US Lawmakers to Keep Google Out of China? 491
caese writes "USATODAY is reporting that lawmakers in the US are proposing legislation that would keep Google and others out of China. From the article: 'Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights.'"
Who's being repressive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems almost ironic doesn't it?
Political noobs on slashdot.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll clue you in, this is all about posturing. No, this bill won't pass and it isn't intended to pass. What it is intended to do is put political pressure on Google to counterbalance the polutical pressure China is putting on Google, Yahoo!, MSN, etc.. Before, US companies really didn't have much choice, they were operating in China so the Chinese could lean hard on them to play ball. Bills like this are intended to provide cover, i.e. next time China wants to lean on em the US companies AND the Chinese government have to counterbalance the gain aganst the potential loss if they push Congress far enough they actually get serious next time.
Wouldn't be at all suprised to find Google or Microsoft behind this bill, of course in a very back room, back channel and totally deniable way. This is modern political theatre. Yes it is sleezy, underhanded, hypocritical and so on, but it happens to be the way the game is played.
Re:FUD and Flamebait? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, how does this differ from any form of nationalization which could occur?
Any company with a branch office and ANY equipment in ANY other country could in theory be 'physically compromised by force'. Heck, they could be physicall compromised domestically too. Google's servers aren't exactly vital to the operation of the US government, so why the special interest? They didn't step in when France said that certain things on websites were not allowed in their country.
How can a government which has been ramming globalization down the throats of everyone suddenly decide to make this one exception with China because Google didn't fight them on freedom of speech issues?
They sure as hell aren't stopping Monsanto from exporting their GM seeds which local farmers aren't allowed to keep seeds from for the next harvest. They don't stop Nike from using child labour, they don't stop Wal Mart from running (allegedly) unsafe plants (or at least, heaviy profiting from them), they've never tried to stop the tobacco companies from aggressively marketing their products in other countries in ways which would be illegal in the US.
The US (and, indeed, the whole West) have been using divisions in foreign countries for decades to be able to circumvent labour and environmental laws -- like it or not, it's called imperialism.
How many US ships get sent to India in the ship-cracking yards in which poor people work in toxic environments and lead to further pollution in those locales? To how many countries are loads of toxic waste (eg, old computer equipment) being exported because domestic disposal is difficult/expensive? These things would be prohibited to do in North America, yet they're allowed to continue.
If the US wants to start ensuring that companies working in foreign countries play by US rules, a huge part of the US economy would have to be crippled in the same way -- unless they're some how going to claim that Google poses more of a threat than some of the other stuff. Because there are loads of examples of foreign practices which would violate labour or environmental laws.
And given that they've chosen to exempt themselves from treaties such as the treatment of prisoners they determined to be 'enemy combatants', this is just raging hypocracy to be so focused on cencorship in China.
Hell, they've even made sure their Patriot Act has extra-territorial reaches -- if a US company working abroad collects information, it is subject to the rules of the Patriot Act. Never mind that the information was collected in a foreign country relating to foreign nationals for purposes of conducting business in that country. So why is the US entitled to export their laws by proxy, but China shouldn't expect Google to abide by their rules?
Absolutely friggin' absurd.
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Who's being repressive? (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, Congress should not have the power to stop Google from conducting business within China. Google operates solely on an international medium with business locations located throughout the world.
How many servers does Google have worldwide and what percentage actually reside within US borders?
Can't Understand Slashdot... Please Explain. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think you are all Libetarians or Anarchists and against this simply because you are against most forms government regulation. So could someone, who thinks Google is evil for doing buisness in China, who opposes the government restricting buisness in China on human rights grounds, and IS NOT a libertarian and just opposing the government on principle, please explain to me the logic of your decision.
PLEASE... Seriously, I am not going to diss you or disagree with you in any way. I will give you the last word and won't even reply back. I seriously want to understand the logic of your beliefs. This is not a rhetorical question, and I am not being factitious. I realize this is a failure to comprehend on my part, and would be very greatful to have you enlighten me on this issue.
Re:Can't Understand Slashdot... Please Explain. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:1, Interesting)
Well said. I also thought of lynch mobs and witch burning, just to name a couple more examples.
There's a huge popular misconception that "democracy" is the obvious correct way.
In fact, people in the US constantly, and incorrectly, state that we have a democracy. But most of us know that's quite incorrect! In fact, the very wise Founding Fathers knew of mob-mentality and realized a more learned, wiser, hopefully compassionate few would represent the better needs of society.
Our problem is, and it's no secret- in fact quite obvious, that the system is corrupting itself. The one thing the Founders should have done is made it MUCH easier to pull people out of office when needed.
Vigilance!!!! Active involvement in the govt. process!!
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually you hit the nail mostly on the head. The reason it isn't repression is because it is a law that has been decided deomcratically with freedom of political thought and debate. China does not allow freedom of speech politically speeking. I won't say that the U.S. doesn't have to many laws that allow our citizens to be confined.
How long do you think it would take for our populace to be subdued if the police actually brutally repressed any public gatherings that were disenting with the government? I would guess maybe 20 years and everyone would just learn not to rock the boat. China has been under 1 repressive regime or another for hundreds of years now.
With that all said. The U.S. has been moving closer and closer to a repressive state. I would say the only shining bastion we have left to us currently is the Supreme court which thankfully can nullify laws passed by the government that clearly infringe on our civil liberties.
why trade imbalance is "ok": follow the money (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason this doesn't bother many people is that this imblance hides the fact that it is U.S. companies benefiting from this arrangement. For example, most of those Chinese made goods in your local WalMart are marketed by American companies and they are making the profits (some of which they keep offshore to avoid paying u.s. taxes of course...). So, although the goods are made abroad, the American companies make more money than they would if the goods were made here.
I'm not arguing for using China as our labor force. In fact, the whole situation makes me sick. I'm just explaining why businesses interests here like things just how they are...