Bravo! Google takes a stand for human rights in China
Summary: I admit to being a bit tough on Google in the past but they are one of the biggest kids in the playground and we are entitled to expect a lot from them when it comes to corporate responsibility leadership. And today Google is living up to and far beyond the call of its moto - 'don't be evil'.
I admit to being a bit tough on Google in the past but they are one of the biggest kids in the playground and we are entitled to expect a lot from them when it comes to corporate responsibility leadership. And today Google is living up to and far beyond the call of its moto - 'don't be evil'.
In an extraordinary blog post David Drummond, Google's Chief Legal Officer goes public to report:
- serious cyber attacks on Google's infrastructure last month that resulted in theft of IP
- 20 other companies from a broad range of sectors including finance, chemicals, media, technology were also targeted
- the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights were targeted
- subsequent investigation found that dozens Gmail accounts of human rights activists in the US, Europe and China were breached by organized phishing scams separate from the attack last month
Says Drummond:
It appears, over time Google has found it hard to live up to its values in doing business in China and now its prepared to courageously confront the possibility that it will no longer continue to operate there if it cannot do so ethically. Google has already taken the decision that it will no longer censor Google.cn searches.
Such a principled stand does indeed have far reaching consequences and we all ought to be thankful to Google for taking a stand for all of us, for universal principles of human rights. Such bravery is sadly all too rare and with too many companies and governments demonstrating a sense of learned impotence that is the tragedy of the commons when it comes to human rights and sustainability. Perhaps this move will prompt Yahoo! CEO, Carol Bartz to rethink her position on China which she set out last summer in response to questioning by Amnesty International:
One year into her CEO tenure this week Carol Bartz captured headlines by giving herself a B-. If she stands shoulder to shoulder with Google on a principled stand to protect human rights under threat I'll give her an A+.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
A worhty stand
It will be interesting to watch the initial reaction from the Chinese and the subsequent story as it unfolds.
This is one to keep an eye on.
Absolutely unreal
against human rights violations in China? How about taking
your national government to task.
I swear, the brainwashing has gone so deep among so many
Americans they actually think a business is more powerful
than a government.
Government is run by business...
Excuse me Mister
Perhaps you also believe the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery?
Sorry...
How did the poor actually benefit from the war?
Didn't the rich sponsors actually gain the "property that the King formerly "owned"?
Note:
I am not saying that the English were blameless.
lehnerus2000
taking to task
To us or their shareholders!!!! [NT]
us or shareholders
Ideally yes, realistically no.
can show me where, in Googles Article of
Association or Memorandum that Google has a
responsibility to the public then i would
agree.
I wish it was as easy as no trust = no users =
no business = no shareholders, but you know
that's not the case and still doesn't answer my
question.
Yes Google have a (profit motivated)
responsibility to provide a decent and secure
service to the public otherwise we as consumers
don't buy, it doesn't mean they are obligated
to provide a secure service nor does it mean
they are responsible to the public.
Ideal/Realism
Let me turn this around. I agree, Ideally Google has no public responsibility. Realistically it certainly does.
fixed it for you...
To this: In a perfect world it certainly would.
You need to remember that the ONLY authority Google (and pretty much any other corporation) recognizes is the majority shareholders, and if a bunch of minority shareholders band together, giving their proxy to one spokesperson, then they become the majority shareholder and again, their word counts most.
Also, it kills me that people equate privacy and access to full information with one of those "basic human rights".
Just like a driver's license, privacy and access to full information are privileges, not rights.
Let me rephrase!
the UK, there are 2 documents you need to
supply, An articles of Association which
defines your business and how you will operate
and clearly defines it's responsibilities to
shareholders and directors (no mention of
general public responsibility what so ever) and
a Memorandum of Association which defines what
the company can and can't do, based on objects
(again, no mention of general public
responsibility what so ever), both documents
must be in compliance with the Companies Act.
US for profit companies are subject to the same
requirements but with a slight difference only
one document is required that incorporates
everything stated above compared to there UK
counterparts, however, neither document(s)
expresses any obligations or responsibilities
to the general public, period.
Even in relation to a PLC (Public Limited
Company) the limit of responsibility is to
those members of the public that have bought
shares, hence shareholders.
If you would like me to provide a copy of these
documents i can do so.
So realistically, Google has no
obligations/responsibilities to the public, as
i said before, however for marketing purposes a
company may adopt principles of responsibility,
after all, its the public that buys the product
or service so a good image with the general
public goes a long way, hence public
responsibility becomes an ideal to a company as
it's real purpose is to generate profit for its
shareholders/directors.
I would doubt that Milton Friedman would
disagree because he's probably written or at
least read a few Articles of Incorporation to
know exactly what i am talking about.
So in an ideal world, companies should have
public responsibility, but they don't and not
all exercise public responsibilities, hence the
use of ideally and hence, scenario's such as
child and slave labour, global pollution and
waste to name a few.
PS and i wouldn't think Google having no public
responsibilities as ideal, but i will consider
that a hasty error on your part.
Talk about brainwashed
Taking a stand? Funny, when the money was coming in
But now that it's Google's "rights" (IP) that have been violated, they're suddenly "concerned" about human rights issues in China?
They're taking a stand allright: a stand for Google's profits.
This isn't (just) about profits or IP
I am not sure it is about IPR protection or
an adverse impact on profits.
Google 's search market share in China has grown
from 16 p.c. in '06 to 31.2 p.c. now. Estimated
revenues for 2010 are USD 600 mn.
While, in retrospect, one might say that the
move into China was wrong, they may have been
driven by both the size of the opportunity and
the possibility of bringing about positive
change.
Sergey Brin had openly stated in 2006
(http://bit.ly/BrinOnChina) that while he
thought the China move was a
compromise of Google's principles, they saw
potential to improve the overall quality of
information available to Chinese users.
While search censorship is mandated by law and
openly known in China, concerted attempts to
gain access to private information by hacking
email accounts is a more serious issue. Google
may have finally decided they are unwilling to
go down this route any further and may have even
sensed an opportunity to bring about radical
change by a pullout from China. In fact, this
seems to be consistent with Google's stated
approach towards China. Google's official blog
post speaks about this at length
(http://bit.ly/5IMr90).
I am sure things are going to get a lot more
interesting from here on - if Google does pull
out, other major international companies may be
forced to review their Chinese operations too
and this may eventually turn the heat on the
Chinese govt.
I can't agree
They chose to ignore it. If over time they turned out to be the number one search provider, and collected the money associated with that position, this conversation wouldn't be happening.
The fact they're data was hacked and they're #2, well, this is a good excuse as any.
Google pulling out just because they're numbers weren't there would be embarrasing.
I cant agree
CARRY ON (SPINNING)
China in the first place, considering the human
rights abuses and nor should any other company
that respects human rights.
Ok, lets take on board that they thought they
could do something good in China, was that the
sole motivation, if so, why are they pulling
out at the first sign of problems, it makes the
notion of wanting to help China seem feeble,
hence it looks like such a notion was second to
potential revenue.
Secondly, by censoring searches Google where
actually assisting the regime in China, not
helping its citizens and there's no hiding from
that fact.
Are you seriously saying that Google's sole
purpose for working with China was to help
China and not for profit. That's an absolute
joke.
This sounds more like journalist spin James and
your providing the spin.
spining
I would never say Google's role is solely to help China and its people without any business objective. thats absurbd.
I wish the world was simple enough that we could make these absolute judgments and anyway I dont want a business to make that call.
Google's responsibility was to operate a profitable business and on balance to not make the the rights landscape any worse.
Now Google has made the call that it cannot maintain cyber security nor protect rights. No trust/ no security = no business = no profits.
Yes Spin
help China and its people without any business
objective. thats absurbd."
Niether would i, but suggesting human rights
was higher up on the list for reasons to pull
out is still spin, because if it where, they
would not have gone to China in the first
place.
"I wish the world was simple enough that we
could make these absolute judgments"
The world doesn't have to be simple, a business
decision can be simple though, in this case; it
would be nice to generate a huge amount of
profits from China but we won't because of
human rights abuses, It's that simple.
"and anyway I dont want a business to make that
call."
So what are you suggesting, that companies
should not make "responsible" decisions to do
business in a country where human rights abuses
are apparent, they should just go right on
ahead, and leave the abuses to the Worlds
Governments to deal with.
but they can make the following call:
"If she stands shoulder to shoulder with Google
on a principled stand to protect human rights
under threat I?ll give her an A+"
So not only should Google pull out and not do
business with China, but Yahoo too, but yet you
don't want businesses to make such calls.
"Google's responsibility was to operate a
profitable business"
yes agreed (and still is).
"and on balance to not make the the rights
landscape any worse."
So how does not making things worse equate to
helping make things better, so what your
suggesting now is that there was no intention
of trying to help China in protecting rights it
was a guise, hence it was purely profit
motivated?
"Now Google has made the call that it cannot
maintain cyber security nor protect rights. No
trust/ no security = no business = no profits."
Oh so now there trying to protect rights again
even though they shouldn't be making such
calls.
But then that's what happens when you put spin
under scrutiny, it starts to look abit, well,
contradictory, and this is blatant spin, on
your part (intentional or not) and on Google's
part. There not pulling out because of human
rights issues, there pulling out because of
security issues.
PS: If human rights activist where targeted
then maybe Google are thinking this is
something to do with China's government and not
a general user attack (which Google should be
able to deal with) hence the pull out.