Google Blogoscoped

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Is Google Immune to SARS or Bird Flu?

The Conscience Foundation sent the following words by Shizhong Chen and allowed me to republish them. In the picture, you can see Shizhong at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.


We humans need unpolluted air and water to sustain our lives; so too do we need the truth.

In spring 2003, when the world was rattled by the mysterious SARS virus, Beijing surgeon Dr. Jiang Yanyong exposed the Chinese communist regime’s deadly lie, and was universally credited for stemming the spread of the deadly disease. Dr. Jiang has since been placed under house arrest. The international community has given Dr. Jiang many awards, but said little about his absence from the award ceremonies.

What are our chances of having a second Dr. Jiang if the bird flu turns deadly for humans?

In September 2005, Yahoo provided the Chinese regime details that helped to identify and convict journalist Shi Tao of “divulging state secrets abroad.” He is now serving 10 years in prison.

What is our prospect of knowing a “state secret,” such as the truth about the AIDS epidemic in China, even if there is a second Dr. Jiang?

Maybe those are not concerns of Google. On the Chinese New Year’s Day, this author keyed in some Chinese characters in Google search engines, and found:

  1. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong” yielded 4,040 hits on, and 126,000 hits on;
  2. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong feidian” yielded 2,320 hits on, and 15,900 hits on (“feidian” is the Chinese term for SARS);
  3. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong feidian zhenxiang” found 578 hits on, and 8,210 hits on (“zhenxiang” is the Chinese term for truth);
  4. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong feidian jielu” found 275 hits on, and 15,900 hits on (“jielu” is the Chinese term for expose);
  5. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong SARS” found 2,530 hits on, and 36,800 hits on;
  6. Searching for “Jiang Yanyong SARS zhenxiang” found 1,940 hits on, and 17,800 hits on;
  7. Searching for “Shitao Yahoo” found 214 hits on, and 5,470 hits on;
  8. Searching for “Hu Jian Aizi” found 6,380 hits on, and 20,000 hits on (“Aizi is the Chinese term for AIDS).

Search results may vary from day to day, but that was what I found and noted on the Chinese New Year’s day. Numerous others have found glaring discrepancies between the two search engines using other terms?terms deemed “politically sensitive” by the Chinese regime.

Google has defended its search censorship as “complying with local laws.” There are, however, no written laws in China that prohibit the freedom of expression and publicizing heroes; there is only the pressure from the Chinese regime and the temptation of financial gain.

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco have also argued that not complying with the Chinese regime’s demand will only play into the regime’s intention to keep foreign Internet companies out and stop the information flow altogether; thus, partial information from is better than no information from the blocked

One question is: who gave the Chinese regime the technology to block websites and emails? The American Internet companies, in particular Cisco.

A more important question is: if these American Internet companies genuinely believe that the Chinese regime’s intention is to stop all information flow, what will prevent it from happening? By partially complying with it? Is anyone buying the logic of resisting Satan by partially complying with its evil demands? Or preventing Hitler’s genocide by a partial genocide? Or warding off a predator by partially satisfying his bestial desire?

If these American Internet companies are genuinely interested in breaking the Chinese regime’s information blockade, they should invest in technologies that will make the Internet unblock-able. It is not a dream. With no external resources, some Chinese volunteers have already developed technologies that make websites unblock-able (e.g., try and

Unfortunately, the near-sighted American Internet companies do not see the value of a free Internet. They just keep themselves busy with “business decisions” that help the Chinese regime infringe on the Chinese people’s freedom of expression, freedom of information, and other basic human rights.

After World War II, it was established that “following orders” is no defence for crimes against humanity. The day when “business decision” is no excuse for assisting human rights violations will come sooner or later. Are the high-flying Internet companies ready to defend themselves?


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!