I think thats a ridiculous argument. Google (rightly) opposed the DoJ subpoena, even though this was a request from a democratic government. It should do the same to any government and do the 'right' thing |
There is more to thisa then just google!!
Its basically china telling america- do what we want or we are going to pull the plug and make you pay all the debt deficient that you have built upl.
There's an excellent pointer that james moore had. Will pull and post here later!!
In short china is giving the finger (middle!!) To all companies that want to operate in china. Follow the program is the mantra!! |
Schmidt defends the indefensible.
"Just following orders" was exposed as a fraud way back at the Nurenburg Trials.
In case some meaning has been lost in the translation (Corporatese/Apologese to English), here is a guide with Schmidt's actual quotes, and the translation:
SCHMIDT: "It is not an option for us to broadly make information available that is illegal, inappropriate or immoral or what have you."
TRANSLATION: "Hey, if Beijing calls freedom and human rights 'illegal, inappropriate or immoral', who are we to complain? It's not like they're the U.S. government or something"
SCHMIDT: "We look at the rise of China, the investment and the smart people and we are in awe of what has occurred here".
TRANSLATION: "The lure of the dollar was so much more powerful than that old "Do no evil" slogan or our old 'never censor' policy."
SCHMIDT: "We must comply with the local law, indeed we have all made a commitment to the government that we will absolutely follow the Chinese law. We don't have any alternatives".
TRANSLATION: "Well of course we COULD 'do NO evil' and leave China; or we COULD build a coalition with all other American technology and internet companies and put the ultimatum to Beijing: 'We're giving your people freedom of speech, or you'll have to kick ALL of us out!'---Naaaah, the money's too good! By the way, don't you just love our policy of resisting the U.S. government demands for our records!"
SCHMIDT: "And we salute the government, key leaders in the industry and all of you who have made the rise of the Internet in China such a tremendous accomplishment."
TRANSLATION: "All hail the dictators who jail those who use the internet to promote freedom, human rights, and to expose corruption (but who gratefully let us make a pile of money!); as well as our fellow 'money over human rights' industry partners!"
SCHMIDT: (answering a reporter's question on whether Google would also supply personal information on its Internet users to Chinese authorities if requested)
"I'd rather not answer a hypothetical question,"
TRANSLATION: Gee, we just don't have the guts to 'just say NO', so, yea, if asked I suppose we would have to turn in Chinese people who are writing or searching about freedom--after all, it's not an option for us to disobey Beijing."
NOTE: At the Congressional hearing in February, Google's representative DID have the guts to answer 'NO' to this question. What's changed that they refuse to answer the same question now?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/12/060412135718.ny2osjek.html
|
I'm disgusted by Eric Schmidt's disingenuous blather.
Whether you agree with Google's China decision or not (and I don't), Google at least deserves credit for thoroughly explaining its rationale in public.
But Schmidt cheapens and deprecates that rationale by spouting meaningless drivel like "it would be arrogant to dicate how China should operate." Nobody is calling for Google to rewrite Chinese laws or to lobby the PRC to change its policies.
But we do expect Google to live up to the standards they've published for themselves, or else renounce those standards. To do less is rank hypocrisy.
Google made a big deal of their "Don't Be Evil" ethic, even writing it into their IPO prospectus. My 11-year-old daughter can see that censoring political thought and expression is wrong, but apparently it takes Schmidt's Ph.D in computer science to rationalize an immoral action and cast it as a lack of arrogance.
http://www.dontbeevil.com/2006/04/eric-schmidts-logical-fallacy.html |
