Friday, February 17, 2006

Uproar over Google/Yahoo and China is hypocrisy

日本語は英語の後だ (Japanese version follows English)。

There has been a lot of uproar over how the large American Internet companies are self-censoring in China, and in at least one case, providing information to the Chinese Government on people the Chinese Government thinks are subversives. Here is a quote from an Asia Times (a Hong Kong based Internet newspaper) article on the subject - "In a nutshell, the companies have vowed to adhere to what Westerners generally regard as repressive Chinese laws on censorship as well as - at least in Yahoo's case - aiding Chinese authorities in what would clearly be considered unacceptable violations of the right to privacy in the United States."

Yet how is this really different that the Patriot Act, a US law set into place after September 11? The Patriot Act allows the Government to send National Security Letters - which are letters to banks, libraries, internet providers, and others requiring that they give information on their customers or clients.
See this Washington Post article for some information on National Security Letters.

Of course, I would prefer not to see Google and Yahoo self-censor their services in China, but I don't think the US Government has any right to say that they are doing wrong when the US Government itself is demanding private records from services like Google and Yahoo.

最近新聞やニュース(たとえばAsia Timesというインターネット・ニュースペーパー)によるとアメリカのインターネットの会社は中国に検閲するそうだ。 そして中国政府が破壊活動に従事する使用者全員と考える情報を政府にあげる。

でもアメリカの愛国者法とどう違った? 愛国者法は2001年9月11日からアメリカの規律だ。愛国者法は銀行や図書館やインターネット接続にNational Security Lettersを遅れる。その手紙を受け取った会社はお客さんの情報をあげなければならない。 

もちろん、検閲するのはしたくない。 でもアメリカにそうしながら、アメリカは会社に言われたくない。


At 5:55 AM, Anonymous Motomi said...

I totally agree with you, but I guess unless companies which wish to start business relationships in China, it could be impossible for them to even enter into the soil of China... I guess Microsoft also succumbed to the pressure from China to censor contents.

Companies are just organizations which need to produce profits, and they have to do anything to generate share values. You cannot expect much ethics from them. I do not know the situations in the U.S. but in Aus, one study shows, companies which neglected their responsiblities and ethics could produce more share values comparing to those which followed ethical demands.

I do not support any censorship because we should live in a democratic society and the democratic society should not demand any organisations and persons to restrict what they want to say. If they do so, they cannot claim themselves as a democratic society, I think.

At 11:54 AM, Blogger PeterD said...

Motomiさん ー コメントありがとう。

At 2:57 AM, Anonymous Worn Panties said...

I disagree with censorship, I am a used and worn panty seller. I sell dirty panties on the Internet which will shock some and appeal to others. But there is a decent market and if you wish to call it a perverted fetish you may, I actually get pleasure from selling them. My point is, I don't care what people think, I only care about those that wish to buy. I have sold my panties to Chinese and Japanese customers before, now I fear that they will ever find my site because of this ludicrous decision...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home