Google will not return to China because it is spying on its people

[Pakchina]

China has Baidu, it does not need Google, in fact China has equivalent of everything, this promotes Chinese companies like Tancent etc instead of promoting US-Zionist financed companies. Similarly China has QQ mail instead using gmail or hotmail or yahoo etc. Same thing applies to facebook, youtube etc. In China there are equivalent of these and even many more. Regarding spying, the recent Prism scandal which demonstrated that the US is using facebook and other social media to spy on not only US citizens but all people around the World. Its typical of the US or Google hypocrisy, its because Google is losing market in China and it can't compete that it says it will not return to China. Same thing with the US, it is using the pretext that Syria is using chemical weapons to supply leathal and WMD to Syrian rebels while in reality it is because Syrian rebels are losing ground that the US has decided to intervene. Typical westwern hypocrisy, neo clolonialism rule and racism.

 

[Okemos]

China has Baidu, it does not need Google, in fact China has equivalent of everything, this promotes Chinese companies like Tancent etc instead of promoting US-Zionist financed companies. Similarly China has QQ mail instead using gmail or hotmail or yahoo etc. Same thing applies to facebook, youtube etc. In China there are equivalent of these and even many more. Regarding spying, the recent Prism scandal which demonstrated that the US is using facebook and other social media to spy on not only US citizens but all people around the World. Its typical of the US or Google hypocrisy, its because Google is losing market in China and it can't compete that it says it will not return to China. Same thing with the US, it is using the pretext that Syria is using chemical weapons to supply leathal and WMD to Syrian rebels while in reality it is because Syrian rebels are losing ground that the US has decided to intervene. Typical westwern hypocrisy, neo clolonialism rule and racism.

I kind of agree. I't s a scary world if Chinese citizens all use American internet products. The dominance of America in terms of economics, culture, SOCIAL MEDIA will be forever cemented if 1.3b Chinese don't have their social media platforms. It has nothing to do with spying or censorship.

Right now, I believe I saw a figure about 80% of Sina Weibo posts are criticism of the government. In terms of freedom of speech, people in those social media are so immature. They blame everything on the Chinese government. If their pig dies, it's the government's fault, If his mom is sick, the government's fault. If he cannot as rich American citizen, it's the government's fault.

Most Chinese netizens still behave like kids that blame everything on others and they cry their eyes out. They also have extremely rosy pictures of outside world. To them, freedom of speech means absolute freedom. Freedom means slapping the police if the police tries to stop them from jaywalking. Etc, etc. Those people are very easy to be incited. China cannot afford another revolution. We have had 200 years of turmoils already. I would rather sacrifice my freedom for the sake of peaceful development.

 

[ephone]

At least baidu does not deny it obeys the government's order.

Not like google, "do not do evil" my axx.

Please...Google may cooperate with the government on what people search, but Google is far from what Baidu does, which is literally obeying any order from the government on what people will receive from their search.

 

[gambit]

just a small fraction of the operations of your spy agencies have caused more evil in the world than the sum of the above events many times over, licker of us imperialism!

I always find people's obsession with Fox News fascinating and fun to read. Clue for you: alternet is even worse than Fox News when it comes to biased reporting.

And that is using the word 'reporting' at its broadest context for journalism. At least Fox News tries and largely succeeded in inserting itself into the 'mainstream media' category of American media, specifically the news side of it. But alternet have no such goal and no pretension on what is it: subversive to mainstream American values, all American values, and it will spare no intellectually dishonest efforts to do so. Liberal reporters in the clearly liberal CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and obviously very liberal MSNBC, touch any so called 'analysis' done by alternet at their professional peril. As liberal as they are, they still have enough care for their journalistic standards, of which the goons at alternet slices and dices as convenient.

I knew this sh1t and I do not have cable TV.

So for you to bring up alternet to try to prove there are political oppression in the US to same scale as China does only goes to show your desperation at this attempt to drag US down to your level.

Now answer the questions: Why is Noam Chomsky still alive, rich, and still spouting his US hating speeches? Why is Bill Maher rich on HBO?

You think these guys would be alive in China let alone rich and out in public?

At least baidu does not deny it obeys the government's order.

Good joke...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2604...sted_for_taking_bribes_to_delete_content.html

Companies including Baidu are required to obey China's strict censorship laws, which can result in the filtering out of anti-government content.

http://www.venturedata.org/?i461320...will-obey-authorities-requested-complained-to

In this regard, the 360 ​​insiders September 3 told this newspaper that "Baidu reported to the Ministry of Industry, we will resolutely obey the requirements of the competent authorities."

Then let Google compete. Let the Chinese people decide. Give orders to Baidu and leave Google alone and see how quickly Baidu collapse, superior Chinese language search capability will prove irrelevant.

 

[gambit]

I kind of agree. I't s a scary world if Chinese citizens all use American internet products. The dominance of America in terms of economics, culture, SOCIAL MEDIA will be forever cemented if 1.3b Chinese don't have their social media platforms. It has nothing to do with spying or censorship.

Too late...

Harley Davidson National Rally in China - In Focus - The Atlantic

By the way, I do not own a Harley. Just to get that out of the way.

 

[Okemos]

Too late...

Harley Davidson National Rally in China - In Focus - The Atlantic

By the way, I do not own a Harley. Just to get that out of the way.

What the heck is your point? I play world of warcraft, and other American MMOs, does that mean anything about me? none

 

[huskie]

@gambit: you are affected by google (which claimed spying on people morally prohibited them from operating), you are not affected by the Chinese companies. It is not like the democrats vs GOP situation in which the best deal you can get is the less stupid one. Why are you defending google so hard just because you think the Chinese companies are worse? Does it mean that you will also defend the US government if it decides to rob you of the right to vote, simply because the Chinese are not allowed to vote?

 

[Wright]

Do Chinese use Android?

 

[JSCh]

If US is monitoring her own citizen, how do we know that US did not action on those information they obtained?

Obviously the US/NSA state machine is far more organized, experienced, technologically capable and pervasive then anyone else when it comes to monitoring threat from within US.

Government would definitely action whenever they deem threat to be eminently realistic.

If Naom Chomsky is suspected to be funded and sponsored by foreign governmental organization determined for regime change in US and the threat he poses is deem realistic enough, I am sure he would be denigrated, smeared by the MSM, hollywood and social media or prosecuted by some trump-up rape or tax evasion charges and if that doesn't work, he would be "disappeared" faster than you can imagine.

Believing that US is somehow "holier" than anyone else is just naive.

The US simply has in place a more mature, experience and developed system in line with western narrative and ideology when it comes to dealing with subversive elements.

Increasingly, we are seeing US tighten her grip because of perception of a greater security risk. If situation deteriorate like the 60s or 70s, I would not be surprise that the power that be then would drop all pretense and resort to drastic measure.

 

[gambit]

If US is monitoring her own citizen, how do we know that US did not action on those information they obtained?

Obviously the US/NSA state machine is far more organized, experienced, technologically capable and pervasive then anyone else when it comes to monitoring threat from within US.

Government would definitely action whenever they deem threat to be eminently realistic.

If Naom Chomsky is suspected to be funded and sponsored by foreign governmental organization determined for regime change in US and the threat he poses is deem realistic enough, I am sure he would be denigrated, smeared by the MSM, hollywood and social media or prosecuted by some trump-up rape or tax evasion charges and if that doesn't work, he would be "disappeared" faster than you can imagine.

Believing that US is somehow "holier" than anyone else is just naive.

- Morality
- Ethics
- Legality

While morality sets the foundation for ethical behaviors and laws, morality and ethics are closer to each other than they are to laws.

Morality says: Do not lie.

Ethics says: You can lie under certain circumstances, like hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. On the other hand, it is debatable about lying about your ugly tie that you received on Father's Day.

Legality says: Lie and you will be tangibly punished. Tangibly means financial levy or even prison.

Is data collection immoral? If the answer is 'Yes', then each one of us is a sinner. If you remember that your cousin cheats at cards and did not returned what was lent, then you are an immoral person. This argument is clearly absurd. If a supermarket collects data and found out that frozen pizzas consistently out sell other frozen food, it is eminently common sense and profitable to cater to its customers by stocking more frozen pizzas. Cellular phone providers must collect data in order to have true and honest billings. Credit rating agencies collects data from individuals to entire countries. Data collection happens all the time, from the personal level to the impersonal corporate level.

Let us take these 3 laws:

- It is illegal to be left handed.
- It is illegal to do anything with the left hand.
- It is illegal to be left handed and do things with the left hand the same way right handed people do with their right hands.

Law 1 have nothing to do with what you do but what you ARE. If you admit to the police that you are left handed, you will be imprisoned. So all you have to do is lie and live as if you are right handed.

Law 2 would punish anyone done anything with the left hand, even if it is in assistance with the right hand when common sense dictate. It is a badly written law and such badly written laws do occurs.

Law 3 is more specific. A person can admit to being left handed but as long as he live as a right handed person, he will not be punished. Note the 'and' here.

Both the NSA and Google have not done anything criminal. HAVE NOT. There is no law that blanketly says data collection is illegal. What make data collection problematic in some cases is first the agency involved, then what that agency intends to do with all that information. There can be laws that narrowly restrict what kind of data can be collected, by whom, and for how long. Police departments do this all the time against organized crime. When a judge permit it, that permission is de facto a short live law.

The NSA does not provide any public utility. What it does must be analyzed in the context of morality, ethics, and legality as explained above. Is either Google or Verizon legally obligated to provide data to the NSA when requested? No. Either company must be legally compelled to do so. If either voluntarily complied then it is a matter of morality and ethics, not legality.

 

[huskie]

there is also no Chinese law saying it is illegal for its government to censor the internet or collect data from google, does it mean it is acceptable to you?

police cannot tap your phone whenever they want, but internet secret police can get whatever they want including your emails, bills, and everything. which court or judge gave the authorization?

people gave the civil companies consent to use their data, because generally the worst punishment they can get is a male enhancement email. NSA has an army, they are not the credit bureaus because they can screw your life.

- Morality
- Ethics
- Legality

While morality sets the foundation for ethical behaviors and laws, morality and ethics are closer to each other than they are to laws.

Morality says: Do not lie.

Ethics says: You can lie under certain circumstances, like hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. On the other hand, it is debatable about lying about your ugly tie that you received on Father's Day.

Legality says: Lie and you will be tangibly punished. Tangibly means financial levy or even prison.

Is data collection immoral? If the answer is 'Yes', then each one of us is a sinner. If you remember that your cousin cheats at cards and did not returned what was lent, then you are an immoral person. This argument is clearly absurd. If a supermarket collects data and found out that frozen pizzas consistently out sell other frozen food, it is eminently common sense and profitable to cater to its customers by stocking more frozen pizzas. Cellular phone providers must collect data in order to have true and honest billings. Credit rating agencies collects data from individuals to entire countries. Data collection happens all the time, from the personal level to the impersonal corporate level.

Let us take these 3 laws:

- It is illegal to be left handed.
- It is illegal to do anything with the left hand.
- It is illegal to be left handed and do things with the left hand the same way right handed people do with their right hands.

Law 1 have nothing to do with what you do but what you ARE. If you admit to the police that you are left handed, you will be imprisoned. So all you have to do is lie and live as if you are right handed.

Law 2 would punish anyone done anything with the left hand, even if it is in assistance with the right hand when common sense dictate. It is a badly written law and such badly written laws do occurs.

Law 3 is more specific. A person can admit to being left handed but as long as he live as a right handed person, he will not be punished. Note the 'and' here.

Both the NSA and Google have not done anything criminal. HAVE NOT. There is no law that blanketly says data collection is illegal. What make data collection problematic in some cases is first the agency involved, then what that agency intends to do with all that information. There can be laws that narrowly restrict what kind of data can be collected, by whom, and for how long. Police departments do this all the time against organized crime. When a judge permit it, that permission is de facto a short live law.

The NSA does not provide any public utility. What it does must be analyzed in the context of morality, ethics, and legality as explained above. Is either Google or Verizon legally obligated to provide data to the NSA when requested? No. Either company must be legally compelled to do so. If either voluntarily complied then it is a matter of morality and ethics, not legality.

 

[gambit]

there is also no Chinese law saying it is illegal for its government to censor the internet or collect data from google, does it mean it is acceptable to you?

You are clearly NOT a thinking person. Chinese laws are applicable inside China, to any person of any citizenship and to any corporation doing business inside China. However, that does not mean that person or corporation have to morally accept any law. The morality and legality can be separately examined.

 

[JSCh]

- Morality
- Ethics
- Legality

While morality sets the foundation for ethical behaviors and laws, morality and ethics are closer to each other than they are to laws.

Morality says: Do not lie.

Ethics says: You can lie under certain circumstances, like hiding Jews from the Nazis, for example. On the other hand, it is debatable about lying about your ugly tie that you received on Father's Day.

Legality says: Lie and you will be tangibly punished. Tangibly means financial levy or even prison.

Is data collection immoral? If the answer is 'Yes', then each one of us is a sinner. If you remember that your cousin cheats at cards and did not returned what was lent, then you are an immoral person. This argument is clearly absurd. If a supermarket collects data and found out that frozen pizzas consistently out sell other frozen food, it is eminently common sense and profitable to cater to its customers by stocking more frozen pizzas. Cellular phone providers must collect data in order to have true and honest billings. Credit rating agencies collects data from individuals to entire countries. Data collection happens all the time, from the personal level to the impersonal corporate level.

Let us take these 3 laws:

- It is illegal to be left handed.
- It is illegal to do anything with the left hand.
- It is illegal to be left handed and do things with the left hand the same way right handed people do with their right hands.

Law 1 have nothing to do with what you do but what you ARE. If you admit to the police that you are left handed, you will be imprisoned. So all you have to do is lie and live as if you are right handed.

Law 2 would punish anyone done anything with the left hand, even if it is in assistance with the right hand when common sense dictate. It is a badly written law and such badly written laws do occurs.

Law 3 is more specific. A person can admit to being left handed but as long as he live as a right handed person, he will not be punished. Note the 'and' here.

Both the NSA and Google have not done anything criminal. HAVE NOT. There is no law that blanketly says data collection is illegal. What make data collection problematic in some cases is first the agency involved, then what that agency intends to do with all that information. There can be laws that narrowly restrict what kind of data can be collected, by whom, and for how long. Police departments do this all the time against organized crime. When a judge permit it, that permission is de facto a short live law.

The NSA does not provide any public utility. What it does must be analyzed in the context of morality, ethics, and legality as explained above. Is either Google or Verizon legally obligated to provide data to the NSA when requested? No. Either company must be legally compelled to do so. If either voluntarily complied then it is a matter of morality and ethics, not legality.

From what one can gathered from US media and politic, one can easier tell that the majority of the US public and in general for the West as well DO NOT share your sentiments on their government adherence to morality, ethics and legality.

THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NOT TRUST THEIR GOVERNMENT. They are very much aware of the power and capability of government. More relevantly they are very much weary of power abuse government is capable of.

China has a family registration system started about four thousand years ago Hukou system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (granted there are no computer system that can do data mining and search function at that time) to the present day, and yet most western citizen would resist vehemently and not allow their government to set up a formal comprehensive personal registration system, what are they afraid of?

I am Chinese, I don't read the sales brochure, I analyses the effect. Please peddle your snake oil to someone else.

 

[Anonymous user]

You are clearly NOT a thinking person. Chinese laws are applicable inside China, to any person of any citizenship and to any corporation doing business inside China. However, that does not mean that person or corporation have to morally accept any law. The morality and legality can be separately examined.

You are not a thinking person, you keep going round and round defending what Google has done by comparing it with China. Justifying it with BS like "oh google does not politically censor dissidents and what not"

Singapore censors Political dissidents, last time I checked we are on US friends list. Do you want to know what we used to do with them? Go google that up. Explain how this works please? Oh you can't because my country actually operates in your countries interest

Simply put this thread is about us having a F*cking laugh at the hypocritical sh*t that google has come up with to say they bloody do not do business China because of them spying on their citizens when they caught pants down doing the same in the US. (regardless of the level they delve into)

 

[Okemos]

You are not a thinking person, you keep going round and round defending what Google has done by comparing it with China. Justifying it with BS like "oh google does not politically censor dissidents and what not"

That guy reminds me of some republicans I met here in the U.S. They want less government, but they also want government to police people's social life by making homosexual illegal, etc. A consistent and logical conservative would think that government should not intrude in citizens' life, economically, and socially.

Of course, those people will give you all bunch of reasons to explain away their hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is ultimate form of self interest and sometimes we are all guilty of.