Is Google being hypocritical?

[Pangloss]

Is Google being hypocritical?

 

This question is being asked in a number of venues these days, due to the ironic confluence of Google's China situation (which involves Google's compliance with China's censorship of the Internet) and Google's legal trouble with the US Justice Department (in which the government has requested usage data from Google).

 

The basic case for "it's hypocrisy" is framed fairly well in this editorial by New Orleans Times Picayune reporter and columnist Stephen Sabludowsky on his Bayou Buzz web site:

 

If Google should respect Chinese law to censor, it should respect the federal court’s right to determine the lawful and necessary information that would lead to prosecution of violations of laws of this state and of the United States.

 

His full column can be found here:

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/articles.aspx?aid=6301

 

Here's another interesting quote in which he supports his case a bit more fully:

 

It seems to me that Google has a right and a duty to protect its users from unfair and unwarranted intrusions by any arm of the government. Innocent people’s internet searches and identities are like precious china. They should not be broken easily. However, in this matter, the Judge presiding over the matter should be able to make a very focused inspection of such search technology to determine if, in fact, the information requested will provide information that not only would lead to relevant evidence but in my view, would necessarily lead to discoverable evidence to further the government’s case and there is no other way to gather such information. Google is correct that user’s privacies must be protected from overreaching requests but its argument that the burden will cost then a week’s worth of engineering time is absurd for a company worth billions of dollars. In general, the privacy rights of the people is paramount and the intrusions by the government must be limited and justifiable after a court inspection after understanding the full scope of the technologies involved.

 

Thoughts?

[Dak]

hmm... i dont really see the hypocracy, tbh.

 

the chinese censoring is limiting googles useability, where as giving search data to the american govournment is a privacy issue, and tbh, considering just how intrusive google is (tracking cookies, scanning emails etc) i'm quite glad that theyre not easily aquiesting to the request.

[Pangloss]

But you actually mention the key ingredient that suggests hypocrisy -- in one case they're acceding to a government's wishes, and in the other case they are not. Does that at least make it... ironic?

 

One of the points that the government has made in this case is that they're not actually requesting personal information. There's no direct tie between the search data results they're asking for and actual user identities. They just want to know what people (in general) are looking for. (Is it not reasonable for the government to know how many pornographic searches are actually taking place? Even if you disagree with the government, don't you WANT them to fight this case and lose, so the law's unconstitutionality will be upheld?)

 

And here's a real neuron-burner: Doesn't China want more or less the same thing?

 

So isn't this really about which government they think is more threatening to their business?

 

So I guess the question becomes, why is it okay for Google to comply with the US government, but not comply with the Chinese government? Does this tell us something about the relative strengths of these two governments?

 

I don't know about you, but I find this confluence of events troubling.

[Severian]

No - it is not hypocritical. Google in china is merely suspending a service. They don't link to certain sites. The US government wants Google to give them information about Google clients, and that is a completely different thing.

 

If the Chinese government asked Google to provide the names of people who performed searches on 'forbidden' topics, I hope Google would refuse, don't you?

[Dak]

But you actually mention the key ingredient that suggests hypocrisy -- in one case they're acceding to a government's wishes, and in the other case they are not. Does that at least make it... ironic?

 

the two things can, on one hand, be linked by googles arguing (or not) with the local govournment, but on the other hand differentiated by the fact that one is a privacy issue and the other not; BUT...

 

One of the points that the government has made in this case is that they're not actually requesting personal information. There's no direct tie between the search data results they're asking for and actual user identities. They just want to know what people (in general) are looking for. (Is it not reasonable for the government to know how many pornographic searches are actually taking place?

 

I was under the impression that the govournment was requesting data that was personally identifiable; a little more research reveals that, whilst this was initially true, the govournment have since re-worded their request so that the information would be non-identifying (which kinda invalidates my argument).

 

Google are still, however, arguing that the information that the govournment is requesting could be personally identifyable.

 

 

[...][/b'] one can envision scenarios where quieries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome that google cannot accept

 

I guess it depends on how valid googles concerns are.

 

Even if you disagree with the government' date=' don't you WANT them to fight this case and lose, so the law's unconstitutionality will be upheld?)

[/quote']

 

im not sure that i understand what your saying here... surely upholding an unconstitutional law would be bad (albeit the legally correct thing to do)?

 

And here's a real neuron-burner: Doesn't China want more or less the same thing?

 

Yes. they both want to restrict access to certain sites (america giving the protection of childeren online as a reason that they want the data), and both want google to aid them in this.

 

the key difference being that google are, afaict, arguing that the american govournments subpoena is not within the bounds of american law (ie, they dont have to comply); the chinese sensoring, however, was pretty inevitable -- if they didn't voluntarily self-censor, then they would have had sensoring imposed upon them.

 

if google are correct, then i dont think that google can be concidered hypocritical for doing something they don't want to but have to, and not doing another (similar) thing that they don't want to do and dont think that they have to.

 

So isn't this really about which government they think is more threatening to their business?

 

So I guess the question becomes, why is it okay for Google to comply with the US government, but not comply with the Chinese government? Does this tell us something about the relative strengths of these two governments?

 

I don't know about you, but I find this confluence of events troubling.

 

because america has too little, or china has too much?

 

either way, google's official responce (assuming this isnt fake) is here (pdf).

 

it seems asif google is arguing that it would be difficult, unnessesary, damaging to them in variouse ways, and not within the govournments right to demand, hence their refusal.

 

However, if i may put my 'Mr. Sceptical' hat on, i kinda agree with your 'which govournment is more threatening' point.

 

The chinese sensoring, as i said, was probably inevitable -- the way google handled it, they can argue that the self-censoring results in less sensoring, and that they will, at least, be able to offer some service to the chinese, and anyway they're job isn't to dictate foreighn policy with reguards to freedom-of-information, or to impose their ethics upon foreighn nations, and that they don't have the right to disobey local law -- in other words, google had a reason to compy, and could do so without damaging its reputation too much.

 

the american subpoena, however, raises privacy concerns about google and, whilst this is only mentioned briefly in their official responce

 

Moreover, Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those that use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept. And one can envision scenarios where quieries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome that google cannot accept

 

i'd suspect that it is the main reason for their refusal: a(n admittedly very) few organisations refuse to send emails to gmail accounts due to the fact that google scans them and saves them on file even after the user deletes them, and atleast one anti-spyware programs detect and remove google and googleadsence tracking cookies as 'spyware.cookies', and the only reason that things like that aren't more common -- and that people are prepared to use google, despite its invasiveness -- is due to googles genuinely good track-record with reguards to responsable use of personal information, and they no doubt consider preserving that reputation to be immensly important to their continualled financial success.

 

So... with reguards to your original question: still no, for the following reasons

 

1/ because they had to comply in china, but they might not have to in america, and

 

2/complying with govournments when it's convienient, and resisting when to comply would damage you, isn't hypocritical imo

 

Although without knowing googles actual reasoning in both instances, and the validity of googles claims, i can't be certain.

 

 

The bigger question, imo, is what google will do if the subpoena is held up in a court of law.

 

Theyve always given the impression that user privacy will be protected at all costs... so, would google refuse to comply and risk huge punative fines, withdraw from america to avoid having to comply, or hand over the 'potentially personallly identifyable' data? There is where i feel the huge potential for hypocracy lies.

 

 

phew! sorry that was so long

[gcol]

Why pick on Google in particular as an example of corporate hypocracy? It is after all merely a business that is run for profit. It enriches its founders and shareholders, which is its sole raison d'etre. To pretend otherwise is naive. Every time we use it we support it and condone it. Its use is a lifestyle choice only. If we want to change its business ethics, then become shareholders or vote with wallets and fingers.

 

The subversion of the google product for political purposes is the real hypocracy, the way it is manipulated for political, security, and population mindset. purposes.

 

The google question should be considered merely as a subset of the larger question of global business ethics.

[Edtharan]

Posted by: gcol

It is after all merely a business that is run for profit.

Good point. If viewed in this light, Google is not hypocratic (spelling?). It is ofcourse trying to maximise it's profits.

 

If Google had just given the data to the US government then many of it's users would have boycoted it and its profits would have droped. If Google had refused to block certain sites in China then the Chinese govt would have blocked Google and they would not have any entrance into that market. What Google has done might seem initially hypcoratic, if looked at with the right persoective it is not.

 

If Google had stated in the US case that they stood for freedom of all from govt interferance, then what they did with China would be hypocritical. But AFAIK they didn't make that statement.

[Pangloss]

If the Chinese government asked Google to provide the names of people who performed searches on 'forbidden' topics' date=' I hope Google would refuse, don't you?[/quote']

 

The US government hasn't done that, so I think the question is irrelevent.

 

No - it is not hypocritical. Google in china is merely suspending a service. They don't link to certain sites. The US government wants Google to give them information about Google clients, and that is a completely different thing.

 

Okay, but again I think this denies the obvious irony of the situation. I think you have a point there, and I'm not decided enough on the issue to disagree with you. I'm just bothered by the obvious similarities between the two issues.

[Pangloss]

Google are still' date=' however, arguing that the information that the govournment is requesting could be personally identifyable.

[/quote']

 

Well of course they are. They don't want to comply because they believe it will cause a perception that they've been compromised (and people use them less).

 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

I can't help but wonder if it were anybody OTHER than the United States government asking, if people would be so eager to side with the Google corporation's (you know, those big evil things that Dick Cheney loves and everyone else hates) reasons for saying "no".

 

You know, like maybe... I don't know... China?

[Pangloss]

Anyway, some REALLY interesting posts above, even if I have reservations about them. I appreciate the feedback. My main thing here was just to point out that there seems to be some kind of confluence and at least irony here, and that it's troubling. It hints of larger problems that may loom on the horizon.

 

In the end I tend to agree with you guys. The issues are different enough that one tends to agree with Google when based solely on logical grounds. But that's also part of why it bothers me. The logical decision is not always, necessarily, the best one.

[gcol]

Having attempted, in post #6, to widen the discussion a little, I want to draw it back to google, and the internet in general by asking:

 

In the days of snail mail only, and voice telephone, do you remember what a heinous crime it was to interfere with the mail and tap telephones? Nowadays, nothing you send is confidential, and everything will be used against you under the smokescreen of state security.

 

Every thought you entrust to your keyboard will be trumpeted to the world via the internet megaphone. Be very aware that the "Big Brother" of Orwell's 1984 is here and now. (Shriek, horror, indignation, trembling).

[Saryctos]

Having attempted' date=' in post #6, to widen the discussion a little, I want to draw it back to google, and the internet in general by asking:

 

In the days of snail mail only, and voice telephone, do you remember what a heinous crime it was to interfere with the mail and tap telephones? Nowadays, [i']nothing [/i]you send is confidential, and everything will be used against you under the smokescreen of state security.

 

Every thought you entrust to your keyboard will be trumpeted to the world via the internet megaphone. Be very aware that the "Big Brother" of Orwell's 1984 is here and now. (Shriek, horror, indignation, trembling).

 

The ability to use incriminating evidence is growing ever closer to an impossibility. With this, there is also a social change evolving from that fact. Any attempt to bring the reversal of this detrimental policy will meet harsh resistance. Noone likes having their freedoms taken away, even if they should not have existed in the first place.

[Pangloss]

Having attempted' date=' in post #6, to widen the discussion a little, I want to draw it back to google, and the internet in general by asking:

 

In the days of snail mail only, and voice telephone, do you remember what a heinous crime it was to interfere with the mail and tap telephones? Nowadays, [i']nothing [/i]you send is confidential, and everything will be used against you under the smokescreen of state security.

 

Every thought you entrust to your keyboard will be trumpeted to the world via the internet megaphone. Be very aware that the "Big Brother" of Orwell's 1984 is here and now. (Shriek, horror, indignation, trembling).

 

Well you were interesting before, but now it just seems like you're straying into ideologies. Stuff like this just perpetuates stereotypes regardless of what the truth happens to be.

 

In my opinion, neither of these situations with Google can be dismissed with simplistic ideological syllogisms like the above.

[john5746]

1) As has been stated, the situations are different

 

2) Even if they are the same, a company will fight when they can. I am sure if the US government wanted them to censor some information, Google would put up a fight. That doesn't mean they should expect the same protection every where in the world

 

This does bring up the question that if China wanted information on their citizens from Google, should the US government get involved? If Pakistan wanted information on some of their citizens from Google, should that be allowed?

[Dak]

This does bring up the question that if China wanted information on their citizens from Google, should the US government get involved? If Pakistan wanted information on some of their citizens from Google, should that be allowed?

 

Indeed. maybe google are trying to set a precedent: 'we are not an information mine for the govournment, reguardless of which govournment that is'.

[Pangloss]

Indeed. maybe google are trying to set a precedent: 'we are not an information mine for the govournment, reguardless of which govournment that is'.

 

How does their compliance with Chinese demands make that statement, though?

[Dak]

How does their compliance with Chinese demands make that statement, though?

 

I was basing it on their non-compliance with the american govournment.

 

complying with china didn't involve passing over any data; maybe this is their way of saying that they will not hand over user-data to any govournment.

 

It may not be too seriouse an issue if they did hand the data over to the US govournment; but if, in the future, china asks google for user-data, that will be a more seriouse issue -- and now, google can atleast turn around and say 'no. we didn't hand data over to the us govournment, we wont hand it over to you'.

 

In other words, maybe they're setting up so that they can deny any requests from china for user data without it being hypocritical.

 

googles with-holding of gmail from china makes it seem to me that being used as a spying tool for the chinese govournment is definately a concern for google, so maybe its part of their reasoning in this case?

[gcol]

Well you were interesting before' date=' but now it just seems like you're straying into ideologies. Stuff like this just perpetuates stereotypes regardless of what the truth happens to be.

 

In my opinion, neither of these situations with Google can be dismissed with simplistic ideological syllogisms like the above.[/quote']

You are probably right, but I enjoyed it, and I dont think I said anything that was really untrue, Just a little rabble-rousing.

[Pangloss]

I was basing it on their non-compliance with the american govournment.

 

complying with china didn't involve passing over any data; maybe this is their way of saying that they will not hand over user-data to any govournment.

 

It may not be too seriouse an issue if they did hand the data over to the US govournment; but if' date=' in the future, china asks google for user-data, that will be a more seriouse issue -- and now, google can atleast turn around and say 'no. we didn't hand data over to the us govournment, we wont hand it over to you'.

 

In other words, maybe they're setting up so that they can deny any requests from china for user data [i']without[/i] it being hypocritical.

 

googles with-holding of gmail from china makes it seem to me that being used as a spying tool for the chinese govournment is definately a concern for google, so maybe its part of their reasoning in this case?

 

You could well be right, Dak. But I think it's erroneous to assign altruistic/moralistic motives to a corporation.

 

What people are basically saying here is that they think it's okay for Google to compromise with China because they're still warning users about the filtering, and that they think it's not okay to comply with the US Justice Department because that involves release of personal information.

 

Well people may indeed be getting the affect right, but they're misunderstanding the cause. These are not the kinds of reasons why corporations make decisions. They're not concerned about compliance with government demands. They're concened with how the surfing public will perceive their compliance with government demands.

 

So if people get out of this that Google is making some kind of good faith effort to not be evil, and that the next time something like this comes up then Google will somehow, altruistically, do what's right for people, then in my view they're just setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

I can't help but wonder if this is one of the reasons people hate corporations so much. They acquire some sort of misplaced faith about their purpose, and then get disappointed when the corporation acts in its best interest instead of theirs.

[Severian]

I think it is a real shame that google is being cencored in China, but it is better that they get some coverage than none at all. Some info will still get through.

[5614]

With China it is a case of getting business. And at least they have a decent search engine which tells them when something is being blocked. I think the whole idea of Chinese filtering Internet, especially things such as the truth about past events, is stupid and a bad idea, but lets not go off topic.

 

With America Google are being asked to hand over user information.

 

If you say "Google complies with China and not the US government" then maybe it is hypocritical, but the two governments are asking different things, it's not linked. If you ask me for $10 I might not give it to you, but if Dak gave me $10 I'd take it, am I being hypocritical? No, different people asking different things.

 

Whether Google is asking for data which can identify you seems currently not the case. However once you have data which says "someone searched for illegal child porn" then you can go through the courts to get a warrant to legally force Google to identify the person.

 

I think that Google has currently made the right choice in both case (although I disagree with the Chinese government filtering anything).

[Dak]

You could well be right' date=' Dak. But I think it's erroneous to assign altruistic/moralistic motives to a corporation.

 

What people are basically saying here is that they think it's okay for Google to compromise with China because they're still warning users about the filtering, and that they think it's not okay to comply with the US Justice Department because that involves release of personal information.

 

Well people may indeed be getting the [i']affect[/i] right, but they're misunderstanding the cause. These are not the kinds of reasons why corporations make decisions. They're not concerned about compliance with government demands. They're concened with how the surfing public will perceive their compliance with government demands.

 

So if people get out of this that Google is making some kind of good faith effort to not be evil, and that the next time something like this comes up then Google will somehow, altruistically, do what's right for people, then in my view they're just setting themselves up for disappointment.

 

I can't help but wonder if this is one of the reasons people hate corporations so much. They acquire some sort of misplaced faith about their purpose, and then get disappointed when the corporation acts in its best interest instead of theirs.

 

I both agree and disagree with you, in quite a few different ways.

 

whilst it's true that google the company may not be capable of altruism, google is directed by human beings who are, and its possible that they have descided to let altruism guide them in this instance.

 

On the other hand, i've no doubt that googles 'do no evil' policy is, at the very least, partly a result of the positive effect that the directors felt that this policy would have on googles bottom line.

 

On the other other hand, similar statements can be made about humans: at the end of the day, even seemingly altruistic acts are usually ultimately done for one of two reasons -- to make the philantrophist feel good, or to avoid making the philantrophist feel guilty for not doing it; so, in a way, every altruistic act, by human or corporation, is ultimately based upon selfish reasons, and how it will effect the 'bottom line', so to discount altruistic acts by corporations as 'invalid' because they are selfishly-motivated is, perhaps, a little unfair.

 

Either way, I feel that there is enough to differentiate both cases that google can act in different ways in either case without it being hypocritical.

[Pangloss]

Makes sense to me.

[gcol]

Perhaps, in a nutshell then, they are not hypocrites, merely business-like? Sometimes a very fine distinction......