Google and China

Rob Hanlon and Stephen Frost, CSR Asia, on 31 Mar 2010, criticised Google's HR motives to withdraw from Mainland China. The core of their arguments is nothing new: Google was not making any profit, to stay would have been counterproductive to their business model; to withdraw in the name of HR is not helpful to China's HR activists and it is an illusion to believe a foreign company can influence China's policies on whether to censor or not.

http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-Theatre-CSR-Asia-31-Mar-2010.pdf

Well, at the end of the reading, frankly, I am less than convinced by their arguments. I have no doubt that Google withdrew because it was not making enough money, but I do not think it is the only motive. I completely disagree with their stand about people/companies not being able to influence others including foreign governments. This is saying that nobody is responsible for whatever happens and history defies such argument. As we are talking about HR, let us think about Nelson Mandela. He was the catalyst of a whole movement who changed the course of history. Gandhi did the same against the then British Empire which power we forget the might.

Google's answer to the criticism is poorly drafted I think. The HRW's response is much more interesting as it points towards the weakness of Hanlon and Frost's arguments.

http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-response-re-CSR-Asia-19-Apr-2010.doc

http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Human-Rights-Watch-reply-re-CSR-Asia-on-Google-20-Apr-2010.doc

All the reports are on the Business and HR website at http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000252

For the earlier report on Google closing its site: Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship (NY Times 22 March 2010) and different comments on the Business and HR website: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000132

Google, China, HK

"Google Approach In China: Redirect To Hong Kong", TechDirt, 22 March 2010
with the original post from Google also from 22 March 2010.
What I was intringued by in Google's statement was the following sentence: "We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. " I wonder what Google meant by "legal": legal to uncensor in China? or legal to redirect links?
I also noticed that after the English version of the post, other links to the same content are posted in different languages. Quite interesting to see how Google is catering for his non-anglophone users


"If ACTA Gets Approved, Expect China To Use It As Justification For Censorship", TechDirt, 22 March 2010

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

Controlling content

Traditional issue of the internet, but within the US, instead of between the US and the rest of the world. Question: censorship of content. Do you allow it? on which basis? why not total freedom? Is the question about articulating the global/local? Is law about moral values? if we accept local countries/regions can censor/ban, filter, should we regulate how they do it?

(TechDirt, 8 February 2010)

Piracy

"Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines" (TechDirt, 28 January 2010).
"Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal" (TechDirt, 28 January 2010)

seriously, first time I ever heard that one, but it is so crazy it just highlights the financial issue behing the fight against piracy by big companies "Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime" (TechDirt 29 January 2010)

This will be worth reading and transferring to other types of offences than piracy: it corresponds exactly to what I said if I believe the comment:
"Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops" (TechDirt 4 February 2010)

Surveillance

Apparently, "Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records" (TechDirt, 22 January 2010)

and I find this even more astonishing: the harm exists, it is to each individual. "Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned" (TechDirt, 22 January 2010)

It is as astonishing as Bill Gates stating it's business and if Google does not want to comply to China, too bad! http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/MicrosoftreChinacensorship (25 January 2010)

Censorship: Google/China and others

Obviously, the headlines for the past 10 days are aboug Google's declaration and movement of withdrawal from China, but as pointed out, well, if Google withdraws from China, why not other countries like India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Russia...?

"Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)

"Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?" (TechDirt, 14 January 2010)

and I would say of Italy?

"Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010) and for the French version, "Italie : un décret pour contrôler les vidéos du Web" (Net Eco, 19 January 2010)

The technical details of privacy/surveillance are worth understanding as it seems that China hacked the security features/apps used by Google. "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)

For a reaction to Google's announcement: "Clinton urges Internet freedom, condemns cyber attacks " (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 21 January 2010) with a series of links to the media

and for an analysis in French: "Pékin-Google : le bras de fer s'engage" (Business and HR Resource Centre, 22 January 2010)

Privacy, piracy, copyrights and censorship

The theme of the week seems to turn around protecting privacy.

"Hacking Surpassing Human Error For Data Breaches?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010). For the author, the answer is actually positive: hacking is a major threat, more that insiders leaking data.

In the fight against piracy, will privacy be waived? "Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)

"The Similarity Between ACTA And Chinese Internet Censorship" (TechDirt, 20 January 2010) in that both requires strong involvement from ISPs. I also think that both infringed on privacy. But the issue of ISPs involvement is also close to more traditional searches and seizures: "Once Again, FBI Caught Breaking The Law In Gathering Phone Call Info; But Real Issue Is Why Telcos Let Them" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010)

Obviously, all this debate supposes there is such thing as privacy about data online. Hence the issue about cloud computing and expectations of privacy. "Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010) THe US have actually articulated that notion of expectation of privacy, even though the answer is not satisfactory: it is not because it is online that there is no expectation of privacy. It all depends on where and what was intended to be done with the data.

France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets (TechDirt, 8 January 2010)

Surveillance

"New Zealand Decides To Spy On An Awful Lot Of Your Online Activity" (TechDirt, 5 January 2010)

"How China's Attempts To Censor The Internet Are Failing " (TechDirt, 4 January 2010)

"Russian ISP Blocking Political Opposition Websites" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)

with the interesting view of the WWW creator, Tim Berners-Lee Web inventor: " 'Snooping' authorities threaten Internet " (Euractiv, 3 December 2009)

China and censorship

Quite a funny one and not about political censorship, but about a Governmental Chinese report on copyrights whose access has been blocked... by the software GOogle used to avoid malwares.
That's Rich: China Accuses Google Of Censorship (TechDirt, 28 October 2009)

Update on China's filtering software

China puts brakes on internet-filter rollout - ZDNet.co.uk (01 July 2009)

After the uproar when people learnt that China ordered computers made in the US to incorporate a filtering software, there seems to be a back up. Obviously, the Minister of Industry and Information Technology refused to acknowledge attempts to curtail free speech. As in the West, the official line is that filtering is necessary because of child porn. But I wonder what it really means? Will they do it next time without bothering to say anything, 'hidding' the software in the hard drive?

PC makers lobby, but prepare for China censorware (ZDnet.co.uk 29 June 2009)

See also in French:

Logiciel de filtrage Web : la Chine fait marche arrière (JDN, 1 July 2009)

I don't think the EU Chamber of commerce's opinion had any influence, although one never knows how much concerns about money may have weighted in the balance.

EU Chamber urges China to rethink internet filter (ZDnet.co.uk, 30 June 2009)

ISPs and illegal contents in China

Not made to reassure about ISPs' behaviours towards China's regulations. It shows they ere on the side of caution, as usual. The only thing unusual is the Chinese Court's decision which was to condemn the ISP for not demonstrating that the content was illegal.
The information originates from the Financial Times with its correspondent.

Surprise: Beijing Court Sides With Victim Of Internet Censorship (TechDirt, 27 May 2009)

Victim of Beijing internet censorship wins landmark court ruling (FT, 26 May 2009)

Firewall and control on PCs

Want to know what this headline reminds of? Hitler having successfully ordered the making of radios that did not allow for foreign stations to be received by German people and without the knowledge (and even less the consent) of the population. Let's hope Chinese people will not be blinded by their Government's policy and will learn that the controls are on the machines as much as on the internet itself.

"Local Version Of China's Great Firewall Now Required On All PCs In China" (TechDirt, 8 June 2009)

China, internet and surveillance/spying

Since when spies acknowledge they do?

"Online Espionage Network, Based In China, Exposed" (TechDirt, 30 March 2009)

"China refutes computer-spying allegations " (ZDnet.co.uk, 31 March 2009)

"Researchers uncover global cyber-spying operation" (ZDnet.co.uk, 30 March 2009)

No limits to surveillance? crime, internet, secret agencies, and police forces' wishes to hack

1. The following interview is extremely interesting in terms of technical aspects of surveillance and implied human rights/ethics breaches. First, F-secure as an anti-virus company never received information from Government when police forces use Trojan. In other words, F-secure blocks Trojans without discrimination on their origing. So the question is: can police forces overcome the barrier anti-virus softwares create? I wonder who will answer that one.
   Secondly, hacking if used by police forces creates technical difficulties: how do you cypher through the mass of data? how do you comply with basic procedural rules if you do not want evidence to be later discarded? The answer is our third point: the interviewee suggests that the main reason for wanting to hack would be organised crime like drug-trafficking. For those, there are often specific rules about covert investigations.
   
   "Privacy vs protection: Police and the right to hack" (ZDnet.co.uk, 17 March 2009)
   
2. Overall, what is surprising is how the internet and its characteristics seem to be used to justify a level of surveillance that simply never existed and a breach of basic human rights that is unthinkable outside the world of cybercrime/ technology-based crime. Why that fear of crime?

Even the creator of the web opposes it: "Berners-Lee says no to internet 'snooping' " (ZDnet.co.uk, 11 March 2009)

"Gov't may track all UK Facebook traffic" (ZDnet.co.uk, 18 March 2009) and Facebook's response"Facebook attacks gov't web-monitoring plans" (ZDnet.co.uk, 24 March 2009)

"Does 'Cyber-Security' Mean More NSA Dragnet Surveillance?" (TechDirt, 17 March 2009)

"White House Says Feds Should Have Unfettered Access To Mobile Phone Location Info" (TechDirt, 18 March 2009)

3. Lastly, the study by Cl. Guerrier (in French - abstract in English) shows that in the US, Germany, and France, interception of communications is at the same time authorised and controled by the creation of an agency. The problem is the effectiveness of the control done.

"Aux USA, en Allemagne, en France, quelle protection de la vie
privée en matière d’interceptions de télécommunication ?" (Juriscom, 9 March 2009)

Censorship/filtering policies - contrast?

Because of being late in updating the blog, I saw the two following post/article at the same time.
One would expect a clear difference because of the values the two countries attach or do not attach to democracy. The similarities are striking and worrying.

"Why Are Australia's Would-Be 'Net Censors So Opposed To Transparency?" (TechDirt, 19 March 2009)

"China Blocks YouTube, Again" (TechDirt, 24 March 2009). Yes, the interesting question is when did they allow YouTube again? Once YouTube has removed the problematic content? Or when they devise a tool to block access to the videos at stake?

Censorship and the economy

no cybercrime issue here at least directly. It is just a side-effect of censorhip and filtering - lack of transparency triggers more lack of transparency...
"How Does Chinese Internet Censorship Affect Business?" (TechDirt, 25 February 2009)

"China Shuts Down 'Unregistered' Websites" (TechDirt, 25 February 2009)

Skype and interception of communication (update)

A very interesting article (because of the details provided) has been written in French. The reason why Skype's communications are difficult to intercept is that they are using encryption keys that Skype, so far, has refused to communicate.
A software is available that allows for decryption: Digitask. But it costs, according to the article, 3500 euros to acquire, and more importantly, 2500 euros to use and for each interception; in other words, a fortune for police forces. This is why police officers are so keen in obtaining the keys from Skype itself.
Given that both Germany and Italy were concerned about this, not surprising the EU started to look at the issue. Hence the Judicial Co-operation Unit launched an investigation into the possibilities to tap internet conversations, on the basis that organised crime uses Skype facilities already

"Bientôt des écoutes policières sur la VoIP ?" (JDN, 25 February 2009)

"EU to investigate VoIP-tapping techniques" (ZDnet.co.uk, 20 February 2009)

Paying people to filter the internet

China seems to now pay people per porn website discovered and reported. Being cynical, I wonder to which extent this solution might be cheaper than hiring them as full-time employees for the Great Firewall. A future law and economics study?
In terms of human rights and liberties, well, using people to report websites (free of charge) is a common procedure in most countries. UK does it with Internet Watch Foundation; France does it with the Internet Gouvernance website and system, etc... None however when as far as paying them! The question is probably how the prospect of being paid could affect the "objectivity" (if any) of the person's appreciating the contents of the website. As usual, how the information reported is used by Government or non Governmental agencies is crucial as lack of transparency promotes censorship and violation of human rights.

"China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes" (13 February 2009)

Disappeared posts - hidden filtering

As creepy as the previous one, although the persons involve do not suffer like this woman and her children did and do. Apparently, posts from bloggers disappear when related to music and copyrights.
How on earth can Google accaparate the right to filter without warning and notice? Who are they? the secret police of some private dictatorship?

Google Accused Of Invisibly Deleting Blog Posts On The RIAA's Say-So (TechDirt, 6 February 2009)

It all comes back to one question: who is in charge of filtering and on which criteria? private companies for their own sake or for other companies or for Governments? The first two, in a liberal/democratic State, have always been forbidden; the last has so far been subjected to a policy of check and balances, with transparency at its heart (well, at least that is the objective). WHy should it be different online?

See for example the comment of Kelly for Facebook: