Home | Blog | Social Media | Google vs. China: What’s Really Behind the Stand-Off?
Google vs. China: What’s Really Behind the Stand-Off?
The recent hacking attack that triggered Google's decision to quit China, unless Chinese authorities allow the Internet giant to provide uncensored service there, has spurred some provocative discussions in Western media outlets. Google made the announcement after revealing that it had uncovered a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack" on its corporate infrastructure, which originated from China and resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. The company said it had evidence suggesting that one of the attackers' primary goals was accessing Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.In response, UK's the Guardian noted that cyberspace, once the next frontier, has become "the next battleground." The Wall Street Journal asserted that the China-Google affair represented a "watershed moment" for Google, and rejected the argument that the company's withdrawal from China is merely a "cynical retreat" from a losing market position under the guise of taking an ethical stand against Web censorship. Others questioned whether or not the subsequent speech on Internet freedom given by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was geared toward "launching a cyber Cold War." Secretary Clinton not only directed blunt criticism at China (and a handful of other governments) for its censorship practices, but she also urged the Chinese government to investigate the cyber intrusions against Google and openly publish its findings. China's foreign minister was quick to condemn Clinton's accusations as "groundless," and an article posted by the Communist Party's English-language Global Times website angrily dismissed Clinton's criticisms as "information imperialism." For his part, Google CEO Eric Schmidt reiterated his company's admiration for the Chinese people and stated, "This is not about them. It's about our unwillingness to participate in censorship."
Nevertheless, many cannot help but question Google's true motives for standing up to Beijing. The comments sections of major Western newspapers reflected a wide spectrum of viewpoints on this issue. Many readers unreservedly applauded Google for confronting China on its censorship policies. Others expressed approval for the move, but remained skeptical of portrayals of Google's decision as an ethical stand, especially given that Google had voluntarily censored its China-based users' search results for years at the request of the Chinese government. Some of those who challenged the notion that Google is taking a principled stand in support of free speech and freedom of information stressed that the real issue is not censorship, but rather data security. And what protection of consumer data really boils down to is (drum roll please)... m-o-n-e-y. The latest cyber attacks threatened to undermine trust in Google's ability to protect consumer data. Loss of consumer confidence could cripple the company, meaning a reduction in profits, and so Google decided to fight back.
Speculations on motive(s) aside, Google should be commended for its very public decision not only to consider reversing its long-standing policy of censoring Google.cn search results, but to reassess conducting business in China at all. Perhaps Google execs' claims that the issue stems from their "unwillingness to participate in censorship" are true; perhaps they are disingenuous and the threat of profit losses is the real driving factor. In all likelihood, it is some combination of both. Whatever the case may be, Google should be encouraged to follow through on its threats to close up shop and hit the road if Chinese authorities remain unrelenting on Internet censorship. Should Google ultimately retreat and fail to put words into action, another blow will be dealt to human rights AND consumer welfare, not only in China, but in all societies confronting government-led efforts to stem the free flow of information and ideas.
The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion or position of Concepts & Strategies, Inc.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
