Google CEO Tells Senators That Censored Chinese Search Engine Could Provide 'Broad Benefits' (theintercept.com) 93
Google CEO Sundar Pichai has refused to answer a list of questions from U.S. lawmakers about the company's secretive plan for a censored search engine in China. From a report: In a letter newly obtained by The Intercept, Pichai told a bipartisan group of six senators that Google could have "broad benefits inside and outside of China," but said he could not share details about the censored search engine because it "remains unclear" whether the company "would or could release a search service" in the country. Pichai's letter contradicts the company's search engine chief, Ben Gomes, who informed staff during a private meeting that the company was aiming to release the platform in China between January and April 2019. Gomes told employees working on the Chinese search engine that they should get it ready to be "brought off the shelf and quickly deployed."
[...] In his letter to the senators, dated August 31, Pichai did not mention the word "censorship" or address human rights concerns. He told the senators that "providing access to information to people around the world is central to our mission," and said he believed Google's tools could "help to facilitate an exchange of information and learning." The company was committed to "promoting access to information, freedom of expression, and user privacy," he wrote, while also "respecting the laws of jurisdictions in which we operate."
[...] In his letter to the senators, dated August 31, Pichai did not mention the word "censorship" or address human rights concerns. He told the senators that "providing access to information to people around the world is central to our mission," and said he believed Google's tools could "help to facilitate an exchange of information and learning." The company was committed to "promoting access to information, freedom of expression, and user privacy," he wrote, while also "respecting the laws of jurisdictions in which we operate."
I remember "Don't Be Evil". (Score:4, Insightful)
They've forgotten the 'Don't'.
Re: (Score:3)
Google isn't considering selling the censorship technology. Logically, any google search product can only add (however slightly) to the pool of information available to people in China. What's the sense of refusing to provide any information on the basis that they're not allowed to provide certain additional information? They already thoroughly tested whether packing up their bag and leaving would pressure China into changing laws -- it didn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the sense of refusing to provide any information on the basis that they're not allowed to provide certain additional information?
Moral principles where you don't help in the oppression of people just to make a buck?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, sometimes one sacrfices things to not help dictatorial regimes. The Chinese government is not gonna change because wants it to. Google needs the Chinese, the Chinese government has zero need for Google.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it helping oppress people more than not being available in China? What extra oppression is there that doesn't already exist with the other search engines like Bing and Baijou?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more than a list of limits on the government. It's a list of some of our inalienable rights as men.
Re:Alternative is worse (Score:4, Interesting)
Google isn't considering selling the censorship technology. Logically, any google search product can only add (however slightly) to the pool of information available to people in China. What's the sense of refusing to provide any information on the basis that they're not allowed to provide certain additional information? They already thoroughly tested whether packing up their bag and leaving would pressure China into changing laws -- it didn't.
Censorship is a red herring that Google and China hope the world focuses on. Censorship by Google in China is just a distraction, and as Google and friends would point out, any little bit of any information served up by Google technically constitutes breaking the technical censorship that Google's absence from the Chinese market represents. That such an argument makes sense to some people is literally quite perverse.
Surveillance and collaborating with Chinese authorities to identify "undesirable" people is the problem. Google is being allowed to trade ratting out people in exchange for money. That the Chinese government gets to see Google squirm with PR issues in the US is just icing on the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance and collaborating with Chinese authorities to identify "undesirable" people is the problem. Google is being allowed to trade ratting out people in exchange for money.
That's a pretty strong claim. Got anything to support it?
Re: (Score:3)
Surveillance and collaborating with Chinese authorities to identify "undesirable" people is the problem. Google is being allowed to trade ratting out people in exchange for money.
That's a pretty strong claim. Got anything to support it?
From an article [theintercept.com] in The Intercept quoting Jack Poulson who probably knows a few things about Dragonfly:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
... and they will be shown the exit as a native Chinese firm takes their place.
Huh?
Baidu has the 2nd largest search engine in the world, and held a 76.05% market share in China's search engine market [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
You sometimes need to be an asshole, but you never need to go evil.
Sure will....censorship is good! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sure will....censorship is good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course. The benefits are to Google's bottom line not the people of China.
Benefits are to Google's employee ideology too (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course. The benefits are to Google's bottom line not the people of China.
The benefits are to Google's employee political ideology too. They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
Seriously, we already have internal emails where they propose and/or try to do this. Won't having this new censorship technology facilitate such desires?
Re: (Score:3)
They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
So true. That's why Democrats hold the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the Senate, the House and the Presidency. Oh wait...
You're assuming that Google sees Democrats as the "correct" people, and Republicans as the "incorrect" people. The correct people are the ones who intend to align with what's best for Google's agenda, and it is foolish to assume that this group is comprised solely of Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
They can censor all that "offensive" stuff in the US too, help ensure that the "correct" people are elected to office.
So true. That's why Democrats hold the majority of governorships, state legislatures, the Senate, the House and the Presidency. Oh wait...
Google employee efforts to correct that are somewhat recent, getting a massive boost to fix the problem you state in 2016. You are backward looking, screwing with search results is forward looking. You backwards look says nothing about the power of the tool currently under development.
Controlled Language (Score:4, Interesting)
In his letter to the senators, dated August 31, Pichai did not mention the word "censorship" or address human rights concerns.
Yeah, they try to talk around what they do in the US too, always using a euphemism like "filtering" instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't getting more useful results for the 99.99% of non-censored web searches provide broad benefits to the Chinese people even if that .01% remains censored?
For that matter, given that every company is likely to implement censorship differently, wouldn't having more search engines (even censored ones) slowly erode the effectiveness of censorship by letting different things leak through?
Food for thought. This isn't an easy issue, and it isn't black-and
Re: (Score:2)
No, because Google is evil and everything they do is evil and no other opinion or thought is allowed.
"Board Benefits" (Score:1)
We like money.
And nothing else.
Don't Be Evil, Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the matter with Page and Brin? Do they worship Mammon that devotedly? Don't they care that Google (Alphabet) is rapidly becoming one of the most hated companies ever? Don't they care about reaching the levels of despicability of Microsoft and Apple?
What's your new motto - Be as Obnoxious as Possible?
Re:Don't Be Evil, Google? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What can you realistically do with $20B that you can't do with $10B?
Lord it over someone with $15 billion.
Re: (Score:2)
That one's already taken.
Big Brass Balls (Score:1)
Here is the money quote:
In individuals this behavior is known as pathological lying.
Yeah, Like Voter Manipulation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're confusing Google with Imperial Japan.
Broad Benefits to (Score:2)
alphabets bottom line. For the people behind this search engine, not so much.
I guess the next step is proving "alternative revisionist history" where legitimate search requests are redirected to "the party line" search responses. No tank guy, no Chinese purge results, no Free Tibet, no criticism of any government official.
And of course the natural response of more donations of fertilizer and organs, and more expensive use of bullets in response to "Bad Queries" categorized and reported...
Wow, Google, just Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
Rationalizing like the damned (that they are)
Just. Wow, Google. You're up there in the Big Leagues now, Google, right alongside R.J. Reynolds, Monsanto, and Mylan.
You have to admit, it's an impressive amount of internal mental hacking necessary to compartmentalize your own ethics, morals, and values, so you can reap as much profit as possible, regardless of the consequences to everyone else. I can't imagine being able to do that. I will admit that I've thought more than once that the only thing standing between me and being wealthy, is this pesky 'conscience' I've got. Well done, Google, well done.
</extreme_sarcasm>
(included for the clueless who don't understand)
He says it because he thinks he can (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not California, it's corporations. Have you ever seen/heard testimony from Wall Street bankers?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that any different from that old joke about politicians?
Q. How do you when a politician is lying?
A. When their lips are moving?
--
Main St. built America
Wall St. robbed it.
Re: (Score:1)
Q is gonna get 'em (Score:2)
qmap.pub --it's all in there, check it out...
A lack of information is now good? (Score:2)
Removing words, banning search terms and reporting users to Communists is not the way to grow a brand.
New Motto: (Score:3)
Not all that bad (Score:1)
At the end of the day, the Chinese government will either pay Google to develop it or Alibaba or Tencent to develop it. This way, Google has a foot in the door.
I don't see it as compromising values at all. Google cannot participate in the issues in China in any way if they have no presence. Some presence brings them into the game, even if the rules are different.
In other words (Score:2)
Google's new motto (Score:3)
Hate speech... (Score:2)
I can't wait for everything, everywhere to be censored as hate speech. Ahhh the silence...
Unclear? (Score:3)
It's true. Google has very little experience with releasing search engines. We should totally believe him.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true. Google has very little experience with releasing search engines. We should totally believe him.
He's obviously not talking about technical challenges.
"Broad Benefits" (Score:2)
China provides the best ... (Score:1)
... testbed for rolling out to the rest of the world after. NSA officials are foaming already over their future toys.
Suggest this be read first . . . . (Score:2)
https://www.nchrd.org/2018/07/... [nchrd.org]
https://www.nchrd.org/2018/07/... [nchrd.org]
https://www.scmp.com/video/chi... [scmp.com]
https://www.rfa.org/english/ne... [rfa.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018... [foreignpolicy.com]
https://www.hrichina.org/en/pr... [hrichina.org]
https://qz.com/1129837/human-r... [qz.com]
https://chinachange.org/2017/1... [chinachange.org]
https://www.sciencealert.com/c... [sciencealert.com]
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]