7 ms·

Just a few things: 1) This tool is made by an Alphabet owned company (Jigsaw), not Google, another Alphabet owned company. The companies will have different mi

Just a few things: 1) This tool is made by an Alphabet owned company (Jigsaw), not Google, another Alphabet owned company. The companies will have different missions, even if profits flow the same direction. 2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. 3) China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there. Note: Oversimplifying the situation for the sake of pitchforking a company you might not like does no one any good. Venezuela and China are very different companies, in very different environments. Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum.

malvosenior 8y ago
Can I ask you if you work for Google? If so you should probably disclose that because you post history makes this very much look like astroturfing. Sorry for bringing this up (I never do that on HN) but this is just too questionable of a defense to be putting up.
- r3bl 8y ago
  As someone who was a part of a project that Jigsaw sponsored, I can vouch for his claim that Google and Jigsaw have entirely different (and often contrary) missions. I am a Google critic as much as everyone else here, but I can say with confidence that we would all be thrilled if Google took the same stand on censorship as is Jigsaw's.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I think the claim is fine if you disclose you're an employee or somehow related to the project (as you have done), but this really looks like astroturfing.
whatshisface 8y ago
>Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum. Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."
- jamescostian 8y ago
  This isn't like theft. It's more like the law says you can't read certain things, so a printing company adjusts the books they print for the people of that country. Obviously they don't want to censor things, but they also want to profit. They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would you like Google to do?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    The parent was arguing that it was less wrong because Google was motivated to do it by self-interest. That's simply not a mitigating factor in any case.
    - code_duck 8y ago
      I guess that’s what the GP was saying. I’m not sure what the alternative is, though - Google could completely pull out of the Chinese market and leave it for competitors like Facebook, Yahoo and MS? Didn’t we go through that already?
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        To respond to your argument, the same "sitting duck" claim could be made in any case of wrongdoing. You can't steal something just because it is unsecured and likely to be stolen - "His bike wasn't locked, so I took it on the grounds that somebody would probably take it and that somebody might as well be me." Neither the ease of perpetrating the crime nor the number of other criminals in the world are mitigating factors when you and your specific actions are tried.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> ...thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there. I'm struggling to see how this addresses the point about Google's variable standards. I mean, are you saying that somehow because Google needs to adjust its standard to make money in a particular market that it therefore doesn't have variable standards? Not quite following you ...
codeisawesome 8y ago
> Venezuela and China are very different companies c o m p a n i e s
pretendscholar 8y ago
>2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. How is that a justification?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- bun_at_work 8y ago
  I'm not trying to justify anything, exactly. I'm pointing out that oversimplifying the situation is not helpful. However, they are different in this case because Venezuela's market isn't large enough that Google feels the need to bend to the will of the government there to be competitive in the world's market. Therefore, they can afford, on a competitive level, to stand against censorship in Venezuela, where doing the same thing in China costs them a huge amount of money. Which is their motivator, as they are a corporation.
jackhack 8y ago
related to #1 -- I predict if some division of Alphabet threatens the income of another larger division (esp. Google), the smaller one will be shut down. This is the reason for much of Sony's failure/inability to build a usable mp3 player. They built amazing music playback devices, but the record label division was so terrified of 'piracy' they forced the hardware division to require a proprietary encryption format (no "plain" mp3s) which essentially ruined the usability. So the company that built the walkman was hobbled, deliberately. Even the Poor Sony Aibo robot dog had to use specially modified Sony memory sticks with encryption and keys written into the normally-unwritable boot sector.
- mcphage 8y ago
  Alternately, Jigsaw won’t work against Google’s own censorship efforts, and exists to push countries that want to censor their citizens’ internet to use Google’s own censorship product.
xg15 8y ago
> China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there. So if the Chinese demand they get real-time access to all information Google has stored about anyone, or Google gets banned from China, they should do that too?
- bhtru 8y ago
  Is there a difference to how the NSA does same albeit with a time delay instead of being instantaneous?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - djsumdog 8y ago
    > time delay Is there one? PRISM and the early Snowden leaks indicated the searches were immediate. Was that not true?
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      IIRC, MUSCULAR was the program where they were getting direct access, and they did so without Google's knowledge. That was the program that had the slides with the infamous (at least within Google) smiley talking about how SSL is removed at the edge of Google's network.
  - tonyztan 8y ago
    The NSA doesn't send people to "reeducation camps" because of their political or religious beliefs.[1] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-m...
    - throwwedoct 8y ago
      Who needs camps when you can drone strike them? [1] > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/# https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...!
guelo 8y ago
> if they want to make money there. That's the point. Google is willing to throw out their supposed principles in order to make money.
jlarocco 8y ago
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Alphabet and Google can't claim to be against censorship while they're profiting from it. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Clearly the only thing Google and Alphabet are "for" is making more money, so there's really no point pretending they have a moral compass guiding them.
- ben_w 8y ago
  Why can’t they make that claim? There are many things in this world that I oppose yet benefit from. I can’t fight every injustice in the world — I don’t know how to, I haven’t got the skills, I don’t have the resources. It’s like a prayer to serenity: Grant me the courage to change what I cannot accept, the serenity to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference. Google maybe rich beyond the dreams of any single human, but they can’t force the Chinese government to stop thinking like the Chinese government.
  - hnbroseph 8y ago
    > yet benefit from this seems a bit reductive if not weaseling. google isn't a bystander, they're knowingly and voluntarily aiding a state oppress it's people.
  - jlarocco 8y ago
    > Why can’t they make that claim? Well, they can claim anything they want. If they want to be consistent and have integrity then they'll make sure their actions align with their claims. Claiming to support privacy while also conceding to China shows they have no integrity and they're only telling people what they want to hear for marketing purposes. > Google maybe rich beyond the dreams of any single human, but they can’t force the Chinese government to stop thinking like the Chinese government. Right, but their inability to change Chinese policy doesn't imply that they have to take an active role in helping China's censorship. They could have said, "We're not doing business in China because it conflicts with our 'Don't be evil' policy." Instead, they got rid of that policy and are working with the Chinese government to censor web content.

malvosenior 8y ago

Can I ask you if you work for Google? If so you should probably disclose that because you post history makes this very much look like astroturfing. Sorry for bringing this up (I never do that on HN) but this is just too questionable of a defense to be putting up.

r3bl 8y ago
As someone who was a part of a project that Jigsaw sponsored, I can vouch for his claim that Google and Jigsaw have entirely different (and often contrary) missions. I am a Google critic as much as everyone else here, but I can say with confidence that we would all be thrilled if Google took the same stand on censorship as is Jigsaw's.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I think the claim is fine if you disclose you're an employee or somehow related to the project (as you have done), but this really looks like astroturfing.

whatshisface 8y ago

>Google as a company (and Alphabet, probably more so) is almost certainly anti-censorship, philosophically; they just don't operate in a vacuum. Since when was being motivated to do wrong a mitigating condition for having done wrong? "Sorry officer, I wasn't going to steal it at first, but then I started wanting it."

jamescostian 8y ago
This isn't like theft. It's more like the law says you can't read certain things, so a printing company adjusts the books they print for the people of that country. Obviously they don't want to censor things, but they also want to profit. They can either be totally censored or partially censored and still make money. Are you asking for them to give up and accept total censorship and forfeit money? If not, what would you like Google to do?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  The parent was arguing that it was less wrong because Google was motivated to do it by self-interest. That's simply not a mitigating factor in any case.
  - code_duck 8y ago
    I guess that’s what the GP was saying. I’m not sure what the alternative is, though - Google could completely pull out of the Chinese market and leave it for competitors like Facebook, Yahoo and MS? Didn’t we go through that already?
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      To respond to your argument, the same "sitting duck" claim could be made in any case of wrongdoing. You can't steal something just because it is unsecured and likely to be stolen - "His bike wasn't locked, so I took it on the grounds that somebody would probably take it and that somebody might as well be me." Neither the ease of perpetrating the crime nor the number of other criminals in the world are mitigating factors when you and your specific actions are tried.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> ...thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there. I'm struggling to see how this addresses the point about Google's variable standards. I mean, are you saying that somehow because Google needs to adjust its standard to make money in a particular market that it therefore doesn't have variable standards? Not quite following you ...

codeisawesome 8y ago

> Venezuela and China are very different companies c o m p a n i e s

pretendscholar 8y ago

>2) Venezuela doesn't have a huge market where Google is blocked by a nation-wide firewall. How is that a justification?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
bun_at_work 8y ago
I'm not trying to justify anything, exactly. I'm pointing out that oversimplifying the situation is not helpful. However, they are different in this case because Venezuela's market isn't large enough that Google feels the need to bend to the will of the government there to be competitive in the world's market. Therefore, they can afford, on a competitive level, to stand against censorship in Venezuela, where doing the same thing in China costs them a huge amount of money. Which is their motivator, as they are a corporation.

jackhack 8y ago

related to #1 -- I predict if some division of Alphabet threatens the income of another larger division (esp. Google), the smaller one will be shut down. This is the reason for much of Sony's failure/inability to build a usable mp3 player. They built amazing music playback devices, but the record label division was so terrified of 'piracy' they forced the hardware division to require a proprietary encryption format (no "plain" mp3s) which essentially ruined the usability. So the company that built the walkman was hobbled, deliberately. Even the Poor Sony Aibo robot dog had to use specially modified Sony memory sticks with encryption and keys written into the normally-unwritable boot sector.

mcphage 8y ago
Alternately, Jigsaw won’t work against Google’s own censorship efforts, and exists to push countries that want to censor their citizens’ internet to use Google’s own censorship product.

xg15 8y ago

> China has a nation-wide firewall blocking any Google service, thereby forcing Google to negotiate how their service works if they want to make money there. So if the Chinese demand they get real-time access to all information Google has stored about anyone, or Google gets banned from China, they should do that too?

bhtru 8y ago
Is there a difference to how the NSA does same albeit with a time delay instead of being instantaneous?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- djsumdog 8y ago
  > time delay Is there one? PRISM and the early Snowden leaks indicated the searches were immediate. Was that not true?
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    IIRC, MUSCULAR was the program where they were getting direct access, and they did so without Google's knowledge. That was the program that had the slides with the infamous (at least within Google) smiley talking about how SSL is removed at the edge of Google's network.
- tonyztan 8y ago
  The NSA doesn't send people to "reeducation camps" because of their political or religious beliefs.[1] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-muslim-detention-camp.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/asia/china-uighur-m...
  - throwwedoct 8y ago
    Who needs camps when you can drone strike them? [1] > In 2014, former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden said in a public debate, “We kill people based on metadata.” > According to multiple reports and leaks, death-by-metadata could be triggered, without even knowing the target’s name, if too many derogatory checks appear on their profile. “Armed military aged males” exhibiting suspicious behavior in the wrong place can become targets, as can someone “seen to be giving out orders.” Such mathematics-based assassinations have come to be known as “signature strikes.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-to-survive-americas-kill-list-699334/# https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...!

guelo 8y ago

> if they want to make money there. That's the point. Google is willing to throw out their supposed principles in order to make money.

jlarocco 8y ago

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Alphabet and Google can't claim to be against censorship while they're profiting from it. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Clearly the only thing Google and Alphabet are "for" is making more money, so there's really no point pretending they have a moral compass guiding them.

ben_w 8y ago
Why can’t they make that claim? There are many things in this world that I oppose yet benefit from. I can’t fight every injustice in the world — I don’t know how to, I haven’t got the skills, I don’t have the resources. It’s like a prayer to serenity: Grant me the courage to change what I cannot accept, the serenity to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference. Google maybe rich beyond the dreams of any single human, but they can’t force the Chinese government to stop thinking like the Chinese government.
- hnbroseph 8y ago
  > yet benefit from this seems a bit reductive if not weaseling. google isn't a bystander, they're knowingly and voluntarily aiding a state oppress it's people.
- jlarocco 8y ago
  > Why can’t they make that claim? Well, they can claim anything they want. If they want to be consistent and have integrity then they'll make sure their actions align with their claims. Claiming to support privacy while also conceding to China shows they have no integrity and they're only telling people what they want to hear for marketing purposes. > Google maybe rich beyond the dreams of any single human, but they can’t force the Chinese government to stop thinking like the Chinese government. Right, but their inability to change Chinese policy doesn't imply that they have to take an active role in helping China's censorship. They could have said, "We're not doing business in China because it conflicts with our 'Don't be evil' policy." Instead, they got rid of that policy and are working with the Chinese government to censor web content.