Global General
Google, don’t be evil?
By Lee Yeming (zaobao.com/chinadaily.com.cn)
Updated: 2010-01-29 11:56
 |
Large Medium Small |
"Don't be evil" is the corporate motto of Google, which is admirable for a profit-making company to uphold such a value system.
After seeing its dramatic show in China, I have a deeper understanding about "Don't be evil." It is fine not to be evil, but the problem lies with what makes good or evil. This problem itself is also a value judgment interlinked closely with standpoint and interest.
Public opinion in the West extolled Google as the iconic hero of "Don't be evil" after Google's threat to the Chinese government to withdraw from China.
Google laden with infringement suits
Months ago, I received an email from the Singapore Association of Writers and became aware of the campaign initiated by the China Writers Association to protect their copyright. As a member of the Singapore Association of Writers and the founder of a local website for hosting original works, this news in China attracted my strong interest.
To create the largest digital library, Google has scanned a large number of books, including tens of thousands of Chinese books without notifying the authors or getting authorization. The China Writers Association (CWA) accused Google of having infringed copyright laws, and it joined hands with The China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) to bring Google to court last year.
After many attempts at negotiation and a long wait, the CWA issued an ultimatum-like circular in November 2009, urging Google to provide an inventory of the Chinese books it has already scanned, the plan for their disposal and compensate before December 31, 2009.
At the same time, the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing started to process the case of Chinese writer Mian Mian who accused Google of copyright infringement at the end of last year. Mian was the first Chinese writer who accused Google for copyright in the name of herself. She asked Google to apologize for scanning her novel Acid Lover without notifying her and demanded 60,000 yuan for compensation.
Some analysts believe that Google really doesn't want to engage in the individual copyright lawsuits in comparison with the collective action of CWA. The organization only represents 8,000 books of 2,600 authors and there are countless authors who are not CWA members. Even one percent of those non-member authors followed Mian, Google will have no time for its business in China in the next few years.
Infringement, good or evil?
On January 9, four days before Google threatened to exit China, Google's representative made a formal reply to CWA's statement and apologized to Chinese authors. However, the apology was only on the level that its communication with Chinese authors was "not good enough." In no way Google was admitting copyright infringement or taking responsibility.
Although Google said it hoped to solve the issue with Chinese authors through negotiation, but its statement was blamed as "not sincere" and a tactical compromise to avoid further lawsuits.
Regardless of the different interpretations of the skirmish between Google and Chinese authors, I believe it is undoubtedly wrong to infringe copyright. But interestingly, a friend told me personally that Google had done "a great thing" to scan books and allow people free access.
How does this opinion come out? It doesn't take much thinking to understand the motivation. This is like people buying pirated DVDs on the street and they will think those illegal vendors are "doing a great thing." People have different understanding of good or evil due to the different interests.
But for the Western countries that hold high the flag of protecting intellectual property rights, they will never recognize this kind of copyright infringement behavior. If we realize that four days ago Google was still apologizing for the "evil" it has done and worrying about the possible massive lawsuits by Chinese authors, do the Westerns easily believe that Google is a hero proclaiming "Don't be evil"?
Maybe, this is the reason why the Western media say nothing about the apologies Google made to Chinese authors and the lawsuits it face in China.
Email accounts of human rights activists hacked
For the two reasons that Google pitched for its exit threat, I think the funniest one is the claim of being hacked. Google has no evidence to prove that these attacks are related to the Chinese government. All implications and guesswork are now still at the level of media hearsay. Although the US government got involved in the battle, this groundless accusation became the pitfall to be used by the opponents. As the investigation developed further, the internal staff of Google and the vulnerability in Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser were suspected as behind the hacks, and this development put Google's bold accusation at the beginning in an embarrassing situation.
Another problem that can't withstand pondering is the attacks against the Gmail accounts of human rights activists. Google even disclosed that "the accounts of dozens of US, China and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties."
Firstly, I don't know how the human rights activists have the privilege to be protected against hacking in this digital age when hackers seem to be everywhere. Secondly, and also quite perplexing to me, how the Google know which Gmail accounts belong to human rights activists. Is it because users are required to indicate whether or not they are activists when they register for the Gmail account? Or Google already knows the email content of those human rights activists?
According to the anti-terror laws passed after the Sept 11 attacks, companies were required to assist the United States government to monitor the Internet-based communication. This monitoring may not be thought as "evil" since it targets terrorists, who are actually "evil doers." The logic becomes that it is right and good to monitor the evil, and this is the so-called standpoint issue.
But who can determine the standpoint or criterion on which to judge good and evil of "human rights activists"? Obviously, Google knows that "human rights activists" in the Western countries symbolize the fight against authoritarian power. Therefore, by emphasizing that Gmail accounts of activists were hacked, Google can incite certain kinds of imaginations. But this emphasis also makes Google a suspect of violating user's privacy. Is Google's action good or evil?
Exit from China, really?
Google's announcement of refusing censorship certainly carries a heavy political connotation. Some Chinese netizens asked why Google didn't object to censoring the search results when it started business in China years ago and the censorship mechanism was harsher at that time. Why didn't Google pull out of China when Chinese netizens protested against the installment of the filter software Green Dam last year? Why Google？Why now？
The timing of Google's protest against censorship and its threat of existing from China can not be easily explained by Google when we consider that Google was invited to have dinner with higher Obama administration officials and the US government also got involved in the dispute in a high-profile way.
After a through reading of Google's statement issued on January 13, it never mentioned in the text that it would not cooperate with the Chinese government. Google's CEO also later explained that Google is still negotiating with China over its business operations and will not rule out the possibility of staying with Chinese market.
So the big talk of non-cooperation merely serves for a better cooperation. The reasoning, quite like the apology to the Chinese authors, is not to admit mistakes and shoulder the responsibility, but to avoid the possible lawsuits. All in all, Google is still a company, nothing else.
What make Google embarrassed is that the objection of censorship has placed itself on a glorious stage. The media has complimented Google, netizens have provided flowers, and the debate between governments already was launched, so what can Google do now?
Up till now, the Chinese government will not back from its position on Internet censorship. Does Google really want to pull out China?
Some pointed out that the Chinese market provides less than 3 percent of Google's overall profit. Can the importance of this huge market be valued at $1 billion? If Google exits from China, its competitor Baidu.com may dominate the Chinese search engine market. Someday, Baidu.com may launch its own English-language search service and explore the international market. Will Google worry about this prospect?
After all, Baidu.com is also a company.
