Hacker News Reader

> > What about all the other American companies doing business in China?

> We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm?

There's actually a name for laws that target one individual while ignoring others guilty of the same behavior, and that's a "bill of attainder" [0]. They're banned by the US Constitution and also every state constitution, which might give you some idea that there are pretty good reasons "why not" (namely, that they're ripe for abuse, they violate someone's right to due process, and can be used by the legislature to take on judicial or executive functions, violating the separation of powers).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

These standards don't only apply to Google, though. They can be applied to anyone, which makes your comparison bills of attainder seem kind of odd.

What standards are you referring to? There are no US standards or laws against what Google is proposing.

Ethical standards.

Why would Google help another govt censor their own citizens?

To curry favor, some kind of quid pro quo. Aka a bribe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act

What's being suggested here isn't even kind of similar to a bill of attainder, not even if you really squint. This is like saying, "You can't prosecute me for theft before you prosecute this other thief, because that's a bill of attainder." No court would entertain that argument.

There is no law against what Google is doing. This is nothing like the theft argument.

Why would a law against what Google is doing be subject to bill of attainder? Wouldn't bill of attainder only apply if the law specifically mentioned Google?

But the comment I responded to didn't say that, so I don't know why you'd expect the comparison to address that. The comment said that failing to go after everyone at the same time as Google violates the prohibition on bills of attainder.

"It's a bill of attainder if you go after Google for violating people's privacy unless you simultaneously — not later, but simultaneously — go after everyone for violating people's privacy" is exactly the same as "It's a bill of attainder if you go after me for X unless you simultaneously — not later, but simultaneously — go after everyone for X."

Whether or not you think they should be able to go after anyone for what Google is doing is a different question, but it's definitely not a bill of attainder to go after one party before others, which was the thing that was called a bill of attainder here ("We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first?").

> I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards.

You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. These two things couldn't be more different. Does the US government also manage food and water in China?

> The better question is whether Google is acting as a monopoly

That's an entirely different question. The letter seemed to target the china problem directly, which is more about censorship than monopoly. If anything, monopoly is just being used as an excuse here.

> but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first?

Isn't Apple bigger by most metrics?

> you haven't made a sufficient case that "favorites" are being played

I think the point is, if favorites aren't being played now, this sort of move incentives companies to suck up even more to lawmakers. If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show?

> Does the US government also manage food and water in China?

No, but the US certainly does regulate how companies can act in other countries, e.g. the FCPA.

> If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show?

It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

> It shows that the government believes some principles should be above making a quick buck.

It shows that congress believes cheap PR for them is above somebody else making a quick buck.

>You're comparing food and water to how a company does business in another country. These two things couldn't be more different.

How a company does business "in another country" reflects back on its own country (and can even have repercussions beyond image).

Google is always free to relocate their headquarters to another country and quit receiving the drawbacks of being a US company of course (along with any benefits that come with them)...

>If Google gets screwed for doing business in China while thousands of other companies get away with it, what kind of incentive does that show?

For one it shows that "doing business in China" is not a single, concrete thing, but there are tons of ways to do "business in China", some harmful and some not, and that might even depend on the industry.

E.g. selling Cokes to China: no big deal. Selling arms to China: might need some scrutiny. Selling Search technology to China catered to assist censorship: ditto.

So, the right question is not "why single out Google while other companies also do business with China", but rather "are these other companies in the SAME kind of business with China?".

And I'm not even against Google working in China, or following their local laws. Just want to point out obvious argument flaws.

I think the are two kinds of regulations. There is the kind that is written down clearly. I can read it; understand what I'm supposed to do and not do and act accordingly and be done with it. There is also the other kind where I need to hire an expert to interpret the regulation and then file an application with the government and if it gets rejected after a long time I have no recourse but to go back to the same agency again. Obviously the first kind of good and the second kind should be avoided. This seems more like the second kind. Maybe we could make it the first somehow?

>Yea, but I'm a big fan of regulated food, clean water and pollution standards.

Completely irrelevant. There are no US laws against private companies building censorship tools in the US, let alone in China.

Not yet. Maybe there should be. ;)

With Google, it seems pretty fair to consider them a Monopoly in several areas. They also appear to be well down the path to abusing their Monopoly(ies?).

Isn't that generally where regulators should become involved?

The point I think a few are trying to make is that the censorship in China issue is completely unrelated and irrelevant with respect to the monopoly issue.

You want to break them up with anti-trust because they're a monopoly? Sure. Go ahead and investigate and figure that out.

You want to ... punish/regulate/? them because they do business in China? You may not like it, but I don't see under what regulation or law you can do that?

The best analogy is US companies that contract with sweatshops. There's actually not a lot I'm aware of that can be done in the US court system, outside of utilizing trade treaties that require adherence to certain labor regulations.

>under what regulation or law you can do that?

this question is answered in the parent post to:

>>>There are no US laws against private companies building censorship tools in the US, let alone in China

>>Not yet. Maybe there should be [a new law -- DenisM]. ;)

If the problem is deemed severe a new law could be made that restricts participation in "oppressive activities", however they are defined. This would be similar to "trading with the enemy" act [1], or to COCOM [2], or to terrorism-related financial restrictions, or to Iran / N Korea / Russia sanctions.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_with_the_Enemy_Act_of_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul...

Many people in the US government actively want censorship tools to be created to police copyright infringements. From a software perspective, at least, it's basically the same thing: slurp up all the media and remove ones that aren't allowed under the ruleset.

It appears changing that may be under discussion. If so, great!

Let us all discuss.

>We'll get to them eventually.. but why shouldn't we go after the biggest business first? Wouldn't that provide the greatest reduction in harm?

You do realize that Google doesn't do search business in China, right?