Google vs. China: All the possible WHYs?
Written by Julen Madariaga on January 14th, 2010
I know, there are other news in the World, and I am probably not paying enough attention to them. But I can’t help it, I’ve been overclocking for the last 48h trying to understand Google’s decision, I have read every single article appeared on the internet since. And I still don’t get it.
I want to make this a collaborative page, I will keep it on top and I would appreciate comments with clues and POVs I might have missed. The objective is to come up with reasonable hypothesis and then cross out the wrong ones. I will also add interesting bits of info below as they come out:
Hypothesis: Why did Google stand up to the CCP? (UPDATES Below)
Business: We have seen that, with the info in hand, the decision doesn’t make sense from a pure business perspective. Who knows, you might say, perhaps the goodwill earned in the West will end up compensating for the loss of China, perhaps democracy will come soon. Yes, que sera sera. But that’s not how decisions are taken in business. There is a profit and a risk to consider, and when the gain is so uncertain and the loss so clear, it doesn’t make business sense. More on this below.
Ethical: Yes, “don’t do evil”, I know. Hello, all the corporations today have CSR and ethical codes, mine too, even if it is not as cool as Google. But really, a company doesn’t have feelings, it doesn’t respond to notions like love or ethics. Only people do that. And, in the case of Google, only Page, Brin and Schmidt have that kind of power. Did they suddenly get pangs of conscience and decided to follow their own principles at any cost? Some already suggest this might have been a personal decision influenced by Sergey Brin. More on the personal hypothesis below.
Checkmate: Google has some information about the Chinese industrial espionage activities that is still undisclosed, with evidence that would compromise the CCP, and possibly push it against the wall in some WTO proceeding. The victims include dozens of Western companies, and the crime is so outrageous that all those countries would be forced to stand up to the CCP as well. This could be Google’s ace in the hole, and it would explain the style of their blog post. This is the only winning hypothesis for the G. It deserves strong consideration, based on the premise that the 3 leaders of Google are Very Intelligent Guys.
Legal: The muddled style of the message and the bad moment chosen (we should be speaking of Nexus One right now!) makes me think that there might have been some pressing matter that pushed Google to do this. Like we said, the same goodwill could have been obtained by simply uncensoring Google.cn without writing a public accusation to the CCP. Is this a move to deslegitimate the Chinese system and avert an upcoming Chinese lawsuit? Did some of the activists threaten to sue Google for the leaks, or was it the Chinese authorities that were getting dangerous? Google Books? Porn on Google Images?
Political: We saw as well that the most likely political outcome is an increase of censorship in China, a net loss for the employees of Google and the Chinese netizens, and perhaps even a rise of nationalism and protectionist policies. There is no way that this move is going to help the Chinese in the short term. Even if there was: it is not and it can not be the role of a public company to actively engage in politics hand in hand with the US government. Need I remember anyone that the US government is today responsible for evil as severe as the CCP? More news here.
IP Protection: Google might have decided to force its way out of China because really it has detected some theft of IP so severe that it puts in danger the whole business. It is hard to believe that Google is unable to hide its own IP from the Chinese government. We are speaking of the same government that couldn’t even come up with a decent filtering software last year. Let’s just say this option is unlikely. Update: this hypothesis is stronger after rumour of a CCP mole, see Update 2 below.
Conspirational: Google has something to hide. It is something very big and very very weird, like E. Schmidt is an alien, or an irrecoverable bug has been found on Larry’s algorithm, or a Google databank in the US has been held by AlQaida and… and all this noise is just to distract our attention. This would be consistent with the quick messy post at the Google blog.
Personal: Larry Page and Sergey Brin are among the most admired persons in the universe, they are the Gods of the internet. They achieved that at a very young age, and they have spent the last decade sitting on the Google Search cash cow and freely recruiting the best intelligences in the World to conquer the internet and get more universal love than Jesus Christ. Their egos are shooting through the Googolplex roof, and they have decided to bring democracy back, coz them other CEOs don’t know how to act. Girl.
Macroeconomic: Google has obtained insider info on the financial position of some Chinese Banks and the superhuman brains of P and B have come up with a new algorithm predicting that the Chinese system is going to collapse tomorrow. They leave while they are still in time, collecting bonus World goodwill and defying a CCP that will not be there this time next year anyway…
Various/Spectacular: From Daily Beast via BoingBoing: “the reason they know it’s the Chinese government behind these attacks is because Google gave them the key”, “Your entire life, as stored on Google’s servers, may now be there for the taking.” and “Google is attempting to create a distraction.” Also from Posner in Daily Beast: The Red Menace is back, Google thwarts China’s plan to control the World with an army of hackers.
UPDATE: Danwei has collected some informations regarding the low profit that Google is getting in China. This would give some weight to the Business option above. However, it still doesn’t make any sense. They could have just uncensored Google.cn, get sent away with all the PR hoopla, and all the while not cross the CCP too much with the public accusations of email hacking. Because there is ABSOLUTELY no business interest in Google forcing things in a way that even Google.com and all the G services will be blocked. China can do that easily with the GFW.
UPDATE 2: The moles theory. ESWN translates from anonymous Chinese blogger claiming insider info: Google trusts its employees and gives them access to all the codes, suddenly discovered one of the employees is actually a CCP mole who’s been passing information, not only about activists but also Google’s own IP (actually from the initial G’s post it is not clear which of the two problems has moved Google).
Rings true to me, and explains why all employees in China are being sent on holidays. And yet, this doesn’t change much the situation. Wasn’t it pretty obvious that Google had CCP spies all along? Every company here has members of the CCP working in it, mine as well. And it is difficult to believe G was so naive as to not take precautions against this.
Moreover, the kind of people that work in Google are the best of the best universities, a high percentage of those people are members of the party here. The surprising thing would have been that there was NO moles in Google China.
I don’t think the big deal is the mole. Whether the hacks were done through moles or through other means is secondary, what is essential to the issue here is the Magnitude of the IP theft, and the Evidence G has, and possibly the other Companies involved. For the POLL, this theory is included in the IP Protection option above.
UPDATE 3: (h/t CDT) Newsweek interview Eric Schmidt: Decision based on values, not business. Mentions monitoring of dissidents, not technology IP theft. Says Google’s IPO specified Google would be different, maximizing profits was not the objective of Google Inc, so no responsibility to the shareholders.
But why why why? Why such a bad form? They could have done it more smoothly, and avert the risk of being completely banished from China. And why now, when the treatment of dissidents is known in China for years? Does it make any difference if hacks are done through a mole in Gmail or through Baidumail once Google is gone? And wouldn’t the right thing be to fight, and encrypt the email better, and give those dissidents a much needed support to stay alive?
Feel free to suggest other hypothesis, or else just vote below:
(POLL IS CLOSED)
Why do you think Google is leaving China? Total Voters: 91
Loading ...
alibaba china company said:
unc directory of classes said:
Spring Jhingree said:
heeso said:
heeso said:
застраховки гражданска said:
цени на застраховки said:
цени на застраховки said:
15
AM
Conspirational:
“[...]That’s because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.
“Right before Christmas, it was, ‘Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],’” he said.”
China: Google attack part of widespread spying effort
http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=28293&pn=1
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
Thanks for the link! that is an interesting view, it would indicate that all the activists thing was just blahblahbah, what G is really worried about is industrial espionage.
But according to the definitions above, that matches the “IP Protection” rather than conspirational.
And the answer I would do to that article is: Right, so Google, of all companies, is the one Incapable of stopping these attacks? Or at least of catching the authors with and get some evidence?
And this makes me think. Hey, that is a NEW hypothesis I just got here. Update coming.
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
There you go, the new one is: checkmate.
I like it, because it would mean that the Gs are the most clever after all, and they were right all along.
I put it on top. I am beggining to have too many of them, so I’ll have to do some sorting out tomorrow. Hope people participates a bit!
[Reply to this comment]
gunthers Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 2:14 am
Can`t really believe Google just made a “stupid” move there, either…
More on the scale of the attack, WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/13/AR2010011300359.html?wpisrc=nl_tech
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
The conspiracy-angle would be that someone compromised internal infrastructure designed to provide user data to prosecution agencies. That would pose quite a serious security breach and a big blow to Googles image. Also one can only imagine what data the attackers managed to capture…
However, it is all anonymous rumours till now, and the response of pulling google.cn would be more “emotional” than really change something on a technical level. Looking forward to your thoughts!
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 2:43 am
Sure, I see the conspiracy angle in that argument. But I didn’t want to chalk it up to conspiracy because my definition above of conspiratorial is pretty dumb, I just added it for fun… People lovr those things, I bet it eins the poll.
BTW, I just added a poll, can anyone vote? This is the first time I try this feature so participation is highly encuraged so I can try it out. Don’t worry all it is 100% anonymous… or is it… ?
[Reply to this comment]
gunthers Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 3:05 am
Voting works fine, even catched me trying to vote multiple times, promoting the Schmidt-is-from-Mars hypothesis…
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
More media noise pointing into the IP/Checkmate direction. In general, attention is shifting quickly from censorship/”hacked dissident accounts” over to attacks on corporate targets. That these companies now speak out (more or less) openly about being attacked is rather unusual. With the players involved, I doubt this to be an “evolving story” - you do not have to be a conspiracy nut to suspect well-thought-out PR strategies behind all that buzz.
And here comes the moneyquote:
Eli Jellenc, head of international cyberintelligence at iDefense (VeriSign)
Good rundown on the events and more on daemonnews. Lets see how this develops…
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
crap, it ate my post. (or did I step on some booby-trapped words?)
not going to start over - anyway, essential quote:
Eli Jellenc, head of international cyberintelligence at iDefense (VeriSign)
Good coverage and rundown on the events so far:
here
and
here.
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Gunthers, sorry, for some reason Akismet anti-spam does not like you, and I was sleeping while you wrote that.
Thanks for the links!
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
I’m tired of disagreeing with you so I think I’ll take a different tack.
One of the things which would really bother me if Google does pull out is some of the good work they do in China which isn’t search engine related. I think the best example is the Google Chinese IME. This is absolutely brilliant and I couldn’t live without it. Hell, I just installed installed their IME on Nexus ONe phone too and it’s way better than the one on iPhone. Then there’s the free PowerWord too… I was kind of hoping Google would step up and do a pop-up annotator extension for Chrome like the excellent Firefox Mandarin pop-up but we’re still waiting…
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Mat, I am glad that you still come here to comment in spite of disagreeing
On the other hand, there is not much to disagree on the post above, it is just a list of possible hypothesis. They might very well all be wrong.
For the record: I agree that G does great things technically and I was looking forward to get hold of a Nexus as well, i prefer G to the nazis of Apple any day!
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
I’ll add this though, the Guardian quoted a senior source in Google which said of Sergey Brin:
“The notion that somebody would try to turn Google’s tools into tools of political surveillance was something he found deeply offensive.” When it became clear that the cyber attacks were about political surveillance, people at the very top of the company “decided they no longer wanted to participate in this kind of behaviour,” said the source.
I know in this day and age it’s hard for anyone to contemplate a large company acting on an ethical basis but I maintain that was a major motivation here.
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 10:35 am
OK, I agree, it is a possibility. I considered it above as well.
But
1- It is BRIN’s ethics, not Google’s ethics. And how many of the workers or shareholders did Brin consult before this? Probably just Page and Schmidt was enough.
2- I particularly oppose to the way it has been done. Because this way (to directly confront a government while cozying up with another one) is very very dangerous, and it is not pure ethics but rather Politics.
Again, if they had just stopped censoring it would have been different, but instead they choose to issue a political bomb.
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
Oh, wow, check out this one I just saw at Boing Boing. Brilliant! Update coming.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-13/the-great-google-coverup/
[Reply to this comment]
15
AM
Why is this brilliant? It seems to ignore the point that we know in considerable detail as to what was done, how, and via what vulnerability, and from what IP addresses all corroborated by external security companies and the conversations Google has with those involved. None of it was direct attack, it was all log in and authentication based attacks through malware in browser vulnerabilities. It can work with any web based service.
Honestly you can take a headline of anything in the world and put “conspiracy” in your search as well and you’ll turn up unresearched rampant speculative claptrap like this.
Earlier: “Again, if they had just stopped censoring it would have been different, but instead they choose to issue a political bomb.”
I’m really having a hard time understanding that. They should do nothing about concerted hack attacks apparently, except stealthily go and do something else without explaining why. That’s like all of the down sides (getting kicked out of China) with absolutely none of the upsides (PR).
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 15th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Oh, “brilliant” was just expressing my initial excitement discovering a new hypothesis. It didn’t imply approval of the hypothesis itself. Actually, it is probably claptrap like you say, I need to sort them out and many of them will go into the “conspiracy” category, it is just that I am in the office and don’t have the time right now.
RE: Again, if they had just stopped censoring it would have been different, but instead they choose to issue a political bomb.
This is what I have been saying from the beginning. I don’t like how G is dealing with this. According to them the root of the problem is this Hacking of emails, which is KNOWN for years (read Nart Villeneuve’s blog and the comments he left here 1 year ago). Dealing with this properly requires obtaining proofs and then raising an official complaint, leaving CCP at least the chance to defend itself. Only THEN that pointing your finger at China. And NOT playing a spoilt child, scorched land, retaliation action on Google.cn that has nothing to do with the original problem and that is potentially insulting to a whole nation. The stakes here are much higher than anything Google can deal with.
A new post coming soon about why public corporations should not be involved in politics (although they often are).
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
I voted checkmate, but have got to wonder whether there aren’t any internal Chinese politics going on with this and possibly even some Google collaboration with friendly elements to provide a slap in the face on those who are overstepping boundaries. Is just a thought, and while I haven’t been following this all in depth, from what I have read it seemed that the google.cn filters/censorship were only taken down for a very short period then put back up (almost to say…we can do this, now let’s be reasonable and talk).
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
Hrm well, Google did provide the required information which is being pursued at a head-of-state level. If that’s all they did, you think it would have gone better? Has the Chinese government shown any inclination at all to do the right thing just because behind closed doors some western government said “Hey guys, we’ve caught you being Evil - any chance you could stop?”.
Now granted all they’ve done is come out and defended their policy on the Internet. That looks to me like pressure in action. That response again is in the world press, mostly reading like the ridiculous side stepping claptrap that it is.
Also, particularly in the case of the United States… Western governments aren’t really that concerned about human rights and free speech besides the odd bit of rhetoric. It doesn’t threaten the jobs of politicians what happens in another country. So with Google, you have an organisation that is actually capable of worldwide influence and acting in an ethical way in this case. You say that should have been a shareholder decision. I don’t agree for all sorts of reasons. Most public companies do incredibly stupid things purely because they’re an example of policy by committee. That’s a whole other conversation…
So for these reason I don’t think these usual sorts of (generally justifiable) worries about business becoming involved in politics are entirely appropriate here. In the global PR stakes, China is losing badly right now. It’s a big enough story that it’s sinking through the cracks in the GFW, millions of people in China are hearing about how this western Internet company is making a stand against their government.
That could go badly wrong, eg a swelling of national pride no matter how unjustified, but it doesn’t seem to be from what I’m hearing. It seems that people in China are agreeing, they’re talking about it.
Again, that looks really positive to me.
I think it’s curious that you raise the problem of public corporations not being involved in politics since China does exactly the opposite and out of that flows much of what is wrong with China. Eg the indistinguishable nature of the State and industry.
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
Great post, Uln, and funny too. I still haven’t made up my mind about what’s going on but I definitely share your frustration.
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
@Mat - We are turning in circles because we still don’t have enough information.
I have strong reasons to think that the Business decision is bad, politically the Chinese people will not support the move, and that Google has aimed way too high for its scope and power. I already gave all my arguments on the previous posts so won’t repeat here. Let’s see if some more news come up soon.
@Kai - Thanks. Chinablogs are in the spotlight again, thanks Google for that
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
my sense is thats its a combination of Personal, Political, & IP Protection
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
I´m not very informed about this matter, but do you think Google will finally withdraw from de chinese market? Until that happens I`ll think that its all business and money. I mistrust the good intentions from big companies and I don´t believe in complicated conspiracies. It may be sad but my experience says that companies are moved by money and profitability and every single move they make is because they are going to get something from it. Pure publicity or promotion? I don´t know, but my vote clearly goes to business.
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 2:49 am
Fapiao, probaby G will not withdraw. It will simply stop manipulating the search results on Google.cn, and the government will close it down. Now the question is whether all of Google’s operations in China (development, etc.) have to close, or just Google.cn
- If Google realizes that it has messed up, it will play it cool these days and probably manage to only lose Google.cn
- If Google leaders continue to play American heroes and accuse the CCP in public, then they will lose all.
And that is a MASSIVE loss. I copy here my last message explaining why:
1- China will be in 5 years HALF of the total internet (see my post World Map of the Internet).
2- China’s GDP will probably be in 10-20 years biggest in the World. (see my post The Chinese Decade)
3- China is a fast changing society + Internet is a fast changing medium = Chinese internet is the fastest and most unpredictable marketplace.
There is no way for G (or for us) to predict how it will be in 5 years. What is SURE is that if G pisses China off G will be out of the picture. G is not losing money now in China and it has earned a good position in the rat race of Western companies that is China today. Give that away after 4 years of efforts is not only bad business, it is plain DUMB.
[Reply to this comment]
15
PM
There’s one point that hasn’t been mentioned yet about ‘business’ here.
Most seem to talk on business about making this much money here and now or in the short/long term (and in that way, I think it’s been proved that it would be a bad decision, that having 35% and growing of such a complex market for a foreign company is actually quite a success and that long term the prospects could be even brighter in this sense).
But we kind of forget to realize the nature of the business Google is in, which is access to information, and the very very long term picture of it. These are things that Google actually may consider a lot more than we think (main shereholders are actually the company high executives, do not forget that either, which allows them to act/think this way).
In the information/media industry businness (as profit) and ethics mingle more often than not, and that’s also one of the reasons everybody is having a hard time figuring this out. In the long run Google needs the freer internet environment possible to operate properly and grow, and that can be considered both ‘good’ ethics and ‘business’ alike, so if they feel they are contributing to a narrower and narrower internet by submitting to Party growing controls, they are acting against themselves and their own business.
That this is the right move to achieve a freer internet environment instead of staying and fight it? Well, let’s see. Maybe. At least G seems to think that so far the strategy didn’t work that well.
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 2:56 am
Certainly, Google is a company that sees long term. That is what it has done all it’s life, sit on the cash of Google Search and explore different fields to expand without worrying about the profits. That is precisely why it doesn’t make sense for them to leave China. China is a long term investment, today it is closed but tomorrow will be open. But what if Google is not there anymore to reap the benefits?
[Reply to this comment]
kaplanpop Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 3:48 am
I agree and that’s exactly my point: Perhaps the thinking behind this is that, as things stand now, by being there, they not only help the web being more open, as they initially thought, but rather enhanced the government position of increasing the barriers (this we might agree with or not, but it is a valid POV). And a market is not just about the size, but also the conditions you can operate in.
Hence the new approach, which we can argue is or not the right one to achieve it, but in fairness, nobody (that I know) of the size and global significance of Google has tried this before, so it will be at least interesting to see what the long term outcome is going to be.
For a start, other than the obvious statement from CCP that in order to operate in China you have to follow its laws and understand its culture, they have been kind of mild so far, and I really was expecting harsh reactions. Perhaps they just do not care too much about Google, but I doubt it.
[Reply to this comment]
16
AM
I suspect the Chinese government hackers were able to steal google’s search algorithm. Page and Brin are in a panic. There is nothing to stop China from leaking the algorithm.
[Reply to this comment]
16
AM
First many thanks for your posts which, I find, helpfull in understanding this issue. Now, if I may offer some points that suggest political expediency. 1. G boss had dinner with Mme Clinton last week (with other leaders in IT for the promotion of democracy). 2. US announces the sale of missiles to Taiwan. 3 Chinese government warns, protest and make an anti-missile test, raising the temperature. 4. G makes the announcement, followed by public support from Mme Clinton. 5. Major newspaper (I saw FT, IHT) had pages and many articles on G issue (you put “freedom of information” and China, the pavlovian response in the West press is guarantee). Voila, no more Taiwan missiles and Chinese government in defensive.
Of course they did’nt know about the Haiti earthquake, otherwise, according to my hyphoteses, they did’nt need the G story.
Now , of course, the issue is why G “accepted” to this role.
We will have to wait and see what Obama administration pays back to G.
[Reply to this comment]
Uln Reply:
January 16th, 2010 at 3:18 am
True that Haiti has stolen the show, whatever the real plans of Google were.
I understand you are voting for the “political” hypothesis. It was also one of my choices, together with “personal”.
Actually they are two faces of the same problem: Company leaders that have been used to be World stars for all their careers, inflated with vanity and a distorted perception of their own power, let their company be utilized in the dirty political games between the USA and China.
G has nothing to win there, and a lot to lose, it is going to hurt itself playing with immense forces that are way beyond Brin, Page or Schmidt’s control.
Form the PR and image point of view, nothing to win either: Americans might love this, but Google’s success was to operate as a truly global company, as opposed to Yahoo. It was the company of the free internets, OUR company, that is why we all liked it. Now what if people start seeing Google as an arm of the United Stated? You bet in the long term it will hurt them in many places in the World, not least of all in Europe.
And sure, Page, Brin and Schmidt are full of good intentions with this, I don’t doubt that. The problem is they are geniuses in technology and business, not in international politics, where things are done very very differently.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Uln,
Interesting analysis, but I’m going to offer an alternative opinion. Recently, I’ve been heavily influenced by the twitter user AndrewShanghai who blogs at Chinese negotiator. In particular, his focus on the fractured web seems very apt for the current situation. Although you write, that a global company needs a chinese presence, what if that’s not the case? Currently, from my perspective it appears as if the Chinese internet is turning into (turned) a walled garden. The attributes that helps a company to succeed in the walled garden may not help them succeed in the rest of the worlds internet markers. So by moving away from China google ends up not being constrained by the same forces that hit the other companies in the chinese market. It may even make Google more competitive than Yahoo Microsoft or others in the rest of the internet markets around the world. Still, these developments make me sad, since I think we’ve probably passed the high point of connectedness between cultures as China reverts more into its insular shell.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Check out ESWN, they have a post their saying that a mole from the government became a programmer for Google and stole some important code.
It makes a lot of sense to me.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Wow, interesting info, thanks. I am updating the post.
My first impression is that it is very possibly true. And yet…
Isn’t it OBVIOUS that Google had CCP spies all along? I mean, the kind of people that work in Google are the first of the best universities, like 90% of that kind of people are members of the party here. The surprising thing would have been that there was NO moles in Google China…
I don’t think the big deal is whether there were moles or not. Whether the hacks were done through moles or through other means is secondary, what is essential to the issue here is the Magnitude of those hacks, and the Evidence G has, and the othe Companies involved.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
I was talking to a friend of mine tonight about this and we are both in the industry and the reason is obvious. Here you go.
Google want to own the ‘cloud’. (Look up: cloud computing.) That is their expansive vision of the future. They are leading the consumer and computing as a whole to the ‘cloud’.
Google is in a position to own -not search! forget search!- the cloud, and the future of computing.
For that reason they must protect the integrity of the cloud. They cannot allow China to destroy the integrity of the cloud through political censorship and attack and hacking and malware: their vision of the future is at stake.
And if Google owns the cloud, China loses.
Because China, in no way, Baidu or no Baidu, has the technology or innovative culture to make an alternate, world dominant, cloud.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Interesting.
I know about the cloud, I was actually in the Google Shanghai offices only 1 month ago attending a conference about the cloud. I am in the nerd industry as well:)
But I don’t see how leaving China makes the cloud any safer. All they have to do is implement the cloud in their American offices and databanks, not in the Chinese ones (anyay there is not databank here).
I see the point that for the cloud it is essential that we all trust 100% google’s integrity, and it might be a risk in terms of image to be in China. An image of stout protector of activists and IP will give G an advantage when the real fight starts for cloud computing… good point.
And yet, that is part of the business hypothesis, and Schmidt himself has denied it is business reasons… I mean, sure you got a point that integrity will be essential for Google, but there are other ways to demonstrate integrity without losing potentially half the internet market!
Besides to use the cloud it is not only integrity that we ask, it is also reliability, predictability, solidity. By taking this kind of radical decisions and facing unnecessary risks, I am not sure the image of G as a reliable platform for our documents is really enhanced…
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
“Isn’t it OBVIOUS that Google had CCP spies all along?”
Uhmm I wouldn’t think Google was aware the government was actively sending spies inside. Anyway, if you think its possible, how can you avoid that? Some people in Google China HAVE to have clearance to some important data that Google doesn’t want in the CCP’s hands. If Google was aware of moles it can’t possibly function in China in any way from the start.
It makes sense that Google wasn’t aware of that, it noticed last week and it freaked out. The Google Blog post certainly looks rushed and scared.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
You are right. The IP protection hypothesis gains strength. Google leaders were scared, or pissed off, or a combination of both.
But remember the ESWN post is just a rumour. LEt’s see if more news come out to confirm this.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Let’s hope the truth comes out, this is to big to be forgotten.
This link from ESWN is also interesting
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-13/chinas-secret-cyber-terrorism/full/
I don’t know if its accurate or FBI has the habit of exaggerating things, but if it is true… its amazing. Like, China has been grooming a generation of hackers that have become the biggest and best hacker army in the world, and are capable of wreaking havoc at will.
Feels like some strange secret-sect from Dune.
[Reply to this comment]
16
PM
Google has strong ties to the intelligence community, which would suggest that there is much more to this story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/30/BUQLUAP8L.DTL
http://gcn.com/articles/2008/04/01/feds-on-board-with-online-apps.aspx
http://developmentseed.org/blog/2009/aug/07/integrating-50-centimeter-data-national-geospatial-intelligence-agency
https://www1.nga.mil/Pages/Default.aspx
[Reply to this comment]