On 2/3/06, Blake <blake at kingdomrpg.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:07:52 -0800, Eric Goebelbecker <eric at ominor.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing you don't trust Yahoo, AOL or MSN either right?
>
> No. I don't get where "trust" enters into any of it.
>
I don't have the orginal post anymore, but I'm pretty sure that's
where I got the word  "trust" from. I don't trust a lot of
corporations.....make that "any". :-)

> > Google is
> > fighting a supoena from the US government for search engines records.
> > The fact that Yahoo, AOL and MSN have already complied is footnote is
> > some news stories, and not even mentioned in most. Where's the outcry
> > against them? How many other supoenas have they decided to not fight?
> > Why are more people worried about internet freedom in China than they
> > are outside of it?
>
> Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is Google is more
> willing to deal with repressive dictatorships than the US gov't. My
> understanding is that the circumstances of compliance are not equal,
> either. That what the government is asking for is, essentially, public
> information that you or I could acquire on the web (which says something
> doubtless redundant about competency of officials). That MSN provided that
> and a lot more. That AOL provided a lot less.

I don't think the information the US requested is all publicly
available. The U.S. is looking for searches made and the addresses
they came from. It is the epitomy of a fishing expedition, as the
request has been made to help the US defend a law in court.

(One could ask why the heck Google even has this data...but at least
they are putting up a fight before giving this info up, unlike the
other portals.)

As for be more willing to deal with repressive dictatorships that the
U.S, this is the land of "free markets" and we have a majority party
that believes that "free markets" can heal all, don't we? Shouldn't
that mean rarely dealing with the government? (Not trying to start a
left vs. right argument here.)

> And that Google's stand is
> more political than meaningful--just as any stand they take on China is.
>
There's not much political hay to be made - Google's stock isn't where
it is because they are a "liberal" or "conservative" company. There is
a business case to be made for protecting their data, though. If
people are afraid to search, they see fewer ads.

> But it's safe to defy the US government. Less so the Chinese.

When in Rome....

In the U.S. certain data is supposed to be private, and the government
is supposed to have to go through a process in order to get it. Even
though search warrant seem to be out of fashion this decade, Google's
lawyers would like to see one.

In China the government can say "Our way or the highway." Big difference.

> An analogue
> can be seen in the current controversy about the caricatures of Mohammed
> run in Denmark. American media is suddenly filled with "respect" for
> religion (in the very same month Kanye West pretends to be Jesus on the
> cover of Rolling Stone and NBC rolls out a TV show in which Jesus makes
> regular appearances). That's not respect; that's fear.
>
Agreed.

> > IMO, Google made a choice in a no-win situation. If they did not agree
> > to censorship, Google would still be blocked. Now it is not, and the
> > Chinese people are getting more info than they did before.
>
> I don't feel strongly about it. The web existed before Google and will
> exist after. They're the ones who have "don't be evil" as their first
> corporate rule. If there's an issue, it's an internal one, unless you
> actually =believed= that they'd be able to live up to that.
>

The only thing I feel strongly about is that I don't feel Google
deserves any extra scorn. They made a choice and frankly both options
can be called "evil".

(And no, I didn't believe that would be able to keep such a silly promise.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."  - Steven Wright

Eric Goebelbecker
eric at ominor.net
http://eric.ominor.net