China Says Google Pledged To Obey Censorship Demands 177
bonhomme_de_neige writes "China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site, an official said. Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference."
Update: 07/21 21:56 GMT by S : Changed headline to reflect that this is mainly just China trying to paint a better picture of the outcome. In a comment on the linked article, a Google representative said, "This piece suggests that Google has 'bowed' to censorship. That is not correct. We have been very clear about our committment [sic] to not censor our products for users in China. The products we have kept on Google.cn (Music, Translate, Product Search) do not require any censorship by Google. Other products, like web search, we are offering from Google.com.hk, and without censorship." If you go to google.cn, you can see the prominent link to the Hong Kong version of the site.
Easier to just say... (Score:1, Insightful)
that Google has milked all the positive PR out of standing up to China (covered by major news networks) and is prepared for the small amount of negative PR by selling out (Slashdot).
RTFA and it's comments (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Major news outlets have some pretty specific standards, unlike ./ which will basically post any BS summary even if it has sh*t to do with The Fine Article. Major news outlets (AP) report only information that is passed to them through specific channels which are vetted and carefully positioned to avoid public censure. Although this results in a lot of mind-control and bias, and the news is by no means 'true', it is much, much more reliable as a 'one stop' news source than Slashdot (let's face it, people don
Re: (Score:2)
No, Fox "News" (in quotes because they claim that they themselves are not news) has pretty specific standards, they are just different standards than the ones you'd like, or that AP uses.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree; they basically made it idiot-proof.
Link: http://www.google.cn/ [google.cn]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, well, maybe Google will have better luck fighting the neo-Nazi and hate speech censorship filters in Germany... ;-P
Tiananmen Square (Score:5, Insightful)
The photo of the student confronting tanks isn't a national security risk.
So they won't have to filter that.
Re:Tiananmen Square (Score:5, Informative)
Example: the story of a mom (ironically named Freeman) who was arrested, convicted and lost her kids in the interest of national security [latimes.com]. She surely must have been a terrorist... right???
The only thing different about China is the blatant censorship, most western nations try to be more subtle with their censoring... but it still happens (and guess which two words are always the reason).
Re:Tiananmen Square (Score:5, Insightful)
A flight attendant confronted Freeman [about her fighting children], who then responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor. The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction [three months jailtime] for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
That's reminiscent of what happened to Professor Gates. He gets angry about being mistreated, and suddenly he finds himself in jail.
Apparently we no longer have free speech in the United Soviets of America. An airline should have power to remove unruly passengers, but never to arrest them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Of course you can.
For starters, "your nation" is an ambiguous term. If I'm a terrorist from Belgium* living as a permanent resident or even citizen of the US, what is "[my] country?" What if I am living there with the express intent of harming the country, much as the 9/11 terrorists were?
Even if I'm purely from the US, born and raised, that's not to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, lot's of things are claimed in the interest of "national security"... it's the most abused term since you can't possibly be against security of your nation (and yourself).
I'm a masochistic anarchist, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The photo of the student confronting tanks isn't a national security risk.
So they won't have to filter that.
Are you mad? Then everyone will know their tanks aren't student-proof! It'll be the end of China!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is a national security risk in China.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apparently the part where the phrase is being used as a euphemism for oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be oppression (with the obvious pointer to "terrorist" versus "freedom fighter" issues that can apply to the term), but if it is done to prevent a riot or public uprising then it would technically be a move to stop a threat to "social stability". The impact and the intent can be slightly detached, even if the intent defines why they want the impact.
Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public? I don't really see how that could be a good thing, but I'm willing to be convinced. In cases like this, if a photo of a murder/police action can cause a public uprising, should a real government (i.e. representing the governed) have any interest in covering it up? Is the potential safety of the governed more important than accurate information?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public?
Never. The ultimate authority if the People, which is above all governments. When government seeks to censor photos or news articles, it flips that arrangement and becomes the Master while the people are demoted to children to be "cared for" and "protected." That's a reversion to pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages thinking.
As you say (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could, you know, open http://www.google.cn/ [google.cn] as see that it's NOT a censored version, it's a link for the UNCENSORED HK version.
If someone is censoring it won't be Google itself - so yes, they have kept their "mantra" intact without closing Google China.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>In my opinion google need to at least pay lip service to the PRC but continue to out perform China's own Baidu. This is the short-coming of a repressive gov;
Its also a demonstration why its foolish to fear corporations while trusting government. Corporations are powerless in the face of government and its laws. As we see here with Google - they tried to do that right thing, and lost, because the government has guns and other means to force compliance.
Are there any sources other than PRC bureaucrats? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only source cited in the article is "Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department." I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to lie about what Google is doing.
Didn't they do this once already? (Score:2)
Re:Didn't they do this once already? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, from Beijing:
surfing to http://google.cn/ [google.cn] will show you something that looks like google's homepage, only, it's just an image of the homepage. Clicking on it will lead you to google.com.hk. (the version in simplified Chinese characters)
What changed a couple of weeks back is that they do not redirect you automatically, you just end up on this landing page.
Interesting to note: passing a query directly to google.cn (from the search box in firefox), will just execute the query on google.com.hk
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google.cn is *not* censored! It's just a link to the uncensored HK version!
http://www.google.cn/ [google.cn]
The only thing they "caved in" is they changed an automatic redirect to a full page link! How is that evil in any way? "Oh no, people must click once to be redirected! The horror, the horror!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>the duty of the directors is to steer the company to generate money for the shareholders, and they can be liable if they fail to do this.
Unless the shareholders put Morality at a higher level than profit. Than Google's directors are not liable for anything, because they would be following the company's stated purpose (do no evil).
in other words: Google turned off the NSA backdoor (Score:2)
Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not true (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that has ended is automatic redirects, but that doesn't do anything for the Google haters, so they will say that Google has completely caved without bothering to find out what's really going on. Here's a hint haters: Xinhua is the LAST PLACE you ever want to look to find out what's really going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed your post for you. Now, what part of "automatically" is confusing you? Do you need me to break out the <blink> tag? I'll do it. I'll do it, man. I'm a troll on the edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thanks for that clarification.
Have we reached the point that even on a technical site like this, the editors just accept what the Chinese government (or any gov't) says, without making the slightest effort to check it? Is that the level of discourse now?
There has generally been a lot of confusion on this issue and this is really sad. A lot of people just read headlines and a headline such as this item has would give them totally incorrect information.
It is important that Google is judged on what they
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
r maybe he did read the story and is basing it on that and the summary is wrong?
I mean, really,you are admitting you are ignorant of the article and still correcting someone else bevasue you think they are ignorant.
Do you see the flaw there?
I haven't read it either, but I'm not correcting people. I have seen far to many summaries and headline be completely wrong. Sometime they have been so fictitious you can't even call them wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read it either, but I'm not correcting people
What do you call this comment, besides ironic?
I have now skimmed TFA and verified my assumption that the elements of the summary which appeared in quotes and which I quoted in turn appeared in the article verbatim. Or in other words, the summary indeed contained all I needed to know to critique his comment, which I correctly discerned by reading it and observing where his comment agreed with it, and thus contradicted itself. Why don't you check yourself before you wriggy wreck yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything you just said was accurate, and none of it was true.
The tone of the article is that Google will no longer be serving unfiltered search results to users in mainland China. The GPP clearly refuted that tone showing that Google was still making unfiltered search available. Despite what Futurama says, being technically correct isn't the best kind of correct.
Re: (Score:2)
"The summary states that Google stopped using a redirect. You argue that since there is a link on the page, that is not true. Link != Redirect.!"
It's a damn FULL-PAGE LINK! You can't do *anything* else except clicking the link! Effectively, it's a manual redirect, but still a redirect.
Re: (Score:2)
That shows intent and that a conscious decision has been made by the user.
Either evidence at your trial, or, if 250,000,000,000 Chinese click that link, useful demographic information.
Re: (Score:2)
Trial for accessing Google? Please. What could the Chinese government possibly gain with that? If you search for banned keywords, I might get it. But just for clicking on the normal search box to type? (have you checked the site?)
Besides, accessing Google in the first place is a conscious decision most of the time.
As for demographic, how is any different analyzing a redirect or a clicked link? Everyone that accesses Google.cn will click the link.
Me thinks you haven't checked google.cn.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to reverse the order of your sentences because of the order in which the parts of the summary you seemingly did not understand happen to appear. I don't think it really changes the meaning or even the tone of your comment. I apologize if anyone finds this misleading.
And that's the exact kind of mental gymnastics going on here. If you strip out context and follow the exact wording of the statement, it is all true and factual. But you have to go out of your way to divorce all other reasoning. The implication of the article is exactly what the OP is denouncing. But those are merely implied, not outright stated.
It looks like everyone is playing a game here. All sides are committing to a polite fiction so that neither side has to capitulate to the other's incompatible
Oh my! (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hope China does no evil.
That's what China says (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't trust one word of what comes from China's propagandists. Does anyone know of any press release from Google about this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/update-on-china.html [blogspot.com]
Way to do the right thing Google! (Score:1, Redundant)
Pardon me while I sigh in disgust.
Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not the point - the point is the censoring is done by China, not Google.
Besides, yes, it's *much* better to have a blocked page than for the results to have simply disappear: at least people *know* they are being censored.
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling.. (Score:1, Informative)
Google did not censorship anything. The only change they did is: instead of automatically redirecting to .hk domain now the users have to click the big picture on the page to be redirected.
Wasn't there a similar article on /. before?
Hmmm let's see... (Score:2, Funny)
[Google Search]
"Your search - Oppressive Government - did not match any documents."
"Did you mean Outstanding Government?"
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse Filter for the rest of the world please (Score:5, Interesting)
So if google is filtering "material deemed a threat to national security or social stability" from within China. Can we on the outside set it up so we can only browse the material that would be filtered within China. I think it would be educational to browse a volume of material that was "deemed a threat to national security or social stability" of China, it might also be a source of much amusement.
All hail China! (Score:2, Funny)
The time has come to let go of our juvenile and silly notions of individual freedoms and embrace the blessings of a single stable, hard working party.
I applaud google for showing proper respect to the people of china.
All hail Google! (Score:3, Funny)
Just kidding. Google did the right thing. I wholeheartedly applaud the googlers for their courage and deftness in turning the google hacking crisis into an opportunity.
Bravo to you sirs! Bravo indeed!
Clap Clap Clap
Article title = fail (Score:3, Funny)
Come on guys. At least read the whole thing, and not just the title, before publishing. And I mean the comments too.
So? (Score:2)
Loopholes and such aside, why is this so surprising?
When a company operates here in the US we expect them to obey US law, even on the web, regardless of where they may happen to originate. For an example, look how hard the US works to ban online gambling, even when the companies involved are not physically located in the US, and just operate here via the web. (Whether or not the US is successful at this is a whole 'nother topic, which I won't get in to here.)
Why does everyone expect Google to obey anything
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone assumes that Google or any other business that doesn't bribe heavily to follow the laws of the land they operate in. The controversy surrounding Google and China has typically resolved around ethics instead of laws.
Google's corporate mantra is to 'do no evil', and in their general opinion government censorship is a bad thing with the exception or child porn I imagine. Up to a few months ago, Google actively supported the China's censorship program by restricting the results returned in thei
"...a threat to national security or stability..." (Score:2)
"...a threat to national security or stability..."
Assuming Google filters this out, then there ought to be a list somewhere of "stuff we filtered out". This will make it much easier to find things to threaten and/or destabilize, should someone want to do that.
Just saying... "One Stop Shopping for Anarchists" is probably not what China had in mind here...
-- Terry
Re:do evil (Score:5, Insightful)
So much for do no evil.
To be fair, when I search for the (WARNING, graphic images) taboo words on the HK site they take me to from Google.cn [google.com.hk], I find the "social stability" threatening images linked to by Google.
If bowing to China is making the user take a single additional click from the google.cn landing page and bringing them right to unfiltered internet searches, that's some pretty lame bowing. I guess if both parties are happy and the Chinese people can very easily get to unfiltered search then I'm happy. Or does Google's Hong Kong search work differently inside China? If it works the same way as I see, I don't know how you could consider that evil. I perceive that Google has succeeded in granting the people of greater China with unfiltered search if they can tolerate an additional mouse click. This is assuming the Great Firewall of China or some government monitoring agency isn't watching these Google.cn -> Google.hk transactions.
How is attempting to bring unfiltered search to the people of China evil?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Are you IN China, getting filtered?
No.
So your results are meaningless.
Re:do evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It also shows the kind of bargaining power Google has.
I have to agree. China has huge numbers of people and manufacturing might. Google can process and utilize amounts of data that are unfathomable to a typical person. China is a couple decades late to the power struggle. It's all about data now.
Re: (Score:2)
For what exactly did China gain? Well, see for yourself, just goo ahead and visit google.cn [google.cn] and search for something :))
What they get (or retain) is that the search results are filtered as seen from China, not by Google but by the GWF filters everything through, including google.com.hk or google.com
Though allowing a landing page is saving face by covering the eyes. The landing page would show the differences between HK and mainland more prominently than a silent redirect! The officials asking for or approving that seem just fooling their bosses that they have done something.
Re: (Score:2)
How is attempting to bring unfiltered search to the people of China evil?
Because it's Google. And for some around here, Google can do naught but evil. Because they're a corporation, and managed to make some money, or something like that. I really don't understand the sentiment. I didn't think CmdrTaco was in that crowd, but go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Google Images search results will not display any thumbnail. I always assumed that the Chinese government would
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm reading Slashdot from China at the moment.
That link causes an immediate connection reset from the ISP (Chrome: Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): Unknown error.)
This happens every time something forbidden is accessed, and the entire domain will be inaccessible from this IP address for about 10 minutes
Google may not be censoring itself but when the censorship happens at the ISP level there's nothing they can do.
Re:do evil (Score:5, Informative)
Bowing to censorship my ass! If that's bowing to censorship, then more of us need to do the same!
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how 90% of the people flaming Google about this haven't tried to actually visit google.cn for themselves to see this first hand. Even the big news outlets don't seem to have tried this.
The whole thing is actually funny, and I'm surprised that the Chinese government is fine with the manual-redirect. I think what Google did is very clever and is a big win for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
Seriously. It's not even hidden: it says "google.com.hk" in enormous letters right on it. The only other links go to the music, translation, and product links.
But, this is Slashdot, where it is rare to RTFA or, heaven forbid, try to experience the thing.
Aside: it's kind of funny to read the various headlines [left-right.us] about this. Some say that China "approved" the Google request; others say China "compromis
Re: (Score:2)
Uncensored for the rest of the world.
Search (tiananmen) and the connection resets and you're locked out of the google.com.hk domain for a few minutes. I'm sure this happens at the ISP level because the connection reset is immediate.
In fact, I doubt this message will even submit now that I've typed those words in here.
Here's hoping it works.
Re:Money silences (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This ran through my head reading the summary... (Score:1)
well, I know you can't work in fast food all your life
but don't sign that paper tonight, she said,
but it's too late.
And I don't remember what I read,
don't remember what they said,
I guess it doesn't matter,
I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the mods didn't catch the name of the song. This resulted in them missing what I was trying to imply on the part of Google.
That, or maybe my attempt to not post the usual memes just wasn't that good.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Their new motto: Try not to be evil..... :-(
Re: (Score:2)
You were once better than this.
Not to be an ass, but when? When were they better than this in a meaningful way? When did they make a morally "right" decision, regardless of what it meant for their bottom line when a substantial amount of money was on the line?
And I'm asking this seriously - I know they've "done the right thing" before but I cannot recall any example of them "doing the right thing" when a substantial amount of money was at risk. Doing the right thing when it might cost you a bit of pocket change is effortless. Doing th
Re: (Score:2)
A company not participating at all has as much influence for the good in China as Xeyon Inc. of the Hedron Nebula has with us. (Never heard of them?) In other words, your argument is that Google should be like space aliens in regards to China.
The other extreme is the role of IBM in the 3rd Reich, exacerbating the crimes committed by the Regime.
China is bad but not Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR bad. Google isn't helping them hold onto their regime. If anything, they are helping open China to the rest of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This analysis only looks at one side of the issue: What does Google -do- to China? Does it help oppress the citizenry, or free them?
There's another side to that. What -is- Google. It's a question of integrity (and incidentally, others have made the argument well that Google actually isn't censoring anything, they have stopped offering the services which the Chinese government required censored and will continue to offer only those that don't). I think that's reasonable, and retract my criticism.
It's re
Re: (Score:2)
It's the natural evolution of a small, innovative company with some moral backbone into just yet another big company. Still, I'm disappointed in you, Google. You were once better than this.
So was Microsoft. So was Sony. As you said, it's the tendancy of companies to become more evil as they become more big. Just hope they don't get "too big to fail".
Re: (Score:2)
This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence [hrw.org]">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.
No, it just makes it an exercise in naiveté.
P.S. HTML FAIL OMFG WTF BBQ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read the article. Then actually visit google.cn [google.cn]. Google managed to find a loophole in it all: they still offer uncensored searching (via their site in Hong Kong) and there is no site search capability on their China-
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe China's government has finally come to its senses -- somewhat --, and tries to backtrack a little bit by loosening their grip on the Internet... without losing face. I wished our western governments would backtrack on their biggest red herring as well (draconian Copyright!), but currently I see their stance worsening, instead of getting better (ACTA). Or, said differently, China may be moving in the right direct
Re: (Score:2)
I wished our western governments would backtrack on their biggest red herring as well (draconian Copyright!)
This cannot happen as long as "Mine! Mine! Mine!" remains the defining attitude of Western culture. (Or at least American culture.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the Chinese have a problem with capitalism, so it is amusing that you equate it with freedom or democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including myself I know 3 regular slashdot posters in China.
Right now the google.cn front page is one big image (which looks like a variant of the google basic page) link to
http://www.google.com.hk/webhp?hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cnhp [google.com.hk]
with three text links to
http://www.google.cn/music/homepage?sourceid=cnhp [google.cn]
http://translate.google.cn/?sourceid=cnhp# [google.cn]
and
http://www.google.cn/products?sourceid=cnhp [google.cn]
underneath it.
The only other item on the page is a small text link to http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/ [miibeian.gov.cn], which looks to be a li
Re:Wow, big surprise (Score:4, Informative)
They are NOT censoring. *All* the search are still done in the UNCENSORED HK version. All they did was turn a automatic redirect into a full page link, effectively a loophole to comply with the letter of the law but not with the intent of the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet http://www.google.com.hk/images?hl=zh-CN&safe=strict&q=tiananmen+1989&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=_WdHTJLKIYqOjAfC-uT0Bg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQsAQwAA&gbv=1&ei=AWhHTJ2zEYj-vQOcuOW1Ag [google.com.hk]
Re: (Score:2)
It is a PR stunt. It is making Google money. And they are providing normals searches to china. (plus one click)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)