![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
January 15th, 2010
Does Google's bold move against China raise the "moral bar" for other companies?
Posted by Sam Diaz @ 2:30 am
Categories: China, General, Google, Government, Security
Tags: China, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Internet, Government, Vertical Industries, Hacking, Security, Sam Diaz
Google took a pretty big risk this week when it decided to take on the Chinese government, following its discovery of a targeted cyber attack on its corporate infrastructure that originated in China. Not only was the company no longer going to play by the censorship rules of the most populated nation in the world but it also said it would be willing to shutter its site and close its offices in China because of it.
Google has long been teased over its “Don’t Be Evil” motto, especially as it’s gone from a small Silicon Valley tech player focused on search to a global Internet giant that uses our personal information on the Internet to feed a lucrative online advertising business.
But since Google dropped its retaliatory online bomb on China this week, no one has been teasing Google. Instead, there’s been nothing but praise for the company - with elected officials in Washington and Europe stepping up to not only offer support but to call on other tech giants to also review their policies around conducting business in China.
On Thursday, Neelie Kroes, the woman who currently serves as the European Union’s antitrust commissioner but is expected to be named the EU’s top Internet official next month, announced support for Google and its decision, as well as open Internet for the free flow of information and communications.
Also on Thursday, the White House finally chimed in to offer its support of Google’s decision, even though it remains unclear how U.S.-China relations might be affected by all of this. At a press conference, a White House spokesman said President Barack Obama believes in universal rights for people around the globe that should not be “carved out” for specific countries.
Finally, U.S. diplomats called on China to explain the cyber attacks while a group of Republican lawmakers called on Cisco, Microsoft and Yahoo to review their business operations with China, saying that to not do so is basically “complicity with this kind of evil.”
That’s kind of harsh - but it also helps explain the sentiment among government officials in free countries. Some have little patience for companies who put business success over the rights of human beings. Google, with its actions this week, has raised the moral bar for large corporations.
And while no one is saying as much, I can’t help but wonder how a rose-smelling Google might do when it goes knocking on the doors of Washington and the EU for things like regulatory approval of mergers or acquisitions. After all, this is the company that put morals in front of money and chose good over evil - or so the perception goes. Google reviewed its options and made a decision to stand on its moral ground. Some might argue that Google wasn’t strong in China yet so it didn’t give up much, But any way you look at it, China is a lot to give up.
Over in Redmond, however, it didn’t take long for Microsoft to review its own business practices in China. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told CNBC Thursday afternoon that the company had no intention of pulling out of China and that it would obey the laws there.
And just as fast, it was put into a different spotlight. The headline on the All Things D Digital Daily blog post Thursday read: “Microsoft: ‘Don’t be Evil’ is Google’s Motto, Not Ours.”
Ouch.
Still, you can’t really blame Microsoft. After all, it needs the support and cooperation of the Chinese government to help it fight off piracy of its software products in that country. Microsoft doesn’t have armies of soldiers to go in and raid piracy operations - but the Chinese government does.
Microsoft had to do what it had to do, just as Google also had to do what it had to do. Everyone has strong feelings about this today - but will the sentiment continue to play out this way once the dust settles?
Sam Diaz is a senior editor at ZDNet. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Between the Lines via Email alerts or RSS.
Jan. 15th, 2010
January 15th, 2010
Does Google's bold move against China raise the "moral bar" for other companies?
Posted by Sam Diaz @ 2:30 am
Categories: China, General, Google, Government, Security
Tags: China, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Internet, Government, Vertical Industries, Hacking, Security, Sam Diaz
Google took a pretty big risk this week when it decided to take on the Chinese government, following its discovery of a targeted cyber attack on its corporate infrastructure that originated in China. Not only was the company no longer going to play by the censorship rules of the most populated nation in the world but it also said it would be willing to shutter its site and close its offices in China because of it.
Google has long been teased over its “Don’t Be Evil” motto, especially as it’s gone from a small Silicon Valley tech player focused on search to a global Internet giant that uses our personal information on the Internet to feed a lucrative online advertising business.
But since Google dropped its retaliatory online bomb on China this week, no one has been teasing Google. Instead, there’s been nothing but praise for the company - with elected officials in Washington and Europe stepping up to not only offer support but to call on other tech giants to also review their policies around conducting business in China.
On Thursday, Neelie Kroes, the woman who currently serves as the European Union’s antitrust commissioner but is expected to be named the EU’s top Internet official next month, announced support for Google and its decision, as well as open Internet for the free flow of information and communications.
Also on Thursday, the White House finally chimed in to offer its support of Google’s decision, even though it remains unclear how U.S.-China relations might be affected by all of this. At a press conference, a White House spokesman said President Barack Obama believes in universal rights for people around the globe that should not be “carved out” for specific countries.
Finally, U.S. diplomats called on China to explain the cyber attacks while a group of Republican lawmakers called on Cisco, Microsoft and Yahoo to review their business operations with China, saying that to not do so is basically “complicity with this kind of evil.”
That’s kind of harsh - but it also helps explain the sentiment among government officials in free countries. Some have little patience for companies who put business success over the rights of human beings. Google, with its actions this week, has raised the moral bar for large corporations.
And while no one is saying as much, I can’t help but wonder how a rose-smelling Google might do when it goes knocking on the doors of Washington and the EU for things like regulatory approval of mergers or acquisitions. After all, this is the company that put morals in front of money and chose good over evil - or so the perception goes. Google reviewed its options and made a decision to stand on its moral ground. Some might argue that Google wasn’t strong in China yet so it didn’t give up much, But any way you look at it, China is a lot to give up.
Over in Redmond, however, it didn’t take long for Microsoft to review its own business practices in China. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told CNBC Thursday afternoon that the company had no intention of pulling out of China and that it would obey the laws there.
And just as fast, it was put into a different spotlight. The headline on the All Things D Digital Daily blog post Thursday read: “Microsoft: ‘Don’t be Evil’ is Google’s Motto, Not Ours.”
Ouch.
Still, you can’t really blame Microsoft. After all, it needs the support and cooperation of the Chinese government to help it fight off piracy of its software products in that country. Microsoft doesn’t have armies of soldiers to go in and raid piracy operations - but the Chinese government does.
Microsoft had to do what it had to do, just as Google also had to do what it had to do. Everyone has strong feelings about this today - but will the sentiment continue to play out this way once the dust settles?
Sam Diaz is a senior editor at ZDNet. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.
Subscribe to Between the Lines via Email alerts or RSS.
SarcMark - sarcasm puntuation mark
Jan. 15th, 2010 10:57 amNot yet available for native Mac OSX. Do you think this will catch on?
SarcMark - sarcasm puntuation mark
Jan. 15th, 2010 10:57 amNot yet available for native Mac OSX. Do you think this will catch on?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
novapsycheWhy vaccination of adolescents and pre-adolescents is important: HPV found in 56% of new couples: study
Why we urgently need an HIV vaccine: Study Raises Concerns About Drug-Resistant HIV
Why vaccination of adolescents and pre-adolescents is important: HPV found in 56% of new couples: study
Why we urgently need an HIV vaccine: Study Raises Concerns About Drug-Resistant HIV
WASHINGTON – Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome — the thing that makes a man male — is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.
A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.
"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."
Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.
( Read more... )___
On the Net:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
WASHINGTON – Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome — the thing that makes a man male — is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.
A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.
"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."
Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.
( Read more... )___
On the Net:
Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature
Women's Rights
Home » View Story
-->D.C. Police Confirm Condom Policy that Endangers Public Health
Published January 12, 2010 @ 05:41PM PT
Washington, D.C.: home to the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country. So you'd think they'd do everything possible to prevent the spread of the epidemic, such as promoting safe sex techniques. Why, then, do police do exactly the opposite by using condoms as evidence that prostitution is occurring?
DCist contacted the Metropolitan Police Department for comment on its policy after they reported on an article I wrote last week about the use of condoms as evidence in "Prostitution Free Zones." According to DCist, MPD spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump confirms that condoms can be used as a factor leading "an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution," but stresses that possession of rubbers alone isn't sufficient cause for an order to disperse or arrest.
This mirrors the San Francisco police's position: they have defended a similar practice by saying that "a pocket full of condoms alone is not a basis for arrest." This defense of the policy appears to be motivated by the desire to dodge privacy concerns and outrage from the many women who like to prepare for a night out (seriously, that's a lot of women they'd be calling sex workers). However, it doesn't address the major problem with this practice: the danger to the health of sex workers and the public.
Considering condoms as even one factor for arrest deters sex workers from using protection. "The risk of catching something is better than being arrested," according to Patricia West, a sex worker and outreach volunteer for San Francisco's St. James Infirmary, which provides health care for members of the world's oldest profession.
( Read more... )In Washington, D.C., "condoms can be used as a factor leading 'an officer to suspect that a person is engaged in prostitution.'"
Women's Rights
Home » View Story
-->D.C. Police Confirm Condom Policy that Endangers Public Health
Published January 12, 2010 @ 05:41PM PT
Washington, D.C.: home to the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country. So you'd think they'd do everything possible to prevent the spread of the epidemic, such as promoting safe sex techniques. Why, then, do police do exactly the opposite by using condoms as evidence that prostitution is occurring?
DCist contacted the Metropolitan Police Department for comment on its policy after they reported on an article I wrote last week about the use of condoms as evidence in "Prostitution Free Zones." According to DCist, MPD spokesperson Gwendolyn Crump confirms that condoms can be used as a factor leading "an officer to suspect (reasonable suspicion) that a person is engaged in prostitution," but stresses that possession of rubbers alone isn't sufficient cause for an order to disperse or arrest.
This mirrors the San Francisco police's position: they have defended a similar practice by saying that "a pocket full of condoms alone is not a basis for arrest." This defense of the policy appears to be motivated by the desire to dodge privacy concerns and outrage from the many women who like to prepare for a night out (seriously, that's a lot of women they'd be calling sex workers). However, it doesn't address the major problem with this practice: the danger to the health of sex workers and the public.
Considering condoms as even one factor for arrest deters sex workers from using protection. "The risk of catching something is better than being arrested," according to Patricia West, a sex worker and outreach volunteer for San Francisco's St. James Infirmary, which provides health care for members of the world's oldest profession.
( Read more... )In Washington, D.C., "condoms can be used as a factor leading 'an officer to suspect that a person is engaged in prostitution.'"