Google, China and Co: where do we draw the line between the acceptable and the not-so-acceptable?

A long silence, partly because I was busy scrolling down the shelves at Cambridge (UK) library for books before my fellowship at CRASSH ended. I still have a few books to read, but today I am trying to go through the amassed cuts of newspapers' articles.
So let us review the story about Google rethinking its policy in China. Much ink has been spilled over the issue.
First, Google made its annoucement on 13 January 2010, a date that feels a bit like a new year/new resolution statement. The annoucement was not to censor anymore its search results on Google China, whether or not requested by Chinese authorities. The consequences, i.e. the possible end of any business presence in China, were recognised as a possibility. What seems to have triggered the decision was a series of cyberattacks against Chinese human rights activists. (Guardian, 13 January 2010, front page and page 3).
"Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks" (Tania Branigan, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
"Google counts cost of censorship and draws red line under China" (Bobbie Johnson, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)

On the details of the attacks, see Guardian 14 January 2010 and 15 January 2010.
"Google acted on censorship amid China dissident fears" (TheGuardian, printed version 14 January 2010, front page)
"Google's move on Chinese censorship welcomed by human rights activists"
(TheGuardian, 14 January 2010, page 14)
"Accounts invaded, computers infected – human rights activists tell of cyber attacks", The Guardian, printed version 15 January 2010

The attacks bring into light how internet communications are central to governmental response to politics, including war. "Cyber-warfare 'is growing threat'" The Guardian, 4 February 2010, page 7; similarly, six months ago, "MyDoom virus hits key networks in US and South Korea" The Guardian, 9 July 2009, page 16 (the title in the printed version is slightly different: "Cyber attacks paralyse government computers in US and South Korea"). But for a different vision on a 'supposed' cyberwar: "White House Cyber Security Guy: There Is No Cyberwar", TechDirt, 9 March 2010


However, the cynics add that Google never made the money it expected to make; it has only one third of the search engines market in China which is dominated by Baidu= Governmental Chinese version of search engine. So its decision may not rest so much on willingness to defend democratic values through guaranteeing freedom of expression, than on profit-making interests.
In addition, Google's decision in 2006 to censor results hurt the company's reputation, so much that one of its founder, Sergey Brin, called it a "net negative" (see Guardian's article, 13 January 2010, page 3; and page 14, 14 January 2010).

Nevertheless, cynicism may not be so much on the agenda. Let us face it: Google is not the new knight defending freedom of expression without awaiting something in return. On the other hand, personal history certainly plays a role here. Sergey Brin emigrated to the US in 1979, aged six, with his parents who were victims of anti-semitism, even under the then-USSR. (Guardian's, Tania Branigan, 14 January 2010, front page).

China's reaction was at the beginning cautious... and heavily censored as few headlines made it on the newspapers/online versions in China itself. Some commentators, pro-governmental line, did not see Google's decision as 1) affecting China much (there are other search engines), 2) as a desinterested decision (aka, Google does not make enough profit to stay).

What seems to emerge on the side, with other companies finding it difficult to enter the Chinese market, is a picture of full protection of Chinese interests (economic or not) against foreign companies and Governments. It fits with a presentation I attended in September 2009 at the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) in Keele, where the speaker demonstrated that Chinese law favoured chinese contract law in all dispute resolutions, a concept that systematically discards foreign law; in other words, private international law in China is resolved by the quasi-systemic application of local law to the exclusion of foreign law. An article on the International Herald Tribune of 14 January 2010 page 15 is quite revealing on those behaviours. The article even ends up by saying, in more polite form, that foreign companies sell their soul to China, accepting to give for free, for fear of loosing a market share, what they would never have tolerated in other countries. I know the story is not exagerated. In his second volume on Globalisation, which focuses on Water, Eric Orsenna (French Academician and writer) explains that the French company Alstom more or less gave the plans of its water turbines for the three Dams on the yellow river, in exchange for obtaining the market... Except that the turbine plan is now copied and Alstrom not needed...

"China stifles news of Google’s defiance", The International Herald Tribune, 14 January 2010 (p. 1)
"Google Is Not Alone in Discontent, But Its Threat Stands Out", The New York TImes, 14 January 2010 (by the way, this habit of the NYT and IHT not to use the same title in the printed and online version is frankly annoying).
Eric Orsenna, L'avenir de l'eau : Petit précis de mondialisation II (Broché), Fayard 2008 (The future of water: little manual on globalisation II - NB: the first volume was on coton and is as interesting as the second, if anybody can read French - by the way, it is not a complicated French although it is beautifully written).


If we take into account China's policy in conducting business, then it appears very clearly that accepting to censor the results could only amount to failure in terms of believing that the economy will allow for freedom of expression to grow. The economy is in itself a close circuit; nothing from the outside will penetrate it, especially NOT freedom of expression. After 30 years of economic "liberalisation", the West should start looking at the full picture, rather than avoiding the issue: China will not become a democracy by free market. See James Kynge, "Full circle", Financial Times 16/17 January 2010.
"China and the west: Full circle", Financial TImes, 15 January 2010 (printed version, 16/17 january 2010 (like for the Guardian, can't they just give one date???)
Viewed under that light, Bill Gates' comment is not as irresponsible as it may first appear. It is a realist comment: that anyone doing business in China has to accept the fact that democracy is out of question. Then the question is: does one have the guts, to take a familiar expression, not to do business? The West's answer so far is certainly not living to its Enlightenment's ideals.
"Playing the wall game in China" The Guardian, 18 January 2010

Additionally see:
"Google may lose business, but gains good will", Miguel Helft, International Herald Tribune, printed version January 16/17, 2010 (can't find the link online)
"Why fearful china stamps out dissent", Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 17 January 2010, p. 22 (can't find the link online either)
Will Google stand up to France and Italy, too? The Guardian, 14 January 2010

"China Issues Another Warning to Google on Enforced Censorship of the Internet" link to NY Times by Business and HR website, 12 March 2010

Surveillance

"Rather Than Blaming Twitter, NY Police Using It To Track Gang Activity" (TechDirt, 01 December 2009)

Facebook again: bad and good uses

Yes, Bad People Use Facebook Too (TechDirt, 17 november 2009)

Identity, prosecution and Facebook

A strange story, the type that always makes me think of the novel The Count of Monte-Christo.
Emprisonment for a theft he has not committed, a man managed to be freed and charges dropped after his lawyer tracked down a message he sent at the precise time when the robbery happened.
Obviously, the alibi has been corroborated by witnesses; hopefully also, when one thinks of the ease it is on facebook to fake identities.

Sauvé de la prison grâce à Facebook (o1net., 13 november 2009)
Facebook As Your Alibi (TechDirt, 12 November 2009)

L'usurpation d'identité, côté juridique (Les Echos, 7 October 2009)

Forensics tools

Until it withdrew it, Microsoft allowed its COFFEE auditing tools to be shared, allowing whoever uses it to access Windows. It also provided it to law enforcement agencies.
According to comments, the tools are not very good and 'bad guys' use better tools. For the UK, that relates to section 3A of the revised CMA 1990.
Microsoft's COFEE Computer Forensic Tools Leaked (techDirt, 9 November 2009)

Social networks: world and power

With always/often talk of Facebook, but this is not the only one on the web. Others in non English languages are actually attracting more customers, in China obviously, but also Brazil, Russia, Netherlands etc...
"Ces réseaux sociaux qui résistent à Facebook Sonico.com au Brésil" (JDN, 2 June 2009)
I wonder if their business models are better than those of Facebook. Note though that the Russian internet business man just 'bought' Facebook ...

"Judge 'Friends' Lawyer During Case, Influenced By Defendant's Website" (TechDirt 2 June 2009) or how a judge disqualified himself by contacting one party's lawyer with the new technologies during the trial!!! One wonders about the judge's sense of duty.

On collection of data/communication of data to the public:

Self-explanatory
"If You Rob A Bank, Perhaps You Shouldn't Brag About It On MySpace" (TechDirt 2 June 2009)

Not criminal as such, but interesting about the degree of non privacy (to be expected really):
"Analyzing Labor Data Via Facebook Status" (TechDirt, 2 June 2009) or how the words hired/fired on posting were used to analyse the trend in financial crisis management....

Data collection and use by police

Quite a bit of irony here when thinking about the debate on whether ISPs should collect data and keep it available to police. The ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) considers that the sheer number of CCTV data makes it unusable to the police to track suspects! What a waste of money and time of all those concern who opposed the CCTV coverage in England. As politicians do not seem to agree (fear factor?), it may well be a long time before we see less CCTV
"ACPO: Police swamped by CCTV data" (ZDnet.co.uk, 15 May 2009)

and "UK Police Learn That More Surveillance Data Doesn't Mean Better Surveillance Data" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)

The above obviously should make us think about any type of data mass collection: "Bad Idea: UK Launches Database Of Info On Every Child" (TechDirt, 18 May 2009)

Update: "British Cops Creating Nationwide License-Plate Surveillance System" (TechDirt 22 May 2009)

Help of technologies in investigations

Police eye tech for reporting live crimes via video (ZDnet.co.uk, 27 April 2009) and use of image-recognition technology to detect crime
Criminal procedure will have to regulate the use of this technology

Investigation - use of Google Street and Google Search

self-explanatory...
"Google Street View Helps Find Kidnapped Child" (TechDirt, 8 January 2009)

"Google Searches Used To Convict Hit-And-Run Driver" (TechDirt, 16 January 2009)

Investigations - the use of internet for detective work

Renewed ways of collaborating witht the public in solving crimes:

"Small Business Owners Track Down Dumb Criminals Online" (3 December 2008) - with one warning: criminal procedure does apply to investigations if they lead to criminal prosecutions. Thus, companies engaging in that type of activities should be warry of falling fool of the law

"Canadian Cops Seek To Solve Murder Cases With Online Tips" (1 December 2008)

and for a European approach "EU fights cybercrime with 'remote search' strategy" (28 November 2008)

Online services and police work

I personally don't see what they are worried about. Crime statistics about areas are already available on the web. Is it because police and Government would have to rethink their crime control strategy and be a bit more efficient?
"UK Police Worried About Online Crime Maps" (24 Otober 2008)

Police investigation - use of websites..

for the use of Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org/about/sites) by police forces Police Realizing "Craigslist Is A Resource, Not A Problem" (5 September 2007)
On a reassuring outcome, thanks to traditional methods of detecting crime, "Yet Another WiFi-Borrowing Criminal Caught" (7 November 2008)

and Craigslist Pressured Into Policing Ads For Prostitution (6 November 2008) which I personally find problematic because Attorneys Generals are not the judiciary.

Digital evidence on YouTube

A reassuring decision where the Scottish Court is not dazzled by the technological elements of the case. The basic principle for all evidence is to be adminissible and secure; doubts benefit the accused and strengthened human rights by forcing the police to do their job thoroughly.
Man cleared in YouTube speed case (8 October 2008)

Let's hope the US Supreme Court will conform to the rules and not allow some exceptions "Is A Conviction Constitutional If It's Based On Evidence From An Unconstitutional Search?" (6 October 2008)

Investigations - finding criminals and new technologies

The problem with new technologies remains identical as with the old ones: how do we ensure that police does not misuse them? Traditional way is obtaining a warrant, which often (but not always) mean going before the judge. Loopholes do not serve the public interest; first because the evidence may be discarded by the judge because obtained unfairly (on HR principles); second because the only barrier or difference between the goodies and the badies is playing or not by the rules: not to play by the rules is ultimately to abandon the very values sought to be protected.
"GPS Device Data Increasingly Being Used By Police To Determine Where You Were" (3 September 2008)
"German Authorities Raiding Homes To Find Skype Tapping Whistleblower" (18 September 2008)
or the troublesome FBI view on searches "FBI Asks Congress To Ignore The Whole 'Probable Cause' Part Of The 4th Amendment" (22 August 2008) and "DHS: Laptop Border Searches Are Bad... Except When We Do It" (17 September 2008)and our previous posthttp://cybercrimeatessex.blogspot.com/2008/07/cyber-investigations-and-human-rights.html (13 July 2008)

Social networking and investigation

it speaks for itself "Facebook app herds PCs into botnet"http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39485526,00.htm?r=1 (8 september 2008)

and refers back to a post in july 2008 http://cybercrimeatessex.blogspot.com/2008/07/social-networking-privacy-and.html

Web2& Social networking: helping police?

OK, I can't find the post about it; so here we are. "City Council Tells 'Dumbest Criminal' To Stop Posting So Much Evidence To YouTube" - Leeds city council seems to be also dumb? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080521/1350411194.shtml (22 May 2008) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1020951/Britains-dumbest-criminal-banned-boasting-offences-internet.html?ITO=1490

But a more direct move from a social networking site is not funny at all: people have been banned because of their age (over 36) for fear of porn and sex abuse. Apart from the ridicule of the situation (how on earth all over 36 can be suspected?), it is a pretty dangerous move: it's called private justice for fear of prosecution. "Social Networking Site Bans Anyone Over Age 36 To (Sorta) Deal With Sex Offender Law" http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/2356201207.shtml (23 May 2008)

Investigation and security

Not sure I agree entirely with the comments below. That police forces have USB keys to enter Microsof products' security features does not necessarily mean that criminals will jump on the loopholes. To take an analogy, for police officers to wiretap never meant that criminals had eavedropped more... A shield can always become a sword in the wrong hands, but it does not mean it should not exist.http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080429/095514977.shtml (29 April 2008)

Social networking, privacy and investigations

For once, I can stop criticising social networking. Manchester Police force uses Facebook in an innovative way, to promote communication and gather information about crime; http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=9878600737&ref=s
I wonder how effective it is and if privacy, which is the biggest problem on social networking, can be maintained. I would be curious to see the results of any study made on this matter.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080418/164250892.shtml (21st April 2008)

As an illustration of privacy issues, see this acknowledgment by Facebook that spammers' attacks increased, notably because the users' contact details such as e-mail adresses are available even if the users have not opted for such "transparency". "Facebook admits to increased attacks by spammers" http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39397448,00.htm (22 April 2008)

And this is without counting on the fact that users often do not realise Facebook is about publicity not keeping details private. See this story about a US military who published photographs of his base!! http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080423/183304931.shtml (23rd April 2008) or those Oxford students the University disciplined after scrolling Facebook postings http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080504/2148451026.shtml (6 May 2008)

So it's not surprising that the University of Wales launches academic studies of the social networking phenomenon in relation to cyber security http://www.crime-research.org/news/09.05.2008/3355/ (9 May 2008)

Yet the reaction from N-Y to punish those incriminating themselves on YouTube (I agree, it's not social networking in the proper sense- but its audience makes it similar to social networking) is quite surprising . How can such crime deter people to put videos of illegal activities? What is the purpose of such potential legislation? "New York Wants To Punish Criminals For Incriminating Selves On YouTube" (13 May 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080512/1802591092.shtml

RFID, privacy and investigation

The following article raises awareness of the RIFD revolution in Europe and the rest of the world. A technology that allows any item to be tracked down and monitored from around the world, it is highly used, according to the article, in non-European countries. By contrast, Europe is more than reluctant, for fear of privacy breaches. Fears are certainly not underestimated.
Related to crime, the technology works both ways: RFID allows for items to be tracked, so stealing could become more difficult; on the other hand, imagine investigatory forces (official or not) using the device without anybody knowing... that could lead to potential abuses and evidence gathered illegaly without warrant.
(13 March 2008)
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-moves-catch-microchip-revolution/article-170942

Preventing crime: internet, a help to police forces

Often, internet is viewed as a threat by police forces because of its elusive character and the challenges it creates in relation to criminal procedure. But sometimes new technologies can be for the better: see the FBI thinking of using it to list all crimes having recently occured, a bit like the TV series Crimewatch... with the same dangers? " Crowdsourcing Law Enforcement" (28 December 2007) http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071228/145343.shtml


and for a similar theme, but with a real case of a Japanese criminal wanted for 25 years who indicated on his blog his travel to US territory and obviously got! (29 February 2008)http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080229/080250385.shtml