Comments on: The Question of Googlethics

By: allroads

allroads — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:53:26 +0000

“I do tend to think that the effects of all this will be less widespread than it appears today. Everything eventually has a tendency to die down, and this situation will simply not effect a lot of big MNCs that engage in brick-and-mortar type businesses.”

I would agree that things tend to die down (although the official communique from Clinton may ramp things back up), but China is not out actively courting brick and mortar.

They are courting banks. Finance. high value IP projects. Projects where information stored on computers has commercial (and other) value.

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:57:00 +0000

Apparently I should have used bolded italics with the words “start off.” Those two words were included in that sentence to suggest that the “rule” was the default, which could be altered depending on the situation.

I think my comments on the alleged Gmail hacking, not to mention my over-the-top example of the XBox camera, made this all clear.

By: Realclearchina

Realclearchina — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:53:21 +0000

“For me, I like to start off with the premise that a company should always follow the law of the country in which it is operating.”

So if China declared a law tomorrow that said “all Tibetan/Taiwanese independence sympathizers working in China with foreign passports must be thrown in jail/killed/put on trial”, then you would be okay with following the law?

Surely there is a difference (and at times conflict) between following one’s ethical values and following the laws in a given country. Why do you categorically give precedence to laws?

By: Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Chris Devonshire-Ellis — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:25:26 +0000

Well done Stan. A thoughtful piece from someone who is actually based here, rather than pseudo commentary from “China” legal and related erstwhile bloggers who are not. Additionally thoughtfully cynical about some of the cynicism. Welcome back. – Chris

By: Stan

Stan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:58:45 +0000

I can’t for the life of me see Google’s decision as a negotiating tactic. If it was, it was incredibly stupid. You don’t screw around with the issue of censorship with the Chinese government and hope that they will somehow make an exception in your favor. Anyone who believes that — and I’ve read a few opinions to that end — must be high on goofballs.

I do tend to think that the effects of all this will be less widespread than it appears today. Everything eventually has a tendency to die down, and this situation will simply not effect a lot of big MNCs that engage in brick-and-mortar type businesses.

By: allroads

allroads — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:44:33 +0000

Great Post Stan.

What I think pisses me off about the current debate over what is going on is that people are so quick to point move towards a “google couldn’t make it in China stance” without realizing what was going on.

Google had been compromised, and while they may have signed on to filter results, they certainly did not sign on to be an instrument of a government agency.

Further to that.. what in house lawyer (much less the CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER) do you know who would write this to get clicks on a blog or as a negotiating tactic for better China position. I think people are really missing just how this is playing out.

Anyway, this is certainly going to get far more interesting than Wahaha, and while some like to think this case will be contained to a few IT firms.. I would say that a number of firms outside of this area are closely looking at this and evaluating what they do/ do not put into China.