)
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."
Re:I'd be surprised if they didn't (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is not really news (Score:1, Informative)
people using trademarks they do not own in their adwords
and even then, there has been a new ruling allowing people to use certain trademarked words in their adwords listing
search for "preispiraten"
Re:China’s Internet Regulations (Score:1, Informative)
1. Information that goes against the basic principles set in the constitution;
2. Information that endangers national security, divulges state secrets, subverts the government, or undermines national unity;
3. Information that is detrimental to the honor and interests of the state;
4. Information that instigates ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination, or that undermines national unity;
5. Information that undermines the state's policy towards religions, or that preaches the teachings of evil cults or that promotes feudalistic and superstitious beliefs;
6. Information that disseminates rumors, disturbs social order, or undermines social stability;
7. Information that spreads pornography or other salacious materials; promotes gambling, violence, homicide, or terrorism; or instigates crimes;
8. Information that insults or slanders other people, or infringes upon other people's legitimate rights and interests; or
9. Other information prohibited by the law or administrative regulations.
Article 16: When an IIS provider discovers that the information its Web site provides is clearly of a type listed under Article 15, it should immediately stop transmission, keep the relevant records, and report the situation to the relevant state authorities.
Article 17: When a commercial IIS provider applies to have its business publicly listed in China or overseas, or to set up a joint venture or partnership with a foreign business, it must have the prior agreement of the State Council department in charge of information industries.
The proportion of the total investment that is supplied by the foreign business shall be in line with the provisions prescribed in the relevant laws and administrative regulations.
Article 18: The State Council department in charge of information industries, and the telecommunications administration of the relevant province, autonomous region, or municipality under the central government's direct jurisdiction, shall exercise supervision over IIS providers in accordance with the law. Departments in charge of information, the publishing business, education, public health, and pharmaceuticals; departments in charge of business administration; and departments in charge of national security, must supervise the contents of Internet information in areas under their respective jurisdictions and in accordance with the law.
Article 19: For those who violate the regulations in these measures by providing unlicensed commercial IIS, or by providing other services than those prescribed by their licenses, the telecommunications administration of the relevant province, autonomous region, or municipality under the central government's direct jurisdiction must order them to mend their ways within a specified period, confiscate their illegal incomes, and impose on them a fine between three and five times their illegal incomes.
In cases where there is no illegal income, or in cases where the illegal income is less than 50,000 renminbi (US$6,039), they must impose on them a fine of between Rmb 100,000 and Rmb 1 million (US$12,079 and US$120,788).
If the case is serious, they will be ordered to shut down their Web sites.
For those that violate the regulations in these measures by failing to report their operations for the record, by engaging in non-commercial IIS, or by providing other services than those prescribed in the filed records, the telecommunications administration of the relevant province, autonomous region, or municipality under the central government's direct jurisdiction will order them to mend their ways within a certain period; and order those who refuse to do so to shut down their Web sites.
Article 20: If the acts of those who produce, reproduce, release, or disseminate information of the types listed in Article 15 constitute a crime, the perpetrator
PRC govt is censoring, not google (Score:1, Informative)
If you are interested and want me to find my source, email me at robertcz@gmail.com
Re:rocking in the free world... (Score:2, Informative)
News editors are supposed to adhere to them.
For example: http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/index.html [rtrlondon.co.uk]
This report has been marked as:
"TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**NO ACCESS BRAZIL/ INTERNET**~"
Lots of different restrictions....
Does Google Censor American Searches? (Score:5, Informative)
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
Re:No surprise - I agree (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The issue is broader here.... (Score:4, Informative)
It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.
Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe
On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.
To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).
I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Constitution [findlaw.com], treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:4, Informative)
It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.
Buckle up and get ready for what happens to Great Powers that become former Great Powers. Empire deconstruction isn't pretty. It is a lesson taught by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one the US will learn well.
Re:well... (Score:4, Informative)
1. A company can be sued by a shareholder for just about anything they do. All it takes is profits being below a prediction (or some half-assed guesstimate), and someone will point to a particular corporate action as being the alledged cause. Most (90% or so in an average year) such suits are unsuccessful. Google can still be sued for working with the PRC's laws, if profits fall (even in some other division, as that could be called a PR backlash!), or for not investing agressively enough in China, if profits fall, or for not dropping this silly internet stuff and becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer, if profits fall.
2. Google is not a majority held public company. Lawsuits would be coming from minority stock holders. Minority stock holders have a steep hurdle to prove in any suit - that is they have to prove that they don't have the ulterior motive of trying to make their minority of votes (or their non-voting influence) steer the board of directors on an extra-legal issue.
3. US law simply doesn't say what you are misquoting it as saying. The law actually requires any corporation to abide by some pretty strict standards of ethics that often go against maximizing shareholder value, as in these examples:
First,
http://www.business-ethics.com/current.htm/ [business-ethics.com]
alwys has some examples of companies that have done the right thing, (in the opinion of the editors). You can look at what they did, and decide for yourself if they were under pressure of lawsuits or not.
Then there's the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is intended to have a positive impact on accountability, and is sometimes misconstrued to support your position. Most significantly (for this discussion), the Act imposes new responsibilities on CEOs and CFOs who could face criminal sanctions for false certification of financial reports. This was done by congress, because so FEW shareholder lawsuits against corporations were successful, and it was deemed necessary to give suing stockholders some "teeth" in a few cases of outright fraud, sufficient in itself to lead to criminal charges.
http://www.genusresources.com/site/content/public
Will go to a prety good overview of Sarbanes-Oxley, and why it DOESNT leave companies wide open to any lawsuit some shareholder attempts.
You could also read up on The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It prohibits giving anything of value, directly or indirectly, to foreign government officials or foreign political candidates in order to obtain or retain business. It is strictly prohibited to make illegal payments to government officials of any country. Given the PRCs poor worldwide reputation on this, Google management could easily win just about any shareholder lawsuit, simply by saying bribery became a major issue.
(I give up. If I'm gonna keep biting on these legal related posts, I might as well change my sig to IANAL).
Re:rephrase (Score:2, Informative)
Norwegian Statoil - http://statoil.com (Score:1, Informative)
The norwegian state owns a oil company. It is mostly open and democratic. It`s not easy for them and they do have problems with this. But they trye.
Re:rephrase (Score:1, Informative)
China still has a long way to go, obviously they are still horrific when it comes to freedom of speech. Freedom of religion is alive and strong in the developed regions of China (once again still issues in rural areas). I highly suggest people go visit China and have open conversations (most Chinese enjoy talking with westerners about just about anything) with the people. China is far from perfect and has a ton more reform work to do, but they are not even close to what they used to be even 20 years ago.