Google services set for 'return' to China
bbc.com
bbc.com
Either way, having more competition between search engines in China couldn't possibly reduce information flow. Maybe this will make it more likely people can find banned content one way or the other. Turns out China can live without Google, and they need a plan B.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_H...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
The fact that these censorship laws come from countries which are called "democratic" doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the definition of the word.
Here'a a Wikipedia article about Google's censorship:
In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship:
a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves.
b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities.
c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing.
d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a).
I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship.
That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).
> The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every reasonable precaution' to protect their customers’ data. In addition, the law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret Service."
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-fa...
Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa?
Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.
It's a cop-out from Google, and from any other company that has agreed with this (Microsoft, Apple, etc).
Baidu loves my site. Searches are often in the top three results on Baidu. I have no ads and pay Baidu nothing. Don't even help them find my site. Baidu even runs its own book site and gives my site plenty of love. To my knowledge the site has never been blocked by the GFW.
Google barely knows I exist even though I follow all their webmaster rules. I'm not sure if its because of low page rank or Google not being great at Chinese content.
I suppose my point is page rank isn't the only way to go or at least having a strong reliance on page rank may leave out unique or rare content that isn't marketed (quality inbound links) heavily.
Robin Li, the co-founder of Baidu, obtained a patent for hypertext link analysis before Larry Page obtained his “Page Rank” version.
Having the great firewall is as a side-effect hurting a lot the tech companies, no-one is actualy outsourcing tech to China. If you compare with India, the difference is massive. I can only think of one chinese tech company who succeeded internationally (AppAnnie), all the others I can think of are just copies of tech companies for the local market. At some point, they will have to choose between having great technology companies and keeping the firewall in place. The more they wait, the harder the choice is going to be for them.
Just take a look at WeChat which is practically replacing the Web in China. They are clearly years ahead of Facebook.
The chinese government may have to change policies at some point but there is no reason to believe that this is something that has to happen anytime soon, certainly not within the next few years, probably not even within a decade.
Now Google plans to return to China, with the same evil or more evil government still there.
This clearly shows us that in the business world, there is no evil or non-evil, only money or non-money.
That aside, I'm glad that Google is coming.
Nobody would use it, though. Baidu already has its monopoly.
Like, a cname?
Actually google.com.cn is not a CNAME to google.com.hk. You have to click on the image they put on .cn which redirects you to .hk.
AKA...some units are harder up for cash than others, and can decide to pick and choose principles a la carte.
At the very least, a return will raise some eyebrows? I assume if they do plan on returning it means they are either abandoning their ideals of "do no evil", or else the Chinese government has changed their ways? I find the later highly unlikely.
And the comment about "Google never left China". There was a lot of PR and noise when they left so this comment just baffles me and really makes me think ill when people pick and choose words and play with semantics.
GPS is essential for wearables too work, and many fragmentation of Android market