NEWS
Google said on Tuesday it would launch versions of its search and news websites in China that censor material deemed objectionable to authorities there, reasoning that users getting limited access to content was better than no access.
The new local Google site, expected to be launched on Wednesday at Google.cn, will include notes at the bottom of results pages that disclose when content has been removed, said Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel for Google.
He said in a statement: "Google.cn will comply with local Chinese laws and regulations. In deciding how best to approach the Chinese - or any - market, we must balance our commitments to satisfy the interest of users, expand access to information and respond to local conditions."
Google will not initially offer Gmail or Blogger in China until executives feel they can strike that balance adequately, McLaughlin said.
Web surfers in China have had difficulty accessing the Google service, reporting frustratingly slow connections and time-outs, Google said. Human rights groups have accused China's government of blocking access to websites that do not adhere to the government's restrictions.
The France-based human rights group Reporters Without Borders (RWB) blasted Google, saying it was taking an immoral position that could not be justified.
The group said in a statement: "By offering a version without 'subversive' content, Google is making it easier for Chinese officials to filter the internet themselves. A website not listed by search engines has little chance of being found by users. The new Google version means that even if a human rights publication is not blocked by local firewalls, it has no chance of being read in China."
With a population of 1.3 billion people and more than 100 million internet users, China's largely untapped online market is very attractive to technology companies. Google is opening a research and development centre in China and owns a stake in Baidu.com, the most popular search engine in that country.
Google is not the only US search firm targeted with complaints about censorship in China. Previously, Google censored its news site in China, removing material banned by the authorities but it had not censored its US-based search engine accessible in China, and was the last of the major search engines not to have done so, according to RWB.
Meanwhile, earlier this month Microsoft admitted removing the blog of an outspoken Chinese journalist from its MSN Spaces site, citing its policy of adhering to local laws. Last June, Microsoft acknowledged censoring words such as "freedom" and "democracy" from its Chinese MSN portal site.
And in September, RWB accused Yahoo! of providing information that helped Chinese officials convict a journalist charged with leaking state secrets. Shi Tao was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
Angered by such reports, some politicians have threatened to pass laws restricting US companies from co-operating with the Chinese government on censorship. Hearings are planned for the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights and in the Congressional Human Rights Caucus.
Ironically, Google was praised by privacy advocates and consumers last week for fighting the US government's request to hand over random web search data. AOL, MSN and Yahoo! had complied with the request.
Elinor Mills writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Sir Lemmington Kilmister
Is it not the french who objected to the auction of items from Nazi germnay on ebay?
How is that censorship acceptable and this not?
Additionally does that mean that private companies that use content filters to restrict employee access are acting imorraly also?
2. Simon
"... some politicians have threatened to pass laws restricting US companies from co-operating with the Chinese government on censorship. Hearings are planned for the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights and in the Congressional Human Rights Caucus."
Well that's ripe from a government with such a track record of human rights abuses, infringments/curtailments of civil liberties, oh yes, and of unlawfully invading foreign states to overthrow their governments.
3. Paul S
How can you operate in a country if you don't agree to its laws? If an overseas company entering the UK market broke UK laws on , say, child abuse, we would try and take action.
Different countries have different systems, standards and regulations.
The ethical question therefore is not whether to comply with the laws of a country, but whether you should operate in that country at all. Is the regime and its laws so hideous or repugnant to your own standards that any activity is wrong? Can you do more good than harm by operating there?
Selling arms to a dictator is wrong. Providing humanitarian relief may be for the best even if the regime has created much of the suffering (e.g. Zimbabwe).
So consider China and Google in this context. Is the world going to boycott China? Maybe it should, but isn't going to happen. Is providing access to a host of information bolstering the regime or helping the society open up?
Isn't indicating all blocked information a good thing, as it may increase pressures for information to be opened up? If the search engine market was left to indigenous companies, would that be better or worse for the Chinese people?
Google has weighed all this up, and have reached one conclusion which I think is broadly correct.
Other conclusions are possible. But Google has been very honest and open in its approach and should not be castigated in a simplistic way.
4. KIA
so not to rock the boat !!!
in that case we all should shut up and watch !
economically chinesse are more dependent on west than vice versa. once supply of chinese cheap labour is finished we will see how companies like google will call for freedom of speech !!!!
NEVER UNDER ESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE