Google Asks US For WTO Block On China Censorship 115
An anonymous reader writes "Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize China's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade. The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China's rules discriminate against foreign competition. At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."
Google V China (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue. I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have. It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine. Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The first condition of progress is the removal of censorship." -George Bernard Shaw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
USA V China (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: You can never really counter any argument by proclaiming the other party also does things wrong... While it might feel morally right to do so it makes no sense logically, the argument still stands and everyone is just as flawed (or even more because of it).
Then again, this is really the pot calling the kettle black... And it can become annoying and more important unproductive, so I do agree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Believing in freedom is exactly why we are pestering the Chinese. This has nothing to do with telling a country what to do and everything with preventing oppression. Our own country (The United States) is far from perfect, and we do some pretty fucked up things...but we still don't prevent our own citizens from information, ESPECIALLY information critical of our own government.
In fact, criticizing our government openly and publicly is one of the greatest freedoms we have. Good luck finding a version of L [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree with you, previnting inside government information from reaching the public is one thing...blocking people from viewing a website like wikipedia is entirely fucking different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Wikipedia had reliable information about that torture the government would start arresting people in a heart beat.
In the United States, conspiracy to torture [openjurist.org] is a felony. Dick Cheney admitted, on national television that he "was a big supporter of waterboarding", reliably implicating himself [harpers.org] in such a conspiracy. Yet the federal government has not, so far, shown any interest in prosecuting him.
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously you are incapable of logic. The Chinese government censors third-party information so that its citizens cannot access it.
The US government merely declines to publish information it itself generates. The US government has not censored information about Guantanamo. If it had, Guantanamo would not have become an election issue.
If you do or can not understand the difference, you are probably too stupid to use any information anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government also censors third-party information [nytimes.com] so that its citizens cannot access it. Though clearly, tourist information on nice places to visit in Cuba presents a clear and present danger to the State.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google V China (Score:5, Insightful)
when we don't have access to any of the really damaging information about government activity
What do all of these things have in common? They are all exposed government scandals/controversies. The administrations involved (and some that were not) attempted to either squash any further investigation or simply punish those who did the exposing. But did they succeed? No. And why not? Because the courts/congress/press would not allow that to happen.
People in China and Iran are regularly arrested for doing nothing more than suggesting policy that the regime does not agree with. People in the US were carrying automatic weapons while burning the president in effigy last August. People still complain openly that Bush a) stole the 2000 election, b) enriched his oil buds, c) killed thousands of Iraqis and US soldiers based on a personal grudge, d) was in the grip of some kind of evil demon (Cheney?) And yet even those who disagree with these positions would defend - to the death - the right to express them without reprisal.
I echo Pojut's qualification that the US is by no means perfect (it's govt is, after all, responsible for the creation of these scandals). And there is always room for more openness. But to compare the US to China/Iran/N.Korea/Egypt/Zimbabwe/Russia/etc is to diminish the plight of the people living in those nations. We are outraged on principle. They suffer in reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because most politicians learned a long time ago that any criticism can be rendered meaningless, when you can simply buy your election with a slew of campaign ads and a good dose of fear tactics and political manipulation.
Re:Google V China (Score:5, Insightful)
First, I think you'll find that Google is an advocate of internet freedom not just in China, but in other countries also.
Second, in totalitarian regimes a country doesn't belong to its citizens, it belongs to the ruling class.
Third, believing in freedom is compatible with believing in the criticism of tyranny -- that is not imposing anything on anyone, and is ok even if you don't live in a perfect country yourself (otherwise even the worst dictator could use this defence!)
Finally, many people who criticize Chinese censorship are also critical of their own government's. While there is a bit of xenophobia and jingoism when it comes to China, that isn't the case for all criticism of the Chinese government, and doesn't represent an attack on the Chinese people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something?
Yes. Freedom for the people. Not freedom from the government.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, oh why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something? Or does that not apply until you have troops stationed there?
Fix your own damn country first.
I believe in freedom of the people, not freedom of the government. I don't approve of China's censorship any more than I would approve of the U.S. government doing the same thing. Pointing out that we have our own problems doesn't invalidate the criticism of Chinese censorship.
Because Human Rights matter more than Sovereignty (Score:5, Insightful)
> why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something?
Clasically, international law recognized the state's right to do whatever it wanted within its borders, but even then the creation of international law had to do with the problem of human rights, in a way. The thirty years war had wreaked havoc on Europe, and hundreds of towns and cities across the continent were burned or otherwise scourged by the war. Starting around 1648, after the Peace of Westphalia, nations could not longer do whatever they wanted.
The connection to human rights remained largely latent until WW2, however. Then we had the holocaust. War Crime prosecution at Nurenberg, the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR, and then the formation for the first time of transnational organizations (Amnesty International being one of the early starters) for the advancement of human rights, led us into a world where everyone agreed that it mattered what people did within their own country. Some things are illegal. Slavery, piracy, and aggressive war are the most obvious.
In our society, individuals have certain freedoms so long as they don't break the social contract, express or implied. In international society, nations have freedom so long as they don't break the social contract among nations, express or implied. In both cases, it's easier to get away with breaking the contract if you're bigger, you're stronger, you have more money, or nobody finds out about it.
As to your last point, if we knew how to fix our country, we would. We're trying, and we'll keep trying. But we still live in the world. We still have obligations--and so does China--not only on a moral level and arising out of our duty to our citizenry and our species, but also arising out of treaty obligations under the WTO. If China agrees to be part of the WTO, then it can expect to have a complaint filed against it if it violates WTO rules. The same is true for the United States, or Canada, or any other signatory to the relevant treaties.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First of all, some of us do care about our fellow humans... I don't want the Chinese people to live under censorship and I support Google for attempting to tackle that problem. If China doesn't like that, too bad, so sad, they shouldn't be treating their people like shit to begin with. Secondly, as a rising power China may eventually overshadow the US as far as influencing world policy, etc. Do I want a country that treats its people like shit to be making decisions that will affect me? We should tell China
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The history of political institutions is a history of the political struggle between those who would govern and those who are governed. While the needs of the people might be most effectively med by an a enlightened despot, most despots have proven themselves to be most unenlightened.
While China, as a state, is free, the subjects of that state are not free. Confuse the two at your peril.
Re: (Score:1)
We believe in freedom of the individual. The government is meant only to be an entity to serve the will of the people. When the government censors its people, they are taking away a basic freedom. That is why we complain so much about the Chinese government.
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Interesting)
Google seemed to realize that until someone made a HUGE fuss over it the status quo would never change.
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Interesting)
Over the years I've heard people talk about social responsibility of corporations. It was always a bit of a joke, but you know what? I think Google was listening too. It's one of the few companies I can think of that I would say is 'socially responsible' as a corporation. There has to be some record somewhere of the first business to take on a government head to head or something along those lines. Does anyone know if this qualifies Google in some special category?
Re:Google V China (Score:5, Insightful)
Well personally I'd wait and see if they "do no evil" with regard to their blatantly obvious software patent [slashdot.org] for using geolocation info to target ads.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The motto is "Don't be evil" not "Do no evil". It's impossible to do no evil in a world with so much subjectivity.
Re:Google V China (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The East India Trading Company rivaled most governments in power but this is the first time in history something like this has happened, to my knowledge. I'm not sure if I should be happy, or somewhat scared.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not always a joke. We do still have some heroes...
Feuerstein [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There has to be some record somewhere of the first business to take on a government head to head or something along those lines. Does anyone know if this qualifies Google in some special category?
There is a long and sad history of companies taking on governments to try and change the government's policies
Though usually the change they want is in the sole interest of the company, against the interest of their competitors, and who gives a damn about general public's interest.
In this case, Google's interests happen to mostly align with the interests of their competitors, and of the public.
It makes for better PR, but it is still a company "taking on government" in their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Google went public, it took the somewhat unusual step of sharply limiting the voting rights of the class of stock available in the IPO compared to the class of stock held by its founders. This means that Google, while being a public and f
Re: (Score:1)
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/28/1316226/Behind-Googles-Recent-Decision-About-China [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/submission/1160250/Behind-Googles-recent-decision-about-China [slashdot.org]
Uh, you do realize... (Score:1, Interesting)
... that Google couldn't care less about the civil liberties of the average Chinese citizen. All Google wants is to be the invasive ones in everyone's daily online lives in a background, monitoring sense. Google is probably negotiating deals with China regarding data collection and backdoor eavesdropping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google V China (Score:4, Insightful)
Not "just like everybody else". Yahoo and others were happy to censor their search results silently, while Google insisted that they be able to display the fact that they had been censored. In my opinion, this was the least bad option. If they had meekly followed Yahoo, the Chinese people would have no idea what was being censored and how often. If they had refused to censor, China would simply have thrown them out and walled them off, and Chinese searchers would have been limited to silently censored searches. Any change to China must come from inside China, from the Chinese people. But what they don't know they cannot change; Google's solution at least told them when something was being hidden from them, so they can ask if they want a government that does that. If Google pulls out of China, it will revert to the state that the Chinese will not even know what is being hidden from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yahoo and others were happy to censor their search results silently
C'mon. Even the Chinese know better than to steal Yahoo's search algorithm.
Re: (Score:1)
Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.
Actually no they weren't.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:1)
Well now you're arguing something else. Fine with me. You said something I saw was wrong and pointed it out.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree but it is slightly better than nothing.
At this point if google takes a payoff then they are just as evil as anybody else.
If the keep fighting then they are slightly better than others.
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about the motivations? "Altruistic" behavior always has motivations, they're just more complex motivations than for "selfish" behavior. Let Google take credit for what they're doing, they're doing the right thing today.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be. The only reason they are doing this is because China directly threatened their bottom line by trying to steal [wired.com] some of Google's proprietary source code (their bread and butter).
Oh, so we are supposed to be pissed off at people who do evil, AND now pissed off just as much at people who do a lot of good, but only when doing that good is for free?
Gotcha
Before China did that, Google was more than happy to censor their search results and hand over dissidents just like everyone else.
Oooh, o
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
I guess we have half the chance of getting the whole google.com banned from mainland China and only accessible behind a VPN ... How would that be a progress to anyone ?
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that Google makes its money by you providing you with your private information trough using their services, and then selling that to advertisers, are you?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Does China really believe it would be a good thing to point that gun at its own foot?
"Commie/Fascist Bastards" && "stupid" too?
Make my day.
Good one google! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Pull Out?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's still a point. Google does not avoid China but... they do deny it their essence.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Internet trade barriers (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is that it won't be easy to figth this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.
Re: (Score:1)
Internet based trade barriers are everywhere, what immediately also comes to mind is the US block on gambling websites.
The problem here is that it won't be easy to fight this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.
Fixed that for me.
Re:Internet trade barriers (Score:4, Interesting)
Fun fact: The WTO ruled against [bbc.co.uk] the US in the gambling website matter..
Where's the trade barriers (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
In international law, "legal" is what countries can customarily get away with. It follows that one does not expect international law to be fair. It's just the continuance of war by other means. Less destructive means.
Re: (Score:2)
When did google take over the United States? I must has missed that announcement.
A good action from Google (Score:1)
I was really disturbed by the buzz fiasco with privacy and was awaiting a good action from Google to restore my faith in them. I think this move deserve to be called a good action.
WTO reply (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WTO reply (Score:5, Funny)
Total, utter unmitigated uninformed bullshit. When have the WTO ever said "Sorry"?
Re:WTO reply (Score:4, Insightful)
The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils. In the old-old days, when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights, they had to hire mercenaries. It was cruel, but at least it was honest.
Later in history, the developments of religion and nationalism enabled those on top to use mere rhetoric to convince the poor to die protecting business interests. Protect the King's land from the godless invaders! Fly under the stars and stripes to defend the fruit company's interests in the banana republics!
With the advent of conscription, however, those who owned the world could merely summon slaves to make sure their property remained under their control (Korea, Vietnam).
But the Owners didn't entirely control the new phenomenon of mass media, and popular opinion turned. Slavery wasn't an option, so we tried espionage (CIA) and even old-school mercenaries (Gulf War I) to protect businesses interests .
The uber-rich aren't going to stop trying to protect "their" property, but with the Internet turning media upside-down, it will be harder than ever to get the poor to agree to conscription, crusades or even merc work. Using trade embargoes via the WTO is probably better than outright war for this purpose, so long as they don't embargo to the point of mass starvation.
(For the record: I'm not anti-capitalist. Humanity just sucks when it comes to war and money. A progressive capitalism in which you can get rich but you can't take it with you [high inheritance tax to fund education of the poor] sounds most appealing to me.)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils. In the old-old days, when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights, they had to hire mercenaries. It was cruel, but at least it was honest.
Today, whole nations go to war over economic goals. Clearly, progress has brought us to a better world.
I Guess That Means (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a company does good deeds in the name of profit, are they no longer good?
Re: (Score:1)
The World is what we make of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Called their bluff by letting them continue to run Google.cn with censorship turned off? That works for me.
China Should Respond by (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh! This looks very interesting from an Australian Internet filter perspective. Google recently replied very abruptly when Stephen Conroy said he would like Google to start filtering Youtube for Australian visitors.
I would love to see the US start to pressure Australia as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For some reason my posts never make it through moderation to the page on Chinese websites. Hmmm
Italy's trying to keep up with China (Score:3, Insightful)
So when we start working against censorship in Italy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Italy#During_Berlusconi.27s_era_.281992-present.29
Something worthwhile? (Score:1)
At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."
You fail to understand how govenrment works. They will not re-assign "US Tarde Reps" from their vital-to-national-security role in the ongoing ACTA negotiations. They will simply hire more "US Trade Reps" and raise taxes to pay for them. Since this will also mean at least the appearance of increased taxes on Disneywood, Disneywood will move more jobs offshore AND raise prices on their fine products. The increased local unemployment will require local govenrments to hire more workers to deal with the unem
Nothing is going to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be great if this came to pass, but it wont. First, you're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary. But more importantly, most companies couldn't care less. What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience. China provides both while other developing nations can't yet meet these needs.
And China is a great target for passing the buck. Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers. When some of Mattel's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do? Blame China. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products. But why should they care? The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.
If most companies don't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil? And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around. Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world doesn't really need China. But of course, that really isn't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.
And like I've stated, most Chinese don't think there's a problem at all. Frankly, there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about.
Re: (Score:1)
While we're at it. . . (Score:2)
How is it an unfair trade barrier? (Score:2)
Don't local Chinese companies that compete with Google, such as Baidu, have to comply with the same censorship restrictions? For it to be an unfair trade barrier, don't local companies have to be treated differently?
For example, in Canada food products must be labelled in both English and French. A US company with US-produced food goods must use different packaging that complies with this law to import those goods into Canada, or, as is often the case, slap a sticker that meets the minimum requirements o
seems like another rerun of pirate bay (Score:1)
A little far fetched (Score:2)
The law applies to both chinese and foreign companies. Good luck anyway!
Google leaving China? eh? (Score:2)
Really, what does it MEAN that google is leaving china? So what if they are not there. Google keeps the .cn domain google.cn and it will resolve to somewhere in california or probably Japan since it's closer. Unless the Chinese gov blocks ALL access to google worldwide why would Baidu all of a sudden get all of Google's search biz? China can censor it themselves if they want, google does not have to have anything to do with it.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what they are doing.
They believe the censorship imposed on Google by the Chinese government, is against the trade agreement set by WTO between the US and China.
I can't say if that's the case or not, that's up to the WTO to decide.
But it's a fair request to make by Google, it's disrupting to there business.