
State Department Makes Statement on Google Operations in China - dfield
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm
======
mixmax
It is very interesting that the State Department is playing second fiddle to
Google here. Intuitively I feel this has pretty far reaching consequences.

\- Apparently Google has uncovered a chinese attempt to infiltrate a number of
American companies[1]. The fact that this is being uncovered by Google and not
the government is very interesting. And potentially very embarrasing for the
state.

\- America hasn't engaged China in relation to human rights, probably due to
global politics which tends to tie you up in consensus, conventions and
diplomacy. Google has done so in a very clear and public way.

\- The state department is taking Googles lead. Hilary Clinton is playing
catch-up. She even says so in the statement: _"We have been briefed by
Google"_

This indicates an enormous shift in power.

[1] - The American government might have been aware of this or even uncovered
it themselves, which I personally doubt.

~~~
joubert
How would the Govt. know a company's servers have been hacked into unless the
company discloses it?

~~~
Hoff
With a tap into any of various of the major network pipes, the central
difficulty would involve sifting through the vast mounds of data that result.

 _I_ can often tell when somebody has had their servers hacked, and I just
watch my own servers.

------
yan
This whole situation definitely feels like the start of something much larger
than just Google pulling out of China.

~~~
Estragon
Yeah, might be a good time to get out of US dollars. They're going to be
painful to hold, if China decides to make the US uncomfortable.

~~~
billswift
I voted this up, even though I think it's wrong, because it is a valid point.
I don't think it's going to happen though, because it would screw up their own
economy as badly as the US. Maybe if things weren't already so tight
everywhere right now, but probably not even then.

~~~
blahedo
...for now. There will come a time when dumping their dollars will no longer
disadvantage China, and will indeed be to their advantage; but they need a
somewhat larger middle class first. Give it ten or twenty years.

------
grellas
The thing that will ultimately undermine the chokehold put by repressive
regimes on their oppressed citizens will not be Google as a company nor the
U.S. government as a countervailing political force nor the U.N. as a
supervening agency nor human rights advocates as a principled opposition -
though all these forces are helpful and necessary, they are not in themselves
sufficient.

It will instead be the sheer wearing force of progressive technological
advances that make it harder and harder with each passing day for such regimes
ultimately to suppress the free flow of information and the spur toward
freedom promoted thereby.

With its dramatic action, Google has demonstrated that any given company
wielding sufficient power relating to the free flow of information has the
capacity to make a big difference in moving to help liberate countries such as
China. That company has to show some guts, which Google has done. And it needs
to have some core principles, which is really at the heart of being able to
act with courage and conviction as Google has done. But none of this would be
enough, even if it is backed vocally or _sub silentio_ by the force of the
U.S. government, the U.N., and rights advocates. Repressive regimes like
China's have gone for decades on their oppressive path in spite of vigorous
opposition from the west (remember the long stretch when the U.S. would not
even _recognize_ the existence of the Chinese government) and have scarcely
changed their worst policies over that time.

The change, then, ultimately has to come from within and it is there that the
free flow of information makes all the difference. Knowledge _is_ power, and
that is precisely why oppressive regimes always seek to suppress free speech
and to control thought through massive propaganda mechanisms.

It is the technological juggernaut that is progressively, albeit slowly,
undermining the thought-control historically imposed by the Chinese government
upon its citizens, and that government will be fighting a losing battle on
this front as it becomes virtually impossible, in an exploding information
age, ultimately to choke off the free flow of information so desperately
needed by oppressed peoples.

In this sense, Google's action serves as a proxy for the technology forces
that are having this salutary effect. But none of this happens in a vacuum. It
takes real people to make real and difficult decisions to bring about the
change. And it takes courage to stand up to authoritarian forces. Bravo to
Google for taking a tremendous step in the right direction. I hope they stick
with it to its logical outcome. It will not be easy.

~~~
Tichy
"Google has demonstrated that any given company wielding sufficient power
relating to the free flow of information has the capacity to make a big
difference in moving to help liberate countries such as China"

How so? Has China moved yet, in reaction? It seems very unlikely to me that
they would, and Google is not even the most popular search engine in China.

As for unstoppable technological progress, there are lots of examples of
political regimes keeping their countries in the dark ages.

~~~
billswift
I'm curious about your _"lots of examples of political regimes keeping their
countries in the dark ages."_

The only one I can think of that actually worked was Japan's repudiation of
the gun, and that was broken open from the outside eventually. The Soviets
tried to control communications technology, even requiring copy machines to be
licensed, but it didn't work very well.

~~~
Tichy
In Europe for example Rumania comes to mind. Dark ages not to be taken too
literally.

------
ilamont
The State Department is being a bit hypocritical here. If China must give an
explanation for its alleged cyberattacks/hacking attempts on gmail, then the
U.S. government should also give an explanation for its NSA-sponsored
eavesdropping/hacking/snooping of other countries' citizens' email, phone
conversations, and other communications.

~~~
patio11
I should point out that the State Department does not wiretap Chinese citizens
phones so that they know which little old lady to beat to death. That is
China's job.

Returning you now to your regularly scheduled moral relativism.

~~~
stanleydrew
How do you know that's true?

~~~
roc
Because the CIA isn't part of the State Department?

------
sethg
Interesting. I would have expected the government to respond with something
completely bland along the lines of “Google is a private company that makes
its own decisions about international operations... Our law-enforcement
authorities, including FBI Counterintelligence, are always vigilant against
computer crime, but we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.”

ISTM that nationalist elements within China would love to paint Western
businesses that they disapprove of as arms of the CIA, and that if the US is
too vocal in support of Google, then they give fodder to those nationalists
(and risk damaging US commercial interests in China). I assume that the State
Department considered this factor and decided that _nevertheless_ , they had
to speak up for an open international Internet.

------
lifeisstillgood
<http://www.csoonline.com/article/print/329164>

This is an old article but compares the actions against the Barbary Pirates
(US Navy used force to ensure Free Trade) with what US _could_ do with
Internet 'piracy' - and no thats not copying CDs.

------
barmstrong
This feels like a dumb question, but my first reaction to this was wondering
how the Secretary of State could be relevant to this or why she is going to
make a statement? I don't see what role her words have here or how they could
change anything. Can someone enlighten me?

------
pragmatic
Chinese attacks in Cyberspace.

Wow, straight out of a William Gibson novel.

~~~
JulianMorrison
Have you read Halting State?

~~~
brown9-2
For those of us that have not... I'm guessing this post counts as a
recommendation?

~~~
JulianMorrison
Yes indeed. Very good book.

What's amusing is that it was intended to be set a decade or two in the
future, but most of the "futuristic" plot twists have already happened.

~~~
delackner
Seriously? I found Accelerando (same author) to be incredibly forced, written
in the style of a Wired magazine puff piece.

~~~
lincolnq
1) Charles Stross (cstross) reads and comments here on HN, so be nice :)

2) That was the whole point of Accelerando.

That said, I really liked Halting State and Saturn's Children, but not
Accelerando as much (it was too crazy for me).

------
amix
You are working for Google and you have evil motives. You have access to
Gmail's data, search logs and Google Documents (among other things). With this
information it's pretty damn easy to hack anyone that uses Google products - -
as users and companies hold a lot of sensitive data in emails and Google
documents - - especially on Google Apps.

This could have been done from Google offices in China, but why not in other
countries?

------
andreyf
_We have been briefed by Google on these allegations_

The pertinent question is "when?". Google reported the attacks began in mid-
December. NYT reported at least some against the 34 other companies occurred
last week. Drummond said the Chinese government had been briefed before
yesterday's statement. I have trouble believing The State Department hasn't
been involved until now.

------
tptacek
Ugh. The State Department uses sIFR.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Ironic given the attacks were via a 3rd party, proprietary, monopoly-market
share, monoculture, bloated, insecure, not-very-good program for reading ISO
standard files (Adobe Reader). Though Google said many of the attacks were via
standard keyloggers.

Similar to the recent, "don't internet bank via Windows" warnings, it appears
that anyone involved with human rights should shift follow the same advice for
all their online correspondence. But that tech/security element seems to be
lost because of the geopolitical drama.

