Sign in  |  Register  |  Help

Most Read on APEsphere

Most Commented on APEsphere

Blogs we like

Resources

By Andrew Newton on 13 Jan, 2010 - 03:32 UTC

Well, here is confirmation that Hillary Clinton's State Department was briefed on Google's delivery of an ultimatum to China over censorship.

 

The text of the statement:

 

Statement on Google Operations in China

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State Washington, DC

January 12, 2010

 

We have been briefed by Google on these allegations, which raise very serious concerns and questions. We look to the Chinese government for an explanation. The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy. I will be giving an address next week on the centrality of internet freedom in the 21st century, and we will have further comment on this matter as the facts become clear.

 

There is no indication as to whether they were briefed before the move or subsequently, but for reasons given in my earlier post I think the State Department knew perfectly well this move was coming. The allegations against China that the statement refers to are unlikely to be new to any degree, and certainly would have been known at the time of Clinton's meeting with Eric Schmidt and other CEOs last week.

 

Such meetings I am sure happen regularly with various industry heads. My point is simply that this move by Google has to be seen as a private firm coordinating its foreign policy with that of US national foreign policy. Not a new idea (think oil companies for starters) but interesting in an era of radical transparency, corporate responsibility and "Do no evil". It's also intriguing here because the move is not - as far as I can see - the kind of cynical, manipulative coordination between private and public foreign policies that we saw in advance of the Iraq war (or again, earlier oil interests), but a development that is at least hooked on a genuine issue of human rights (privacy, speech).

 

For those suggesting this is simply Google scuppering other tech companies in China because its own position is weak, I think it highly unlikely. If my main argument is correct, this move either arose out of or would have at least been mooted at the meeting of industry leaders with Clinton last week. They all face the same problems in China. Perhaps it was agreed that Google.cn would be sacrified as shot across China's bow precisely because it had the weakest commerical position of those present. If alternatively Microsoft had taken this position, what are you holding in reserve as a threat? Google.cn?

 

 

In a timely follow up to my post yesterday on whether companies need a foreign policy, Google has effectively delivered an ultimatum to China.


The ultimatum essentially says "let us provide uncensored Google in China or we will shut Google.cn". Naturally, no one expects China to accede to Google's wishes.


The background an a good analysis are provided by Imagethief here.


Imagethief does not mention the meeting between Internet business leaders and Hillary Clinton last week, and I cannot help but feel that the timing of this announcement is linked to that meeting even if there are broader events leading up to this. Eric Schmidt is simply too close to the Obama administration to do this on the fly. Certainly to China it will look like it is, and if there is one thing that was acknowledged in that meeting it is that any stand US companies take in relation to human rights in China will be viewed by China as a proxy move by the US.


While Imagethief notes and the Wall Street Journal implies that Google's eventual withdrawal from China on human rights grounds makes it really difficult for Microsoft to remain, I would be very surprised if Microsoft, the State Department and others did not already know of the move before Google dropped today's bombshell.


 

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Most of the lobbyists present in Brussels to advance corporate agendas regarding "net neutrality" aren't European, but rather come from the US, where European law is seen as a testing ground for future US legislation on the same issues. Lobbyists for Google, Yahoo, Verizon, and AT&T are haunting the offices of EU representatives in far larger numbers than their European counterparts, hoping to influence EU law to their favor.

From the IHT: "

The question before lawmakers - in Europe at the moment and in the United States probably some time this year - is how to draw the line between the need for networks to manage data to assure smooth service and the deliberate filtering that aims at popular Web sites, the content of downloads or high-volume users. Such filtering could lead to access fees on Internet businesses and, according to some free speech advocates, de facto censorship.

The debate is tied to a routine proposal working its way through the European Parliament to update minimum service requirements for EU network operators. When Parliament approved the package of requirements, known as the universal services directive, on first reading in September, lawmakers on opposite sides were able to insert language that both authorized and blocked a net neutrality mandate.

The lack of clarity touched off a vigorous lobbying battle in Brussels by U.S. businesses on both sides of the issue, in some cases supported by European companies, including Vodafone, Ericsson and VirginMedia, and free-speech advocates.

In general, operators like AT&T and Verizon oppose neutrality mandates, concerned that they might hinder the companies' ability to manage data and guarantee quality service. Internet businesses, which rely on the Web for free delivery of content and services, are seeking legal guarantees to prevent operators from charging them for access.

The U.S. approach to net neutrality has been shaped largely by the Federal Communications Commission, which in August drew up a set of four neutrality principles as it sanctioned a cable broadband operator, Comcast, for slowing the speed of broadband service to high-volume users.

Comcast is appealing the decision in Washington. The outcome of the case is expected this year and could be a major test of network neutrality in the United States, said Markham Erickson, a lawyer for the Open Internet Society, an advocacy group in Washington.

In the meantime, the lobbying focus has shifted temporarily to Belgium, where European lawmakers are closer to making a decision. Two committees are expected to vote on the legislation March 31, before a final vote by the full Parliament on April 22. The plan would also need to be approved by EU telecommunications ministers.

Lobbying by U.S. businesses in Brussels is not unusual. More than 30 U.S. companies like Pfizer, Microsoft, McDonald's, Philip Morris, Westinghouse and Kraft Foods employ lobbyists in Brussels, according to the European Parliament. Foreign countries and businesses also hire lobbyists to work in Washington."
The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has developed a geospational tool based on Google Earth to create and leverage a common operating picture.

Large volumes of GIS data are integrated to develop firewall-internet based tools for graphics that bridge communications across agencies serving both providers and users, especially response teams.

Google Earth and ALDHS continue to develop the platform for the needs of situational awareness through the integration of the even more information sources.

This is a forward-looking framework for security, environmental protection, emergency response, asset tracking, risk assessment and more.

It suggests a science fiction narrative that has come to life. Check out the YouTube link.

Must read analysis

News by Impact