Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Censorship Businesses Google The Internet Your Rights Online

Google Aids Indian Goverment Censorship 245

An anonymous reader writes "Google's Orkut has made a deal to provide IP addresses of posters of content deemed objectionable by Bombay police. They object, among others, to posts against certain Indian personalities, young women admiring Indian mobsters, and, amazingly, "anti-Indian words" (!)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Aids Indian Goverment Censorship

Comments Filter:
  • by kaufmanmoore ( 930593 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:02PM (#18326441)
    ....Whats that knocking at my door?
    • by kraemate ( 1065878 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @11:27PM (#18327213)
      Thats the local beef-vendor.
      It would have been the police had you started a community on the lines of "OMG! PaKiStan is teh roxxorz.. iNdIa is komplete sucks"
      • by AEton ( 654737 )
        I assumed you were joking. Then I read the comments on one of the linked articles:

        its good to know that finally some legal action is taking place somewhere.
        ORKUT is doing real damage to 3 major areas when it comes to India&Pakistan regios specifically...

        1. Inter-National relations between india and Pakistan
        2. Inter-Relegion relations between different relegions (Especially Hindu-Muslim)
        3. Inter-Sect relations between different sects of same relegion or region( Islam and certain local territories of Indo

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by renegadesx ( 977007 )
      You have been hereby charged with eating beef, I sentance you to become a snail in your next lifetime --Indian Judge
  • "Don't be evil"?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fabs64 ( 657132 ) <beaufabry+slashdot,org&gmail,com> on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:03PM (#18326451)
    I'm usually in the "whatever, they have to do business" crowd with google, but this isn't in any grey area, it's downright black.
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by dreamchaser ( 49529 )
      I'd be ok with it, or at least *more* ok with it, if they didn't claim to be 'good'. They stopped being anything close to that the day they went public.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by antonyb ( 913324 )
        Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?

        I dunno. Too early to be thinking about this stuff.


        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by 241comp ( 535228 )
          Well, our country was founded on the belief that those are natural (or unalienable) rights (that is, rights that exist in and of themselves, outside of government). They were explicitly stated so that there would be no confusion because they were among the most import of such natural rights. This does not prove that "The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad'" is a universal truth, but our country was founded on the belief that it is a universal truth... that must count for somethi
        • Unless the Google founders are Unamerican then they believe censorship is bad.
        • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @03:41AM (#18328885) Journal
          Who sets the rules, then? Did Google do a referendum or even a poll and determine that, indeed, the vast majority of Indians vote for "we want to be censored, thank you very much"?

          Now I'll admit that I have no experience with India or Indians, but I do have some first hand experience with the USSR (back when it was called that way) and eastern europe, and have co-workers from all over that area. Plus some from various arab countries. And I can tell you that so far I've yet to see major differences. People are people everywhere. Yeah, there are cultural and education differences all right, and even culture clashes when you put people from different cultures together, but at the end of the day most people want the same things.

          Even the exceptions are, strangely enough, not much different from our or your exceptions. E.g., if you want to point out some of the religious fundamentalist nutcases from some area as somehow representative, I can point you to religious fundamentalist nutcases in the west (e.g., southern USA) which are strangely similar. For every Khoran-thumping "we should bomb America/Israel/whatever for Allah" nutcase, there'll be a Bible-thumping "we should nuke the Middle East for Jesus" nutcase on the other side.

          Even if you want to point out some resistance to new ideas in some areas, I can point out at people ranting about the "good old days" and rejecting the new in the West too. There is the same resistance to change everywhere, some just got a head start in accepting it. But if you let them have what they want, overall all societies tend towards the same thing. E.g., for all the Party's moaning about western decadence, China tended to adopt Western consumerism and other supposed bad habits very very quickly when it had a half a choice.

          Etc. As I was saying, I've yet to see any evidence that people are fundamentally different anywhere.

          And more importantly, to get back to Freedom Of Speech, I've yet to see any evidence that people from any area actually cheer at the idea of having the police watching over their shoulder.

          Sure, there'll be plenty who want to tell _you_ what you can and can't say. (Same as in the west.) But they'll tend to not appreciate when someone tells _them_ what they can and can't say.

          And sure, group-think exists everywhere. Doubly so if you can bully them into an "if I say I disaggree, the others will think I'm a pervert/criminal/whatever and ostracize me" state of mind. You have them chest-thump and proclaim any idiocy just to seem like popular/responsible/whatever members of the community. (Again, in the west too.) But again, move them out of that environment, and they'll tend to snap out of it in no time.

          In fact, the funny thing is, a lot (maybe most) cultural clashes with immigrants tend to be centered around their snapping out of it too fast and too far. People coming from areas where they have to watch out what they say or do all the time, often seem to turn to a sort of a "woohoo, here I can say and do _everything_ I want to" state of mind, and proceed to appear thoroughly impolite and disruptive to the locals. If you will, they end up appreciating the whole freedom ideas a bit too much, and not knowing where to stop exercising them.

          So based on those impressions I'll go and say that the freedoms probably _are_ universal truths that all humans can appreciate.
        • I think we can take even another step back here. Google isn't really censoring content, they're reporting IPs of people accussed of committing really questionable crimes (likely insulting the Prime Minister or something equally goofy). These people may be going to prison or getting their hands chopped off over this.

          That sounds more like aiding and abeting.
        • Honestly not wanting to troll on this, but is it not possible that the definition of 'good' depends on the locale they are operating in? The idea that Freedom of Speech is 'good' and Censorship is 'bad' is not necessarily a universal truth?

          I agree about a lack of universal ethics and all that, but if you take it too far you'll be left with "When in Nazi Germany, do as the Nazis do."

          Goooooooo Godwin!
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by deevnil ( 966765 )
        Just because this is slashdot Google gets a bunch of grief. I'll bet if it was Microsoft out doing evil then..... oh.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TodMinuit ( 1026042 )
      I'm usually in the "whatever, they have to do business" crowd with google, but this isn't in any grey area, it's downright black.

      How so? You want to play in India, you play by their rules. You can argue that India is doing the black, but Google is just playing by the rules.
      • by fabs64 ( 657132 )
        Last I checked the Nuremberg defence was invalid.
        • by Nutria ( 679911 )
          Last I checked the Nuremberg defence was invalid.

          This article gives no indication that Orkut is collaborating with Bad People.

          If you want to do business in the US, you follow American laws. If you want to do business in Mexico, you follow Mexican laws. If you want to do business in China, you follow Chinese laws. If you want to do business in Russia, you pay lots of bribes.

          What's the problem?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Tsagadai ( 922574 )
        Playing by the rules is supporting them. If google is helping crazy regimes stay in power that is a very bad thing. Just like in war you have a choice whether to pull the trigger. You may be killed (metaphorically or physically) for your decision but you can't sit on the fence it's yes or no.
        • If google is helping crazy regimes stay in power that is a very bad thing.

          Hang on - India a crazy regime? You can't be serious. India is a democracy - just as democratic as the West, actually. There is no 'crazy regime staying in power' in India, by any stretch of the imagination.

          Sure, this specific censorship issue sounds a bit odd to some (including me), but no more odd than things happening in, say France and the UK, just to mention very recent Slashdot stories.

          • by DrSkwid ( 118965 )
            And what is this "democracy" of which you speak ?

            Have you been to India ? It's a crazy place
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
        you want to play in India, you play by their rules. You can argue that India is doing the black, but Google is just playing by the rules.

        What do you mean by "rules"? If you RTFA, it seems Google is coperating above and beyond the extent required by law. The police are congratulating them for not making them do any paperwork before handing over the IPs and other identifying details of anyone who posts anything deemed "offensive". No doubt Googel is coverd by its terms of sevice and such. But that's not the

        • by Nutria ( 679911 )
          it seems Google is coperating above and beyond the extent required by law. The police are congratulating them for not making them do any paperwork before handing over the IPs and other identifying details of anyone who posts anything deemed "offensive".

          Or... Orkut might be thinking: "Indian magistrates rubber-stamp these kinds of police requests anyway, so lets just set up an electronic request process and make our lives easier."

      • by yali ( 209015 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @01:00AM (#18328055)

        You want to play in India, you play by their rules.

        If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.

        • Shouldn't play? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rumith ( 983060 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @03:14AM (#18328783)
          So, should they stop their UK operations as well, since UK is a 'surveillance society'? Should they close their French and German departments, because these countries censor pro-Nazi and revisionist websites, among other things? Should they abandon Russia because Putin is building his 'vertical of power' with sometimes questionable methods? Should they say goodbye to the United States as well because the US is the world's largest aggressor, and has killed millions of foreign civilians in the past 50 years? FACE IT. All governments are evil. That's not good, and that's not bad: it's a fact of life. A government cannot behave like a Barbie-playing girl. Governments are there because they have might, and as soon as they lose their might, they are displaced by a revolt or an invasion.
          • "So, should they stop their UK operations as well, since UK is a 'surveillance society'?"

            Yes, especially if they are forced to do part of the surevilling. And why the heck not? When faced with a choice like this, with moral implications, a person can either decline or participate in the evildoing. Most people would refuse to participate in evil.

            Most corporations will, of course, go ahead and do whatever brings them profit. Anyone who believes this is fine and dandy would apparently sell their own mother dow
        • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
          If your motto is "don't be evil" and India's rules require you to be evil, then you shouldn't want to play in India. Otherwise you're an evil hypocrite.

          I'm writing an open letter to Google to suggest they change their slogan to "do no evil. wink, wink", so that worried Slashdotters worldwide may rest that the slogan reflects proper corporate behavior.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by homer_s ( 799572 )
      Just curious - would the US govt be interested in message boards where ppl are discussing how to bomb a building?

      Then why shouldn't the India govt be interested in boards where people are planning/ inciting the next riots []

      . Of course, having observed how the riots always occur at convenient times for the local politicos, I don't believe for one minute that this has anything to do with public safety. But I do question the holier than thou attitude adopted by many Americans over free speech when their mi
      • by fabs64 ( 657132 )
        Not an American, I'm Australian and I fully support our racial/religious vilification laws, as well as the laws against inciting crime.
        However I do not support our sedition laws and for good reason.

        You're right that if you change the article to be more benign your point makes sense though, however the actual example in tfa was

        Mohite talks of a citizen who had complained to the police in November regarding a photograph of her posted on Orkut, along with derogatory text.

        Hardly encouraging a riot.

        Saying I'm adopting a holier-than-thou attitude seems a little far-fetched as well, seeing as it was Google I was criticising, not the Indian govt.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by homer_s ( 799572 )
          The last line was not directed at your post specifically, but at the many other posts comparing India to China.

          But I'd go further than you and say any censorship is bad.
          Take you 'religious vilification laws' for example - how do you define a religion? Now you have got the govt involved in defining the word religion. Some idiot will come up with a new religion that worships the Kiwi bird (I can start such a religion in India within 10min) - now would everyone stop insulting Kiwis?

          And what constitut
          • by fabs64 ( 657132 )
            It's a Governments job to define things such as that, laws.

            Kiwi's getting anywhere near the WC... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
          • You can start a religion that worships the Kiwi bird, but you have to gain a significant following before you can get support against insulting the Kiwi bird. Religion is all about following. If India winds up with enough Scientologists tomorrow then the environment will dictate that public criticism of Xenu the space warrior will be absolut verboten.

            You forget that Indians are among the most deeply religious people in the world (more so than the Middle-East even:Indian Muslims especially Sufis and Chistis
            • by DrSkwid ( 118965 )
              The Indians I know in India are nothing like deeply religious.

              me : "I thought you Hindus were vegetarian"
              Lalit : "I'm only Hindu on a Tuesday, that's temple day"

              Though, to be fair, there's no real thing as one true Hindu way, anyone can preach pretty much what they like. It's the most pluralist religion I've come across.

              India is a crazy place, police corruption at street level is a way of life, along with filth and shoddy manufacturing.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by XchristX ( 839963 )
                You should have stayed in India longer and travelled more. You'd see a wider cross section of the population that's quite religious.

                Millions of Hindus goto Varanasi for pilgrimage every year.
                Millions of Indian Muslims do Hajj at least once in their lifetimes.
                Millions of Indian Christians goto the tomb of the Apostle Thomas in Chennai for pilgrimage.

                Also, you should have seen Kerala, "God's own country". They have the cleanest cities in South Asia, as does Tamil Nadu and most places down South.

                Generalizing a
    • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
      I'm okay with censorship in a democracy. People got what they voted for. After all, for a non american, libel and copyright laws could be seen as censorship (and Google also helps to enforce these)
    • Google is a company and not a non-for-profit-feed-the-starving-children organisation. Let's get that out of the way first...

      Google's sole allegience is to their investors, period. What the investors want? Surprise! - Money! Google at any moment will evaluate the function called f$$$="how much money are we making?" and try to maximize it. They are not there to spread good, love, freedom and democracy. They are maximizing f$$$. When they stop doing it they will stop existing as a company.

      But I can hear tho

      • by WNight ( 23683 )
        What maximizes shareholder value? Quick investments or actions that have an immediate payoff might not still not be profitable in the long-term. Usually even, the best long-term strategy isn't the best short-term strategy.

        Was Google's business policy "Avoid 98% of evil, unless it's really expedient", or "Don't be evil". These are both strategies, but I don't think they're equivalent. I think the wishy-washy one is likely to trade immediate success like access to more markets (India, Pakistan, China, Turkey.
        • I think the wishy-washy one is likely to trade immediate success like access to more markets (India, Pakistan, China, Turkey...) than their competitors for long-term success such as customer loyalty.

          Serghey Brin a while ago mentioned that making deals with shady governments such as China for ex. was a bad mistake, in retrospect. I think what he really said was that "I wish we didn't make any moral claims concerning our business practices so we wouldn't have measure up to them when we cut corners."

          I stil

    • Every time we see an article like this, this issue is brought up. Now, get me wrong, it does disappoint me to see actions like this taken by Google, but as far as I can see, they *ARE* actually trying their best to follow their code, even though it may not seem so at first glance.

      If you take a look at Google's ten commandments [], you'll notice two things that most Slashdotters seem to miss. First, for "You can make money without doing evil," never does it mention a goal of being morally white. What is doe
      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )
        By this logic every evil act imaginable becomes acceptable. There is absolutely no excuse for accepting what you as an individual consider immoral just because it has the veil of a corporation in front of it.

        You argument stinks of racism at it's worst ie. you as an American feel you are entitled to freedom of speech but that foreigners are not and nor will you do anything in word or deed to help them get what you take for granted.

        Add to that, don't you feel sorry for 'cowboy' neal and his impending 'ind

  • well (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mastershake_phd ( 1050150 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:05PM (#18326463) Homepage
    Well if Google doesnt bow to the Indian government they will lose money. The "dont be evil" mantra would seem to contradict this move.
    • Re:well (Score:5, Interesting)

      by giminy ( 94188 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:51PM (#18326841) Homepage Journal
      Well if Google doesnt bow to the Indian government they will lose money. The "dont be evil" mantra would seem to contradict this move.

      Quite right. Which means, by extension, "don't be evil" and "IPO" are a bit at odds. Pulling out of India over this means lost shareholder revenue. Lost shareholder revenue means lawsuits. Lawsuits mean suffering...

      So yeah, I would say "don't be evil" died a while ago.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:08PM (#18326489)
    It's *Mumbai*, you anti-Indian clod!

    Non-authoritative answer:
  • Mumbai (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It hasn't been named Bombay in years.

    Then again, that's not how you spell "Government" either.

    Also - read the end of the not-so-fine article. Yes, undoubtedly there's evil at play. On the other hand, if something illegal was done (the police were involved, one can only sadly assume the 'posting of picture with derogatory comments' was of an illegal nature over there), there shouldn't be any reason for Orkut protecting the suspect perp. Though filing a subpoena for the information (thus not bypassing the j
  • by biocute ( 936687 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:10PM (#18326509) Homepage
    Great news. The sooner Google acts like a real corporation the better.

    It's time to stop this "Don't be evil" BS and get on with its obligation to its shareholders.

    Having said that, if DBE actually does bring in more profit, or BE brings down profit, Google is then expected to DBE.

    In short, act like a business and protect the bottom line, not teh "line".
    • Re:Business Sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brian Gordon ( 987471 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:54PM (#18326879)
      "Business" is no excuse for immorality.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by espergreen ( 849246 )
        Neither is Government.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by justinlee37 ( 993373 )
        Is it really immoral to cooperate with the police in a criminal investigation?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Mr2001 ( 90979 )
          It certainly can be, if the investigation itself is immoral. Surely you've heard of the fallacious "Nuremberg defense"?
      • "Business" is no excuse for immorality.

        Businesses don't have morality, they have ethics.
        Business ethics are a different beast than personal morals.

        Example - Company X is being fined every day for their dumping of [bad stuff] into the local waterway. Changing their business practice would be more expensive than paying the fines.
        Q: Is this immoral?
        A: Maybe.

        Q: Is this unethical?
        A: No.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Businesses don't have morality, they have ethics.
          No offense, but ethics is "a system of moral principles" [] (aka, a set of rules governing what proper conduct is). Ethical and moral are synonyms. It could just as easily long ago have been called business morals instead of business ethics.
        • by BitHive ( 578094 )
          Actually, that's both immoral and unethical, but thanks for playing. If someone chooses to repeatedly break a law, the fact that they represent a business doesn't mean they're not culpable, nor does paying a fine absolve you of your moral transgression.
      • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        "Business" is no excuse for immorality.

        Nothing is, so what's your point? We're not hardwired into being moral, mostly liability makes us be. Thus, companies were born, limited liability, no personal responsibility. Best of all worlds.
        • Not best for the people living off the river that hypothetical corp is dumping waste into, no?

          The "no liability" concept is the root of the corporate corruption. Think of a person who feels no guilt and fears no consequences of their actions: there's your serial killer, child abuser, tyrant ruler.

          Freedom without liability is why Merck could market a drug they knew was going to kill people. Best of WHAT both worlds?
  • That's nothing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:13PM (#18326535)
    Thats nothing. Read below the comments on the article, where police blame Orkut for helping organize a party where drugs were used.

    Seriously. Orkut used to organize party = Drugs used at party = Orkut bad? I don't think so.

    I thought India was atleast a pretend democracy?
    • Re:That's nothing! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @11:14PM (#18327071) Journal
      "I thought India was atleast a pretend democracy?"

      India happens to be the world's largest democracy, their voting system is simpler and more secure than what can be found in recent US elections.
    • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
      I thought India was at least a pretend democracy?

      I was wondering what will happen to you, for ex., if you were spreading "hatred" towards USA, in the same way this happened with India.

      Don't be surprised if you wake up automatically promoted to a terrorist by the state, one nice morning.
  • Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:14PM (#18326543)
    Does Google leadership believe that "Do no evil" "Obey all laws"?

    Or have they simply abandoned "Do no evil" in favor of, "Do not much evil, and even then only do it if you want to gain a foothold in countries with rapidly growing economies."?
  • Not another China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by koreth ( 409849 ) * on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:17PM (#18326565)
    I've defended Google's China policy, but it seems like they're just flat-out in the wrong on this one (assuming, that is, that we're getting the whole story here.) I am having a very hard time seeing what greater good is served here. In China they are withholding information their users want. Not great but they are at least servicing the users' requests, just not as fully as one would prefer. Here they are giving out information their users presumably expected to remain private, in direct opposition to their users' intentions. Bad Google.
    • by jfengel ( 409917 )
      assuming, that is, that we're getting the whole story here.

      That sounds like a big assumption to me. I don't know the full details, but TFA is wide-eyed and heavily slanted against the groups in question. Slashdot spins it as a censorship and Google story, but the article is about how they can "finally" get rid of that "objectionable" material.

      It also misspells "YouTube", which is not a particularly difficult word to spell and causes me to doubt the research and editing of the article.
  • What part of "Do No Evil" is difficult to understand?

    Maybe you should hire a couple linguists to complement your thousands of engineers.
  • What about Sergei's recent public hand wringing that Google's deal with the Chinese Communist Party was a mistake? 39238 []

    Shows how disingenuous that hand wringing was.

    On the bright side, at least Google aren't just cutting deals with totalitarian governments. They're now making political censorship deals with democratically-elected governments too! A Googlestroika, if you will.
  • Expectations (Score:3, Informative)

    by towsonu2003 ( 928663 ) on Monday March 12, 2007 @10:58PM (#18326905)
    Expect a similar move from the Turkish government [] soon.
  • Can anybody find sources other than the Indian Express reporting on this? If the article is accurate, my overall impression of Google will be substantially decreased, but I'd like to make sure the information is solid. Right now the only sources I can find are the Indian Express or other sources re-reporting it.
  • "Don't be evil... the eyes of our customers, especially government customers"

    Kinda reminds me of George Orwell's Animal Farm, where the revolutionary sheep are initially chanting "four legs good, two legs bad", but after the corruption has set in, and the head animals are enjoying human comforts, the chant changes to "four legs good, two legs better".

  • by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <> on Monday March 12, 2007 @11:30PM (#18327241) Homepage Journal

    List of nifty little phrases that have bitten their speakers in the ass:

    • They will never bomb Berlin
    • Read my lips, no new taxes
    • I did not have sex with that woman
    • Mission accomplished
    • Don't be evil
  • Iran (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @12:49AM (#18327961)
    So far Google has caved when secular governments have gone after people for civil disobedience.

    I wonder what they'd do in an officially Muslim like Iran if someone posted a blog saying, "I was a Muslim but I converted to Christianity", and the government demanded that Google turn over that person's identifying information?

    If Google refused, then they're giving up on the broad claim that their presence a blessing to a country regardless of what censorship / person-finding they assist with. If they went along with it, then they show the true vacuousness of their "moral" reasoning.

    I don't want such a test case to arise, but I'd be (morbidly) curious to see how it plays out.
  • by Jimithing DMB ( 29796 ) <> on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @01:18AM (#18328167) Homepage

    After reviewing the articles I've come to the conclusion that while I don't condone investigating people for hate-speech against India that I see no problem with investigating the source of a mob boss fan club. Even applying the U.S. constitution (which of course India is not held to) I would see no problem with this. The police can and should investigate something like this. If it turns out it's someone not connected to the criminal then that's fine. But if it turns out that it's part of a conspiracy to drum up public support and poison the jury pool then that is an entirely different matter. Who's to say that this anonymously submitted article is not part of that conspiracy?

    I believe Google did the right thing by turning over records to the police. Anonymity is not sacrosanct. Freedom to say what you want is, and if that is not allowed in India then that should be changed. However, impeding a criminal investigation is not a good way to bring about change.

    I wish I could point out a specific attribution but it's not a new concept that one must work within ones societal rules to change society for the better. I believe it is mentioned at least a few times in the new testament and most likely in other religious and philosophical texts as well.

    • It seems to me that you all think that the Indian police are incompetent and evil. The way it's *supposed* to be is: Police = good guys. So helping police = good move. But we've all become cynical (probably with reason), and now helping police/governments = evil move. The real question is whether Google says in "Terms and Conditions" whether they are allowed to do it, and if they are, well, you "signed" it. This whole thing depends on what Google are willing to give, and what the Indian police are doi
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) *

        Same as when you use Google to search for how to make a bomb... You're the evil one not them.

        It is not evil to search for how to make a bomb. It is not even evil to make a bomb, or to set off a bomb. What's evil is to set off a bomb where it will hurt people or their property.

        Assuming you do it with appropriate precautions in appropriate places and times and with appropriate permissions (per local laws), making big booms is good, clean fun.

      • It seems to me that you all think that the Indian police are incompetent and evil.

        Woah there, don't go attributing that to me. I said almost exactly the opposite. You are exactly correct that the police should be the good guys and that helping them should be good. I am myself somewhat cynical but I am definitely not in the "G00gl3 is teh 3v1l!!!" camp on this one.

  • Their new mantra? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GodInHell ( 258915 ) * on Tuesday March 13, 2007 @01:24AM (#18328215) Homepage
    Don't be evil (to white people living in western nations.)

  • It's Hate Speech (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mike70 ( 987961 )
    The groups with banners like 'I hate India' are clearly enganged in hate speech. Tracking them down and stopping them is not cencorship, but is rather required of any responsible government. It is really disappointing to see a portion of usually enlightened slashdot crown defending hate speech or being flippant about it.
  • Google = Microsoft 2.0?

    Sadly in today's corporate world it is hard when companies are encouraged to abandon ethics in the wake of profits.

    Maybe Google can do like Halliburton, and when we get pissed enough at them, they commit treason and fraud or they get involved in anti-trust issues, they can just move to India.

    For the MS crowd, this is good news, it proves even the so called good companies can be evil.

    I can remember when Sun was a 'good' company, and Oracle was a 'good' company, and AOL was a 'good' com
  • A left-wing socialist government creates a bunch of speech codes, in order to "promote social justice" and "stop hate" and a bunch of other vague progressive sounding goals, not dissimilar to laws that are in effect in Western Europe, Canada, etc.

    An American company then obeys those laws, as they are required to do by the laws in those countries as well as the laws in the United States (which require U.S. companies obey the laws in the countries they do business).

    So then leftists in America blame the "evil

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990