Google discloses attack, will stop censoring Chinese search

[Frelga]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/ ... china.html

...as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

...

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

I am not yet sure what I think about this. I find it fairly plausible that Gmail itself did not have a security breach, but it does make me stop and think about the emails I send, some of which are quite sensitive.

On a broader scale, I am very interested in the implications and the fallout from Google's decision to stop censoring search results on their Chinese site. Will it improve freedom of information or cut off the Chinese search users from any source of potential free information?

[Inanna]

Interesting, very interesting. I've always been annoyed with Google's stand in China, but what is the alternative other than simply moving out of that country. Its bad for business and its bad for social reasons. Especially if Bing and Yahoo will stay, as they likely will.

Google's orkut has been having issues in India.
link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html

Part of it:

The rules of political speech on the Internet are usually pretty simple. In America, almost anything goes. In places like China, the censors call the shots. But in India -- a boisterous democracy that's riven by religious and ethnic tension -- the game is far trickier, as Google is discovering.

In September, lawyers at Google Inc.'s New Delhi office got a tip from an Internet user about alarming content on the company's social networking site, Orkut. People had posted offensive comments about the chief minister of India's southern state of Andhra Pradesh, who had died just a few days earlier in a helicopter crash.

Google's response: It removed not just the material but also the entire user group that contained it, a person familiar with the matter says. The Internet giant feared the comments could heighten tensions at a time when thousands of mourners of the popular politician were emptying into the street.

[Frelga]

I love Google products to pieces. But sometimes, I wonder if any private enterprise in history has wielded quite this much power.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

In comparative terms, Google probably does not compare to the power that GM once wielded.

GM employed more people at its height, was a larger consumer of supplies for a larger number of companies (and therefore provided jobs and revenue for many others downstream), and had a larger percentage of revenue as a percent of GDP than Google has ever approached. Google would have to more than quintuple in revenue to reach that, without any growth in the economy--very unlikely. GM still employs far more people than Google, but this may not as significant a statistic as it once was. (GM 244,500 from wiki, Google 20,123 as noted on the Google FAQ.)

GM had revenue in the 1950s (on an unadjusted basis) approaching what Google is only now getting to, and the GDP was much smaller.

In 1955, GM had 12.522 billion in revenue according to its annual report. The GDP was 1.659 trillion at that time.

http://www.carofthecentury.com/gm%27s_a ... t_1955.htm
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

In 2008, Google had 21.796 billion in revenue according to its annual report.
The CIA Factbook shows the US GDP for 2008 as 14.44 trillion.

Both of these are readily available online.

So, in an economy almost 9 times as large, Google's revenue is not even twice what GM's was in 1955, with far less fewer employees, and far less direct impact on other companies.

If you are talking about political power, consider the following quote on GM from wiki, which is sourced to a primary document:

After 20 years of researching General Motors, Bradford Snell stated, "General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than Switzerland ... Switzerland was just a repository of looted funds. GM-Opel was an integral part of the German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM.”

Original quote from "Ford and GM Scrutinized for Alleged Nazi Collaboration", Washington Post, Monday, November 30, 1998; Page A0.

Google is not close to having that kind of power.

BrianIs AtYou

[Inanna]

Well, yes and no. Google might not be close to having that kind of political power (for which am glad), but Google directly touches more lives in a day than GM ever did - by providing people with information. And it collects information from everywhere in the world, processes it, indexed it, analyzes it, and if it wished could really build a repository of my actions today.

Its a different kind of power, and in today's multi-connected, information driven world, it might be the kind of power that matters.

Regarding GM-Opel and their contribution to the Nazis, that's amount money, isn't it? The way Opium provides money for Al-Qaeda today?

[Primula Baggins]

I'm not saying I'm genuinely concerned, but certainly controlling or at least directing access to information for almost everyone in the developed world has got to count as real power. It's not hard to imagine what could happen if that controlling power were held by a group that was not disinterested or benevolent.

[Inanna]

I agree, Prim, I am not genuinely concerned either - but I see the potential. And the potential to even get a fair bit of information about me.

Do you know Google's motto: "Don't be evil"

Sounded really strange to me when I read it first.

[Frelga]

Yes, that's the power I meant. For me at this point, if Google can't find it, it does not exist. News, shopping, professional information, political updates - all starts with Google. My email, my writing, my photos are all on Google.

And in the process, they collect enormous amount of information about me.

[Inanna]

And yet, if Google vanished, we would move pretty rapidly to Yahoo and Bing, wouldn't we?

[axordil]

Only if they worked as well...

[Frelga]

I tested Bing against Google when it first came out and it didn't do nearly as well. It may have improved, of course, but I haven't been back. Yahoo doesn't even compare for professional searches. And neither Yahoo nor even Microsoft offers such a range of online apps, from a free office suite to free online voice calls.

[Inanna]

And I would die without Google Scholar.

What does worry me sometimes, and this is purely for efficiency reasons, how Google "learns". So I will get similar search results according to my previous clicked on links. What if I am looking for a research paper way out there?

To be back on topic - the point I was trying to make is that we are not dependent on google. We prefer it to other search engines and web apps, yes but alternatives do exist. Not that it reduces the extent of power they have.

[Frelga]

Here's a startling take on the issue:

U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google

In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.

The article is an eyeopener and no mistake as it discusses how government mandates on access for law enforcement purposes affect our privacy on the Net and on the phone.