I agree with every word.
Privacy in the 21st Century (was "Google v. the Bush Ad
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46253
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
For some reason this thread frustrates me. I feel an anger that dismays me. I feel like lashing out at posts when I have no business doing so. This is why I felt I was crossing the line with my most recent post. My mental state was surely crossing the line, and I just didn't realize that to others my words didn't reflect that. I think perhaps my unreasonable frustration is just displacement from something else.
I understand that there are a lot of arguments floating around here, and things get chained together in odd logical progressions so that "Google enters China" ends up meaning a whole lot of different things to people on both sides of the issure. To me there is one simple black-and-white fact at the core of this that makes all the shades of gray on the periphery irrelevant.
I am not insisting that the Chinese people must rise up and get run over by tanks. I do not insist that China be boycotted and no business take place with them. These are some of the gray ares, where morality enters shades of gray.
I do urge that no one directly participate in censorship or the erasure of history. This is the black-and-white issue for me.
It is surely not Google's job to uplift the condition of the Chinese people. But asking Google not to censor is not the same as asking them to uplift the Chinese people. I ask that Google not censor any information for any audience. When they do commit substantive censorship, I will object. I don't think anything justifies substantive censorship.
Google is now actively censoring in China. They are directly doing something that is wrong. They aren't just looking the other way, or failing to do something about a bad situation. Those are things we all do, and are nearly impossible to avoid in this world, sadly.
Jn: So what course of action would you suggest where China is concerned? Remove all American companies from China? Return to the pre-Nixon policy of no communication and the pre-Carter policy of isolation? Think that will bring the revolution faster?
My answer is simply this: do no harm. Or perhaps, do no direct harm. We can't have the revolution for them. We can't tell them when or if to have it. But surely we can avoid doing some of the Chinese government's repression for them!
Trading with China encourages capitalism, which in turn, in theory ( I hope ) encourages freedom and the free flowing of ideas. I don't object to Google trying to do business in China. I object to them censoring so that they can do business in China. And I'm not going to embrace consequentialism in a situation with in which an immoral act is directly and immediately being committed. Even if it is believed the net good of Google being in China eventually outweighs the net bad of Google censoring in China, I must still object to what they are doing. None of us can see all ends. Don't do any immediate harm.
I wish the US government would follow this. I wish Google would follow this as well.
I understand that there are a lot of arguments floating around here, and things get chained together in odd logical progressions so that "Google enters China" ends up meaning a whole lot of different things to people on both sides of the issure. To me there is one simple black-and-white fact at the core of this that makes all the shades of gray on the periphery irrelevant.
I am not insisting that the Chinese people must rise up and get run over by tanks. I do not insist that China be boycotted and no business take place with them. These are some of the gray ares, where morality enters shades of gray.
I do urge that no one directly participate in censorship or the erasure of history. This is the black-and-white issue for me.
It is surely not Google's job to uplift the condition of the Chinese people. But asking Google not to censor is not the same as asking them to uplift the Chinese people. I ask that Google not censor any information for any audience. When they do commit substantive censorship, I will object. I don't think anything justifies substantive censorship.
Google is now actively censoring in China. They are directly doing something that is wrong. They aren't just looking the other way, or failing to do something about a bad situation. Those are things we all do, and are nearly impossible to avoid in this world, sadly.
Jn: So what course of action would you suggest where China is concerned? Remove all American companies from China? Return to the pre-Nixon policy of no communication and the pre-Carter policy of isolation? Think that will bring the revolution faster?
My answer is simply this: do no harm. Or perhaps, do no direct harm. We can't have the revolution for them. We can't tell them when or if to have it. But surely we can avoid doing some of the Chinese government's repression for them!
Trading with China encourages capitalism, which in turn, in theory ( I hope ) encourages freedom and the free flowing of ideas. I don't object to Google trying to do business in China. I object to them censoring so that they can do business in China. And I'm not going to embrace consequentialism in a situation with in which an immoral act is directly and immediately being committed. Even if it is believed the net good of Google being in China eventually outweighs the net bad of Google censoring in China, I must still object to what they are doing. None of us can see all ends. Don't do any immediate harm.
I wish the US government would follow this. I wish Google would follow this as well.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46253
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
My apologies in advance:
Théoden: And who will come? Microsoft? (Nods toward Gates and Allen.) Yahoo? We are not so lucky in our friends as you. The old alliances are dead.
Aragorn: Google will answer.
Théoden: (In Aragorn's face.) Google? Where was Google when Tiananmen Square fell? Where was Google when our enemies closed in around us? Where was Goo... ? No, my lord Aragorn. We are alone.
Faramond, don't get too frustrated. You make a very compelling argument, and it is very helpful for me to see it, even if I don't fully agree with you. To me, that is the halmark of this place - that we can learn from each other even (or perhaps particularly) when we disagree about things, because the respect is always there nonetheless. I hope that others feel that way as well.
Théoden: And who will come? Microsoft? (Nods toward Gates and Allen.) Yahoo? We are not so lucky in our friends as you. The old alliances are dead.
Aragorn: Google will answer.
Théoden: (In Aragorn's face.) Google? Where was Google when Tiananmen Square fell? Where was Google when our enemies closed in around us? Where was Goo... ? No, my lord Aragorn. We are alone.
Faramond, don't get too frustrated. You make a very compelling argument, and it is very helpful for me to see it, even if I don't fully agree with you. To me, that is the halmark of this place - that we can learn from each other even (or perhaps particularly) when we disagree about things, because the respect is always there nonetheless. I hope that others feel that way as well.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Where WAS goo?Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:Where was Goo... ?
Stupid immoral goo!
Voronwë, in the end I don't think I'm frustrated with anyone here. I'm just trying to guard against myself being the first person to need to use the "Nan".
I suppose I should say a few more things here:
I agree, more or less, that it is troublesome to talk about corporations or governments being moral or immoral. A government or corporation may be structured in a way that rewards or discourages moral or immoral behavior, but that is as far as it goes, I suppose. The decisions individuals make are moral or immoral.
The thing about Google that makes the llama in me get all ornery is the juxtaposition of their informal motto "Don't be evil" with their act that is in my view fairly evil, or at least wicked.
I don't understand the cultures of China. I don't understand the complexities of life in China. But this doesn't really affect my argument because I don't care about cultural context when it comes to censorship. I say "don't censor X". In this case X just happens to be China.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46253
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Faramond, in a way I envy you on this issue, because you have such a clear opinion about it. And I don't mean by that to imply that you are being closeminded about the issue, because I don't believe that. I think that you are just very clear about what you believe is right and wrong in this context, so you don't feel any need to analyze the different factors any further. I am more conflicted about it, which can be an uncomfortable place to be.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
Black-and-white is not the way to go on all issues, I know.
I think that most often the cultural context should be considered.
Consider the following two questions:
A. What should we not do in China?
B. What should we do in China?
I believe that some answers to A can be listed without considering the cultural context. Some, not all. I believe "don't censor" or "don't help censor" is one of those answers.
But the more important question in the long run may be B, which is the positive form of the question, and it cannot ever be answered without considering the cultural context.
I think that most often the cultural context should be considered.
Consider the following two questions:
A. What should we not do in China?
B. What should we do in China?
I believe that some answers to A can be listed without considering the cultural context. Some, not all. I believe "don't censor" or "don't help censor" is one of those answers.
But the more important question in the long run may be B, which is the positive form of the question, and it cannot ever be answered without considering the cultural context.
But aren't their real options partial censorship (of a handful of selected subjects) or total censorship (by providing none of the information they make available)? Given those options, isn't the partial choice better for everyone? That's still how I see it despite the argments otherwise.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
-
IdylleSeethes
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm
Thank you Jnyusa. Yes it was rhetorical. I shouldn't be allowed to communicate with anyone before noon. Even under normal conditions I can type faster than I can think, but hypertension blurs both my vision and my thinking. I'm calmer now.
I spent the '70s around a group of people trying to hold on to the last vestiges of American imperialism in Viet Nam, the Philipines, Nicaragua, Iran, and other countries. I did decide that I owed the world more than that, and in my own small way I have made a contribution. I think we all have an obligation to do so.
I know what this country has done in the past to its own citizens and to those of other countries. Too well. I don't expect governments to stop. I actually think we are moving into a period that will be looked back on as another dark age. None of that relieves me of the responsibility for making it better.
I am not in favor of imposing our way of life or our views on the rest of the world. Our propensity for doing that is what has the Muslim world up in arms, literally. For example, I doubt the attempt at creating a democratic Afghanistan will work. Everything about it is alien to them. We were just rewarded for our promotion of democracy in the middle east with the election of Hamas in Palestine.
Accepting that others feel and react differently doesn't allow us to believe that absolutely everything about their condition is acceptable. Doing so would add my stamp of approval to their condition and I refuse to do it. There is such a thing as "human rights" and I think we have an obligation to promote the idea and expand the number of people who have attained some basic rights.
This discussion is about the active participation of an American company in depriving a large group of people of knowledge of the world in which they live. Aside from being wrong of itself (my opinion), deprivation and substitution of information is at the heart of controlling public opinion. The middle eastern Muslim schools have proven the success of this in breeding hatred of western culture. It has a long history of success elsewhere. It is a weapon that will be used against us.
You have essentially asked where I draw the line. Here. There are many things that passively contribute to repression, buying fruit from south of the border being one. Yes, in some countries, sometimes this one, farm workers die because the operators of the farms can either avoid the law or "benefit" from there being no law. I don't think that makes Dow culpable. They would be culpable if they knowingly sold, lets say, agent orange to a country for use in spraying remote villages to control their social weeds rather than for its intended purpose of controlling vegetation. That's a not so hypothetical scenario, by the way. Crossing the line into actively assisting repression is what I consider wrong. It makes no difference to me which tool. The most effective ones don't explode or emit projectiles.
Yes, it is silly to think corporations can be evil or pay taxes, but they are run by individuals who can be held accountable for their actions, sometimes. Whether or not anyone attempts to hold them to their word, I don't see how anyone can reconcile the sentiments expressed below with the actions taken for the Chinese government. That must indicate a weakness in me.
My use of the word earlier reminded me that the book I mentioned yesterday is The Propensity of Things by Francois Jullien. It covers the concept and applications of shi. The basic idea is that, when properly understood, the initial configuration of forces foretells the consequence of the endeavor. In military terms, this translates to strategies and tactics foreign to us. Essentially a battle is over when the armies are deployed. No one needs to be killed, the less fortunate general just surrenders. A consequence is that macho warrior heroes are almost non-existent in Chinese mythology.
I spent the '70s around a group of people trying to hold on to the last vestiges of American imperialism in Viet Nam, the Philipines, Nicaragua, Iran, and other countries. I did decide that I owed the world more than that, and in my own small way I have made a contribution. I think we all have an obligation to do so.
I know what this country has done in the past to its own citizens and to those of other countries. Too well. I don't expect governments to stop. I actually think we are moving into a period that will be looked back on as another dark age. None of that relieves me of the responsibility for making it better.
I am not in favor of imposing our way of life or our views on the rest of the world. Our propensity for doing that is what has the Muslim world up in arms, literally. For example, I doubt the attempt at creating a democratic Afghanistan will work. Everything about it is alien to them. We were just rewarded for our promotion of democracy in the middle east with the election of Hamas in Palestine.
Accepting that others feel and react differently doesn't allow us to believe that absolutely everything about their condition is acceptable. Doing so would add my stamp of approval to their condition and I refuse to do it. There is such a thing as "human rights" and I think we have an obligation to promote the idea and expand the number of people who have attained some basic rights.
This discussion is about the active participation of an American company in depriving a large group of people of knowledge of the world in which they live. Aside from being wrong of itself (my opinion), deprivation and substitution of information is at the heart of controlling public opinion. The middle eastern Muslim schools have proven the success of this in breeding hatred of western culture. It has a long history of success elsewhere. It is a weapon that will be used against us.
You have essentially asked where I draw the line. Here. There are many things that passively contribute to repression, buying fruit from south of the border being one. Yes, in some countries, sometimes this one, farm workers die because the operators of the farms can either avoid the law or "benefit" from there being no law. I don't think that makes Dow culpable. They would be culpable if they knowingly sold, lets say, agent orange to a country for use in spraying remote villages to control their social weeds rather than for its intended purpose of controlling vegetation. That's a not so hypothetical scenario, by the way. Crossing the line into actively assisting repression is what I consider wrong. It makes no difference to me which tool. The most effective ones don't explode or emit projectiles.
Yes, it is silly to think corporations can be evil or pay taxes, but they are run by individuals who can be held accountable for their actions, sometimes. Whether or not anyone attempts to hold them to their word, I don't see how anyone can reconcile the sentiments expressed below with the actions taken for the Chinese government. That must indicate a weakness in me.
Thank you tolkienpurist.Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served—as shareholders and in all other ways—by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company.
My use of the word earlier reminded me that the book I mentioned yesterday is The Propensity of Things by Francois Jullien. It covers the concept and applications of shi. The basic idea is that, when properly understood, the initial configuration of forces foretells the consequence of the endeavor. In military terms, this translates to strategies and tactics foreign to us. Essentially a battle is over when the armies are deployed. No one needs to be killed, the less fortunate general just surrenders. A consequence is that macho warrior heroes are almost non-existent in Chinese mythology.
This discussion is about the active participation of an American company in depriving a large group of people of knowledge of the world in which they live."
I guess this is where we part company, IdylleSeethes.
The people are already deprived of the knowledge.
Google is opening up MORE knowledge to them, not less.
Yes, it is imperfect.
It seems like the lesser of two evils, to me.
However, I largely agree with you and Faramond, both. And with Voronwë and Jnyusa, since it is a complicated matter. There is much to be said for both points of view.
I guess this is where we part company, IdylleSeethes.
The people are already deprived of the knowledge.
Google is opening up MORE knowledge to them, not less.
Yes, it is imperfect.
It seems like the lesser of two evils, to me.
However, I largely agree with you and Faramond, both. And with Voronwë and Jnyusa, since it is a complicated matter. There is much to be said for both points of view.
Dig deeper.
Faramond, tp, and Idylle,
My apologies for climbing on a high horse to proclaim something as mundane as pragmatism. I do understand what you are saying, and as a matter of principle I agree with you. I've just never seen a situation where principle alone provided the best course of action. To the contrary, I've seen many situations where the 'moral' persecution of pragmatism destroyed all chances for success.
I guess I feel that in order to consider Google worthy of more moral outrage for this particular decision than other corporations for more ghastly decisions, one must first consider China to be among the worst countries in the world, at least where suppression of information is concerned. I do not hold that opinion.
Second, there seems to be an assumption that the information contained on Google is otherwise uncensored. I do not hold that opinion either. There is a great deal of disinformation posted on the internet. I do not consider disinformation less damaging than missing information, and if we are concerned about that kind of censorship (and I am) we don't have to go to China to find the source.
Faramond, you asked what we should do in China; and Idylle, you said that self-censorship is where you draw the line.
If asked to draw the line, I would not draw it in the same place in all cases, not even in generic terms. In the U.S., the tiniest bit of information tampering is a problem because we are supposed to have freedom of opinion here and a marketplace of ideas, and the slightest departure from that puts us immediately on a slippery slope, imo. Here I draw the line very close to the skin. The slightest ill wind makes my hair stand on end.
But in China they are moving in the opposite direction. From a situation of no information they are moving to a situation of partial information. It is happening in fits and starts, with periods of uncharacteristic tolerance interspersed with periods of heavier repression. Where China is concerned, I draw the line much closer to the bone, because it seems to me that any forward movement of the information machinery represents a gain. And if it is followed by a period of greater repression, well that's expected and you just keep pushing.
I don't know what went into Google's decision - like I said, I consider it a judgment call and I don't know if my judgment would differ having all the facts - but I do know that if I were the decision maker at Google I would decide pragmatically, and not just because of the bottom line.
Idylle: Accepting that others feel and react differently doesn't allow us to believe that absolutely everything about their condition is acceptable. Doing so would add my stamp of approval to their condition and I refuse to do it. There is such a thing as "human rights" and I think we have an obligation to promote the idea and expand the number of people who have attained some basic rights.
I agree with this. But it has to be done together with the people we ostensibly hope to serve. There is a protocol for international solidarity and dissent and I believe it should be followed. Otherwise what we are promoting is just a different flavor of imperialism.
I think it would be great to have a serious discussion about corporate responsibility and where lines should be drawn. Some of these issues are tremendously complex; others are so obvious you just want to shoot the people who can't see it.
Idylle, the hypothetical Dow Agent Orange situation you mentioned - you indicated, and are probably well aware that the example is not hypothetical at all. Agent Orange was sold to the State Law and Order Restoration Council of Burma who were spraying it on Shan villages as a genocidal tool. But the AO was turnkey contract. The U.S. government paid for it and gave it to the Burmese dictatorship for use on the poppy fields as part of the war on drugs, knowing full well that the leading General of the SLORC in fact controls the opium trade out of Burma. The woman whose testimony before Congress got this contract halted is a friend of mine.
What is the corporate liability, in your opinion, when the sale is not to the abusive government directly but to an intermediary? Should Dow be held accountable for that attempted genocide?
We can ask the same question about Unocal in Afghanistan, as that was the charge stated in the class action suit against them (rejected by the California DA) - that their payments to the Taliban for oil rights made them complicit in human rights abuses. Were they in fact complicit, just for doing business in Afghanistan?
Jn
My apologies for climbing on a high horse to proclaim something as mundane as pragmatism. I do understand what you are saying, and as a matter of principle I agree with you. I've just never seen a situation where principle alone provided the best course of action. To the contrary, I've seen many situations where the 'moral' persecution of pragmatism destroyed all chances for success.
I guess I feel that in order to consider Google worthy of more moral outrage for this particular decision than other corporations for more ghastly decisions, one must first consider China to be among the worst countries in the world, at least where suppression of information is concerned. I do not hold that opinion.
Second, there seems to be an assumption that the information contained on Google is otherwise uncensored. I do not hold that opinion either. There is a great deal of disinformation posted on the internet. I do not consider disinformation less damaging than missing information, and if we are concerned about that kind of censorship (and I am) we don't have to go to China to find the source.
Faramond, you asked what we should do in China; and Idylle, you said that self-censorship is where you draw the line.
If asked to draw the line, I would not draw it in the same place in all cases, not even in generic terms. In the U.S., the tiniest bit of information tampering is a problem because we are supposed to have freedom of opinion here and a marketplace of ideas, and the slightest departure from that puts us immediately on a slippery slope, imo. Here I draw the line very close to the skin. The slightest ill wind makes my hair stand on end.
But in China they are moving in the opposite direction. From a situation of no information they are moving to a situation of partial information. It is happening in fits and starts, with periods of uncharacteristic tolerance interspersed with periods of heavier repression. Where China is concerned, I draw the line much closer to the bone, because it seems to me that any forward movement of the information machinery represents a gain. And if it is followed by a period of greater repression, well that's expected and you just keep pushing.
I don't know what went into Google's decision - like I said, I consider it a judgment call and I don't know if my judgment would differ having all the facts - but I do know that if I were the decision maker at Google I would decide pragmatically, and not just because of the bottom line.
Idylle: Accepting that others feel and react differently doesn't allow us to believe that absolutely everything about their condition is acceptable. Doing so would add my stamp of approval to their condition and I refuse to do it. There is such a thing as "human rights" and I think we have an obligation to promote the idea and expand the number of people who have attained some basic rights.
I agree with this. But it has to be done together with the people we ostensibly hope to serve. There is a protocol for international solidarity and dissent and I believe it should be followed. Otherwise what we are promoting is just a different flavor of imperialism.
I think it would be great to have a serious discussion about corporate responsibility and where lines should be drawn. Some of these issues are tremendously complex; others are so obvious you just want to shoot the people who can't see it.
Idylle, the hypothetical Dow Agent Orange situation you mentioned - you indicated, and are probably well aware that the example is not hypothetical at all. Agent Orange was sold to the State Law and Order Restoration Council of Burma who were spraying it on Shan villages as a genocidal tool. But the AO was turnkey contract. The U.S. government paid for it and gave it to the Burmese dictatorship for use on the poppy fields as part of the war on drugs, knowing full well that the leading General of the SLORC in fact controls the opium trade out of Burma. The woman whose testimony before Congress got this contract halted is a friend of mine.
What is the corporate liability, in your opinion, when the sale is not to the abusive government directly but to an intermediary? Should Dow be held accountable for that attempted genocide?
We can ask the same question about Unocal in Afghanistan, as that was the charge stated in the class action suit against them (rejected by the California DA) - that their payments to the Taliban for oil rights made them complicit in human rights abuses. Were they in fact complicit, just for doing business in Afghanistan?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
yova: But aren't their real options partial censorship (of a handful of selected subjects) or total censorship (by providing none of the information they make available)? Given those options, isn't the partial choice better for everyone? That's still how I see it despite the argments otherwise.
First, I think this question only works if you focus only on the consequence and not on the acts. If Google refused to cooperate with the Chinese government, would that be an act of censorship by Google? Google isn't shutting down avenues of inquiry if they don't enter China.
It seems to me that the Chinese government wants an economic internet but not a intellectual internet. Some company is going to move in and give the Chinese government what it wants. Well, several, including now Google, have done just that.
I don't see that creating the sort of internet the Chinese government wants is better for everyone. Calling what Google is doing now "partial censorship" just doesn't make sense to me. It's full censorship in compliance with what the Chinese government wants censored.
I believe I understand the nature of the two viewpoints here.
Google normally provides ABC as a service.
China wants Google to provide only AB, and to remove C from service.
So, those who are okay with what Google is doing see this as a difference between *nothing* and just AB. Well, AB is better than nothing, right?
Those who don't approve of what Google is doing see them providing ABC, which is naturally what they provide, except then taking away C and leaving only AB.
One side says "provides AB!" and the other side says "takes away C!" And the first side naturally says that C wasn't even there to begin with, so what does it matter?
But there is more. I must dispute the idea that AB is better than *nothing*. AB is a partial internet, a bounded internet. It is an attempt to distort reality by cutting off vital connections. By presenting the carefully chosen AB you are helping to create a false reality to imprison and control.
For me, that is what it comes down to. Google is putting out a poisoned search engine in China. Better not to put one out at all in that case.
First, I think this question only works if you focus only on the consequence and not on the acts. If Google refused to cooperate with the Chinese government, would that be an act of censorship by Google? Google isn't shutting down avenues of inquiry if they don't enter China.
It seems to me that the Chinese government wants an economic internet but not a intellectual internet. Some company is going to move in and give the Chinese government what it wants. Well, several, including now Google, have done just that.
I don't see that creating the sort of internet the Chinese government wants is better for everyone. Calling what Google is doing now "partial censorship" just doesn't make sense to me. It's full censorship in compliance with what the Chinese government wants censored.
I believe I understand the nature of the two viewpoints here.
Google normally provides ABC as a service.
China wants Google to provide only AB, and to remove C from service.
So, those who are okay with what Google is doing see this as a difference between *nothing* and just AB. Well, AB is better than nothing, right?
Those who don't approve of what Google is doing see them providing ABC, which is naturally what they provide, except then taking away C and leaving only AB.
One side says "provides AB!" and the other side says "takes away C!" And the first side naturally says that C wasn't even there to begin with, so what does it matter?
But there is more. I must dispute the idea that AB is better than *nothing*. AB is a partial internet, a bounded internet. It is an attempt to distort reality by cutting off vital connections. By presenting the carefully chosen AB you are helping to create a false reality to imprison and control.
For me, that is what it comes down to. Google is putting out a poisoned search engine in China. Better not to put one out at all in that case.
-
IdylleSeethes
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm
It looks like I was correct in assuming that the imaginary Google privacy issue was related to Alito. Someone appeared to be setting the stage for an attack on Alito's confirmation and Kerry announced it yesterday. I wonder how many times the Google privacy issue will be mentioned on the Senate floor next week.
I thought some opinions and news related to the Google China issue might be interesting.
This is the BBC report on Google/China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm
This should give you a view of the progress of free speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4649866.stm
The following are from The Financial Times:
I thought some opinions and news related to the Google China issue might be interesting.
This is the BBC report on Google/China:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm
This should give you a view of the progress of free speech.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4649866.stm
The following are from The Financial Times:
China sets up squads to combat terrorism
By Richard McGregor in Beijing
China has set up a new police force in large cities, equipped with helicopters and armoured vehicles, to combat the threat of terrorism and the rising incidence of rioting and social unrest across the country.
The squads, to be stationed in 36 large cities, reflect the need for a more professional police force amid concerns that it is currently ill-equipped to manage such issues, scholars and analysts said on Thursday.
Combating urban and rural rioting has traditionally been the preserve of the People's Armed Police, a paramilitary force formed in 1983 to relieve the military of any internal security responsibilities.
But the Public Security Bureau, the mainstream policing body, has in practice been forced to handle an increasing number of incidents of domestic unrest and under a powerful minister, Zhou Yongkang, may have been able to make a case for funds for a new force.
"The new squads are aimed at improving the ability of the police to handle terrorist crimes, riots and other emergencies," said a statement on Xinhua, the official news agency.
Mr Zhou said the authorities dealt with 74,000 protests and riots nationwide last year, involving more than 3.7m people, compared with 10,000 incidents in 1994.
The 2008 Beijing Olympics, which may make the capital and other cities a target for attacks, has also focused on China's anti-terror and anti-riot capability.
The new squads will consist of 600-strong units in large urban centres such as Beijing and Shanghai, and slightly smaller groups in second-tier cities.
They will also be well equipped, according to Xinhua, with plans to arm the squad in Zhengzhou, the capital of the poor province of Henan, with three helicopters and an armoured vehicle.
Nicolas Becquelin, Hong Kong-based research director for Human Rights in China, said there were many "political and institutional reasons" to establish such a force, ranging from the global war on terror to worries about increasing protests. "It is legitimate for China to have an anti-terror force but the problem is the context in which it is used and how you define terror," Mr Becquelin said.
China is also drafting a new anti-terror law, which is due to be released later this year.
Zhou Xiaozheng, a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, was sceptical about the ability of any new force to have a real impact on the root cause of unrest. "The crux of the problem lies in an unbalanced society which lacks justice and equality," he said.
Mr Zhou went on: "As the income gap widens, and officials become more and more corrupt, better equipped police will only be used to protect the rich people and residents of big cities.
"The only way out is to actively and steadily implement a reform of the political system."
Public disorder and street action rise in China
By Richard McGregor in Beijing
Published: January 19 2006 10:53
Anti-social and mob violence in China rose sharply last year, according to official statistics released on Thursday by the Public Security Bureau, confirming anecdotal evidence of a growing willingness of citizens to take their grievances to the street.
“Public order disturbances” increased by 6.6 per cent to 87,000 in 2005 as a whole, but mob violence rose more quickly, by 13 per cent, the bureau said in an announcement posted on its website.
The bureau counts four different kinds of incidents under the overarching classification of “public order disturbances” but did not define them in any detail in Thursday’s release.
The figures on “disturbances” are consistent with a previous statement by Zhou Yongkang, the public security minister, who has said the number of “mass incidents”, or protests, rose by nearly 30 per cent in 2004 from 2003 to 74,000.
Jn: I don't know what went into Google's decision - like I said, I consider it a judgment call and I don't know if my judgment would differ having all the facts - but I do know that if I were the decision maker at Google I would decide pragmatically, and not just because of the bottom line.
This puts things clearly for me, and reveals the source of my emotion here. Following is the real core of my argument, or rather my belief, or my conviction: I could not decide pragmatically to censor, to deliberately break the connections of history. I would feel like I was committing violence against myself, no matter what else I was doing by choosing to act that way, no matter what good consequences I thought I could see. There are some things that just shouldn't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps this is a weakness.
This puts things clearly for me, and reveals the source of my emotion here. Following is the real core of my argument, or rather my belief, or my conviction: I could not decide pragmatically to censor, to deliberately break the connections of history. I would feel like I was committing violence against myself, no matter what else I was doing by choosing to act that way, no matter what good consequences I thought I could see. There are some things that just shouldn't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps this is a weakness.
Zhou Xiaozheng, a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, was sceptical about the ability of any new force to have a real impact on the root cause of unrest. "The crux of the problem lies in an unbalanced society which lacks justice and equality," he said.
Mr Zhou went on: "As the income gap widens, and officials become more and more corrupt, better equipped police will only be used to protect the rich people and residents of big cities.
"The only way out is to actively and steadily implement a reform of the political system."
How long does Zhou Xiaozheng have to live?
Seriously, if I was an evil repressive overlord, I wouldn't let people be making these sorts of comments.
Mr Zhou went on: "As the income gap widens, and officials become more and more corrupt, better equipped police will only be used to protect the rich people and residents of big cities.
"The only way out is to actively and steadily implement a reform of the political system."
How long does Zhou Xiaozheng have to live?
Seriously, if I was an evil repressive overlord, I wouldn't let people be making these sorts of comments.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
I am deeply sympathetic to the way that Faramond feels, because I too feel that AB rather than ABC is a partial, a bounded Internet. I feel very, very strongly that Google is creating a false, deceptive image. Even though most to all Chinese surely know that they are being censored every time they type "sensitive" search queries (and Google is now actually putting a notification at the bottom of the page every time it restricts search results - Teremia, this has been in several news articles and I can find one for you if you'd like), Chinese surfers will not know what information they are being denied. Not apart from the tech-savvy, chutzpah-filled ones who will take risks to get around the government restrictions on the Internet. I continue to remain of the view that even if Google cannot solve that problem (and it has neither duty or ability to do so) that at least it should not voluntarily add to it - place another layer of censorship on top of that which already exists.
AB vs. ABC is faulty for another reason. Contrary to universal opinion, Google is not the only search engine out there - in China, or over here. The arguments in favor of Google censorship read as though the Chinese people would not have "AB" if Google did not benevolently provide it to them. Incorrect. Now, Google is a very good search engine (some would argue "the best") and certainly it is arguable the Chinese may have improved access to information using Google. I think this is slightly questionable, because the government's censorship efforts are more likely to be directed towards major search engines like Google than less popular search engines, which research has shown sometimes slip under the wire in China. But "somewhat worse AB" to "somewhat better AB" is less of an improvement than "no AB to AB" - and some of you are arguing as though the latter is true.
I had the impression that Google would be displaced completely by more cooperative companies ... not by competition but by the government, I mean.
Jn, but Google has simply BECOME one of the more cooperative companies.
BTW, as to the question of moral or immoral behavior:
A government or corporation may be structured in a way that rewards or discourages moral or immoral behavior
Yes, this is true - and a corporation may make decisions that outsiders can objectively judge to be moral or immoral, even if the corporation itself is not a moral, immoral, or amoral entity.
And I can't evaluate whether Google's decision increases or decreases the amount of info available in China if tp is correct.
Jn - no one knows this to a certainty, yet. This research will be done - certainly by the people whose previous studies I have linked to, and probably by others as well - and in the next 12-24 months we will better be able to assess this. However, as far as I can tell, Google has made available to the Chinese people another dually filtered, censored search engine alternative. It is unlikely to increase the amount of information available to the Chinese people on search topics such as "Christianity" or "democracy" or "sexual practices". The pragmatist's question, then, is whether Google has increased the information available to the Chinese people on the rest of the topics - and it has only done so to the extent that it is a better search engine (in its filtered and censored state) that the other singly or dually filtered, censored search engines available to the Chinese.
AB vs. ABC is faulty for another reason. Contrary to universal opinion, Google is not the only search engine out there - in China, or over here. The arguments in favor of Google censorship read as though the Chinese people would not have "AB" if Google did not benevolently provide it to them. Incorrect. Now, Google is a very good search engine (some would argue "the best") and certainly it is arguable the Chinese may have improved access to information using Google. I think this is slightly questionable, because the government's censorship efforts are more likely to be directed towards major search engines like Google than less popular search engines, which research has shown sometimes slip under the wire in China. But "somewhat worse AB" to "somewhat better AB" is less of an improvement than "no AB to AB" - and some of you are arguing as though the latter is true.
I had the impression that Google would be displaced completely by more cooperative companies ... not by competition but by the government, I mean.
Jn, but Google has simply BECOME one of the more cooperative companies.
BTW, as to the question of moral or immoral behavior:
A government or corporation may be structured in a way that rewards or discourages moral or immoral behavior
Yes, this is true - and a corporation may make decisions that outsiders can objectively judge to be moral or immoral, even if the corporation itself is not a moral, immoral, or amoral entity.
And I can't evaluate whether Google's decision increases or decreases the amount of info available in China if tp is correct.
Jn - no one knows this to a certainty, yet. This research will be done - certainly by the people whose previous studies I have linked to, and probably by others as well - and in the next 12-24 months we will better be able to assess this. However, as far as I can tell, Google has made available to the Chinese people another dually filtered, censored search engine alternative. It is unlikely to increase the amount of information available to the Chinese people on search topics such as "Christianity" or "democracy" or "sexual practices". The pragmatist's question, then, is whether Google has increased the information available to the Chinese people on the rest of the topics - and it has only done so to the extent that it is a better search engine (in its filtered and censored state) that the other singly or dually filtered, censored search engines available to the Chinese.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Hey, guys, remember I put a qualifier after my -- now apparently shown to be WRONG -- claim that Google wasn't flagging its censorship! 
But even if it does put some little banner somewhere, all of my argument still seems to me to hold, for the reasons tp just outlined: that even if they know they're not seeing everything, the Chinese user of Google.cn will not know exactly WHAT they're not seeing. And that really does affect the way we look at things.
I'm allergic to government censorship and actually fairly allergic to the idea of state power because my RL research has all been in the areas of Russian (mostly Soviet) and East German culture. I feel that our own country is experiencing a consolidation of state power into a small group of hands at the top, and that troubles me more than I can say. I think one of the problems with the U.S. electorate is its naive belief that civil liberties and democracy cannot really be harmed, that our democracy is eternal. So far in human history, that has not been the case. It is profoundly human, alas, to crave power and then to be willing to do anything to keep that power.
(Anyone who has ever been even just a parent or a schoolteacher knows something about the dangers of power! We want our children and students to say nice things about us and to do what we say -- well, that's what dictators want, too, just on a larger scale. They want power, and they don't want other people causing trouble. And when people cause trouble, they (but as part of this troubled species, I really must say "we") want them to Go Away, to Stop It, to (eventually it gets to this level) Disappear.)
((Oh, sheesh, my spiritual crisis hasn't worn off yet, apparently. Sorry.
))
But even if it does put some little banner somewhere, all of my argument still seems to me to hold, for the reasons tp just outlined: that even if they know they're not seeing everything, the Chinese user of Google.cn will not know exactly WHAT they're not seeing. And that really does affect the way we look at things.
I'm allergic to government censorship and actually fairly allergic to the idea of state power because my RL research has all been in the areas of Russian (mostly Soviet) and East German culture. I feel that our own country is experiencing a consolidation of state power into a small group of hands at the top, and that troubles me more than I can say. I think one of the problems with the U.S. electorate is its naive belief that civil liberties and democracy cannot really be harmed, that our democracy is eternal. So far in human history, that has not been the case. It is profoundly human, alas, to crave power and then to be willing to do anything to keep that power.
(Anyone who has ever been even just a parent or a schoolteacher knows something about the dangers of power! We want our children and students to say nice things about us and to do what we say -- well, that's what dictators want, too, just on a larger scale. They want power, and they don't want other people causing trouble. And when people cause trouble, they (but as part of this troubled species, I really must say "we") want them to Go Away, to Stop It, to (eventually it gets to this level) Disappear.)
((Oh, sheesh, my spiritual crisis hasn't worn off yet, apparently. Sorry.
))Faramond:I could not decide pragmatically to censor, to deliberately break the connections of history. I would feel like I was committing violence against myself, no matter what else I was doing by choosing to act that way, no matter what good consequences I thought I could see. There are some things that just shouldn't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps this is a weakness.
I understand this, Faramond. For you this is a principle that should not be breached. That's not a weakness, imo. Everyone has certain areas that they feel should be sacrosanct. We differ in our analysis of particular situations based on what those areas are, and the extent to which we feel the principle has been abused.
tp: I continue to remain of the view that even if Google cannot solve that problem (and it has neither duty or ability to do so) that at least it should not voluntarily add to it - place another layer of censorship on top of that which already exists.
I understand this, too. It is a judgment call. There are certain companies and retail outfits that I won't do business with because they have crossed my line. I have 'moral' reasons for doing this, and friends and associates have argued to me that my personal boycott is a futile act. But it makes me feel better to know that there are certain situations around the world that I am not contributing to with my dollars and cents. One can certainly decide personally that this decision of Google's is worthy of boycott, or ... as some solidarity workers have done ... worthy of buying a few shares of stock in Google, showing up at their annual stockholders' meetings and voicing one's dissent.
One should be able to express an opinion here about any topic whether one is actively involved in the dissent process or not ... I didn't mean to imply that people who have not, you know, taken a bullet in Somalia have no right to an opinion ... but the bottom line in opposition to corporations is always the willingness of the dissenter to forego the goods and services the company provides, and their willingness to bring their dissent directly to the attention of the executives and owners (stockholders) of the company. Shy of that, the message really does not get through.
Going back to what Faramond said earlier, what we should do in China, if we feel very strongly that Google's decision is wrong and harmful, is take that message directly to Google by any of the means mentioned above.
Teremia: I feel that our own country is experiencing a consolidation of state power into a small group of hands at the top, and that troubles me more than I can say. I think one of the problems with the U.S. electorate is its naive belief that civil liberties and democracy cannot really be harmed, that our democracy is eternal.
I agree with this very strongly. It accounts for part of my ... incredulity ... that Google's decision would be considered so significant, because in my view it is a relatively small brick in a very large wall that has already cut off vast amounts of information right here in the U.S.
To the argument that Chinese users will not know of what information they are being deprived my answer would be: neither do we. And it is more serious here because we do not have tags at the bottom of the page telling us that something is missing, nor is there a general understanding that things are missing.
So I am a lot more outraged at FCC complicity with the info manipulation taking place here, for example, than I am at Google's complicity with a long tradition of censorship in China.
jn
eta: with regard to the rewriting of history ... yes, Chines and former Soviet governments have done this (and are doing it) in their own countries. The success of such attempts depends on the extent to which the missing information or pre-doctored information is maintained elsewhere.
I consider it just as important, for example, that certain missionary groups working in China have created fictional documentaries of human rights abuses, and that the U.S. government also altered the history of the Soviet Union for presentation in our textbooks, so that when the in-country censorship was eased and 'correct' information was sought, it was not available in other places either.
If information is to be held sacrosant, then we have a real duty, I think, to work to maintain sources of unbiased account, or even sources of biased account but from all sides, and that we not leave this to the information moguls or to the government.
I understand this, Faramond. For you this is a principle that should not be breached. That's not a weakness, imo. Everyone has certain areas that they feel should be sacrosanct. We differ in our analysis of particular situations based on what those areas are, and the extent to which we feel the principle has been abused.
tp: I continue to remain of the view that even if Google cannot solve that problem (and it has neither duty or ability to do so) that at least it should not voluntarily add to it - place another layer of censorship on top of that which already exists.
I understand this, too. It is a judgment call. There are certain companies and retail outfits that I won't do business with because they have crossed my line. I have 'moral' reasons for doing this, and friends and associates have argued to me that my personal boycott is a futile act. But it makes me feel better to know that there are certain situations around the world that I am not contributing to with my dollars and cents. One can certainly decide personally that this decision of Google's is worthy of boycott, or ... as some solidarity workers have done ... worthy of buying a few shares of stock in Google, showing up at their annual stockholders' meetings and voicing one's dissent.
One should be able to express an opinion here about any topic whether one is actively involved in the dissent process or not ... I didn't mean to imply that people who have not, you know, taken a bullet in Somalia have no right to an opinion ... but the bottom line in opposition to corporations is always the willingness of the dissenter to forego the goods and services the company provides, and their willingness to bring their dissent directly to the attention of the executives and owners (stockholders) of the company. Shy of that, the message really does not get through.
Going back to what Faramond said earlier, what we should do in China, if we feel very strongly that Google's decision is wrong and harmful, is take that message directly to Google by any of the means mentioned above.
Teremia: I feel that our own country is experiencing a consolidation of state power into a small group of hands at the top, and that troubles me more than I can say. I think one of the problems with the U.S. electorate is its naive belief that civil liberties and democracy cannot really be harmed, that our democracy is eternal.
I agree with this very strongly. It accounts for part of my ... incredulity ... that Google's decision would be considered so significant, because in my view it is a relatively small brick in a very large wall that has already cut off vast amounts of information right here in the U.S.
To the argument that Chinese users will not know of what information they are being deprived my answer would be: neither do we. And it is more serious here because we do not have tags at the bottom of the page telling us that something is missing, nor is there a general understanding that things are missing.
So I am a lot more outraged at FCC complicity with the info manipulation taking place here, for example, than I am at Google's complicity with a long tradition of censorship in China.
jn
eta: with regard to the rewriting of history ... yes, Chines and former Soviet governments have done this (and are doing it) in their own countries. The success of such attempts depends on the extent to which the missing information or pre-doctored information is maintained elsewhere.
I consider it just as important, for example, that certain missionary groups working in China have created fictional documentaries of human rights abuses, and that the U.S. government also altered the history of the Soviet Union for presentation in our textbooks, so that when the in-country censorship was eased and 'correct' information was sought, it was not available in other places either.
If information is to be held sacrosant, then we have a real duty, I think, to work to maintain sources of unbiased account, or even sources of biased account but from all sides, and that we not leave this to the information moguls or to the government.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46253
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Not to mention paying Iraqi newspaper to print pro-U.S. stories. Does anyone know anything about the secret disinformation program that was initially headed by John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame? Scary stuff. I really do fear sometimes that our country is turning into the Soviet Union before our very eyes.Jnyusa wrote:the U.S. government also altered the history of the Soviet Union for presentation in our textbooks, so that when the in-country censorship was eased and 'correct' information was sought, it was not available in other places either.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
IdylleSeethes
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 4:14 pm
I'm not sure why the Iraqi news issue surprised anyone. Propaganda is a an ancient military weapon and has been in the US arsenal since this country was started. Iraq is still a war zone and within a war zone it is considered to be legitimate to manipulate almost anything for advantage against the enemy.
Whether it is right or wrong, is another issue and may depend on your proximity to the wrong end of a rifle barrel. It's just normal.
There are several aspects of it, some visible and some not. The military is allowed to use these tactics outside of the US. It may not target a domestic news source, but is not responsible for correcting misinformation domestic media pick up from foreign media. The last public statement that I recall was in 2002 as the Afghani effort was starting up. For some reason the Penatagon thought they needed a new comprehensive structure, and for some reason, they thought we should know about, which is out of character. The Pentagon would rather it was portrayed as if the information was all of the character of VOA broadcasts, but it isn't and never has been. Read this CNN article from a few years ago:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/g ... influence/
The output spectrum is an assortment of "our" view of the news and misinformation considered necessary for the war effort. It is a weapon as old as war itself and I don't think any attempt has ever been made to regulate its use, like the Geneva Convention.
This is from an unimaginative web site that parrots the real tech manual:
Whether it is right or wrong, is another issue and may depend on your proximity to the wrong end of a rifle barrel. It's just normal.
There are several aspects of it, some visible and some not. The military is allowed to use these tactics outside of the US. It may not target a domestic news source, but is not responsible for correcting misinformation domestic media pick up from foreign media. The last public statement that I recall was in 2002 as the Afghani effort was starting up. For some reason the Penatagon thought they needed a new comprehensive structure, and for some reason, they thought we should know about, which is out of character. The Pentagon would rather it was portrayed as if the information was all of the character of VOA broadcasts, but it isn't and never has been. Read this CNN article from a few years ago:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/g ... influence/
The output spectrum is an assortment of "our" view of the news and misinformation considered necessary for the war effort. It is a weapon as old as war itself and I don't think any attempt has ever been made to regulate its use, like the Geneva Convention.
This is from an unimaginative web site that parrots the real tech manual:
Some of us are old enough to remember the "hearts and minds" phase of the Vietnamese War. Once you buy into the idea that war is either necessary or unavoidable to resolve a problem, picking and choosing weapons (outside of WMDs and land mines) for moral reasons is somewhat disingenuous. I would much rather we bombard a population with disinformation to suit our purposes than real 500 pound bombs, so I'm in favor of keeping it in the arsenal. I would prefer to do neither, but we don't always have that choice as a nation.Psychological Operations or PSYOP are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of organizations, groups, and individuals. Used in all aspects of war, it is a weapon whose effectiveness is limited only by the ingenuity of the commander using it.
A proven winner in combat and peacetime, PSYOP is one of the oldest weapons in the arsenal of man. It is an important force protector/combat multiplier and a non-lethal weapons system.
Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or Psychological Warfare (PSYWAR) is simply learning everything about your target enemy, their beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities. Once you know what motivates your target, you are ready to begin psychological operations.
Psychological operations may be defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior ... to create in target groups behavior, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives. The form of communication can be as simple as spreading information covertly by word of mouth or through any means of multimedia.