Google Shut Out Privacy, Security Teams From Secret China Project (theintercept.com) 138
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Intercept about Google's secretive plans to build a censor version of its search engine for China: The objective, code-named Dragonfly, was to build a search engine for China that would censor broad categories of information about human rights, democracy, and peaceful protest. Yonatan Zunger, then a 14-year veteran of Google and one of the leading engineers at the company, was among a small group who had been asked to work on Dragonfly. He was present at some of the early meetings and said he pointed out to executives managing the project that Chinese people could be at risk of interrogation or detention if they were found to have used Google to seek out information banned by the government.
Scott Beaumont, Google's head of operations in China and one of the key architects of Dragonfly, did not view Zunger's concerns as significant enough to merit a change of course, according to four people who worked on the project. Beaumont and other executives then shut out members of the company's security and privacy team from key meetings about the search engine, the four people said, and tried to sideline a privacy review of the plan that sought to address potential human rights abuses. Google's leadership considered Dragonfly so sensitive that they would often communicate only verbally about it and would not take written notes during high-level meetings to reduce the paper trail, two sources said. Only a few hundred of Google's 88,000 workforce were briefed about the censorship plan. Some engineers and other staff who were informed about the project were told that they risked losing their jobs if they dared to discuss it with colleagues who were themselves not working on Dragonfly.
Scott Beaumont, Google's head of operations in China and one of the key architects of Dragonfly, did not view Zunger's concerns as significant enough to merit a change of course, according to four people who worked on the project. Beaumont and other executives then shut out members of the company's security and privacy team from key meetings about the search engine, the four people said, and tried to sideline a privacy review of the plan that sought to address potential human rights abuses. Google's leadership considered Dragonfly so sensitive that they would often communicate only verbally about it and would not take written notes during high-level meetings to reduce the paper trail, two sources said. Only a few hundred of Google's 88,000 workforce were briefed about the censorship plan. Some engineers and other staff who were informed about the project were told that they risked losing their jobs if they dared to discuss it with colleagues who were themselves not working on Dragonfly.
Sad a job is more important than ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Professional ethics are taught in many schools, but seldom practiced. Enough money will entice people willing to take it.
Many professional agencies and unions protect workers who leave jobs over ethics like that. Imagine if every Google engineer refused to work on the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, when people become billionaires, they cease to have a price.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, Steve Wozniak. Although he gave most away to early Apple employees who never got stock.
Re: (Score:3)
Right... he's not a billionaire cause he gave away a ton of his founders stock. That's what I said. Not being a billionaire by choice is pretty much being a billionaire, as far as "can you be bought" goes.
There aint no money in China (Score:3)
Not for a non-Chinese company to mine their data.
The Chinese know that Google is full of people that will leak overly evil things. That is how we know about Grasshopper in the first place. At the very least, all development would need to be done by Chinese in China.
There will be a small profit, lots of technology transfer to Google's competitors, and that is about it.
The good news for Google is that Baidu etc. will never be popular in the west for similar reasons. No one would trust them.
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't all that fussed about search in China, they care about Android. Android needs Google services like search, voice assistant, Play Store etc.
Most phones in China run custom versions of Android based on the open source code, without any Google services (because they are blocked). Google wants in to that, and search is just one component they need.
Re: (Score:2)
"The good news for Google is that Baidu etc. will never be popular in the west for similar reasons. No one would trust them."
Too right and that's why we never buy goods made in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They already had a price, or they would't be billionaires.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why people like DJT are so blatantly obvious in their machinations; unlike the majority of his party, who've been some sort of professionally trained whitecollar (even bloody MBAs get those classes) he's clearly never taken anything even resembling it, and finds himself incapable of even using the typical vagueries expected of politics and corporates.
That's why his supporters like him. At least he's an honest politician. That's why the establishment hates him: "shit, the voters might realize how we all play this game!"
Re: (Score:2)
The google engineers would be fired and replaced by people who will happily work on the thing.
But the project managers/owners may not find the replacement to be either the top talent in the industry, or even capable of moving a project forward. Google has good reason to be "cagey" concerning employee morale.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper attitude to take, is sure I'll do it, how much will it cost, more than you are willing to pay. The proper business diplomatic approach, seriously more than they are willing to pay, so you are not refusing, they simply are not willing to pay your price. The silly bit is, there is no way in hell the government of China will trust Google, simply out of the question, so everything Google does is basically for free and the SIP is gone (Shit Intellectual Property) but of course the shit stains at Googl
Re: (Score:3)
The proper attitude to take, is sure I'll do it, how much will it cost, more than you are willing to pay.
No. The proper attitude is that your ethics are not for sale. No price, no matter how high.
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes, but that leads to someone else doing the job.
I've taken the job, written up a detailed analysis of the risks involved, the costs involved to remediate those risks (PR firms on hot standby, lawyers in airplanes with parachutes, etc), and challenged the sales dept to prove they could cover the costs and still make a profit.
That killed the project permanently. Usually when somethings unethical, its also unprofitable when all the externalities are priced in.
Min
Re: (Score:2)
The silly bit is, there is no way in hell the government of China will trust Google, simply out of the question
Nah, you have to figure most of the engineers on this also work for the Chinese government.
Re: (Score:1)
While I am sure these sociopaths and psychopath* execs are very money motivated, money isn't necessary for them to act unethically-- it just comes naturally.
* https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sad yes, but after all, nobody's ever gonna give you even so much as an acknowledgement, much less a thank you of any kind, for being a better person and standing up for something greater than yourself.
A human being has only so much strength to waste in fights against windmills before he or she starts thinking "so when's somebody gonna stand up against my suffering?"
Society is not ready to honor those who fight the good fights. Therefore it's a rather wasted effort unless enough people happen to find themse
Re: (Score:2)
Professional ethics are taught in many schools, but seldom practiced. Enough money will entice people willing to take it.
What percentage of the team working on this do you think works for the Chinese government? Far higher than the average at Google I expect. I'd imaging the typical government agent working undercover in a foreign nation has fierce loyalty and a strong sense of ethics - just not an ethical code I'd agree with.
And of course corporate executives are selected on the basis of sociopathy (it sure isn't competence), so you can't expect anything good there. Though I guess technically "the world can burn, I got mi
Re: (Score:2)
Professional ethics are taught in many schools, but seldom practiced.
That is because you cannot make a person ethical by completing a class. Duh.
Tweets (Score:2)
Been this way for years. (Score:1)
Don't these Silicon Valley tech companies all support LGBT values yet do business in the Middle East as well as China (which also doesn't like LGBT activity)?
They'll beat up Christian bakers, but gladly take money from some of the most ruthless thugs on the planet.
of course they did.. (Score:1)
"privacy" and "security" would be 100% dictated by the prc government to ensure their demands of absolute and total surveillance and control are met.
there will be 'privacy' and 'security' in that other people generally won't be able to obtain data on another, but the government will get all data, on everyone, and in real time, to do with as they please.
the question is.. why the fuck aren't they building it themselves? or haven't they gotten their grubby, greedy, commie paws on the necessary google tech and
Then Again (Score:2)
easy fix (Score:4)
Re: (Score:1)
Sundar Pichai has set Google on a very dark, and very evil path in the pursuit of profit, something all the previous execs like Schmidt for all their mistakes never did.
This is just an elaborately subtle troll, right? You can't really be that dumb can you? Schmidt didn't pursue profit? How fucking stupid are you? It's so quaint how so many people like yourself fell for that "Do no evil" thinking that Google was different than other corporations when they never were. Schmidt aggressively pursued profits and if you remember, Google used to run a censored search enginer in thr PRC from 2006 to 2010... under Schmidt's reign as CEO.
Google has a privacy team? (Score:1)
One of the most invasive companies in the world has a privacy team - bollocks!
I will agree that the security side is pretty strong but privacy is a joke.
Everything google does these days is about achieving what the Chinese government wants - complete tracking end to end.
Google are no more than a bunch of perverts these days.
Any google employee who says they care about privacy is just a straight out liar!
They care far more about security and stopping others accessing the perving than they ever do about indiv
I don't see the problem. (Score:4)
Apple and others have made similar concessions [abacusnews.com]. Where's the outrage?
When Google pulled its search engine from mainland China in 2010, the company says it was due to censorship concerns, so if this is true, it would mark a major turnaround.
But it also wouldn’t be the first time we’ve seen American companies caving in to China’s demands to gain access to the world’s largest internet market.
Re:I don't see the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple removed some apps from their store, and stores some encrypted data (but not the keys) in China. Not selling people a VPN app is totally different from telling the government if they search the web for "Winnie the Pooh" and getting them sent to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
The kind of Communism US brands like to work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple removed some apps from their store, and stores some encrypted data (but not the keys) in China. Not selling people a VPN app is totally different from telling the government if they search the web for "Winnie the Pooh" and getting them sent to jail.
Um, Apple doesn't have a cool search engine to sell out with.
Give them a break; they are selling out as hard as they can with what they have.
Re: (Score:2)
If they waned to sell out harder, they could send every URL viewed in Safari on iOS to a Chinese government server, creating a centralized repository. They could give the encryption keys to the Chinese so they could decrypt user data. A search engine is nice for spying and all, but the OS, the browser and the user's backup files are better.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what exactly is the threshold that separates "just a little bit," from, "a lot?"
It's the same goddam thing.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. You might loan a friend $5, but not your life savings. Things have degrees. I'm not sure if you honestly don't understand that, or you're arguing in bad faith.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure ...
Bingo!
So, how does that motto go again? (Score:2)
Don't be evil? How far Google has fallen. Google can't be trusted, yet look at how much power over the internet they have.
Telling quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"Google's leadership considered Dragonfly so sensitive that they would often communicate only verbally about it and would not take written notes during high-level meetings to reduce the paper trail"
Google knows all too well how evil it is. They know what happens when you write something electronically: Google archives it, forever. It can be used against you later. This is a weapon, no less.
It's sad, Google used to be the best company on the internet. I remember their "clean home page" and getting search results that weren't spam. I remember emailing them and getting a response from a human! They even tried to avoid this with the "Don't be evil" corporate mantra. Well, it lasted over a decade, I suppose I should be happy. But I'm not.
Re: (Score:1)
Sadly, they appear from the outside to be very ashamed about what they are doing. It's not too late to stop.
Given China's recent reports of a social credit system, you can get a sense of how much data Google has and why China wants them to be involved. Clearly it must outclass whatever domestic spying that the Chinese government has in-house currently.
All speculation on my part, but it fits the description.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Google did limit shareholder input. It was quite controversial. You buy shares but get no control.
Re: (Score:1)
Employees don't run a corporation no matter their rank.
This mostly isn't true at Google. Google is very bottom-up, with many -- perhaps most -- product decisions being made by the engineers doing the work. (Aside: This is why Google often seems to have such a short attention span; the engineers driving a project have moved onto something else). This is slowly changing because it's a difficult way for a large corporation to operate, and also varies from organization to organization, but it's still a very employee-driven company. That's a part of what is dri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly not.
> is money all that matters in the end
Yes, gotta drive shareholder value somehow.
Doesn't seem like a lot of work (Score:2, Troll)
Google can just copy and paste whatever they use for blocking/downranking conservative content [pjmedia.com] in the U.S, slightly alter the filter parameters, and voila! Instant Dragonfly.
I say let Dragonfly, well, fly! It's not like we are not already allowing them to do the same thing in the U.S., make it worldwide.
Won't work (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Just stop. Even Crowder has a video on youtube of his videos being demonetized by google within seconds of being uploaded via so called manual review.
It's impressively blatant and you make yourself look like an anti-vaccination clown for ignoring evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
oogle can just copy and paste whatever they use for blocking/downranking conservative content
With friends like you, the right wing doesn't need enemies. You're bsaically equating right wing political views with lies blatant or otherwise. Now if you were someone opposed to right wing views, I could at least understand your motivtion. But it's your own side you're trash talking. I don't get it.
DId they really hard code the rules? (Score:2)
"...build a search engine for China that would censor broad categories of information about human rights, democracy, and peaceful protest. "
Did they really hard code it to the above? Or did they simply build tools that allow censorship, whether "how to build a home made bomb" or "how to peacefully protest", the tool doesn't care. Reporters often like sensationalizing things, so why not write about what the tool could sensor which will get most clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they really hard code it to the above? Or did they simply build tools that allow censorship,
That's a bullshit dichotomy. They're not "simply" building a tool that "could" be used to censor, they are building a tool specifically to help the Chinese government censor.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, have some standards, no matter how desperate you are to get laid!
Don't be evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall Zuck was also eager (Score:5, Interesting)
I recall Zuck was also eager to kiss comrade Xi's behind. Learned Chinese, asked him to name his child (Xi refused, because WTF: https://www.independent.co.uk/... [independent.co.uk]). Didn't go anywhere. Comrade Xi ain't giving the control over the Chinese propaganda machine to some lizard humanoid hybrid. Apparently Mr. Pichai was more successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Question on the Legal Angle (Score:5, Interesting)
Consider a scenario where a US company were contracted by a foreign government to develop something which could so no other purpose than be used as a means of breaching the human rights of the citizens of that foreign country. In this scenario, the Federal Government would be able to look at the product or offering of a US company and observe that, in this specific case, the only possible purpose for which this product could be used would be to oppress, harm, or otherwise abuse the citizens of that foreign country.
I'm interested to know whether the Federal government has any obligation to monitor the actions of US companies when those businesses are interacting with foreign governments.
Put it at the most extreme: if a US company was participating in a scheme that could only serve the purpose of, say, mass murder in another country, what obligations does the US government have to step in and stop that sort of practice?
Hopefully the reason for the question is obvious. If the US believes in democracy, free speech, basic human freedoms and so on, should the US government allow a US company to offer this sort of service to another government? Is it profits before principles?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a lawyer.
I would think the US government could put sanctions on that country to prohibit businesses from operating in that country. Although, if the business entity is separate from the parent and all workers are located in the country, I don't know how or if sanctions would/could prevent that.
Regardless of ethics or controversy, someone will always be willing to do a job. Not saying it's right for Google to be doing what they are doing but China will get their "Great Search Engine" whether Google h
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately Google is an international company and not at the beck and call of that orange fathead in the White House.
"If the US believes in democracy, free speech, basic human freedoms and so on"
Obviously this is not the case. If this was the case Trump would have been removed from office promptly and Hillary would rightfully be President.
Re: (Score:2)
China and also Saudi Arabia are favored trade partners.
Repeating your question from that perspective: Should the US government allow a US company to offer this sort of service (trade/tax income) to another government?
And the answer is the same to both, and is part of your next question.
Profits.
And you don't even have to resort to companies, the governments themselves are complicit, Iran-Contra Affair, 'nuff said (oh, what's that, there's an arms embargo?).
Privacy AND Security teams? (Score:2)
Taking out the privacy team is evil. But is taking out the security team evil? Taking them out makes the product less secure, right? Doesn't that create opportunities for Chinese citizens? Someone is going to create these tools for China. If it's China themselves, it will take longer, but it will still happen.
Re: (Score:1)
Like posting AC for example. I am proud that Slashdot hasn't ceded to pressure to force everyone to an
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get over it. It has been down modded and rendered invisible unless you are looking for something to whine about.
I don't think there is a better posting system going. I browse to hide anything below 1 except when I'm modding.
I suspect that the folks complaining might not know about the browsing level bar?
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR
Re: (Score:2)
Surely Slashdot can do something to stop this ASCII art spam from being posted.
Slashcode already has a fairly aggressive anti-ASCII art filter. The trolls just have plenty of time to game the system. Hey, at least it's a change from GNAA posts and ASCII art goatse.
Who else remembers page-widening trolls? Ah, the good old days.