ChinaWatch Archives
Support Google: Updated: An Open Letter To The Chinese Government
I put together an open letter to the Chinese government. Let me know if you'd like to add anything.
Dear Exalted Chinese Government Officials,
We love your culture, your people, and your history. You are the world's oldest civilization and the crowning glory to our common humanity.
We ask that you relax your Internet censorship rules and we seek to convince you that there is great value in communities that have open Internet access.
You should see what is written about the government here, in this country. There is enormous criticism of its imperialist policies around the world, and its domestic policies, especially its healthcare reform.
There's a massive amount of uncensored, anti-government content on our Internet, and in newspapers, TV, and on the radio. And yet there are no political demonstrations.
All that open criticism of the US government and we don't have a Tank man. Repressing ideas encourages aberrant behaviors.
Please don't be afraid of ideas. The Internet carries lots of ideas, there are so many it's as if they are a large school of fish -- your critics will be distracted by so many fish.
Let us be your little brother, we are unencumbered with the same heavy responsibilities of tradition and history, and we have been able to experiment with the Internet and other ideas. Let us help our big brother navigate through the rocky waters and into the bright future we hold in common -- an open Internet.
Thank you for your attention.
- - -
Please see:
Support Google - block China traffic for a day... | Tom Foremski: IMHO | ZDNet.com
How About Showing Some Support For Google On China?
I write a column over at ZDNet, and that's where I floated an idea for showing support for Google's anti-censorship stand. What if web masters blocked all China traffic to their web sites for one day?
Or even better, what if we designated one day - say July 6, and blocked traffic from all countries that have extreme Internet censorship policies. Reporters Without Borders says there are 18 countries it calls "Enemies of the Internet."
It would demonstrate that there is real value in an uncensored Internet.
You can read more here: Support Google - block China traffic for a day...
Google's China Actions Are Hurting Its Other Businesses
Last week I asked if Google's opposition to the Chinese government might affect its other business interests in China, and elsewhere. It's already happening.
Michael Wines and Jonathan Ansfield reported in today's New York Times:
After China Move, Google Faces the Fallout - NYTimes.com
China's biggest cellular communications company, China Mobile, was expected to cancel a deal that had placed Google's search engine on its mobile Internet home page, used by millions of people daily. In interviews, business executives close to industry officials said the company was planning to scrap the deal under government pressure...
China's second-largest mobile company, China Unicom, was said by analysts and others to have delayed or killed the imminent introduction of a cellphone based on Google's Android platform...
A Chinese entrepreneur told the New York Times:
Google's withdrawal amounted to "an amazing public slap in the face to the Chinese government."
Google wants to maintain its R&D facilities and its sales team. But is that realistic?
Beijing officials were clearly angered Tuesday by Google's decision to close its Internet search service in China and redirect users to the Hong Kong site, a move that focused global attention on the government's censorship policies...
Employees of Google might very well face problems with their careers when seeking jobs at other places. And the Chinese government could scrutinize Google's business partners, not just on deals in China but outside of China too.
Google was unable to get other Western companies to admit that they were also attacked by Chinese hackers -- they might shun Google outside of China too, on concerns about their China interests.
Here is a PearlTree - a visual collection of web sites with content related to Google and China:
Updated: Chinese Animosity To Google Is Rising Quickly - Can Google Remain In China?
As expected, Google has stopped censoring its China searches and directed queries to its Hong Kong site.
David Drummond, Chief Legal Officer wrote about the redirection "it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services."
Google said it would retain its R&D centers and its sales teams.
But can it remain in China given the rising animosity to its opposition of the Chinese government? Can its employees in China feel safe from repercussions?
Google is trying to protect its Chinese employees, it stated:
...we would like to make clear that all these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them.
But feelings towards Google are running high in China. Over the past weekend, the Chinese government and allied media organizations, stepped up a publicity campaign against Google.
Sam Gustin, writing in the Daily Finance, reported: Chinese Media: Google Is Tied to U.S. Intelligence - DailyFinance
Chinese media organs lashed out at Google (GOOG) in an apparently coordinated assault on Saturday -- with one paper suggesting Google is linked to the U.S. Intelligence Agencies...
Reuters reported: China state media accuses Google of political agenda | Reuters
China's state media on Sunday accused Google Inc of pushing a political agenda by "groundlessly accusing the Chinese government" of supporting hacker attacks and by trying to export its own culture, values and ideas.
The negotiations with the Chinese government have failed badly. Google has demonstrated a shocking lack of historical knowledge and lack of understanding of Chinese culture in its dealings with the Chinese government.
For a foreign organization to give the Chinese government an ultimatum on changing its laws is like poking a sharp stick into an old wound. Google should have Googled "Opium Wars" before it issued its ultimatum.
The British forced the Chinese to make opium legal, which led to huge amounts of instability in Chinese society, and resulted in two brutal wars, the second one included the French.
The Chinese government is concerned that without Internet censorship, there will be instability in its society. Yet Google made demands that its Internet censorship laws be changed, after it was angered by a "sophisticated" hacker attack it said originated in China.
- Google has not provided the Chinese government with any of its evidence that sophisticated hackers were acting as agents of the government. Those attacks now appear to be amateurish rather than "sophisticated" as it originally claimed.
- Google has allowed the National Security Agency (NSA), the world's largest spying organization, to help it with its security -- a move that has badly backfired. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU, and Electronic Privacy Information Center have all warned about Google and the NSA getting together. [Was China An Excuse For GOOG + NSA Collaboration?]
- Google users in China have not had any explanation for its position, claims an open letter by Chinese "netizens" to Google and Chinese government ministers. Please see: RConversation: Chinese netizens' open letter to the Chinese Government and Google
I like Google's stand against Internet censorship but its dealings with China have become very messy and could have repercussions beyond China.
- - -
Here is a PearlTree about Google and China - a visual way to see related web content:
Please see:
Analysis: Could $GOOG Face Problems Outside Of China For Its Opposition To Chinese Government?
Were Google Hackers Amateurs Or Chinese Cyber Commandos?
ACLU: Google + NSA Is Dangerous
Analysis: Could $GOOG Face Problems Outside Of China For Its Opposition To Chinese Government?
Google's [$GOOG] opposition to the Chinese government over censorship of the Internet is making life difficult for its partners in China. The New York Times reported Sunday, that Chinese officials have sent warnings to Google's Chinese partners that they must obey the law.
Chinese government information authorities warned some of Google's biggest Web partners on Friday that they should prepare backup plans in case Google ceases censoring the results of searches on its local Chinese-language search engine, said the expert, who did not want to be identified for fear of retaliation by the government.
China's most popular Web portal, www.sina.com.cn, features the Google's search box in the middle of its home page. Ganji.com, another highly popular Web site, displays Google's search box in its upper-left hand corner.
Even if Google's partners stop featuring the Google search engine, just being associated with Google, in any way, could be bad for business. The Chinese government has great powers over the commercial sector and because of Google's opposition to China's laws, it could consider Google's allies to be adversarial simply by association.
The Chinese authorities are not predisposed to negotiating with foreign organizations over changing their laws. There are bad historical precedents of foreigners forcing changes in Chinese laws that have led to massive disruptions in Chinese society. The British are notorious for forcing the Chinese to pass a law that legalized opium use.
Backlash against employees...
On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that Google is concerned about a government backlash and retaliation against its Chinese employees.
The retaliation could take the form of narrowed employment prospects for Google's Chinese staff. Having Google on a resume could be perceived negatively in China, where there is a strong sense of national identity and a long tradition of suspicion of foreign organizations.
Just a few months ago, Googlelost its head of Google China, Kai-Fu Lee. Did he see the writing on the wall as Google founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, grew increasingly concerned about Chinese censorship?
A government backlash could potentially be extend to Google's Western business partners . For example, in early February, Reuters reported that Google is part of a Disney-led consortium seeking to buy a $100 million stake in Bus Online, a Chinese digital advertising company. Such deals require Chinese government approval.
It will be interesting to see if Google's membership of this consortium sinks the deal, or if it is asked to leave.
Beyond China...
The Chinese government could potentially punish Western companies for simply being associated with Google in non-Chinese markets.
Even just a rumor of such discrimination could quickly affect Google. With the Chinese Internet market exploding, many foreign firms are trying to build a presence in China. If those corporations fail to win Chinese government approval for their business ventures, they will lose out on sharing in the world's largest and fastest growing Internet market.
Western companies have already given Google the cold shoulder. Earlier this year the search giant asked other companie to come forward and admit they had also been hacked by Chinese agents. Intel was one of more than 30 companies hacked about the same time as Google. Although Intel admitted to the hacker attack, it denied any Chinese connection.
It's clear that Western companies already see disadvantages in siding with Google.
What is Google leaving...
The McKinsey Quarterly just published an article titled: "China's Internet obsession" [free registration] looking at the Chinese Internet market that Google will leave behind.
Here are some extracts:
...by the end of 2009, the number of Internet users in China had touched 384 million, more than the entire population of the United States. That's an increase of around 50 percent over 2008. Moreover, 233 million Chinese--twice as many as in the previous year--accessed the Net on handheld devices, partly because China's cellular providers started offering 3G services widely last year.
...
People in the 60 largest cities in China spend around 70 percent of their leisure time on the Internet, according to a survey we conducted in 2009. In smaller towns, the corresponding number is 50 percent. The PC is fast replacing the TV set as an entertainment hub...
...
One in five consumers between the ages of 18 and 44 won't purchase a product or service without first researching it on the Internet. They shop online at auction Web sites such as Taobao, paying for products and services with prepaid Taobao cards that the post offices sell for a small commission. The volume of e-commerce in China more than doubled last year.
...
Seismic changes are likely to take place in the Chinese consumer market because of the Internet--and we aren't talking just about the fact that 50 million Chinese may soon have to stop using their favorite search engine, Google.
It is commendable that Google values a censorship-free Internet above the value of the Chinese Internet market. Even if Google has just a 30 per cent of the Chinese search market, it's still a very significant share of a highly prized market. The behavioral data alone could be used in other markets.
It remains to be seen if Google's principled stand in China has consequences for its business outside of China.
Analysis: Financial Times Says GOOG Has Detailed Plans To Close China Search
Richard Waters at the Financial Times, reports that a source "familiar with the company's thinking" has told him that Google is 99.9 percent certain it will close its Chinese search service.
...the company is likely to take some time to follow through with the plan as it seeks an orderly closure and takes steps to protect local employees from retaliation by the authorities, the person familiar with its position said.
Google is also seeking ways to keep its other operations in China going, although some executives fear that a backlash from the Chinese authorities could make it almost impossible to keep a presence in the country.
Foremski's Take: The move was expected following yesterday's remarks by a senior Chinese government official that censoring the Internet was vital for public stability.
Looks Like Google Is Out Of China - Senior Official Says It Must Obey The Law
It also shows that there is a deep division within the ranks of Google's leadership. Eric Schmidt, the CEO, has repeatedly said that Google is committed to China. But he was unable to persuade Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the co-founders, from separating their concerns about censoring Internet search results in China, from Google's business in China.
It is unlikely that Google can maintain operations within China because any foreign business requires the approval of the Chinese government. Google has shown itself to be in opposition to the Chinese government -- this is an untenable position.
This also means that Google will unlikely be able to take part in joint ventures with others in China. In early February, Reuters reported that Google is a member of a consortium led by Disney, to buy a large stake in Bus Online, a large Chinese advertising company. It's difficult to see how this deal will go through with Google as a member, if it is an opponent to the government's censorship.
This means Google is barred from the world's largest and fastest growing Internet market.
The McKinsey Quarterly just published an article titled: "China's Internet obsession" [free registration] looking at the market Google would leave behind.
Here are some extracts:
...by the end of 2009, the number of Internet users in China had touched 384 million, more than the entire population of the United States. That's an increase of around 50 percent over 2008. Moreover, 233 million Chinese--twice as many as in the previous year--accessed the Net on handheld devices, partly because China's cellular providers started offering 3G services widely last year.
...
People in the 60 largest cities in China spend around 70 percent of their leisure time on the Internet, according to a survey we conducted in 2009. In smaller towns, the corresponding number is 50 percent. The PC is fast replacing the TV set as an entertainment hub...
...
One in five consumers between the ages of 18 and 44 won't purchase a product or service without first researching it on the Internet. They shop online at auction Web sites such as Taobao, paying for products and services with prepaid Taobao cards that the post offices sell for a small commission. The volume of e-commerce in China more than doubled last year.
...
Seismic changes are likely to take place in the Chinese consumer market because of the Internet--and we aren't talking just about the fact that 50 million Chinese may soon have to stop using their favorite search engine, Google.
Too bad for Google it is absent from such a vital market. It's a huge blow to its business and future strategy.
But it is a bold move.
Google's founders see the issue of Internet censorship as being important enough to give up its China business. They've put a huge price on the importance of Internet freedoms -- and that's commendable.
But what future is there for Eric Schmidt? There's a big division between him and Messrs Page and Brin.
- - -
Please see:
Do GOOG Founders Still Need Adult Supervision?
Looks Like Google Is Out Of China - Senior Official Says It Must Obey The Law
Joe McDonald with the Associated Press, today reported:
China's top Internet regulator insisted Friday that Google must obey its laws or "pay the consequences," giving no sign of a possible compromise in their dispute over censorship and hacking.
"If you want to do something that disobeys Chinese law and regulations, you are unfriendly, you are irresponsible and you will have to pay the consequences," Li Yizhong, the minister of Industry and Information Technology, said on the sidelines of China's annual legislature.
That's a position that has no room for negotiation.
Yet Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, earlier this week was reported by Jerry Dicolo at the Wall Street Journal, saying, "We are in active negotiations with the Chinese government." He added that "something will happen soon."
What are they negotiating over? The Chinese position is crystal clear: we're not budging.
It has been two months since Google threatened to leave China as a response to attacks by hackers it said were agents of the Chinese government. It said it would stop censoring Google search results in China.
Li Yizhong told the AP that China will continue to censor Internet content for the public good.
"If there is information that harms stability or the people, of course we will have to block it," he said.
The Chinese government has repeatedly denied that it was the source of the hacker attacks on Google and has said it would severely punish any Chinese hackers but that Google had not made an official complaint, or provided any evidence.
Foremski's Take: It looks as if Google has painted itself into a corner in China. By saying it will stop censoring its results and that it may have to leave China, it has left itself with no options. Negotiations with the Chinese government have produced no compromise from the authorities.
It's interesting to speculate what those negotiations could have been about. What could Google offer in return for being allowed to stay in China but not censor its search results?
The Chinese authorities are far more skillful in these types of situations than Google's leadership.
Will Google still maintain research, and sales operations in China, but withdraw its search service? What about its other products such as GMail, etc? Will Google's spiderbots still index Chinese web sites?
Leaving the world's largest and fastest growing Internet market is a serious blow for Google, especially if it turns out that the hacker attack was not of Chinese origin.
[Were Google Hackers Amateurs Or Chinese Cyber Commandos?]
- - -
Intel Admits To Cyber Attack At Same Time As Google, Denies China ConnectionCriminal Penalties Coming For US Internet Companies That Don't Protect Human Rights Abroad
Is Sexual Blackmail An Issue In China Cyber-Hacking Of US Companies?
Were Google Hackers Amateurs Or Chinese Cyber Commandos?
When Google discovered it had been hacked it quickly pointed the finger at sophisticated hackers acting on behalf of the Chinese government and vowed to hit back by stopping censoring its search results in China.
But was Google really the victim of highly expert Chinese hackers? Nick Farrell, on TechEye, reports that it could have been the work of amateurs.
According to a new report from McAfee the Operation Aurora attack targeted the source code management systems of companies, allowing them to siphon source code as well as modify it.
... According to the paper, the hackers gained access to software configuration management systems (SCM), which could have allowed them to steal proprietary source code or surreptitiously make changes to the code that could seep undetected into commercial versions of the company's software product.
Dmitri Alperovitch, McAfee's vice president for threat research said the SCM's were wide open and no one ever thought about securing them.
Gunter Ollmann, vice president of research at Damballa and one of the authors of the report said that botnet was in many ways unremarkable.
Aurora was just another increasingly common botnet attack and one that is "more amateur than average."
Does this mean Google will back down from its claims of Chinese cyber hacking? China has long maintained that it was not involved.
And will it continue with its pledge to stop censoring its Chinese version of Google?
It would seem that it would at least have to go ahead with quitting censoring its search results. There's no way it can backtrack again on this important point of principle. Which means it might have to leave China.
You'd think that Google's security would be beefier than it is. It would certainly help it avoid making such sweeping statements and dramatic pledges that deeply impact its business, based on faulty data.
Criminal Penalties Coming For US Internet Companies That Don't Protect Human Rights Abroad
Excellent article at the Washington Post by Cecilia Kang about today's Senate Judiciary hearing "Global Internet Freedom and the Rule of Law."
Here are some of the key points from Post Tech - Google says no timetable to leave China; lawmakers tell firms to stand up to censors:
- Google still has no timetable on leaving China.
- Twitter and Facebook were invited to give evidence but refused.
- Twitter and Facebook have refused to join a two-year old Anti-Censorship coalition set up by Microsoft, Google and Yahoo.
- Senator Richard Durbin, the assistant majority leader, is planning legislation that will require US Internet companies to uphold human rights abroad.
"With a few notable exceptions, the tech industry seems unwilling to regulate itself," Durbin said. "I will introduce legislation that will require Internet companies to take reasonable steps to protect human rights, or face civil and criminal liability."
"In a statement, Facebook said it is still small, with few operations abroad."
Wow. Facebook said it is still small?!
On February 10, 2010, Facebook said it hit a milestone: 100 million users on Facebook Mobile. That's just for mobile. It has 400 million active users. 200 million users log in every day.
Facebook said:
"When we come to evaluate doing business in any country, we do so thoughtfully and are mindful of the rules, regulations, and customs," the company said. "As Facebook grows, we'll absolutely be considering which groups we can actively participate in."
As Facebook grows to 1 billion will it then consider doing something about human rights?
PC World reports: Senator to Introduce Internet Human Rights Bill
Durbin noted that Facebook had asked for the State Department's help when it was blocked in Vietnam. "If Facebook expects our government to help resolving efforts to censor its service, it only seems reasonable that they accept some responsibility themselves for addressing human rights issues," Durbin said.
UPDATED: Senate Leader Blasts Tech Industry, Plans Net Freedom Law — Datamation.com
Last month, Durbin sent letters of inquiry to 30 top IT firms asking about their policies concerning Internet censorship overseas and asking executives to appear at today's hearing, where the witnesses were sworn in and testified under oath. But the companies, which included Facebook and Twitter, declined the subcommittee's invitation to appear, Durbin said. A McAfee (NYSE: MFE) executive had been scheduled to testify, but declined shortly before the hearing. The lone representative from the tech sector was Nicole Wong, Google's vice president and deputy general counsel.
There might also be legislation that blocks US companies from selling equipment abroad that enables governments to censor and monitor individuals. This could affect a huge amount of sales. There is a lot of software and hardware that could be used for such purposes.
Interesting times ahead for US Internet companies. They are very reluctant to commit to upholding human rights abroad for all their talk of Internet freedoms.
Usually, industries try to self-regulate because they don't want governments regulating them with laws that will drive up their cost of business, or even limit their business. But in this case, upholding human rights abroad, the Internet companies can't bring themselves to any mutual agreement.
Now, this makes sense: Why Did Twitter Hire A Tech Policy Specialist As Comms Chief? - SVW
Google Is A Media Company - New York Times Sees The Connection In Italian Court Case
It seems that the New York Times agrees with my view that the Italian court ruling on Google hosting a video of a disabled boy being bullied, [Italian Decision Could Help Traditional Media Orgs], potentially benefits Italian prime minister and media magnate Silvio Berlusconi:
Larger Threat Is Seen in Google Case - NYTimes.com
In Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns most private media and indirectly controls public media, there is a strong push to regulate the Internet more assertively than it is controlled elsewhere in Europe. Several measures are pending in Parliament here that seek to impose various controls on the Internet.
Critics of Mr. Berlusconi say the measures go beyond routine copyright questions and are a way to stave off competition from the Web to public television stations and his own private channels -- and to keep a tighter grip on public debate.
...
The Google ruling comes amid other proposed legislation that would seek to bureaucratize the Internet in Italy, including the highly contested Italian version of a European directive that would compel online broadcasters to seek the same licensing agreements as broadcast television. Google lobbied for changes to the proposal.
I've said this before and I don't mind saying this again: Google is a media company -- it publishes pages of content with advertising around it. Just like a newspaper. What's not a media company about that?
Google is not a technology company.
You cannot buy any technology from Google. You can buy technology from Oracle (databases), or from Intel (microprocessors).
(OK. You can buy a search appliance from Google but that is a tiny business that barely registers in its financial results.)
Google is a technology-enabled media company. Therefore, it will come under similar regulations that apply to media companies.
As the New York Times reports:
The verdict, though subject to appeal, could have sweeping implications worldwide for Internet freedom: It suggests that Google is not simply a tool for its users, as it contends, but is effectively no different from any other media company, like newspapers or television, that provides content and could be regulated.
I've been saying that Google is a media company for about five years. Today, more people understand this point, and this is what the Italian ruling is about.
And this is the issue that will chase Google in other countries too.
[This is a very important point: This issue is one that can help traditional media companies. If Google's business costs rise because it has to hire people to monitor its content, like other media companies have to do, then that establishes a more even playing field. The cost of online advertising will rise and that will be good for media companies struggling to make the transition to online. It will increase their potential revenues from online media.]
Google can't continue to turn a blind eye to its social responsibilities. It has to face them or it will be forced to face them.
If media companies such as newspapers have to shoulder social responsibilities then Google, and other Internet companies, need to do the same.
"Do no evil" is passive "Do some good" is what Google needs to do.
Yes, it is tough to do that, but I know Google can do it. I'm constantly amazed at how it manages to deal with some of the most difficult problems around. It can do this and still prosper.
It's better that turning a blind eye to its social responsibilities and hiding behind "Internet freedom" as an excuse for the right to publish a video of a disabled boy being beaten and insulted.
Google's position on this issue is risky.
The risk is not from public opinion but from within its ranks. If its own people, its employees, start to lose their respect for the company, then it is in trouble.
That's what happened at Yahoo, with its horrible policy of working with Chinese authorities to finger and imprison dissidents. I know from personal experience, that people that worked at Yahoo lost a lot of respect for their management, and that damaged Yahoo tremendously.
You can trace Yahoo's problems directly from the start of its China policy.
Take a look at the stock market value of Yahoo at the time it was revealed by Reporters without Frontiers, to have acted as a "police informant for the Chinese."
Yahoo's China "police informant" role sparked a $47.5 billion slide in market value - ZDNet.com.
I'm not saying that this Italian issue is anywhere as bad as Yahoo's actions in China. But I am saying that this is a good time for Google to step up and consider its responsibilities -- before it is forced to do so.
And before people, especially its own, lose respect for the company.
This is an issue that will come up time and again. It's something that Google cannot continue to evade. I think it's best to deal with this sooner rather than later.
Intel Admits To Cyber Attack At Same Time As Google, Denies China Connection
Intel revealed in a regulatory filing that it had come under cyber-attack in the same time period as the cyber-attack on Google.
The information was in Intel's annual report discussing frequent attempts by hackers to break into its IT systems:
Intel said that it did not lose any intellectual property.
However, it told New York Times reporter Miguel Helft that there was no connection with the attack on Google.
The New York Times disputed Intel's claim.
Google had claimed that at least 20 US companies had also been attacked by the same type of cyber attack it attributed to Chinese origins. It urged other companies to come forward and discuss those attacks.
Is Intel denying the link with the Google attack because of the China connection? If the two attacks had the same origin it would place Intel in an awkward position in regards to its business activities with China -- especially since Google had strongly criticized China. Intel would be under pressure to follow suit.
BusinessWeek reported that Intel's sales in China accounted for 17 per cent of its $35.1 billion in 2009 revenues.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that talks will soon resume between Google and the Chinese government following a break for the Chinese New Year. Google wants to stop censoring search results in its Chinese search engine.
Was China An Excuse For GOOG + NSA Collaboration?
Take a look at this:
- Google has too much information on US citizens.
- The National Security Agency (NSA) has a history of illegally spying on US citizens.
Yet Google is negotiating with the NSA to help it repel attacks by spies allegedly representing the Chinese government. [Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks - washingtonpost.com]
Yesterday the ACLU launched a campaign encouraging people to protest the alliance.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which today celebrates its 20th Anniversary, has also been a critic of the NSA and has filed a suit to stop NSA surveillance of US citizens. This surveillance has taken place in San Francisco, very close to Google headquarters in Mountain View.
Jewel v. NSA | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.
It's strange that Google would make a principled stand and pull out of China because of human rights, yet then turn around and talk to the NSA about helping it beef up its security. Whose bright idea was that? Google has loads of really smart engineers, why does it need the NSA?
Also, since the negotiations are still taking place, Google must have some problems with the NSA terms of cooperation.
Is China just an excuse to justify NSA involvement with Google?
It would have been easy for the NSA to make it look like Chinese agents of the government had breached Google's security. The Chinese government denies that it was responsible.
The ACLU puts it well:
If companies like Google think they need the government's help to secure their networks, then a civilian agency needs to step up to the task. Cybersecurity for the American people should not be handed over to a military spy agency, one that is insulated from public oversight and has a history of secretly exploiting vulnerabilities, rather than fixing them.
Donate to EFF to end warrantless wiretapping.
- - -
EPIC files FOIA request over reported Google, NSA partnership
Privacy advocacy group Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the National Security Agency (NSA) asking for details on the agency's purported partnership with Google Inc. on cybersecurity issues.
In a separate action that was also taken today, EPIC filed a lawsuit against the NSA and the National Security Council, seeking more information on the NSA's authority over the security of U.S. computer networks.
UPDATE: The EFF is appealing its case against the NSA. News release January 21, 2010:
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker held that the privacy harm to millions of Americans from the illegal spying dragnet was not a "particularized injury" but instead a "generalized grievance" because almost everyone in the United States has a phone and Internet service.
"The alarming upshot of the court's decision is that so long as the government spies on all Americans, the courts have no power to review or halt such mass surveillance even when it is flatly illegal and unconstitutional," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.
Please see:
EFF's 20th Birthday with Adam Savage and Friends | Electronic Frontier Foundation
Is Sexual Blackmail An Issue In China Cyber-Hacking Of US Companies?
The New York Times recently reported that Britain's spy agency, MI5, warned British executives that were doing business with China, about Chinese attempts to hack into their company systems. This was more than a year ago.
[Britain Warned Businesses of Threat of Chinese Spying - NYTimes.com]
The story also said that the Chinese spying efforts combined hacking with attempts at blackmail over "sexual relationships and other improprieties."
Here's the quote in context:
By John Ward
A 14 page document, warning of the range of Chinese spying techniques, was sent to hundreds of British banks and businesses.
This is very similar to what happened to Google and about 30 other US companies and resulted in Google saying it might have to leave China.
We still do not know the full story of the Chinese spying attempts but know that hackers got into an internal surveillance system at Google.
But was it an inside job? Was there some other method used to gain access to Google or other US company data systems?
Were there any attempts to blackmail people at Google, or any other US execs,"over sexual relationships and other improprieties?"
After all, those seem to be the methods used in conjunction with the Chinese hacking/spying attempts. Why would such attacks be any different against US targets? The British are, no more, or no less prone to sexual blackmail than Americans.
Will the China v US spying story reveal that such attempts took place? Will we find out if they were successful?
It is a salacious topic but that's not why I've raised it. These are important questions because the answers could warn others.
If people aren't aware that tactics such as sexual blackmail are used, then the spies have an important advantage in future missions.
- - -
Please see:
GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
Do GOOG Founders Still Need Adult Supervision?
When Eric Schmidt was brought into Google [GOOG] in 2001 his job as CEO was to provide 'adult supervision' to the founders: Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
This was important if the company was to have a successful IPO, which it did, in 2004.
Now, nine years later, Messrs Page and Brin are seasoned executives of the most important Internet company in the world. Do they still need 'adult supervision?' Isn't it a bit embarrassing that they still have to share power with Mr Schmidt in what Google describes as a "triumvirate?"
What other large companies have a similar management structure? I can't think of any.
Are the boys grown up? Both will turn 37 years old in a few months.
Do the founders still need 'adult supervision?'
Clearly, they don't and there seem to be signs lately that demonstrate that they asserting their views, over that of Mr Schmidt.
For example, Google's entry into China was at the strong urging of Mr Schmidt, despite the founders strongly held views that censoring their search results was the wrong thing to do.
Now that the company's entire China investment hangs by a thread and its strategy has been shown to have been a mistake -- it must be a hard blow for Mr Schmidt.
Other problems...
Veteran Forbes reporter Elizabeth Corcoran, knows Mr Schmidt well. She has written that:
"he has defined his job not so much as leading Google but as running interference for it--placating the investment community, soothing nervous regulators and policymakers and doing whatever it takes to create a magical force field protecting Googleteers..."
If that's the case, Mr Schmidt's abilities to run interference on behalf of Google appear to be on an extended leave of absence.
Take a look at some of the jams the company has gotten itself into and that clearly lie in the realm of 'running interference:'
- Google has run into big problems internationally with its books scanning project and Mr Schmidt's attempts to calm the waters have failed repeatedly, resulting in lawsuits.
- Its relationship with Microsoft is very bad, because Google actively opposed its acquisition of Yahoo and other deals. Mr Schmidt is behind that opposition, he spent many years fighting with Microsoft when he was head of Novell. That strategy didn't work then and it isn't working now.
- Mr Schmidt has managed to upset newspaper companies in the US and internationally and he has failed to get them to see Google as an ally rather than as an adversary -- that's despite many meetings with top newspaper tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch.
- Google's relationship with Apple has soured badly, Mr Schmidt was forced to resign from Apple's board.
- Mr Schmidt admitted that he persuaded the Google board to pay $1 billion more than YouTube was worth. Critics said that was to reward VCs who were investors in both Google and YouTube. Google is still trying to figure out how make YouTube profitable.
- His position on Google remaining in China hasn't worked and now Google has few choices, a pull out of China would lose its top Chinese research scientists and a very large investment. It lost the head of its China operations last year.
Top Security Expert Confirms GOOG's Internal 'Spying' System Was Hacker Target
Ten days ago, SVW reported: Chinese Hackers Targeted GOOG's Internal Spy System
And: GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
This was confirmed today, by Bruce Schneier, a top security expert, writing on CNN.com:
This shows the danger of wiretapping systems, they magnify security risks because they are already collecting data that hackers seek. Much better to hack into the honeypot than to buzz around collecting the data yourself.
Did Google become embarrassed by this security weakness and invoke 'human rights' as an excuse to leave China? I hope it was something else but we don't have the complete story yet.
Here is more from Bruce Schneier:
In the aftermath of Google's announcement, some members of Congress are reviving a bill banning U.S. tech companies from working with governments that digitally spy on their citizens. Presumably, those legislators don't understand that their own government is on the list.
...The problem is that such control makes us all less safe. Whether the eavesdroppers are the good guys or the bad guys, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in. And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
- - -
Please see:
US enables Chinese hacking of Google - CNN.com
Chinese Hackers Targeted GOOG's Internal Spy System
GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
Obscure Algorithm Cited By NYT As Evidence For China Attack On Google
John Markoff reports in the New York Times that a computer security researcher found a link to China in the Trojan software used to attack Google.
This seems flimsy evidence for Chinese hackers. Clearly, Mr Stewart was aware of the algorithm even though it appeared only on Chinese-language web sites. Non-Chinese hackers could have done the same.
Google might reveal its Chinese hacker evidence on Thursday afternoon when it presents its Q4 2009 financial results and takes questions from Wall Street analysts.
New Info On GOOG/China This Thursday
GOOG will be presenting its Q4 2009 earnings on Thursday 1.30pm PT you can access the webcast here.
Google's executives will be facing tough questions from Wall Street about China and what a pull out will mean for future earnings.
But no matter how angry Wall Street might become with its China policy, Google executives will not face the same pressure from investors that most other public companies would face because of its ownership structure.
When Google filed for its IPO in 2004, it said it would use a dual stock ownership structure that gave shares owned by its founders and key insiders with most of the voting power.
This was spelled out in "Letter from the Founders" in 2004:
After the IPO, Sergey, Eric [Schmidt] and I will control 37.6% of the voting power of Google, and the executive management team and directors as a group will control 61.4% of the voting power. New investors will fully share in Google's long term economic future but will have little ability to influence its strategic decisions through their voting rights.
Other shareholders have tried to put through changes but have been rebuffed. For example, in May 2006, The Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund wanted one share, one vote. Its president said, "It is ironic that a company that 'builds its success on the wisdom of crowds' doesn't have a democratic shareholder structure."
It is this shareholder structure that will allow Google to make material decisions about its future without much regard for most shareholders. This is very useful in moral and ethical issues such as its decision to stop censoring in China.
It'll be interesting to see if on Thursday, Google's founders offer more information on 'why now?'
Google has had many opportunities to make a stand against censorship. It is constantly under some kind of cyber attack, why use that as an excuse this time?
It's clear that there is way more to this story than has been disclosed so far.
- - -
Please see:
GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
New Info: Chinese Hackers Targeted GOOG's Internal Spy System
Analysis: GOOG China Pull Out Might Be An Extension Of Its 'Borderless' Korean Policy
GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
If you wanted to hack into a popular web service and collect data on its users what would be the best strategy?
Sprinkle a ton of infected links around the Internet that download spyware onto user computers then silently collect that data and analyze it?
Yes, you could do that. But here is a far better solution: Why not hack into a system that is already collecting data on users?
That's what the Chinese hackers did to Google. And when Google found out that it's internal spying system, its 'internal intercept" system, which automatically collects data on users so it can comply with the many search warrants it receives, was hacked by agents of the Chinese government, it went ballistic.
Here is IDG reporter Robert McMillan with a report:
Google co-founder Larry Page called a meeting on Christmas Eve to assess the situation and decided that Google could walk away from China because of what happened.
Google was pissed that the Chinese hackers hacked into its internal spying system. Those hackers were trying to get data on ALL Google users, not just Chinese human rights activists.
Google exposed all of its users because it had an internal spying system.
One of my readers, Kimo Crossman, pointed out that "wiretapping systems increase attack vectors."
And this is very true. Wiretapping systems increase security risks because the target is perfect -- wiretap the wiretapper. That's the honeypot. Why buzz around collecting all that data when someone else has done it for you?
Google's 'internal intercept' system increased the risk of all Google user data being pirated. If it didn't exist it would be very hard for outsiders to collect it.
The irony that wiretapping systems increase security risk is interesting, and it makes perfect sense. But why is Google invoking 'human rights' as a pretext for possibly leaving China when it was embarrassed by its internal spying system being compromised . . . by other spies?
New Info: Chinese Hackers Targeted GOOG's Internal Spy System
Computerworld has a very interesting story about the Google/China flap.
Reporter Robert McMillan quotes an unnamed source:
Google was already hosting a spy system that could provide the Chinese government, and any other government with user data. They merely had to request that data through a search warrant. That internal spy system became the weak spot in Google's security technology.
But why would the Chinese government try to hack into a system that was already providing it with user data?!
Clearly, the Chinese government was looking at collecting data on all other Google users, not just human rights activists. China was trying to spy on us all!
And it was Google's internal spy system that compromised all its users.
Kimo Crossman, an SVW reader, makes an astute observation when he says that "wiretapping systems increase attack vectors."
Google's own spying system became the perfect system to hack because it was already collecting all usefull data.
Google's anger with China is understandable. But to use human rights as a pretext for pulling out when it was Google's own spy network that got it into trouble seems outrageous.
. . .
Please see: GOOG v China Highlights Security Risk Of Wiretapping Systems
Analysis: GOOG China Pull Out Might Be An Extension Of Its 'Borderless' Korean Policy
Google's new found willingness to pull out of China because of hacking attempts by agents of the Chinese government doesn't make sense.
Why would the Chinese government seek information through hacking? It could give Google a legal order to divulge specific information and Google would comply, as it has done countless times in the past, not only in China but in other countries including the US.
Time and again Google's top executives have said they comply with all laws within each country.
Also, the hacking attempts were largely rebuffed. Google's security technology prevented the attackers from gaining much useful data.
David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer reported:
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
...accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.
Leaving China does nothing to improve overall security, Google faces such attacks all the time, from every region.
The question remains is why now? Google could have taken a stand on human rights in China on many occasions in the past.
In a Tweet yesterday, Bobbie Johnson, a reporter for the UK based Guardian newspaper, pointed out:"Goog acted after its rights were infringed, not the rights of its users."
But even this doesn't explain why Google has found its backbone and made a stand now. It has to be because it has adopted a new policy, one that it tested last year in Korea.
And it's a policy in which Google is able to take advantage of the global nature of the Internet to thwart any national ambitions -- no matter how large.
We first saw this new policy at work last year in South Korea where the government has passed a new law that requires users posting video, or comments on large web sites to use their real names. Web site operators must collect and verify users names. The "real-name" law is designed to clamp down on government critics.
What did Google do? When the deadline arrived for the new law to be implemented, it blocked Korean users uploading videos or leaving comments on its Korean YouTube site. It told them to use YouTube sites in other countries.
[You can read my news report here: Google Is Facing Wrath Of Korean Government Over Snub Of Internet Law]
It neatly sidestepped the law by making use of the global nature of the Internet. It showed the limits of government power and its jurisdiction -- the Internet is global and beyond the reach of any one country.
Based on its Korean experience, Google is gaining in confidence that it can stick to its principles and stay clear of any repressive government policies, anywhere, by taking advantage of the global Internet.
It can stay beyond the reach of any government, including the US if it has to, by moving its HQ and its operations around the world. It has more than 50 data centers all over the world.
This is a watershed moment and one that governments everywhere must be paying close attention to because it demonstrates that when its citizens engage with the Internet, it is a world without borders and where building borders is futile. [China's "Great Firewall" is very porous.]
That's a frightening scenario for any government especially a Chinese government wary of any competition for the hearts and minds of its citizens. And the Internet is its largest source of competitive ideas.
With China, Google is making a bet that there is a business and moral value in an unfiltered Internet, an Internet that is larger than the borders of any one country. I'm pretty sure we already know who's right.
The larger picture here is that Google has realised it has an important advantage: it's not constrained by borders but governments are.
- - -
Please see:
Hilary Clinton: Statement on Google Operations in China
Google Is Facing Wrath Of Korean Government Over Snub Of Internet Law - SVW
Google Finds Its Backbone - Won't Censor China Search, May Close China Operations
Yesterday I wrote that when it comes to China, "Google's backbone is as flexible as that of a Chinese circus contortionist." Because Google is quick to bend over backwards and appease the Chinese authorities over any complaints compared with its dealings with other countries.
But it seems that Google has found its backbone. Today Google announced it will stop censoring its search results on its Google.cn site. (Hat tip: Danny Sullivan.)
This change is because of cyber attacks on the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists and their supporters in several countries. Google security technology managed to rebuff the attacks. Only two accounts were compromised and very little information was exposed.
David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, writes:
Foremski's Take: Wow. This is excellent news. Google's compromise of its normally strong position in regard to Internet censorship was a troubling anomaly in China. It appeared that its commercial interests were more important than its stated ideological position.
What would it lose if it had to pull out of China? It's not the leading search engine but it has made progress. However, last year it lost its head of China operations, Kai-Fu Lee. I interviewed him here: GOOG's Kai-Fu Lee Becomes China's Archangel Investor
China could find itself increasingly isolated. Back in January of 2006 I asked: "What if Chinese Internet users were banned from US access?" If there is value to being able to access the global Internet then would limiting access for Chinese Internet users help remove or reduce Internet censorship in China?
China's government however, is unlikely to view the Internet in this way. It sees the Internet as a media technology that distributes alternate views to that of its own. An isolated China is a concept that is a familiar one in its history and culture.
An isolated China might make its government less paranoid but it has not been a successful strategy. China fell behind in key technologies and became easily exploited by foreign powers for several hundred years until the mid-20th century.
Is this the start of China's Internet isolationist policy?
- - -
Please see:
Google Just Says No To China: Ending Censorship, Due To Gmail Attack
RConversation: U.S. and China on Internet freedom vs. security
RConversation: China tightens Internet controls in the name of fighting porn, piracy, and cybercrime
What if Chinese internet users were banned from US access? - SVW
Yahoo's Heroic Stand Against MSFT - Give Me A Break...
Yahoo's management and board are trying to look like local heroes in their rejection of Microsoft's acquisition offer. Empty, face saving gestures, IMHO designed to distract from their despicable actions in China.
The recent death of Tom Lantos, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, removed one of Yahoo's fiercest critics. Here is a reminder from an SF Chronicle news story November 7, 2007.
“While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, said at the end of the three-hour hearing.
. . .
The hearing began with Yang, who immigrated from Taiwan at age 10, entering the hearing room and bowing and apologizing to the mother of journalist Shi Tao and the wife of Internet writer Wang Xiaoning. They received 10-year sentences after being identified with the help of information from Yahoo.The act wasn’t enough for Lantos. He called on Yang and Yahoo chief counsel Michael Callahan to turn and face the dissidents’ families, seated in the front row, and plead for forgiveness.
“I would urge you to beg the forgiveness of the mother whose son is languishing behind bars thanks to Yahoo’s actions,” Lantos said. Shi’s mother, Gao Qin Shen, had tears in her eyes as the two executives complied.
All that police snitching was done to build shareholder value. Take a look at this extract from Jerry Yang's letter to shareholders explaining why MSFT's bid undervalues Yahoo.
We have the added value of our substantial, unconsolidated investments in Japan and China. We have substantial positions in Yahoo! Japan, the leader in its market, and Alibaba, which is strongly positioned in China, a market with enormous growth potential.From: Uh oh. Yahoo’s Alibaba is antsy about Microsoft; Good luck getting to $40 a share
More here...
Yahoo! heroes instead of zeroes in stand against MSFT but not against Chinese repression
Would You Work For Moral "Pygmies?" - The Costs Of Yahoo's Actions In China
Would you work for a large Silicon Valley company whose top management was recently called "moral "pygmies" by a top California lawmaker because of its role in snitching on Chinese political dissidents?
Would you work for a Silicon Valley company that has been called a "police informant" by Reporters Without Borders because it handed over information to Chinese authorities that led to ten year prison sentences for two people--for the crime of distributing a censor's order not to write about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Protests?
You wouldn't especially since you now have a choice. We currently have very robust jobs market in SIlicon Valley where competition is fierce. A good salary is one thing but it is not enough, people care about where they work.
Yahoo has engaged in despicable acts in China and defended its actions as being right. But I bet it didn't calculate the costs of losing the respect of its own staff.
If you work for Yahoo I can guarantee that you are not holding your head high as you walk down the street. Yahoo is already experiencing a tremendous talent outflow and it is only going to increase because it did not do the right thing in China.
Take a look at my recent post on ZDNet:
Just in case you missed it, last week Yahoo! CEO Jerry Yang and its chief lawyer Michael Callahan were called to Washington DC to explain to lawmakers why Yahoo! helped the Chinese government arrest and then sentence for ten years two political dissidents.
Extracts from Zachary Coile's excellent news story for the San Francisco Chronicle:
"While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, said at the end of the three-hour hearing.
. . .
The hearing began with Yang, who immigrated from Taiwan at age 10, entering the hearing room and bowing and apologizing to the mother of journalist Shi Tao and the wife of Internet writer Wang Xiaoning. They received 10-year sentences after being identified with the help of information from Yahoo.
The act wasn't enough for Lantos. He called on Yang and Yahoo chief counsel Michael Callahan to turn and face the dissidents' families, seated in the front row, and plead for forgiveness. "I would urge you to beg the forgiveness of the mother whose son is languishing behind bars thanks to Yahoo's actions," Lantos said. Shi's mother, Gao Qin Shen, had tears in her eyes as the two executives complied.
[Where is the YouTube clip?]
Launder Chinese data
Yahoo could have easily laundered its data of any identifiable information. I've suggested this solution: Yahoo could use a third-party located in an offshore financial center, since these have strong data privacy laws, to strip its data of any personably identifiable markers and then return aggregate behavioral data--which is much more useful data anyway. If the Chinese government orders it to reveal its data, Yahoo can comply without breaking any laws or harming its users.
Risky behavior
Yahoo and its amoral behavior in regards to its actions in China is going to be hugely expensive to the company and its shareholders, imho. Because those actions risk its key asset - its people.
Why would you stay at Yahoo when there is tremendous competition for your skills in Silicon Valley right now? You could walk across the street to any company, sit down at a desk and you've got a new job.
The Yahoo effect on limiting population growth
There are also other factors to consider as a Yahoo employee, your ability to create children, or even find a partner to practice with.
There are a lot of single people at Yahoo and likely to remain so. Software engineers in particular, are already challenged in continuing their genetic lines, it certainly won't be any easier now.
You walk into a party and inevitably that question comes up. Yes, you could fudge and say that you work for Google, [however, the do-no-evil giant is lucky it hasn't been caught (yet) in a similar snitching situation] and anyway, lying is not a good way to start any meaningful relationship.
Yahoo seems oblivious to a fundamental fact about Silicon Valley's workforce today: People do care about the moral behavior of companies and they discriminate against them by choosing not to work for them.
- - -
Please see:
Yahoo moves for dismissal of dissidents' case
By Richard Koman for SiliconValleyWatcher
Yahoo wants a federal court to dismiss Chinese dissident Shi Tao's complaint against the company for allegedly facilitating his arrest by Chinese authorities. Yahoo Monday filed a 51-page motion to dismiss, claiming that Shi's problem...
-
Chinese Dissident's Wife to Sue Yahoo
By Richard Koman for SiliconValleyWatcher
The wife of Chinese dissident has come to the US to sue Yahoo for turning over her husband's emails to Chinese authorities. He was sentenced in 2003 to 10 years in prison for publishing "subversive" articles on the Internet,...
-
Dissidents within YHOO and GOOG will make ethical companies
By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher
BusinessWeek recently published a news story on Reporters without Borders and its protest against Internet censorship in many countries: BusinessWeek: Nations that Censor the Net Some 17,000 attendees of the protest voted for the nation they believed is most...
-
Yahoo and Google and China - it's time to Do Some Good
By Tom Foremski for SiliconValleyWatcher
One of the most powerful images of the 20th Century is "Tank Man" the man that walked out in front of a column of tanks -- a day after the bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989....
Technorati Tags: Yahoo China
China vows further crackdowns on "unhealthy" content
Further signs that China will continue censoring the Internet in China: President Hu Jintao was reported as saying that "unhealthy" content should be purged from the net and replaced with Communist doctrine, the BBC reports.
The comment came at the Communist Party Politburo, which pledged to impose firmer propaganda controls on the net. In January Hu said officials must nurture a healthy online culture.
"Development and administration of internet culture must stick to the direction of socialist advanced culture, and adhere to correct propaganda guidance," the Politburo meeting resolved, reported China Central Television (CCTV).
The latest rumblings come during a crackdown trend, in which directives ordered the "purifying" of TV and demands that stations reserve prime-time slots for "ethically inspiring TV dramas." The BBC says the steps are all part of a clean-up before the Party's 17th Congress, at which ""major leadership changes" are expected, the South China Morning Post reported on Tuesday.
Yahoo gives $1m to fund research into "international values"
Yahoo has come under considerable criticism from shareholders and politicians for turning over data on its users to foreign governments. In China, the information has been used to imprison a journalist for ten years.
To help it figure out appropriate behavior, Yahoo today announced a $1m gift to Georgetown University to establish a Yahoo! International Values, Communications, Technology, and Global Internet Fellowship Fund.
"This commitment is another step in our efforts to be actively engaged on issues that arise at the intersection of human rights and the Internet," said Jerry Yang, Yahoo! co-founder.
The fund will support the education and research activities of an annual Yahoo! Fellow in Residence and two Junior Yahoo! Fellows who will study the link between international values and Internet and communication technologies.
Yahoo! is currently participating in a multi-stakeholder dialogue that includes industry representatives, human rights groups, leading academics, and socially responsible investors. This diverse group has made a formal and public commitment to creating a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights.
Why doesn't Yahoo know that it is not right to collect data on its users in countries where political speech can be treated as a crime? Why does it take "eight years" of research at Georgetown University to figure it out? It'll be 2015:
Georgetown University Yahoo! Gift Supports Global Communications ResearchGeorgetown’s first Yahoo! Fellow in Residence and Junior Yahoo! Fellows are expected to begin their research on campus during the fall 2007 semester. They will study how international values impact the development and use of new communication technologies such as how the operation and regulation of the global internet affects personal privacy, freedom of expression, education, socio-cultural change and cross-national contacts among civil society groups. The fund, which will support annual Yahoo! Fellows housed at the School of Foreign Service’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (ISD) over the next eight years, builds upon the School’s mission to foster academic-practitioner collaborations around key foreign policy issues.
Google is in the same boat too and facing strong shareholder pressure.
...
GOOG fighting pension funds' anti-censorship proposal
New York pension funds are calling on Google and Yahoo to resist censorship and to stop hosting customer data in certain host countries. Rebecca MacKinnon points to the proposal in Google's notice of annual meeting and proxy statement for their...
Hong Kong Lawmaker Continues Attack on Yahoo over Journalist Jailing in China
Hong Kong's privacy commissioner said there wasn't enough evidence to show that Yahoo's Hong Kong office revealed private information to Chinese authorities that jailed Chinese reporter Shi Tao for ten years. Hong Kong lawmaker Albert Ho criticized the report and said Chinese...
Chinese Dissident's Wife to Sue Yahoo
The wife of Chinese dissident has come to the US to sue Yahoo for turning over her husband's emails to Chinese authorities. He was sentenced in 2003 to 10 years in prison for publishing "subversive" articles on the Internet,...
US Tech Firms Lame Excuse on China Business
U.S. Tech Companies Urge Washington to Confront China on Internet Censorship WASHINGTON (AP) -- American technology giants urged the U.S. government Tuesday to do more to confront China and other countries about Internet censorship. Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and...
GOOG fighting pension funds' anti-censorship proposal
New York pension funds are calling on Google and Yahoo to resist censorship and to stop hosting customer data in certain host countries. Rebecca MacKinnon points to the proposal in Google's notice of annual meeting and proxy statement for their 2007 sharedholder meeting, May 10 at the Googleplex.
The funds are making a similar proposal for Yahoo's meeting in June. (YHOO hasn't filed its 14A for that meeting yet.)
Google's board of directors is recommending that shareholders vote against this resolution at Google's May 10th shareholder meeting. They give no explanation why.
Here's the text of the proposal:
Whereas, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers”, and
Whereas, the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major industry in the United States, and one of its major exports, and
Whereas, political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad, and
Whereas, some authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens attempt to obtain, and
Whereas, technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and
Whereas, technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression,
Therefore, be it resolved, that shareholders request that management institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet which would include the following minimum standards:
1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
5) Users should be informed about the company’s data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.
Hong Kong Lawmaker Continues Attack on Yahoo over Journalist Jailing in China
Hong Kong's privacy commissioner said there wasn't enough evidence to show that Yahoo's Hong Kong office revealed private information to Chinese authorities that jailed Chinese reporter Shi Tao for ten years. Hong Kong lawmaker Albert Ho criticized the report and said Chinese court documents specifically cited Yahoo's Hong King office.
From AP story:
On Wednesday, Ho criticized the privacy commissioner's report, saying Yahoo! Hong Kong is still responsible because it controls the company's China office.
``I have reason to believe the decision (to give information on Shi) was made in Hong Kong,'' Ho said.
He said Yahoo! shouldn't have surrendered the information to Chinese authorities unquestioningly.
``As an international company, Yahoo should know there are international standards it should follow, including those involving human rights and privacy. There's no reason for it not to investigate whether (the information Shi released) was a state secret,'' Ho said.
Human Rights Watch said earlier Yahoo also supplied information to Chinese authorities that led to the arrests of another journalist and two other Chinese dissidents besides Shi.
Yahoo and any other US based Internet companies should not collect identifiable data on users in countries which jail dissidents for actions protected in the US.
It is the ethical and right thing to do.
Please see SVW:
Chinese Dissident's Wife to Sue Yahoo
The wife of Chinese dissident has come to the US to sue Yahoo for turning over her husband's emails to Chinese authorities. He was sentenced in 2003 to 10 years in prison for publishing "subversive" articles on the Internet.
A View from Within on US Companies and China
[This is from the comments section on my entry "Dissidents within YHOO and GOOG will make ethical companies." I'm publishing it as an entry to give it wider distribution. -Tom Foremski] By David Scott Lewis This is a tricky issue, Tom...
Dissidents within YHOO and GOOG will make ethical companies
BusinessWeek recently published a news story on Reporters without Borders and its protest against Internet censorship in many countries: BusinessWeek: Nations that Censor the Net Some 17,000 attendees of the protest voted for the nation they believed is most...
Yahoo and Google and China - it's time to Do Some Good
One of the most powerful images of the 20th Century is "Tank Man" the man that walked out in front of a column of tanks -- a day after the bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989....
Using off-shore companies to launder Internet data?
In thinking about Google handing over identifiable information about users of its Orkut service to Brazilian authorities, and disclosures by Yahoo in China, couldn't such things be avoided fairly easily? For example, Enron set... [Edit]
US Tech Firms Lame Excuse on China Business
U.S. Tech Companies Urge Washington to Confront China on Internet Censorship
WASHINGTON (AP) -- American technology giants urged the U.S. government Tuesday to do more to confront China and other countries about Internet censorship.
Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. and Google Inc. also defended themselves against accusations that they have helped governments such as China's crush dissent in return for access to booming Internet markets.
Andrew McLaughlin, senior counsel for Google, told a State Department-sponsored conference on Internet freedom that his company is trying to use its presence in countries that are restrictive to provide communication options, such as e-mail and blogs, for people who may not have other ways to talk to each other freely.
Give me a break. What a flimsy excuse for GOOG's China business.
What's so noble about providing email and blogs in China? There are plenty of providers of such services.
And communicating freely in China is not to be encouraged because these US companies will turn you over to the Chinese authorities in a Silicon Valley nanosecond, if asked.
They want the US government to take on China on Internet censorship. Usually tech companies want to keep the government out of anything to do with anything. It's easier to pass the buck than act in an ethical manner.
Do No Evil? How about Do Some Good. I know that some of the the employees of YHOO, GOOG and MSFT feel that way, and maybe the rest too. How about the management?
12.15.06: Indictments, guilty pleas on Chinese trade secret thefts
The Chinese government wants to get their hands on military technology being developed in Silicon Valley and apparently the Valley is full of spies to help with those aims.
Tom Abate and John Cote write in today's Chronicle that federal prosecutors indicted one Xiangdong Sheldon Meng for stealing night vision training software from defense contractor Quantum3D for sale to Malaysia, Thailand and China.
"The alleged economic espionage and theft and export of trade secrets such as these -- visual simulation training software that has military application, no less -- has real consequences that could jeopardize our country's military advantages in the world," he said in the statement.He added in an interview: "We own the night. And there are people who want to take it from us."
Meanwhile US citizen Fei Ye and permanent resident Ming Zhong pled guilty in federal court to stealing civilian chip technology from Transmeta and Sun. They intended to use the designs to start a chipmaking firm with financial backing from the Chinese city of Hang- zhou and the provincial government of Zhejiang. These are the first convictions under the Economic Espionage Act.
The 36-count criminal indictment against Meng alleges that he stole night-vision training software and other simulation tools from Quantum3D, a San Jose defense contractor for whom he worked between 2000 and 2003. The indictment alleges violations of several federal statutes, including the Economic Espionage Act and the Arms Export Control Act -- charges that could lead to hefty fines and lengthy jail terms.
Prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act are rare, said author and consultant Steven Fink because federal prosecutors are afraid to antagonize foreign governments. The result, he says, has been open season on Valley trade secrets:
"It's about time," Fink said. "It's been 10 years. And what happened to all the other cases that slipped through their fingers? There is virtually no deterrent against people and foreign governments that want to steal our trade secrets."
Mass media masses at the Googleplex
It's that time of the year again when Google opens its doors to the media and offers wine and food and relaxed, off the record conversations with its top people.
I love this event because it is so family-like...it is a place full of familiar faces and I can't imagine the holiday season without it. And I can report that I had some excellent conversations about some topics that are very dear to me: China and the behavior of Yahoo in regards to the jailing of a Chinese journalist; plus the monetisation of Google News. Unfortunately, I cannot report on what Google executives told me.
. . .
I was impressed with Elliot Schrage, chief of GOOG's PR/communications teams. The appointment of Mr Schrage, about a year ago, was fascinating to me because his background is so different from what would be a typical hire by a large Silicon Valley company. Here is someone that had been representing companies such as Nike, dealing with serious ethical and moral issues around child labor, and also dealing with foreign governments.
Clearly, his appointment showed that Google was looking into a future where it would need to navigate a landscape of similar ethical and moral challenges, and it would need experience in foreign government diplomacy.
I was glad to hear that the China issue is well recognized within Google and that the company is trying to understand how best it can behave in an ethical way.
I would say that Google has a fabulous opportunity to create a significant competitive advantage for itself because of the China issue. It can boost its ability to recruit the best and the brightest people. And people are the company, they create the value and the innovation.
Yahoo faces a significant disadvantage in its ability to compete against Google in attracting top talent because of management's disgraceful behavior in China. Who would want to work for a company that Reporters without Borders called a "police informant" for the Chinese government? If Yahoo fails to create an ethical position on this issue, the brain drain out of the company will accelerate.
. . .
I also met the very impressive Susan Wojcicki, VP of product management. She is in charge of monetising Google's products. I asked her to monetise Google News because that action would assign some value to a product that is currently free, but not produced for free.
By trying to monetise Google News GOOG would then be able to share revenues with the news producers--who are all hurting tremendously. San Jose Mercury, for example, this morning announced yet another round of layoffs. Google has the scale to help create badly needed revenue streams for news organizations.
Google News has a very large audience and some of that audience clicks through to the original site. However, driving traffic to a news site doesn't help much because news sites are terrible at monetising their online operations. Many news sites run Google Adsense ads and those pay very little per click, nowhere enough to support the costs of producing news.
How will news organizations survive when their advertising base is rushing into search engine marketing? The simple truth is that selling products or services next to a search engine box is far more effective than next to a news story.
Yet news is what gets people to return to the Internet. We desperately need a value recovery mechanism that rewards high quality news production. We don't have it yet but a company like Google has the brain power and the scale to create one, IMHO.
. . .
There were many familiar faces on the media side and also on the Google side. It was a pleasure running into my former boss at the Financial Times, Richard Waters.
David Krane, one of GOOG's senior comms guy has had another delivery from the crane, a second child. I'm impressed that David took a bunch of time off to bond with his child and that he recognized how such events impact women so much more than is sometimes recognized.
It was also good to connect again with Brian O'Shaughnessy, now heading comms for the entire product group at Google, recently recruited from running the show at Verisign.
Also good to see, John Furrier, co-founder of fast growing media company PodTech, who was wandering around packing various recording devices... Steve Gillmor, famed blogger, told me that he no longer has his Gillmor Gang podcast, but is working on a secret project...His brother, Dan Gillmor was there, I haven't seen him in a while, Dan said he has another book project.
. . .
Related info:
Despicable behavior by Yahoo management - Shi Tao gets ten years
From the London-based The Independent: CHINA Published state secrets Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison after "illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities." His crime was to have emailed details...
Posted in Silicon Valley Watcher on October 30, 2006 03:06 AM
Yahoo and Google and China - it's time to Do Some Good
One of the most powerful images of the 20th Century is "Tank Man" the man that walked out in front of a column of tanks -- a day after the bloody suppression of...
Posted in Silicon Valley Watcher on November 6, 2006 04:05 AM
Congress's dilemma: When Yahoo in China's not Yahoo | csmonitor.com
A House panel will look into tech firms that cooperate with China to restrict access and reveal identities.
www.csmonitor.com/2006/0214/p01s04-usfp.html - 44k - Dec 4, 2006 -
Silicon Valley Watcher
It has taken about ten months, but Google has finally hired a PR boss, Elliot Schrage--as the new VP of global communications and public affairs. ...
www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2005/11/google_hires_sq.php - 55k -
A View from Within on US Companies and China
[This is from the comments section on my entry "Dissidents within YHOO and GOOG will make ethical companies." I'm publishing it as an entry to give it wider distribution. -Tom Foremski]
By David Scott Lewis
This is a tricky issue, Tom -- as are many issues pertaining to China. As a Silicon Valley expat living in China and working in their R&D/IT sectors, I often wonder what response firms like Google and Yahoo (and Microsoft, for that matter) should have.
Among expats, we just kind of accept things the way they are. Kind of like rules we don't like, but those are the rules, so we have to play by them.
Semel's remark about Nazi Germany, however, is scary. If he really said, it should be grounds for his termination. But we can't put today's China on the same footing as Nazi Germany.
Yes, Beijing often feels like "Berlin, 1936", but the rest of China generally isn't this way, certainly not in SH. And most Chinese don't really care about this stuff: They're happy that their living conditions are improving each year (I'm speaking of urban Chinese). See my http://doiop.com/wang article which was one of the most widely read AO columns last year.
Personally, I'd like to see Google, Yahoo and Microsoft take the moral and ethical high ground (of course, I'd like to see the White House and new Congress do this, too). But then what about IBM? And Motorola? Where does it stop?
Do ALL American firms play hardball with China? Maybe. It would be fun to watch. (I'd be looking for a job, but it would still be fun to watch!)
Most of us expats get frustrated, but we learn to adapt to the rules. Also, there's a sense that the restraints and constraints might be "temporary," i.e., lasting for no more than a few years. Hard to say. Neo-Fascism/ultra-Nationalism is easy to whip up here (hence, the "Berlin, 1936" analogy). So it's a tightrope that American firms have to walk.
But, back to Semel, if he really said what ValleyWag said he said, then he should be terminated. Even giving this a second thought borders on hideous evil.
My advice as someone living in China: Develop scenarios for how to play the China card. Take into account that China may well indeed become a hostile enemy of the United States. (Not likely, but possible.)
Don't be reactive to what happens in China, be proactive. And figure out if the China market is really worth all the effort. For some, it is. For most, it may not be. As a development center, sure (but that's my bias; that's what we offer).
Keep core IP in the States. Be prepared for completely asinine responses from various levels of government and potential China-based competitors. (Our notions of Western logic do not prevail here. China never went through an "Enlightenment" period.) China is the Wild West where anything (and everything) does happen.
David Scott Lewis can be contacted : goldentriangle+svw (at) gmail.com
Dissidents within YHOO and GOOG will make ethical companies
BusinessWeek recently published a news story on Reporters without Borders and its protest against Internet censorship in many countries:
BusinessWeek: Nations that Censor the Net
Some 17,000 attendees of the protest voted for the nation they believed is most in need of greater Internet freedom, and China came in second, with 4,100 votes. Myanmar, under the militaristic regime of the Junta party, was believed by 4,500 participants to present its citizens with the greatest threat to freedom of press on the Internet. The remaining nations, in descending order of votes received, were Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan. . .
. . . China is described by Reporters Without Borders as a pioneer of Internet censorship, dedicating more resources than any other country to restrict online freedoms.
There should have been a companion piece on US and other companies that enable censorship and oppression of dissidents. Such as Yahoo for example.
What will happen is that Yahoo' s and Google's own dissidents will help to lead those companies onto an ethical and moral pathway.
Recently, Terry Semel, Yahoo's CEO was booed at an internal gathering. Semel reacted by telling the Boo-ers to go work somewhere else!
Semel is the one that will be working somewhere else. Wall Street should look for a change of leadership if leadership is not exercised by the executive suite of Yahoo. And the times will demand a leadership that is in tune with our times, and invokes an ethical and moral YHOO leadership (GOOG too).
Here is ValleyWag on Mr Semel and Nazi Germany and tell me if I'm wrong:
One attendee asked Mr. Semel if Yahoo would have cooperated with Nazi Germany the same way it has with China. His response: "Yahoo has a basic obligation not to have a point of view on basic content, and to present content ... and aggregate things and to allow people to make their own choices. I don't know how I would have felt then."
Yahoo and Google and China - it's time to Do Some Good
One of the most powerful images of the 20th Century is "Tank Man" the man that walked out in front of a column of tanks -- a day after the bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989.
He walked into the middle of a pedestrian crossing, with two shopping bags in his hands, and stood down a tank column--stopped them dead in their tracks.
The tanks tried to move around him but he blocked them again and again. He clambered on top of the lead tank and spoke with the crew.
PBS Frontline produced an excellent feature on Tank man earlier this year, I urge you to watch it. Nobody knows what happened to him, some say he was whisked away into the crowd.
But maybe Yahoo can help the Chinese government find him, he might be using Yahoo mail - you never know: TankMan1301@yahoo.china.com
Yahoo's executive management doesn't need to step out in front of a column of tanks to protest injustice in China, or anywhere else in the world, their rights are protected here. So why help the Chinese government track down and jail Chinese blogger Shi Tao for trying to exercise very mild political dissent? A ten year jail sentence.
Yahoo can do the right thing, right now. It can launder the personal data it collects - especially if it is being collected in countries where there is a high likelihood that the personal data could cause serious harm to a Yahoo user if government agencies or their proxies, were to have access to that data.
Yahoo: Launder your data of all personal details through third parties if you have to-- it's as simple as that. And that goes for Google too. Forget about "Do no Evil" how about "Do some good."
There's not much cachet in working for a "police informant" as Reporters without Borders dubbed Yahoo's actions in China.
Chinese Internet Rep Flees From UK Reporter
A lot of people have personally expressed to me their disgust at Yahoo's involvement in acting as what Reporters Without Borders has called a "police informant" in the case of blogger Shi Tao.
David Smith, a reporter for The Guardian in the UK, writes about China:
The communist state stands accused of censoring search engines and persecuting bloggers such as Shi Tao, who was jailed for 10 years after using his Yahoo! account to email a US-based website about the government's attempt to control media coverage of the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.
I tried to give China the right to reply by approaching Hu Qiheng, chairwoman of the Internet Society of China, for a full and frank interview in this Sunday's Observer.
Can we discuss openness? 'I don't want to talk about that,' she said. 'It's outside our remit.'
And with that she turned heel and fled into the crowd.
Later, I'm told, she said in a workshop discussion that all governments need ethical starting points from which to regulate the net. Asked why the UN's declaration of human rights, including the right to freedom of speech, would not do, she simply smiled and nodded and said she'd prefer to hear everybody else's views.
Link to Great Wall of Silence from Guardian Unlimited: Technology
I'm not going to let this issue drop. SVW is going to be watching Silicon Valley and other US companies, and their involvement in China very closely. Watch this space.
MS may reconsider China policy
"Things are getting bad... and perhaps we have to look again at our presence there." That's Microsoft policy counsel Fred Tipson at the Internet Governance Forum in Athens, the BBC reports.
We have to decide if the persecuting of bloggers reaches a point that it's unacceptable to do business there. We try to define those levels and the trends are not good there at the moment. It's a moving target.
Earlier, Tipson had joined Cisco's Art Reilly in defending corporate engagement in China, saying that companies have to abide by local rules. He also offered the usual platitudes about providing access being the path to economic growth and thus individual freedoms.
"The economic value in the internet is driving growth and development in educational opportunities [in China]. Openness is often too segmented too narrowly into a discussion around freedom of speech."Mr Tipson said it was "critical not to portray the internet as a threat to governments. The internet is transforming the political culture of China. There is no question about it."
Despicable behavior by Yahoo management - Shi Tao gets ten years
From the London-based The Independent:
CHINA
Published state secrets
Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison after "illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities."
His crime was to have emailed details of the Chinese government's plans to handle news coverage of the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 2004. Yahoo! provided crucial information in the case, linking the message and email account with Shi 's computer. Reporters Without Borders accused Yahoo! of acting as a "police informant."
This kind of behavior will not fly. Yahoo management made a serious error in judgement and so has that of Google, which also hands over such information to Chinese and other government authorities. Both companies could "launder" their data before they receive it, and thus have nothing to turn over.
Both companies always assure us that any data collected is not identifiable and that they are only interested in aggregated behavioral data. It's time to prove it.
The revolt will come from within Yahoo's and Google's own ranks. How does it feel to work for a "police informant" for the Chinese government?
The revolt from the rank and file is already happening. Watch this space for more details.
And how long before users of Yahoo or Google services switch to more ethical service providers? On the Internet, other services are just a click away...
Social causes are becoming extremely important in recruiting and retaining people. As competition for key staff rises, the determining factor will not be money or stock options, it will be ethics.
What use is money and stock options if you work for a company that does not act in a socially responsible way? Yahoo and Google can have their cake and eat it. They can comply with police authorities in other countries and make sure that they do not enable repression, oppression, or supression of political dissent.
They have the technology and the means to collect user data without identifiable data. It's as simple as that.