Dell may pull out of China over Google incident

[K. A. Pital]

You might not like oligarchs but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to make it easy for a kidnapper to plot how to snatch his 8 year old daughter for ransom for example.

So you consider concealing information for money pretty cool? I didn't say the interfered in the same manner as the Chinese. However, the Russian government I believe likewise cracked Gmail accounts of folks (e.g. Khomyakov recently, if it's not fake), maybe more.

So Google continues to operate and does fuck nothing. But China the bogeyman is bogey.

[Darth Wong]

We shall see how this goes. It'd be nice for megacorps around the world to start making decisions based on the ethics of their business, rather than a healthy bottom line as the sole factor.

If they do too much of that, the shareholders will punish them. Shareholders don't see anything but yield and share price.

It's funny how people around America accuse Wall Street of being utterly amoral, yet millions of individual small investors don't behave any differently, nor do their pension funds.

[Kane Starkiller]

So you consider concealing information for money pretty cool?

Depends on the information. For example magazines must blur out the faces of children when photographing celebrities so in that case concealing information is actually mandatory. Google Earth now enables high resolution top down images of houses of celebrities and rich people. This does put them under increased risk and I don't think it's all black and white whether such images must be available to the general public.

I didn't say the interfered in the same manner as the Chinese. However, the Russian government I believe likewise cracked Gmail accounts of folks (e.g. Khomyakov recently, if it's not fake), maybe more.

So Google continues to operate and does fuck nothing. But China the bogeyman is bogey.

I would say it's the opposite. China has been allowed to get away with a lot of bullshit on the account that it's a huge market and no one can afford to miss out. This appears to be changing and it's a good thing. If Russia starts hacking google accounts then yes google should make the same ultimatum because otherwise what was meant to be a medium for exchange of ideas becomes a convenient way for the government to track people down.
Then there is the issue of scale, how often China did it and how often is Russia doing it if at all?

[K. A. Pital]

Depends on the information. For example magazines must blur out the faces of children when photographing celebrities so in that case concealing information is actually mandatory. Google Earth now enables high resolution top down images of houses of celebrities and rich people. This does put them under increased risk and I don't think it's all black and white whether such images must be available to the general public.

I don't think the rich warrant special protection any greater than you or me. Besides, they pay for it anyway. Google Earth doesn't write whose mansion is the place of X.

I would say it's the opposite. China has been allowed to get away with a lot of bullshit on the account that it's a huge market and no one can afford to miss out. This appears to be changing and it's a good thing.

Yeah, I'm actually of the same opinion. I'm just against ascribing some ulterior motivations for Google and praising it as some sort of highly moral organization.

If Russia starts hacking google accounts then yes google should make the same ultimatum because otherwise what was meant to be a medium for exchange of ideas becomes a convenient way for the government to track people down.

Geez, well that's well known for ages. One of Russia's largest social networks is linked to the FSB and has a no-delete policy (you can't delete stuff you once entered for account info, it's stored forever).

Then there is the issue of scale, how often China did it and how often is Russia doing it if at all?

So far I've found one occasion with an actual complaint lodged and a few allegations about gmail hackings; but obviously only Google itself knows (other than the users, I mean) if the accounts were breached or not. But Russia does it with other mass internet sites routinely (also, read above).

I also seriously don't believe that there are no hacking attempts by security agencies all over the world and China's MPS really is the only violator here.

So like I said, Google made a good move - it did levy some warranted criticism on the Chinese government, it didn't really affect the common Chinese in a negative way (doubt they'd suffer from lack of Google); and it also got some good PR for Google as a side effect.

But to make some sort of grand claims about morality of Google or corporations? For Pete's sake. To call for a corporate crusade of economic warfare against China to "stick it to the CPC" (while it's the commoners who will suffer when real plants, not some internet search engine, close down in PRC)? That's the kind of stupidity I was arguing against.

Hope I made my position clear.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I feel some clarification is needed on my behalf.

Firstly, when I called for megacorporations to give the Chinese government grief, I meant in a way that would highlight the growing suspicion of the way the government over there acts. Yes, it's great that they are undergoing a massive industrialisation that is raising people from poverty (though how long this can continue is uncertain, but certainly not for very long). And I have no problems with that. What I do have issues with, is encroaching on freedom of speech, and so do a LOT of Chinese still. We bitch and moan about how the US and UK are spying on otherwise benign citizens, but imagine if they vanished people too. There would be uproar, and I'm sorry, but a government that offers prosperity at the cost of freedom is one that needs to be challenged. I did NOT say the government should fall, Stas, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I said, as I have always said, that The Party should be given a clear signal that as a growing economic power, they need to change their ways. Google are not a paragon of virtue and only the gullible would think any company would be 100% altruistic when they have shareholders to look after. I've worked with multinational charities that actually are just as zealous on this front as any big business of private enterprise, and in fact a friend of mine has been to court over unfair dismissal and exploitation by one such company she worked for during her student years. That's not to say that Google isn't making a good move in shunning Chinese censorship. If memory serves, a great number of people on this board were up in arms over Google being in China at all. Now they're giving the Chinese government the finger and trying to give censorship free services to the mainland, despite there still being business to be made over there and the risks this furore brings. Should we condemn Google now for doing what many wanted them to do from the start? No. Do I believe Google shouldn't apply this practise elsewhere? No. Why anyone brings up Russia, Zimbabwe etc. is beside the point. This thread is about China, and my interest in Google saying "enough" to one tyrannical government in no way belittles the problems they could address elsewhere.

We know that anarchy isn't an acceptable outcome for anyone, so I in no way wanted the government to collapse from this (and nor would it. It's the height of folly to think such a powerful entity would fall into disarray because some Western companies grew a backbone all of a sudden). Indeed, nor am I seeing a threat to peoples' welfare or jobs, since as Stas confirmed, a great chunk of Chinese prosperity is down to internal industry, not just outside investment. So the threat of people being left behind by the pull out of Google etc. is non-existent. Not that it would matter if it were, because the jobs would only help people in India, for instance, rise out of poverty, so it's hardly a horrible outcome, even if it would, ideally, be that the world could have ALL people rise out of poverty thanks to outside investment at the same time. Alas, that cannot be.

mr friendly guy brought up a rather obscure reference to a previous thread I posted in regarding punishment. I fail to see how the two subjects are related in this way. In that thread, I was staunchly opposed to cruel and unusual punishment. If I was advocating that in this Chinese example, it'd be relevant, but it isn't. I am merely suggesting foreign investors in China let the government over there know where the line is drawn, and it most assuredly is where trying to track down human rights advocates for whatever nefarious means comes into it. Note, in the acid thread, I wasn't betraying my thoughts on this incident. I would still imprison the perpetrator as punishment. In this thread's case, the Chinese government's punishment is not total collapse, but a threat that they won't be getting as much money from large multinationals as they presently do. This is, I should think, and acceptable punishment to any party that decides to abuse the very people they are supposedly trying to empower. If China is liberalising, that is also a good sign, yet, not something to get in the way of making sure a message is sent that token measures are not enough (remember the protests over the Beijing games).

I think I've said all I need to say on this matter. Whatever The Kernel is debating, I have addressed my own position and made it clearer. Any comments of criticisms welcome.

[mr friendly guy]

mr friendly guy brought up a rather obscure reference to a previous thread I posted in regarding punishment. I fail to see how the two subjects are related in this way. In that thread, I was staunchly opposed to cruel and unusual punishment. If I was advocating that in this Chinese example, it'd be relevant, but it isn't. I am merely suggesting foreign investors in China let the government over there know where the line is drawn, and it most assuredly is where trying to track down human rights advocates for whatever nefarious means comes into it. Note, in the acid thread, I wasn't betraying my thoughts on this incident. I would still imprison the perpetrator as punishment. In this thread's case, the Chinese government's punishment is not total collapse, but a threat that they won't be getting as much money from large multinationals as they presently do. This is, I should think, and acceptable punishment to any party that decides to abuse the very people they are supposedly trying to empower. If China is liberalising, that is also a good sign, yet, not something to get in the way of making sure a message is sent that token measures are not enough (remember the protests over the Beijing games).

I think I've said all I need to say on this matter. Whatever The Kernel is debating, I have addressed my own position and made it clearer. Any comments of criticisms welcome.

Firstly the comparison was meant to be by analogy, so only the underlying logic was meant to be compared, and not so much the two examples.Thus saying the two subjects aren't related is invalid because they weren't meant to be compared per se.

Also from your original posting it seemed like you thought that the CCP would lose its wealth and power if multinationals left which would be an extreme "punishment" seemingly for the sake of punishment (since there would be massive collateral damage to the population), and hence my comment. I was not the only one who interpreted your post in that manner, ie Stas, Ray and it seems even the Kernel didn't dispute that when he replied to Stas. However, since this is you I am quite happy with your explanation that this was simply a miscommunication.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That's a wording error on my part. It should've read like the punishment was a loss of confidence in western business working in China, not those businesses somehow collapsing a whole nation. There would be loss of revenue and jobs, but no more than when we punish businesses over here for poor work practise.

In anycase, those businesses could move to India and bring work and growth to people equally set in poverty, so there's no punishing the downtrodden, simply a redistribution to other needy people, something which happens constantly with charity drives.

I got the point of the analogy, by the way. I just didn't see it having any bearing as my views were consistent, albeit, possibly not so clear to third parties.

I'll reiterate that it'd be nice for other companies to take note of this affair and factor it into their worldview sometime, since the odd good move may not exonerate a company of being in it for the profit, but does at least make the world a little better e.g. Corporations trying to become carbon neutral, though still selling consumer junk.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh, I see your point Vald. If you're talking about reasonable pressure on China and "lines in the sand" to prevent abuse, I certainly support that, and thanks for clarifying. Alas, too often have people called for somehow "ending China's industrialization" by unknown means (Ryan recently argued that they should stop industrializing alltogether or something due to pollution, as an example). So I guess it's just my typical reflex to such words.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think China's its own worse enemy for that. No single nation could, nor should, prevent their economy growing. But physical and financial limits certainly will come into play, and as you've noted, China doesn't just have cheap, hard working labour that can be well educated too, but booming real estate and public infrastructure services too. That's why you don't see, say, Nigeria getting this level of investment. However, it's looking decidedly bubbly over there now, and the huge stimulus the government injected into the economy may overheat things. Looking at their oil and coal use alone, you see significant obstacles very soon even if the rest of the world falls into recession again imminently.

[ray245]

I think China's its own worse enemy for that. No single nation could, nor should, prevent their economy growing. But physical and financial limits certainly will come into play, and as you've noted, China doesn't just have cheap, hard working labour that can be well educated too, but booming real estate and public infrastructure services too. That's why you don't see, say, Nigeria getting this level of investment. However, it's looking decidedly bubbly over there now, and the huge stimulus the government injected into the economy may overheat things. Looking at their oil and coal use alone, you see significant obstacles very soon even if the rest of the world falls into recession again imminently.

I recall that the Chinese is already looking into different ways to resolve their energy consumption for industrialisation. China is actively building Nuclear plants all over the nation, and they did built the Three Gorges Dam to ensure that are not over-relying on coal and oil.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The trouble remains that it's still a race. It takes 5 years or so per nuclear reactor, and I am guessing they are built in a staggered fashion, and it will take easily 20 years for all the reactors to be built to replace all existing power sources. China is a big place, and energy needs are rising rapidly.

[mr friendly guy]

Before the GFC hit they were having frequent brown outs because they couldn't produce enough power. However they still had prodigious growth, so I would expect if necessary they would simply have to put up with brown outs and rationalise power.

[Kane Starkiller]

Chinese installed nuclear capacity is less than 9GWe while US has over 100GWe installed. So it's going to take a massive effort just to reach US which itself has nothing to brag about when it comes to lessening reliance on fossil fuels.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Chinese installed nuclear capacity is less than 9GWe while US has over 100GWe installed. So it's going to take a massive effort just to reach US which itself has nothing to brag about when it comes to lessening reliance on fossil fuels.

They might hit that number with 20 or so 2x800MWe reactors though. But again, the cost is quite high and each take many years to build with definite cost over-runs