Google has announced that it may pull out of China because it is no longer willing to accept censorship of search results and after hackers coordinated a sophisticated attack on email accounts of human rights activists using its Gmail service.
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,” said David Drummond, Google’s Senior Vice-President for Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, in a statement issued January 12, 2010. “We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”
Google has faced substantial and sustained criticism over its agreement to comply with China’s censorship policies. This news represents a laudable about-face in the internet search giant’s China policy, and a welcome victory of principles over profit that I hope other companies will follow.
Google doesn’t want to be evil
For anyone who has been living in a cave for the past decade, Google Inc. is an American public corporation that has emerged as the world’s dominant Internet company, largely on the strength of its search tools. Google generates profits from, among other things, advertising bought on the many free services it offers, including its popular e-mail service. Google’s rapid growth has sparked a sequence of new products, acquisitions and partnerships beyond its core search engine. Google has been repeatedly named Fortune Magazine’s Number One Best Place to Work and most powerful brand in the world, and the company’s web site has been cited as the most visited site on the internet.
Google’s unofficial slogan is, “Don’t be evil”, and indeed, progressive causes such as environmentalism, philanthropy and positive employee relations were from the start assigned an important role in establishing the company’s brand image.
However, despite its unofficial slogan, Google has been criticized over issues of privacy of personal information, copyright and censorship. In particular, Google has been targeted for its agreement to adhere to the Internet censorship policies of the People’s Republic of China, enforced by means of filters as part of the “Golden Shield Project” (known colloquially as the “Great Firewall of China”). Google has been denounced by organizations such as Reporters Without Borders for agreeing to China’s demands. Chinese Internet users have also criticized Google for assisting the Chinese government in repressing its own citizens.
Google in China
Google critics in the United States claim that Google China and the company’s cooperation with the Chinese government represent flagrant violations of the “Don’t be evil” policy. It would indeed be difficult to argue otherwise, given the restrictive policies of the Chinese government regarding such fundamental human rights as freedom of expression and freedom of association, and the brutality with which such restrictions are enforced.
Google China was launched in January 2006. At the time, the company stated that it believed that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed the company’s discomfort in agreeing to censor some results.
The Great Firewall system blocks undesirable web content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through. The system also selectively engages in “DNS poisoning” when particular sites are requested. Internet censorship in the People’s Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.
Google’s Chinese language website, Google.cn, was designed to comply with local laws. For example, Google.cn search results are filtered so as not to bring up any results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the independence movements of Tibet and Taiwan or the Falun Gong movement, and other information perceived to be harmful to China.
Google and others sustain cyber attack
Google’s re-thinking of its China operations was driven by more than just growing discomfort with the country’s internet censorship demands.
Google has revealed that in mid-December 2009, it detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on its corporate infrastructure originating from China. The attack resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear to the company that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident was in fact something quite different:
- First, the attack was not just on Google. The company’s investigation revealed that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses had been similarly targeted.
- Second, a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on Google’s investigation to date it appears that particular part of the attack was unsuccessful; only two Gmail accounts were accessed, and the information obtained was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
- Third, independent of the attack on Google, the Gmail accounts of dozens of U.S., Chinese and European advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.
Google’s public statement stopped short of specifically identifying the Chinese government as the culprit. But regardless of the identity of the perpetrator, this latest incident has prompted the company to immediately pull back from its participation in the Great Firewall. Google is now in the process of notifying other affected companies and is working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered – combined with attempts over the past year to limit free speech on the Web – have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China, said Google.
China’s response
Predictably, in its public statements, Beijing has downplayed the significance of Google’s possible exit from the Chinese market.
Conclusion
A company that truly places primacy on principles over profit is a rare thing. To be fair, most companies would not be in a position to turn down access to the massive and expanding Chinese market. If companies like Google forsake money for altruistic reasons, they may risk shareholder revolt and potential lawsuits.
But history is littered with examples of large and influential corporations who were complicit with evil-doers in the pursuit of increased profit, even where such compliance was unnecessary for corporate survival. The cooperation of companies like GM, Ford and IBM with the Nazi government remain as black marks on their respective corporate histories.
To the extent that they conflict, it can at times be difficult to strike a proper balance between a corporation’s profit-making objectives and its desire to be a “good corporate citizen”. But some cases like Nazi Germany’s genocidal policies and China’s massive human rights abuses are so blatant that it should make this task relatively easy.
I do not doubt Google’s sincerity when it says that it believed that its activities in China would have a net benefit for China’s citizens. However, I think (and subsequent events demonstrate) that this belief, though perhaps sincere, was also remarkably naïve.
Appeasement doesn’t work. As British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain learned following his 1938 “peace for our time” speech (now cited primarily for its ironic value) regarding the Munich Agreement, policies of appeasement usually serve only to delay the inevitable clash, re-set the starting point for any future negotiations, and provide the evildoer with both confidence in its actions and a veneer of public legitimacy.
Google should be commended for its announcement. The company has recognized that although it may not have done anything evil, it has at minimum been complicit with it, and it is now taking steps to rectify that.
Good for Google. Anyone else?
~Gregory Azeff
Tags: Google