4 ms·

Google, and most other businesses, are already "OK" with censorship, because governments force them to perform it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_

by dchest 11y ago

Google, and most other businesses, are already "OK" with censorship, because governments force them to perform it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_H... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... The fact that these censorship laws come from countries which are called "democratic" doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the definition of the word. Here'a a Wikipedia article about Google's censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
I think there needs to be a bit more flesh on the term "censorship" or we risk making everything appear the same and shrug it off as normal. In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship: a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves. b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities. c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing. d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a). I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship. That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).
- newjersey 11y ago
  If Google were to exit a market for (c) that'd mean there's be no Google or YouTube in the US. I don't like censorship by an autocratic government either but we are moving to treating corps that are lazy/careless with users' information as victims at home too. > The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every reasonable precaution' to protect their customers’ data. In addition, the law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret Service." http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-falling-for-lizard-squad-scam-exposing-customer-data/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-fa... Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa? Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.
mtgx 11y ago
It's sad that it may have been Europe of all places that thought Google it should be okay with censorship. Once that happened, it was only a step forward for Google to think "well, I guess we're only complying with the local laws here...so we could do that in China, too." It's a cop-out from Google, and from any other company that has agreed with this (Microsoft, Apple, etc).

by dchest 11y ago

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

I think there needs to be a bit more flesh on the term "censorship" or we risk making everything appear the same and shrug it off as normal. In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship: a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves. b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities. c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing. d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a). I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship. That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).

newjersey 11y ago
If Google were to exit a market for (c) that'd mean there's be no Google or YouTube in the US. I don't like censorship by an autocratic government either but we are moving to treating corps that are lazy/careless with users' information as victims at home too. > The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every reasonable precaution' to protect their customers’ data. In addition, the law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret Service." http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-falling-for-lizard-squad-scam-exposing-customer-data/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-fa... Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa? Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.

mtgx 11y ago

It's sad that it may have been Europe of all places that thought Google it should be okay with censorship. Once that happened, it was only a step forward for Google to think "well, I guess we're only complying with the local laws here...so we could do that in China, too." It's a cop-out from Google, and from any other company that has agreed with this (Microsoft, Apple, etc).