Microsoft, Google Agree to NGO Code of Conduct 59
Aditi.Tuteja writes "Technology companies have come under fire for providing equipment or software that permits governments to censor information or monitor the online or offline activities of their citizens. For example, last year, Google's approach to the China market was criticized over its creation of a censored, local version of its search engine. Microsoft, Google, and two other technology companies will develop a code of conduct with a coalition of nongovernmental organizations (NGO) to promote freedom of expression and privacy rights, they announced Friday. The two companies along with Yahoo, and Vodafone Group said the new guidelines are the result of talks with Business for Social Responsibility (BSR) and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School."
Wow! (Score:3, Funny)
Where's the catch???
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
Corporate Nation (Score:1)
PR stunt (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PR stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Net result: More "Don't Be Evil" signs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are right that generally people don't see their actions as being evil.
Re:PR stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you miss the point. Google can afford to say no to China's censorship if all of the major information gateways, i.e., its competitors (MSN, Yahoo, etc), agree to say no under the same set of rules.
As they are only now developing this, and have not past-tense developed it, evaluating Google's current stance toward China is not yet a valid test.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you miss the point. Google can afford to say no to China's censorship if all of the major information gateways, i.e., its competitors (MSN, Yahoo, etc), agree to say no under the same set of rules.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If it can afford to do it if its competitors pulled out, why couldn't it afford to do it if they don't? I thought Google was making a profit before it went into China, anyway.
If anything, if the others agree to pull out, Google would stand to make more profit if it stayed, because there would be less competition.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling out on it's own with it's direct competitors staying would lose them considerable market share, making their competitors stronger.
So what if their competitors were stronger? That doesn't mean Google "couldn't afford it." On the contrary, going in with competition would have made them less money. So what's the big deal? Google also would not have lost marketshare by not going into China - they just would not have gained marketshare in China. It's not like marketshare in China was something they had before going in - so what would they actually lose?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What about importance in a large, rapidly growing market?
What about it? If you can't be a profitable company without resorting to unethical activities, you shouldn't be in business. I suppose Google should get into selling drugs to schoolchildren, because if they don't, their competitors will.
They wouldn't lose today's market share, but tomorrow's. There share will shrink if they don't develop new, especially foreign markets.
But markertshare is not important in itself. Profits are why a company exists, not marketshare. They can easily be profitable without going into China. Furthermore, Google claim their motive is also to "not be evil" - so profits are not the sole consideration.
Re: (Score:1)
principle fundamentally flawed.. (Score:5, Interesting)
But the principle you explained is fundamentally flawed. (Don't worry, I know you didn't think of this principle, and I'm not criticizing you.. I simply want to point out some problems with it)
It is akin to saying, "hey, drugs are bad, so let's all make a rule saying no one will sell drugs anymore. In fact, to deter people, let's make another rule saying you go to jail if you do!"
The point is, it's a matter of supply and demand. If google, msn, yahoo all agree to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth to chinese citizens.. and to refuse to turn in chinese bloggers (etc).. i suspect they will find themselves firewalled. And then one of the lower guys on the totem pole will climb to the top in china. Either an engine with a lower market share, such as Ask/AltaVista/etc will step up, or perhaps google.cn will just magically DNS resolve to a state-run search engine.
I think MSFT/GOOG/Y! are doing the right thing by agreeing to resolve to not do BadThings[tm], but this is only a step, and won't solve the problem that China doesn't want its people to read/see/say certain things. Maybe faced with the efforts involved in bypassing MSFT/GOOG/Y!, this might at least soften China's resistance somewhat (information wants to be free, and they will have to face and accept this at some point), but I don't see the proverbial dam busting anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe. For the record AltaVista *is* Yahoo.
I love how we think in such western terms. In terms of search engines, the largest market share is *already* a Chinese company. With auctions, it's also a Chinese company (although one that Yahoo now owns a non-controlling
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more potent force will probably be the Chinese public. It's not like they can get on the internet and not KNOW when their government is blocking microsoft, google, and yahoo. And they will see plainly that people elsewhere are fond of these
Moving toward the future (Score:1)
In the future when dealing with oppressive governments they can now say,
"WHOA! We are a participant in this set of rules, which we can not break. If you want Google, you have to change, not us."
Once these set of rules and agreements are out, I suspect a lot of companies will be eager to sign on, thus giving them an safety ring.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is bad for censoring the internet in China, but when they try to create an agreement to stop censoring the internet in China, you think its just a PR stunt. If Google pulls out of China, you say that there will be others who just fill
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I'd love this to be true, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's several pages of waffle by Yahoo's Media Relations department: http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/ReleaseD
So far as I can tell, it says absolutely nothing.
The Hong Kong Journalists association is much more to the point: http://www.fcchk.org/media/FCCToYahoo2.htm [fcchk.org]
I find it a little hard to believe Yahoo is going to do an about face. Can you imagine Yahoo executives at their next liason with the Chinese Government telling them "Ok, Commies, the rules have just changed. From now on, we're going to insist things are done right around here!" It's a nice thought, but it just isn't going to happen. Walk away from money? Never! (Unless they think they've lost the market to locals anyway?)
If those companies came out together publicly and criticized the Chinese Government, we might see something. But short of that I'm guessing it's just to make us feel better. "Oh Google and Yahoo? That's old hat; They have an NGO Code of Conduct now."
Microsoft SHAREHOLDERS voted on this issue (Score:1, Informative)
The recent MSFT shareholder voting had the question of whether Microsoft should be prevented or not selling their technology to regiemes with history of human rights volations, the board recommendation was to NOT RESTRICT the selling of their (Microsoft's) technology to China etc.
I hope those with the right to vote on these corporate issues did so.
I voted the entire of MSFT out btw, wont happen but I voted that way anyway
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Owning a company stock does not give you the potential to make money, it also gives you the potential to shape the company after all you OWN a part of it
That was a close call. (Score:1, Interesting)
So Microsoft shareholders were asked to vote on whether the company should withhold its technology from the Bush administration?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the wazoo is where you would usually put DRM.
the code... (Score:5, Interesting)
1) make people aware that their government is doing this to them, maybe making people push for more openess
2) if the government ever does back down and open up it should make the transition a lot easier
People ultimately want to know what they are having withheld from them... Just not telling them and not letting them know you're censoring is the worst of all worlds, and that is what they would get from the state engines that would replace an open google
What about Google and Brazil? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the worst isn't the content alone, but the way those companies cooperate with authoritarian regimes in identifying people.
In Brazil, Google has fully cooperated with the government for the most absurd reasons. One recent example: they handed over IP addresses of people who participated in an Orkut community called "Eu sei dirigir bêbado" ("I know how to drive drunk"). The reason was that this was, allegedly, "ap
Re: (Score:2)
Curious. So, you would be against say myspace.com providing information to the authorities when someone posts about their crimes(e.g. randomly shooting people with a paint-ball gun from a moving car)
If you com
Re: (Score:2)
Define "crime". If you murder someone and post the video online, then I believe it's OK for Google to provide information to authorities, of course.
But in the case I mentioned I would expect Google to do some screening on what is exactly defined as a "crime". If the law says it's a felony for you to say "I believe marijuana should be l
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is part of rub; what is a crime? Only the law makers & courts of that country can define what is illegal.
Oh please (Score:2)
Wolves, meet henhouse. Henhouse, wolves. (Score:2)
And the ... (Score:2)
bugger !
Pretty Utopian (Score:1)
China will ban them from doing business there, and the Chinese people will just wake up and find google not available, and after 6 months of unavailability, they will forget about the whole Google thing. Some Chinese will remember, in their old age, the times when they could go too google, but how they had to switch to Baidu, and how it went on to become the largest search engine in the world.
The Chinese do not appreciate people or enti
That's great. But... (Score:2)
Just moving more of the motions which make the world turn 'round under the table.
The real meaning is SUBVERSION (Score:1)
How can this end well? (Score:1)
"...to promote freedom of expression and privacy rights...", all the while cramming DRM down our throats.