Google v. China

[Kerberoz]

There's little difference between collectivism and non-existence.

I live in Japan and have 15 Japanese working for me. They all use Yahoo at lunchtime and said they use it at home as their preferred search engine. Said they don't like the plain look of google and like having news, sports, etc. available on their home page.

Take it for what it's worth I guess.

People actually still go to (search engine).com to search and don't just use the box?

[Baha]

Time for nations to hire crackers to protect there networks. Our generation is nothing but 0's and 1's and when the market really crashes because of a cracker, then we'll the shit that happens.

http://i48.tinypic.com/opnuvk.jpg
You rang?

[GRT]

http://www.mtv.com/shared/promoimage...ie/281x211.jpg
Hi sweetie.

[6souls]

China has said that foreign internet firms are welcome to do business "according to the law".

The statement, from Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu, is Beijing's first response to Google's threat to stop filtering content in China.

Google said on Tuesday that cyber-attacks originating in China aimed at human rights activists might force it to close its Chinese operations.

Ms Jiang said the internet was "open" in China.

Google announced that it was no longer willing to censor its Chinese search engine - google.cn.

The search engine subsequently said it would hold talks with the government in the coming weeks to look at operating an unfiltered search engine within the law in the country, though no changes to filtering had yet been made.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8458462.stm

[Cantih]

dude anyone can hack google, it is so easy. Just drink some jolt cola and watch hackers. That Easy.

One sad problem with that
http://www.slashfood.com/2009/10/29/...duction-close/

Stock up what you can, we'll need it for one last run on the Gibson.

[guartz]

oh anarchists everywhere must be paying close attention, preparing their 'toldyousos'

[Kuya]

Overplaying it? I thought I was just saying how it is. You say I attempt to marginalize the more individualistic of the Chinese, I say your very usage of the word "hive-mind" identifies you as ignorant and naive, considering collectivism as the "lesser" social/cultural structure.

Considering that he says he's a socialist, i find this post lol.

oh anarchists everywhere must be paying close attention, preparing their 'toldyousos'

What do you mean?

[guartz]

What do you mean?

a theory that mega corporations are inherently more responsive to individualistic(?) rights, then governments.

[Kuya]

Well obviously, it's not individualistic rights that economic bureaucracies threaten. I don't think that was ever one of the primary criticisms though, and i don't think it is a popular opinion that corporations threaten individual rights either.

[guartz]

and yet, as an entity, people trust the government over a private enterprise on "freedom protections"

[Demosthenes11]

i can't believe some of you are swallowing this pill google is handing out lol

you don't suddenly grow a conscious over this stuff - nothing has changed in the 4 years google has been in china.

[GRT]

Considering that he says he's a socialist, i find this post lol.

Who says he's a socialist? Beckwin?

Huh.

[Cantih]

I don't think that was ever one of the primary criticisms though, and i don't think it is a popular opinion that corporations threaten individual rights either.

It's because we haven't seen a full fledged mega-corporation in our day and age. They are big now, and with each merger getting bigger, but it's an order of magnitude thing. The closest analog history has, is company towns. When a company actually buys out a non-insignificant nation, then we shall see a mega-corp.
If you look into the history of company towns (specifically a "Truck System"), or at least, just read Sinclair's "The Jungle", you'll see that while it's not a popular opinion, it's a valid one.

Basically, if it is in the interests of a corporation's bottom line (in a direct sense, not a nebulous "it'll pay of in the long run" sense) to protect human rights, they'll do so. If fucking people over is better for their bottom line, and they can get away with it, they'll do that (or their competitor will, if the first can't stomach it.)

[Takedown3]

not sure if this was already mentioned but an article on slashdot today cites google's investigation has led them to identify the hacks coming from chinese government IP's

[Cephius]

Time for nations to hire crackers to protect there networks. Our generation is nothing but 0's and 1's and when the market really crashes because of a cracker, then we'll the shit that happens. This attempt on google will get swept underneath the rug because of Haiti, not sure why though because no one gave a frick about Haiti before hand. Lol.

You're either overestimating the abilities of hackers, underestimating digital defenses, or both. And don't be naive and think that US intelligence services don't hack into Chinese servers on a daily basis.

[Demosthenes11]

not sure if this was already mentioned but an article on slashdot today cites google's investigation has led them to identify the hacks coming from chinese government IP's

wow what a shocker, i bet nobody saw that coming

[Kuya]

and yet, as an entity, people trust the government over a private enterprise on "freedom protections"

Nope. Americans, for the most part, trust the government less than corporations. If you want specify if they trust their "freedoms" to governmernt or corporations, i don't know, but i suppose people don't associate corporations protecting their freedoms, they associate them with providing them commodities. Besides, i said that corporations don't have much to do with violating your rights, usually, but that doesn't mean they are inclined to protect them.

[Khamsin]

I trust the government with my freedom. If there is a violation of our rights, who do we petition to set things right? The government. But what if the government violates our rights? If the supreme court one day decided to fuck with people and interpret slavery as constitutional again, and congress decided that women don't need to vote anymore, who would we go to then? If the government wanted to, they could just turn the military on us and subjugate us.

There's a lot the government could do if they just decided to scrap the constitution and bill of rights, and just say "fuck it." But they don't. And this isn't the 1700s anymore, I'm sure our right to bear arms won't protect us against the government this time.

Now, I'm not saying the people we pay to govern us are necessarily the best, wholesome and most talented people... I'm sure there's plenty of self-interest and greed going on that we could probably do without. The government is imperfect, and not all it's interests may be aligned with ours. But I hardly suspect the government is going to flat out deny us freedom and maliciously plunge us into a revolution.

The most I suspect that could happen is a gradual removal of freedoms in trade for better things, although we always have the option to go back up the slope if we decide one day that we'd rather trade some of those things back for lost freedoms again.

[Cephius]

Please stop debating Corporation vs Government before Rothbardian shows up

[sephir]

I'm glad Google is taking a stand and I hope other corporations will do the same, but I don't believe that its a corporations job to enact political change within a country - whether or not this change is good or bad.

I would like to see a democratic China in my lifetime, but looking back at Tienanmen square, its very unlikely that this will happen. The government was comparatively weak back then, and now with all the money in its coffers, it is a new superpower.