Google threatens to pull out of Australia over censorship

[muse]

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/171000,me ... ralia.aspx

By Brett Winterford
Apr 1, 2010 7:02 AM
Tags: google | conroy | filter | censorship | efa | abc
Threatens to close Pyrmont office in response to Conroy's filter.

Internet search giant Google is planning to close down its Australian office in response to the Federal Government's plans to filter the internet, according to an internal memo sighted by iTnews.

According to the leaked memo, Google CEO Eric Schmidt [pictured] canvassed the option in discussions with the US State Department on how to take an appropriate international stance on censorship earlier this month.

"We can't be compromised by the Australian situation," the memo reads. "We pulled out on the Chinese over their filter - it won't go unnoticed if we remain in Australia."

Tensions between the Federal Government and Google escalated on Monday evening, when Communications Minister Stephen Conroy told ABC Radio that the search giant should consider its own privacy policies before criticising those of elected governments.

Conroy said Google's motivations could be summed up in one alleged Schmidt quote: "We love cash!"

The memo canvasses the option of Google moving its handful of local switches and cache kit to New Zealand, mirroring the approach taken in China, where racks were re-located to Hong Kong.

A spokesman for Senator Conroy said his department had not received any communications from Google outside of its official submission to public consultations around the filtering plan and has not received any threats from Google to quit Australia.

"Maybe DFAT has been briefed, I don't know," the spokesman for Senator Conroy said. "Ask them?"

Colin Jacobs, vice-chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia said Google had made the "wrong move."

"After being assured by the Minister that the filter is benign and for our own good, EFA recently reversed its opposition to the plan," he said.

"Google's decision not to play by Australian law leaves Australians at continued risk of being bombarded by unspeakable obscenity every time they open their web browser, with nobody to help shield them. We can't help but wonder if this means Google is somehow pro-bestiality."

Jesus, how do you guys manage to screw up everything that's internet related?

[Einzige]

We can't help but wonder if this means Google is somehow pro-bestiality."

... Or maybe it just means that Google is pro-freedom?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

We can't help but wonder if this means Google is somehow pro-bestiality."

... Or maybe it just means that Google is pro-freedom?

What nonsense is this? Freedom? Who will lose? Google? Google pulls out, it can't take any Australian advertisments. Mind you, Australia, China and others aren't the only ones with filters. Also, don't expect the US government ot have much influence on foreign domestic policy. Any pretensions to this simply smacks of hubris.

[K. A. Pital]

Damn! *eats back my words about Google ignoring other examples of censorship* Seems Google really took a non-hypocritical position. Well, good for them.

Bad for their profits, but good for them

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Damn! *eats back my words about Google ignoring other examples of censorship* Seems Google really took a non-hypocritical position. Well, good for them.

Bad for their profits, but good for them

Let's throw in Singapore into the mix. We have net filters too. And our government isn't afraid of thumbing its nose to the US government.

[atg]

Memo: Google threatens to pull out of Australia
By Brett Winterford
Apr 1, 2010 7:02 AM

By Brett Winterford
Apr 1, 2010 7:02 AM

Apr 1

[K. A. Pital]

NOOOOO!!! EAT THE RICH!!! *goes with gnashing teeth* PHULED!!!

Shit. I guess I can't even be bothered to look on the calendar.

[atg]

Hell I wish this were true. Then Conroy would hopefully get the kicking he deserves.

[Einzige]

We can't help but wonder if this means Google is somehow pro-bestiality."

... Or maybe it just means that Google is pro-freedom?

What nonsense is this? Freedom? Who will lose? Google? Google pulls out, it can't take any Australian advertisments. Mind you, Australia, China and others aren't the only ones with filters. Also, don't expect the US government ot have much influence on foreign domestic policy. Any pretensions to this simply smacks of hubris.

What does the U.S. government have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that this could very well be a principled stand on the part of one of my very favorite corporations.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, this like is an April Fool's Joke. Which is unfortunate.

[Archaic`]

The whole "we love cash" line did kind of give it away, I thought. ;p

Actually, I think a number of Australian news organisations published this one. Either it was a coordinated joke, or some shoddy research.

[atg]

The whole "we love cash" line did kind of give it away, I thought. ;p

Actually, I think a number of Australian news organisations published this one. Either it was a coordinated joke, or some shoddy research.

That, the beastiality line, the "minister claiming its for our own good"...
And yeah with the state of our journalism I bet someone did it as a joke initially and the rest just copy-pasted because their too dumb to work out what the date is.

What does the U.S. government have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that this could very well be a principled stand on the part of one of my very favorite corporations.

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

[Einzige]

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

Because, as we all know, Google is a soul-sucking monstrosity of wealth just waiting to assert control over the poor, oppressed People.

[Shroom Man 777]

NOOOOO!!! EAT THE RICH!!! *goes with gnashing teeth* PHULED!!!

Shit. I guess I can't even be bothered to look on the calendar.

In Soviet Russia, calendar looks on YOU!

[Vympel]

Well, it would be nice. Fucking Conroy. Stupid cunt. I'm just hoping the bill doesn't get passed.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

Because, as we all know, Google is a soul-sucking monstrosity of wealth just waiting to assert control over the poor, oppressed People.

...

Grow fucking up. This is a company that allows the blotting out of a mansions of rich Russian oligarchs because they were paid to do so.

And finally, this is a company that has shown that it will manipulate the search order to hide news that is negative of Google.

And what poor? The poor have no access to the internet!

[Einzige]

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

Because, as we all know, Google is a soul-sucking monstrosity of wealth just waiting to assert control over the poor, oppressed People.

...

Grow fucking up.

-- and then, in the very next sentence --

This is a company that allows the blotting out of a mansions of rich Russian oligarchs because they were paid to do so.

I apologize that I find this to be neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, Mr. Noldor. If I were a magnate of the Russian creed, I myself would probably refrain from permitting the location of my property to be seen by all interested parties.

And finally, this is a company that has shown that it will manipulate the search order to hide news that is negative of Google.

So not only are they inconspicuous with their customer's information, they're also prudent with their own.

[atg]

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

Because, as we all know, Google is a soul-sucking monstrosity of wealth just waiting to assert control over the poor, oppressed People.

I didn't say that moron, way to pick on a tiny part of my post and completely miss the substance. Corporations exist solely to make money for shareholders/owners, NOT for making principled stands against "teh EVIL ONES!!!1!". Do you understand that, or did you fail basic economics? If they were taking the high ground on censorship then why did they not pull out of China earlier? Why wait for a hacking attempt? Its not like China's been hiding their censorship of the Internet.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I apologize that I find this to be neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, Mr. Noldor. If I were a magnate of the Russian creed, I myself would probably refrain from permitting the location of my property to be seen by all interested parties.

No, the point is, this is a money making corporation which has shown that its morals are slippery as the dollar notes. Oh wait, there's absolutely nothing new about that.

So not only are they inconspicuous with their customer's information, they're also prudent with their own.

Yes, and apparently a company that has shown to have no qualms to manipulate the flow of information is apparently a good thing in your books.

[Einzige]

"Favourite corporations"??? WTF? Is capitalism like a football tournament now? Why do people care about conglomerates like that? They don't care about you. They don't exist to serve you. They want you to follow blindly, feeding more cash into their ever hungry maws. Googles China 'stand' comes down to two things: 1) They were so pissed off they pulled out of China out of spite. 2) The free publicity in the Western world is worth more than their business in China. There are no principles where cash and companies are involved.

Because, as we all know, Google is a soul-sucking monstrosity of wealth just waiting to assert control over the poor, oppressed People.

I didn't say that moron, way to pick on a tiny part of my post and completely miss the substance.

You certainly implied it.

Corporations exist solely to make money for shareholders/owners, NOT for making principled stands against "teh EVIL ONES!!!1!".

Which contradicts the possibility of a corporation also having an ethos while remaining dedicated to the turning of a profit - how, exactly? Neither life nor money conform to the clichés of a Christian morality play.

Do you understand that, or did you fail basic economics?

One of the very first things you learn in economics is to dispel old myths, of which the notion that profit-making is irrevocably evil is one.

If they were taking the high ground on censorship then why did they not pull out of China earlier? Why wait for a hacking attempt? Its not like China's been hiding their censorship of the Internet.

Because it would have impeded their profits to do so? Once more: making money and making a statement are not mutually exclusive, though some of the more radical posters here may feel otherwise. Google likely waited until it had a domestic market built-up in China to pull out, and, if there's any subsequent demand that they re-instate their services, coupled with a liberalization of China's censorship laws, then so much the better - they come out smelling faintly of roses.

But that's subtle, and I get the impression you don't 'do' subtle.

[Shroom Man 777]

This is a company that allows the blotting out of a mansions of rich Russian oligarchs because they were paid to do so.

I apologize that I find this to be neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, Mr. Noldor. If I were a magnate of the Russian creed, I myself would probably refrain from permitting the location of my property to be seen by all interested parties.

That is anti-freedom. Why is Googel so anti-freedom? This could very well be a unprincipled stand on the part of one of my very unfavoritest corporations.

And finally, this is a company that has shown that it will manipulate the search order to hide news that is negative of Google.

So not only are they inconspicuous with their customer's information, they're also prudent with their own.

... Or maybe it just means that Googel is anti-freedom?

[Einzige]

That is anti-freedom. Why is Googel so anti-freedom? This could very well be a unprincipled stand on the part of one of my very unfavoritest corporations.

I understand that you're trying to strawman me so as to accumulate a few more brownie points here, but you may want to scarf down the ones rotting in your Fridgaire first. If I have information I wish to reserve to myself, and another organization might be in a position to compromise that information, then I am entirely within my right to pay them to keep that information from being released.

Google Earth also blacks out images over sensitive military bases. Is the government now reduced to the meager level of a Russian Mafia don?

*snip*

[atg]

Which contradicts the possibility of a corporation also having an ethos while remaining dedicated to the turning of a profit - how, exactly? Neither life nor money conform to the clichés of a Christian morality play.

What I'm saying is that morality/principles/whatever is NOT the main driving force behind Google's moves.

One of the very first things you learn in economics is to dispel old myths, of which the notion that profit-making is irrevocably evil is one.

You will of course point out where I said making a profit was evil... Oh wait I didn't!

If they were taking the high ground on censorship then why did they not pull out of China earlier? Why wait for a hacking attempt? Its not like China's been hiding their censorship of the Internet.

Because it would have impeded their profits to do so?

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! "it would have impeded their profits". So by your own statement Google is acting in what is their best profitable interests, not principles.

Google likely waited until it had a domestic market built-up in China to pull out, and, if there's any subsequent demand that they re-instate their services, coupled with a liberalization of China's censorship laws, then so much the better - they come out smelling faintly of roses.

But that's subtle, and I get the impression you don't 'do' subtle.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Why the hell would you waste resources building up a market and then throw it away? Oh wait it fits your personal wank thoery about Google. Anyway Google were losing market share in China, down to ~20% from ~35% in 2006 if memory serves correctly. Most likely they wanted to pull out and the hacking/human rights/ethics was a convenient talking point to get free publicity.

[atg]

This is a company that allows the blotting out of a mansions of rich Russian oligarchs because they were paid to do so.

I apologize that I find this to be neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, Mr. Noldor. If I were a magnate of the Russian creed, I myself would probably refrain from permitting the location of my property to be seen by all interested parties.

If Google were so driven by good-will/human right/peace and love to everything fluffy then they wouldn't need to be paid to blot out peoples houses. They would do it regardless.

In fact - why launch the google earth project and its possible violation of privacy altogehter

[Einzige]

What I'm saying is that morality/principles/whatever is NOT the main driving force behind Google's moves.

And, if you were capable of reading, you'd note that neither did I.

You will of course point out where I said making a profit was evil... Oh wait I didn't!

Then perhaps you'll be wiser in your choice of words the next time you decide to become Mr. Populist.

DIG! DING! DING! We have a winner! "it would have impeded their profits". So by your own statement Google is acting in what is their best profitable interests, not principles.

Which, as you've already agreed, is hardly exclusive to doing the 'right' thing.

What kind of idiotic statement is this? Why the hell would you waste resources building up a market and then throw it away?

Because it would further endear your customer base to you in regions that are ill-disposed to your emerging market. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

Most likely they wanted to pull out and the hacking/human rights/ethics was a convenient talking point to get free publicity.

And? That's exactly what I'm arguing - that "the right thing" and "the right thing to do for our shareholders" were, in this instance, mutually inclusive, and Google ought to be praised for its actions and not lambasted as the shadow agents of some malevolent power.

[Shroom Man 777]

That is anti-freedom. Why is Googel so anti-freedom? This could very well be a unprincipled stand on the part of one of my very unfavoritest corporations.

I understand that you're trying to strawman me so as to accumulate a few more brownie points here, but you may want to scarf down the ones rotting in your Fridgaire first. If I have information I wish to reserve to myself, and another organization might be in a position to compromise that information, then I am entirely within my right to pay them to keep that information from being released.

Then how is that different from the Chinese government wishing to reserve some information for itself, since another organization like Tibet might be in a position to compromise that information? Then China is entirely within its right to keep that information from being released. Or should China have paid Googel to censor information for it, like how the Russian mafia does it?

Also, why should they censor the satellite photos of Russian oligarch mansions? From orbit, those Russian oligarch mansions are in plain sight of the satellites - just like how they are in plain sight to any passerby who can see those big ass buildings from the street or something. Why is Google intentionally and deliberately obscuring things, for money, that should normally be publicly visible?

And, also, if the government and mafia can pay Googel to censor shit for whatever reasons, does this mean other people - even laymen - can request Googel to block out their houses from Googel Earth? Or do they need to pay moneys? How much moneys? Is this censorship service available to anyone, or just to VIPs? If the latter, then it represents a most severe manifestion of class antagonism as the capitalist Google pig dogs will only render this service of censorship to the bourgeois whores while denying such freedoms to the working-class proletariats.

Thus this is anti-freedom.

Google Earth also blacks out images over sensitive military bases. Is the government now reduced to the meager level of a Russian Mafia don?

A lot of governments are at the meager level of a Russian mafia don.