
A new approach to China - SandB0x
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
======
boundlessdreamz
This is incredible. This is the first time, I have seen a LARGE company

* Putting its users above profits

* Stand up to Chinese Government.

Since accounts of human rights activists were targeted, this operation was
clearly done at the behest of Chinese Government. I'm disgusted by the levels
to which the Chinese Government can stoop.

It is time the world stands up to China. If a corporation, whose main aim is
to generate profits can eschew it and take a moral high ground why can't the
government do it? Are the cheap goods from china so necessary that it is not
worth antagonizing China ?

EDIT: Additional details from Enterprise blog post
[http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-your-
da...](http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-your-data-
safe.html)

 _It was an attack on the technology infrastructure of major corporations in
sectors as diverse as finance, technology, media, and chemical_

This is clearly an act of espionage by the Chinese Government. The bigger
questions is whether these are the only companies targeted or the only ones
discovered. This is not the first time, the chinese have tried something like
this.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7970471.stm>

 _The researchers said hackers were apparently able to take control of
computers belonging to several foreign ministries and embassies across the
world using malicious software_

~~~
Femur
How often do you cross-post the exact same comment between HN and reddit?

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aouv5/new_appro...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aouv5/new_approach_to_china/c0iny14)

Edit: I may have jumped to conclusions; the individual on reddit may have very
well stolen your comment in which case my accusation is invalid.

~~~
andreyf
_the individual on reddit may have very well stolen your comment_

I did, thought of it more as a social experiment than theft, though. Apologies
to boundlessdreamz, if he cares...

~~~
jacquesm
That's pretty low.

~~~
Locke1689
Actually, I think it's kind of interesting. Granted, it was impolite to
crosspost the comment from boundless without asking first, but this could be
an interesting thought process. I'm kind of wondering what conclusions andreyf
was trying to draw.

Edit: After a little thought, I think you may be blowing this up a little bit.
He did delete the comment when boundless objected and it wasn't exactly a work
of art or anything.

~~~
jacquesm
9 Hours later, after parting with this gem:

> "As a matter of fact, the reason I cross-posted is that I don't think the
> comment in question deserved the top spot, and would frankly be ashamed if
> such writing/logic were ever seriously attributed to me."

It's a new low for HN from what I've seen to date.

~~~
andreyf
_a new low for HN from what I've seen to date_

Agreed. Except you're the one who keeps insisting on dragging out for me to
explain myself over something boundlessdreamz and I settled in two comments 10
hours ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049476>

------
riobard
I want to add some background knowledge:

\- ever since the ending of the Olympics in 2008, Chinese government started a
series of large scale "cleaning up" operations all in the name of removing
porn from the Internet (while we all know what's the more obvious reason ...).

\- Many report that as of now Xinjiang Autonomous Region has Internet access
to only a few selected official websites after the riot in 2009.

\- There are rumors about a potential whitelist-based filtering system coming
online this year (2010). All websites (no matter where they are physically
located or legally registered) must register and report to MII
(<http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/>) if they offer Chinese content to visitors from
mainland China, or they might be banned by the Great Firewall.

\- Previously, individuals can register .cn domains. They tight up control
over .cn registration and some registrars are actually starting to limit the
IP address that .cn domains can use to only those within mainland China.

~~~
jhancock
I'm not defending the China gov for these actions (and many not listed above).
When criticizing these actions, it helps to understand the tremendous strains
within China. China has changed more in the last 10 years than possibly any
other country in the history of the world. These changes are accompanied by
massive externalities. There are some serious powder kegs of anger and
resentment, Xinjiang being a prime example. I'm not taking you to task for
your criticism, but if you were a top government leader in China today, how
would you handle these issues? Keep in mind that if your answer is to just
make things free and open, there will most likely be a price to pay. You may
say the short-term price of social disruption is worth the potential long-term
benefits. However, there is no guarantee China would survive such extensive
social disorder.

Controlling internet traffic is both a citizen control issue and an economic
protection plan. I don't know what is in the reams of WTO deals China has made
but its possible they never agreed to play free and open with companies
outside China for access to their Internet user base. You may not agree with
this protectionist approach, but it fits squarely within China's "middle-
kingdom" mentality.

Again, don't take my words as a defense of any of China's actions. But
seriously, what would you do if you were in charge? I certainly wouldn't take
the job.

~~~
Retric
The size of China magnifies the significance of their changes, but there has
been little real change over the last 10 years. Their economic growth pails in
comparison to what South Korea or Japan went though over a similar time
period. The government actively limits economic growth and has been using the
limited economic growth to help quell political unease. China is a highly
corrupt and protectionist society and the powerful have been using their
influence to meddle in business for thousands of years. While there size may
elevate them to supper power status in time, I suspect they are going to have
limited impact over the next hundred years without significant political and
economic reform.

~~~
lhuang
huh? No real change over the last 10 years?

As a rule I try to shy away inflammatory criticism, but this was a very poorly
researched post.

There has been TREMENDOUS change over the past 10 years! You have to remember
that until Deng's reforms in the late 80s, China was a completely closed
society that was just beginning to heal from decades of strife and instability
(almost 100 years!), including the cultural revolution which literally turned
society upside down and placed a freeze on societal progress.

Since the early 90s China has made leaps and bounds in regards to reform and
progress. YES they are still MANY problems, but the changes have been very
substantial. China will surpass Japan this year as the 2nd largest economy in
the world. Outside of the US and Russia, it holds the third largest stockpile
of nuclear arms. The accolades are many...

That said, its unfair to really compare China with South Korea/Japan, who've
not only had a huge lead time, but also don't have 1.3 billion people to feed,
provide jobs for, and yes control.

All of this growth and sudden change has caused problems, corruption and
protectionist economic policies (not to mention the increasingly dangerous
heights of nationalism the CCP is stimulating among the populace, especially
the youth). To say however that Chinese society is corrupt and have been
"meddling in business for thousands of years" is absurd and frankly a bit fox-
news in rhetoric.

One of the things I love most about HN is that the community here is in
general "smarter" than more general-interest social news communities. That
said, I wish people would take a more balanced view on China. Yes there are
problems and the CCP is no benevolent big brother but as the poster above me
has pointed out the issues are not black and white. There are many many many
nuances in uplifting a nation of 1.3 billion people into modernity. I'm not
convinced that an open, free-market system is the best solution. Perhaps down
the road, but not now.

~~~
Retric
Comparing the rate of political change in China from 1988 - 1998 to the rate
of change in 2000 - 2010 it's clearly slowed down. As to corruption I can only
suggest you research the topic both from a historical perspective and a modern
business one. Read up on how Google local competitor has benefited from close
government ties and multiply that by every significant business in China. Look
at the percentage of multi millionaires with close family connections to
government and suggest corruption is not a major issue.

China has had just as long to grow economically as Japan and South Korea. Yet,
only by ignoring the vast difference in population sizes are they in any way
comparable from an economic standpoint. Suggesting that a non "free-market"
system is a better approach when it's provided such poor returns is ignoring
history.

~~~
lhuang
The rate of change will obviously be grater from 1988-1998 than from 2000-2010
because prior to 1988 China was a completely closed society (especially prior
to 1978) and just beginning to wake up from the cultural revolution, a highly
chaotic period where progress LITERALLY stopped.

That said, this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prc1952-2005gdp.gif>

appears to disproves your point. Not accounting for inflation, nominal GDP
grew about 8,000 bln from 1990-2000, which is paralleled in only 5 years
between 2000-2005.

As for corruption, I don't think you've done much to further your argument
that "China has been a historical corrupt society for thousands of years".
Benefiting from close ties to the government is a natural economic condition
found in every country. Hello US Lobbying industry?

And the percentage of multi-millionaires with close family connections doesn't
say much either, only that China has a growing class of oligarchs, again a
condition found in many many many other countries.

That said, it wouldn't be fair for me to wholly dismiss your points. Yes
corruption is widespread, but I don't see how that proves your point that
China as a society has been utilizing corruption to cheat their business
partners for thousands of years. That is an absurd point that is not at all
grounded in history nor facts.

Finally I think you mis-understood my point in regards to S. Korea/Japan. They
have had LONGER to grow economically in the sense that until the mid 1970s
China was essentially a collapsed country, with really NO economy.
Irregardless of time, both S. Korea and Japan grew their economies out of
authoritarian governments. S. Korea was for most of the latter half of the
20th century a military state and Japanese politics was dominated by a single
party. Both not exactly what I would call open democratic regimes.

No idea what you mean by "a non 'free-market' system is a better approach when
it's provided such poor returns...", can you define "poor returns"? China has
been one of the fastest growing economies for the past 30 years. How is that
poor returns? In fact, its the very authoritarian regime you lambast as being
economically inefficient that has been cited as the source of China's
seemingly "magical" growth.

Lastly, you absolutely CANNOT ignore China's massive population when analyzing
the country's current and future states. Having to support a nation of 1.3
billion people is an epically difficult task and as I state in a prior
comment, ALL problems in China derive from its population problem.

Anyways the point of all of this is not to defend China. The hyperbole and
level of mis-understanding among the HN community in regards to China is
absurd. This is not a good/bad issue. China's problems are nuanced, just like
all things in life. It helps no one by making blanket statements that are
derived from quick google searches and superficial understanding of complex
issues.

~~~
Retric
I am not suggesting that you compare China to other Japan today rather how
quickly they become industrialized. In 1965, Japan's nominal GDP was estimated
at just over $91 billion. Fifteen years later, the nominal GDP had soared to a
record $1.065 trillion by 1980. (11x growth in 15 years.) By comparison
China's growth from 1989 to 2004 was ~9x (from your chart). At the time there
was a lot of talk about Japan taking over the world, which did not happen for
various reasons, primarily because once you get to near parity with the rest
of the world further economic development requires innovation.

As to poor returns I meant that China's growth has been has increased as they
approached a free market, and there is little evidence to support the
advantage (in terms of growth) of a non free market. Which was a response to
_I'm not convinced that an open, free-market system is the best solution.
Perhaps down the road, but not now._

PS: I am not saying china's growth is slow, rather young people don't have a
lot to compare it to. Industrialization and effective free markets result in
massive economic growth. So I don't think the Chinese government is
responsible for growth so much as letting it happen.

Edit: As to corruption it's something you have to see first hand. It has many
forms but look at Google for a classic example. The most blatant example of
which was they used DNS to randomly point to Google's competitor; now just
think about what that means. Sadly this is closer to the norm than most people
acknowledge.

~~~
jacquesm
Japan had a bit of help from abroad after world war II, and like Germany for a
long time did not have the financial burden of an army.

------
carbocation
Every once in awhile their Don't be evil motto reminds us that it still
exists.

Reading in between the lines, it seems that they must feel that the Chinese
government was involved in the attacks on the user accounts. Otherwise, the
first portion of the post re: cyber security has little to do with the latter
portion re: dealing with China at all. This is a fairly clever approach to
conveying such a heavy message without stating it.

~~~
siculars
Nobody does data mining better than good 'ole Google. If they went public with
this post you can be sure there is more to it than what you're reading.

~~~
borism
"in order to say 'don't be evil' you must already dwell in that space of evil"
-Slavoj Zizek at Google:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x0eyNkNpL0#t=1h13m55s>

~~~
houseabsolute
I can't really spend the time to watch that video right now, nor am I in the
right context. Could someone summarize it for me? It can't be that what he's
saying is that you have to be evil for "don't be evil" to have any meaning,
because that would be moronic. But I can't parse any other meaning from this
short little quote.

Edit: no, that's not what he's saying, but I think I might not have the
intellectual capacity to paraphrase what he did say well without thinking
about it some more.

~~~
defen
Honestly, you shouldn't waste too many brain cycles on trying to decode Zizek

~~~
houseabsolute
I'll take your word for it then.

------
vorg
Could someone post the text of this blog entry here into Hacker News Comments
(if doing so isn't a copyright violation)? I live in China, therefore can't
read the blog post (though have deduced much of its content from reading these
comments!)

Before the Olympics, the Firewall would periodically block blogspot, but it
was easy to get around it using proxies. However, post-Olympics, in May 2009,
all of blogspot was blocked (not just those dealing with F _l_ n G*ng, etc),
including through proxies, newsfeeds, everything. Every few weeks, new sites
are blocked. It seems the Olympics was a minor P.R. obstacle to the
unrestricted censorship they really wanted; once over, the censors have gone
into free fall.

The blockages seems arbitrary. One can almost understand a line of logic
whereby all blogspot blogs are blocked, e.g. "The users are anonymous, their
details not verifiable by our government officials..." blah blah. But how can
you explain blocking <http://www.python.org/download/> and subpages, blocked
here for the last 3 to 6 months? The other Python website pages are
accessible, just not the download page. Where's the logic in that? Those of us
living here for a while automatically assume some other competing scripting
language rep paid off some friend working at the censor bureau. "Who watches
the watchers?" as they say.

Once a certain site has been blocked, it never reverts. Some people here are
starting to call the internet available within China a "Countrinet".

~~~
nikils
A new approach to China

1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying
degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly
sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating
from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google.
However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a
security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we
have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range
of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical
sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of
notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S.
authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was
accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our
investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective.
Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was
limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and
subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google,
we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-
based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have
been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been
accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing
scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make
infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google
and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to
deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to
install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers.
Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and
emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You
can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to
learn more about these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report
(PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying
incident.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with
a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights
implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes
to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the
last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens'
entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out
of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic
progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of
increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet
outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we
made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new
laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are
unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider
our approach to China."

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered--combined with the
attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web--have led
us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business
operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue
censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be
discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an
unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may
well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly
hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We
want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United
States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who
have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are
committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

~~~
vorg
Thanks!

------
jsm386
The Times' has a source with an interesting addition to the story: _Google did
not publicly link the Chinese government to the cyber attack, but people with
knowledge of Google’s investigation said they had enough evidence to justify
its actions.

A United States expert on cyber warfare said that 34 companies were targeted,
most of them high-technology companies in Silicon Valley. The attacks came
from Taiwanese Internet addresses, according to James Mulvenon, an expert on
Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities.

Mr. Mulvenon said that the stolen documents were sent electronically to a
server controlled by Rackspace, based in San Antonio._

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html>

------
enomar
_We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on
Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the
Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search
engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having
to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China._

Wow.

~~~
omouse
They shouldn't have even opened an office in China. What the heck did they
expect to happen?

~~~
JCThoughtscream
They expected to do business, of course. It is, after all, a 1.32bn audience
base.

Quite glad they're opting to take the ethical route this time, though.

~~~
Radix
On top of a profitable business in China, Google now has some ability to
leverage some change in China. At the least, other corporations and
governments will reconsider their relationships or expectations of China.
Google had no influence before they opened google.cn, and as netcan pointed
out, it wouldn't have been very useful to show sites not viewable through the
Great Firewall anyway.

Business and an opportunity they didn't have before. Be charitable, this looks
like a better outcome than had they stayed out of China altogether.

~~~
realitygrill
“The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves,
only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the
possibility that we might be missing something.”

Well, I wouldn't call Google's moves stupid, but this sure is a surprising
outcome.

~~~
Radix
That is a perfect quote. Please tell me who it is attributed to. I tried to
give you a point, but failed.

~~~
realitygrill
Gamal Abdel Nassar, second President of Egypt. Thanks for trying with the
point; I'm new and I guess still provisional.

------
acangiano
Major kudos to Google. This is an outstanding outcome.

 _We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the
United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China
who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today._

How sad that they had to specify this, or a few of their Chinese employees
would risk their freedom, or worst, their lives.

~~~
romland
What I read between the lines there was: "We have the feeling that this might
have been made possible due to an inside job by one or more of our employees
in China. However, we don't know who or to what extent and we'd rather not do
our dirty laundry in public."

Call me cynical. :/

~~~
houseabsolute
Dunno why you consider that cynical. It's just realistic, and it wouldn't even
indicate bad faith on Google's part or anyone else's if that was the reason
under the covers.

~~~
davidmurphy
Rumor is that Google China staff _were_ sent home early today
<http://twitter.com/joCNN/status/7702905501>

------
bilbo0s
Wow!

Things just went batshit crazy. Trying to tell financial people to calm down.
Google wasn't making any money in China anyway. And there is no reason to
think right now that this will affect anyone else.

I REALLY hope people can regain their bearing before tomorrow's trading
session.

Thank you Google for announcing this after market close!

To have announced it during trading would have been horrid.

EDIT: BTW It is testimony to the power of social media that people didn't
freak when it hit Google's blog, but when it hit the social media sites.
Lesson learned there, by me anyway.

~~~
andreyf
This might be a great time to buy GOOG - from the little I know about finance
people, this has all of the heuristics which will make them overreact.

------
newhouseb
I just talked to a friend of mine in the computer industry, native Chinese, my
age (early 20s). I asked him about the Google news and he said when it comes
to economics he's quite the idiot, and such things don't really concern him
much. It's kind of ironic, since I recall him mentioning that Google was
thinking of pulling out of China months ago. He did mention however that other
new restrictions on things like registering .cn domains had caused him great
inconvenience (he had to migrate all of his stuff to a .com), so that
evidences he's not all roses about everything Chinese gov't wise.

It appears that within China this is being spun as the surrender of a foreign
company failing to understand the Chinese market, and outside China as some
sort of stand on Humans Rights. Probably both are true, but I think it's
interesting to see the perspectives as reported by both sides.

------
DrJokepu
"Gossip from within google.cn is Shanghai office used as CN gov attack stage
in US source code network." - wikileaks:
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7689041346>

~~~
jorgeortiz85
Also:

"gossip inside google China is gov hackers found infiltrating google source
code repository; gmail attacks an old issue." - @wikileaks
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7688415363>

"China has been quietly asking for the same access to google logfiles as US
intelligence for 2-3 years now." - @wikileaks
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7689072081>

"Should be noted that Google keeps secret how many user's records are
disclosed to US intelligence, others." - @wikileaks
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7689142127>

"correction: the time of the Chinese requests/demands are not exactly known
and are possibly in the last 12 months." - @wikileaks
<http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7689422772>

------
tjic
> We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results
> on Google.cn

Kudos to Google!

Amazing.

You work for a great company, Googlers!

~~~
zaphar
I know and I couldn't be prouder right now.

------
there
nobody seems to be commenting on the attack part of that post. what was the
"highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure
originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property
from Google"?

that doesn't sound like just a few end-user gmail accounts being compromised,
but something that was much more serious that may have exposed more
information than just what these chinese attackers were looking for.

~~~
liuliu
For some background information:

GFW research team tried heavily to crack down the SSL certificate for gmail
(thus, they can censor the gmail content through GFW).

~~~
desperado123
为什么美国不来个反GFW项目 你禁止国内访问外网的某些网站， 那我也以其人之道还治其人之身
把关键网站也对中国封掉，比如科技IEEE，教育，医疗等著名网站，把中国真正变成一个局域网。那时候详细国内的网民该疯了

~~~
ximeng
Translation:

"Why doesn't America create an anti-GFW project. You block people in China
accessing websites outside of China, so I give you your own medicine, block
China from accessing some key websites, such as technology IEEE, education,
medicine, and other famous websites, then China would genuinely become a local
area network. Then webizens within China would genuinely go mad"

~~~
jacktang
The Chinese should free them by their own hands

------
madmanslitany
If these allegations are true, and really, I don't expect anyone to be better
than Google at tracking who's doing what on the internet, then this is the
right choice. It's refreshing to see a corporation back up its beliefs like
this and the authorities in the mainland have seriously crossed the line.

But I feel compelled to point out that it's unfortunate that it's come to
this. I don't agree at all with posters saying that Google was initially doing
the wrong thing by being in business in China at all; as several other posters
have already pointed out, Google was at least making sure the censorship was
obvious, which, really, was bold already.

Moreover, the bigger point; how wrong is it for international corporations to
do business in China? Yes, there are human rights abuses. I get annoyed when
people seem to just enjoy using the PRC leadership as a moral punching bag
without trying to understand the historical lead-up to its creation (and,
really, the West helped create the conditions in China that led to its current
authoritarianism to begin with). But, what is really going to be gained by
corporations outright stonewalling the mainland and its business
opportunities? If you really want to help people and be pragmatic, then I
think you would have done as Google originally did. The potential economic
opportunities created for the millions of very poor Chinese by having
international business in China is not something to take lightly if you can
manage to at least not worsen the position of human rights activists in China
by censoring and not outright handing them over (something which I think Yahoo
actually did). And, by working with the PRC, you can at least get yourself
into a position where you can affect change without outright confrontation.

Again, I do agree that the hacking attempts change the game entirely and is
the point at which all international corporations doing business in China need
to reconsider things, but just stonewalling China for confrontation's sake is
just trying to encourage another Cold War, and we don't want that.

~~~
roundsquare
Its a fair point, but there is something to be said for looking at what the
PRC wants. In particular, they want/need western business. If google can show
the Chinese government that their practices will prevent western business,
then the confrontation can be useful.

Its not to say that a direct confrontation is the right move, but there is a
balance point between direct accusation and giving the PRC a face saving way
to make a small change.

The real question (in my mind) is: is google at the right balance point.

------
fcu_1
I love that CNN's app on the iPhone immediately sent me an alert to let me
know when Brittany Murphy died whereas 3 hours after a real story like this
broke I still haven't gotten any sort of notification. Uninstalling CNN's app
right after I post this.

~~~
blhack
It pains me to admit this, but I think that there are considerably more people
who care about Brittany Murphy dying than care about this.

I suggest that you, instead, just subscribe to some RSS feeds.

~~~
davidmurphy
I'll be honest. I didn't know who Brittany Murphy was until she went all over
the news networks. Still don't really know -- didn't ready any of the
articles.

Meanwhile, I've been consuming news about Google.CN for the past four hours.
Ought to go to bed, but this is so fascinating!

------
siculars
Go Google, Go!

This is what the world needs more of. Mega Multination Corporations standing
up to dictatorships, human rights violators and all around douche bag
governments.

------
zmimon
This is amazingly bold. Not because they are shutting down operations or even
stopping the censoring - they could have done that in a hundred ways that
would save face and leave the door open for them to come back in at any time -
but because they have come right out and said it, cut the BS, they consider
the human rights actions of the Chinese government unacceptable.

I do wonder how wise this is as a business decision - I would fully expect
they will never make a cent in China again, possibly even other countries
increasingly dependent on China might get pressure to be more 'hostile' to
Google.

Congrats to them on such a brave stand!

------
Torn
People are bringing flowers to the Google building:

<http://imgur.com/5xJmy.jpg>

<http://img.gd/Dbn/full>

~~~
ajju
Others (on reddit) are interpreting this as flowers on Google's gravestone.

A CNN reporter from China tweeted this image and translated the text as "Real
Man"

[http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/imag...](http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-
content/uploads/2010/01/images10.jpg)

~~~
weezer
It means "Google: a real, [upstanding -- implied], man"

------
andrewljohnson
Call me suspicious, but could this pull-out have anything to do with Google
getting beat up by Baidu?

Maybe getting beat isn't the reason for pulling out, but it at least makes the
decision much easier if you aren't the market leader in the country. Another
big company, GE, will shut down businesses where they aren't 1st or 2nd in a
market.

If Google were dominant in China or making a lot of money, this decision might
be a lot tougher.

~~~
ErrantX
With the sheer number of internet users in China I suspect even 2nd and 3rd
place wouldn't be something to walk away from lightly.

------
mcantelon
Wikileaks brings up a good point... "Should be noted that Google keeps secret
how many user's records are disclosed to US intelligence, others."
Nonetheless, good on Google for taking a stand.

~~~
Husafan
Maybe because those requests are part of a lawful subpoena? I'm sure things
would be different if they were busy getting hacked by the CIA and FBI.

~~~
lhuang
To be fair, there are many sections of FISA that are not so "lawful"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act)

------
tumult
pg, are you around to look at the voting patterns in this thread? I'd like to
hear if you see any accounts being used to attack the comment score of anyone
expressing anti-Chinese sentiment.

(I've seen this happen before on sites I've run, even ones on a much smaller
scale than HN)

I'd also like to applaud Google for this. I hope people who helped influence
this decision can see how many people appreciate what they're doing. It's not
falling on deaf ears.

~~~
est
And due to a link popularized to Chinese twitter-sphere, looks like there's a
lot of new users from China

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049036>

------
chaosmachine
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet>

------
shrike
The last three paragraphs gave me chills. If Google follows thru and exits
China I really, really hope it will be the beginning of an exodus of those
companies that support the Golden Shield Project. I'm looking at you Cisco -
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=f...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-
US%3Aofficial&hs=jhs&q=%22Great+Wall+of+China%22+Cisco&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

I am sure we will all be watching closely over the next few weeks, but kudos
are due to Google already.

~~~
est
Cisco has nothing to do with current implementation of GFW system, Golden
Shield and GFW are two completely different systems. The wikipedia entry of
GFW seems to be maintained by gov agents to create a delusion of a false
target.

see:

<http://freemorenews.com/2009/08/30/burn-after-reading-gfw/>

It's in Chinese, but it's pretty accurate. This article created shock within
the gov, China's intelligence department almost turned the GFW department
upside down for TFA

------
tdedecko
_CNBC interview with David Drummond, chief legal officer at Google, who
discusses the Internet giant's reaction to an assault by hackers who sought to
penetrate the e-mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists._

[http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/business/124746651...](http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/01/12/business/1247466517265/google-
may-close-operations-in-china.html)

------
daniel-cussen
You are witnessing "Don't be evil."

This is amazing.

------
jfornear
Google standing up to the Chinese government re: human rights? This is huge.

~~~
jfornear
The more I think about it... How do we get from security breaches and human
rights activists to "we'll shut down unless we're uncensored"?

------
azharcs
I now hope Google stands up to other countries, mainly USA to whom they share
their user data as well as log files. When Google does that, I will be a
impressed by them, threatening to leave a market in which they don't really
exist is not something hard to do, when you have realized that your operating
costs are going to be much larger than money you're going to make (even in the
long run), it is viable to quit the market. Lot of other companies do this all
the time, it is just that they don't make a huge fuss about it or write
blogposts.

~~~
boundlessdreamz
Same question raise and answered <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049298>

Google has stood up to US govt. too

------
jfischer
I'm all for taking the high ground, but I highly doubt this will change the
Chinese government's behavior. Google doesn't have such a huge market share in
China and leaving will only help local competition (e.g. Baidu) that can be
more easily controlled by the government. What leverage does Google have? This
is really the classic engagement vs. isolation debate.

The only thing that might have any leverage would be to close all their
development offices in China. Maybe they are doing this as well?

~~~
netcan
Depending how this unfolds, I would expect a shallow but broad effect on
Chinese business. Imagine that all Google properties get banned:

Interoperability with foreign businesses becomes a minor issue. Small
business-to-small-business gets a little bit of friction (eg, cannot read your
spreadsheet). Some classes of (especially outsourcing) Chinese companies
cannot compete. They cannot provide ppc or seo services. Chinese web designers
cannot add some Google maps app to a site they are developing for a Canadian
client. A Chinese can't reach something on Google code. Annoyances, friction,
slight inefficiencies. Being a little annoying (can you use a Zoho spreadsheet
instead of Google please) repeatedly can you you client if you are an
outsourcing company.

Also, Google provides a lot of non critical, but useful stuff. In many cases,
Google is best and the competition can be either close or far. Adwords,
Analytics, Docs, Search, Mail. Google does a lot of stuff. In some cases, I
would be measurably less productive if I had to use some other product.

They can't just cut off Google with no impact.

~~~
jfischer
I'm not convinced. Google is talking about shutting down google.cn, not
blocking google.com from the Chinese internet. I've used google services from
China without any issues. Also, the local market in China is much more
Windows-focused than in the U.S. I think Microsoft leaving the Chinese market
would have a huge effect.

Overall, the question is not whether it has an impact on Chinese business but
whether it would have enough of an impact to influence the decision makers in
the government.

~~~
netcan
Back up a minute. I never said that everything Google would be pulled from
China.

But right now there are some heated conversations going on in the larger
offices of China's censor. They will be weighing up the potential to block
Google entirely and strategies for doing this if t becomes necessary. They
will be adding up the costs. They will realise that leverage is not just one
sided.

I think Microsoft leaving any market would have a big effect, probably more
then Google.

------
clutchski
Interesting. I wonder how Google would react if the American government did
the same thing.

~~~
cdibona
Obviously not the same kind of thing, but here's what happened when the Bush
administration got too grabby...

<http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/060119-060352>

(Disclaimer: I work at google)

------
ghshephard
Read the following:

"Google said that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail
accounts of Chinese human right activists, but that the attack also targeted
20 other large companies in the finance, technology, media and chemical
sectors."

The question I have - is were these companies' infrastructures being run by
Google? And, if so, could this reaction be the harbinger of a revelation of an
attack on their managed services business?

~~~
brown9-2
It just sounds as if once they realized they were under attack, they shared
some information with other companies in those industries and then these
companies discovered they were under the same attack.

Or more likely they shared the info with the US government who helped discover
that other companies were under the same attack.

------
jacquesm
I'm not exactly gushing about this but I'm happy google changed their stance.

Let's keep in mind that before they stood up to the Chinese government they
first collaborated with them, and apparently it was the hacking (attempt) that
caused them to go about face.

If someone steals your car and the next day he doesn't that doesn't make him a
model citizen yet.

Google would be a model citizen if their stance had been like this when they
still thought they were going to score big in China. This is in part a
statement of principle and in part one that is motivated by PR.

Google has gotten some reasonably bad press recently because of Schmidts' ill
thought out remarks regarding privacy, this will go a long way to make
everybody forget.

So, keep your eyes open, let's give them the benefit of the doubt but let's
not right away forgive and forget the past until some time has gone by and we
can re-evaluate how much change there really is.

------
test1010
Doesn't the US government through the NSA also access citizens emails ? If
yes, should'nt google complain as well?

------
EricBurnett
It is interesting to look at the monetary values of Google and Baidu in the
two days since this was announced. It seems that after an initial ~2% dip,
Google has returned to its pre-announcement value, while the value of Baidu
has risen almost 20%. While one would expect the change in Baidu to be
comparatively higher due to the relative difference in market caps (187B vs
16B), it still seems that on the stock market, this is currently being viewed
as a net win for everyone. Interesting.

[http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&...](http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1263500400000&chddm=1065&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NASDAQ:BIDU&cmptdms=0&q=NASDAQ:GOOG&ntsp=0)

------
dublinclontarf
Can someone give me a mirror for this article.... I'm in China and blogspot is
blocked (among other things).

~~~
boundlessdreamz
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049617>

~~~
dublinclontarf
Thank you.

------
jbrun
Very good news, my guess is that the Obama administration may be backing this
aggressive move to push China towards more openness without directly going at
them.

Hopefully this will pan out top changes in China, but having worked there for
a year, I would not get my hopes too high.

~~~
davidmurphy
FWIW, Eric Schmidt was part of a dinner Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
hosted just last week with tech leaders. And Clinton did issue a statement
today saying she has a speech planned on internet freedoms Jan. 21.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-liebman/perspective-
on-d...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-liebman/perspective-on-digital-
di_b_416876.html) <http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm>

------
sown
There has to be a real strategic serious reason they're doing this. Something
along the lines of self interest. I just can't believe that a 187 billion
dollar US company with millions of shareholders would just go out and do what
it appears it is doing.

~~~
s3graham
Avoidance of security breaches maybe? It's been rumoured/suggested that some
attack started within google chinese offices at least.

------
dskhatri
This is a huge development. I was just discussing this with friends by email
(we should be using Wave) and realized the move, although incredibly noble,
could be even more detrimental economically to Google's growth outside the US.
Totalitarian governments (of which there are quite a few) will become weary of
Google's power and possibly inhibit the company's growth in those countries.

On the other hand, this move will probably placate European countries like
France which was recently calling for a tax on Google (and other US
companies)[1]

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041242>

~~~
EricBurnett
FYI, here and in your other post above
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049046>), I believe the word you are
looking for is 'wary' not 'weary'. But good point nevertheless.

~~~
dskhatri
Thanks

------
poutine
Google probably has been wanting out of China for some time. Like many
companies it had felt pressure to be in the 'largest market of the world'. The
problem is that it really isn't equipped to compete with the likes of Baidu
even if the playing field was level, which it isn't. As a poster upthread
noted the Chinese Internet is entertainment dominated and not
information/search dominated like in the USA. Just look at Baidu and you'll
see videos, music, shopping and celebrity news where Baidu makes much of their
revenue. Google doesn't have this content and more importantly Google is bound
by western business ethics that prohibit the violation of copyright that the
Chinese content companies engage in.

Secondly, the deck is stacked. There are no real opportunities to sell to the
wider Chinese Internet audience for foreign companies. The Chinese government
considers information distribution and the Internet key to its rather tenuous
hold on 1.5 billion people. It will not let any foreign company participate in
a significant way in this area. Period. On top of this is a system of
corruption that foreign companies can't possible engage in. Google indeed
realizes this, that even if they could compete the rule of law doesn't protect
them and their business will be given to their competitors. One needs only
look at the Youtube experience in China and the rise of Tudou as a result.

Thirdly, even if Google was able to compete and the rule of law applied the
market opportunity really isn't that big. Of course you may sputter about this
seemingly absurd statement given your week in China, however the facts don't
add up. Baidu is projecting about some $800M of revenue in 2010, assuming you
trust that figure (you shouldn't trust any number coming out of China). It
seems around half of Baidu's revenue is from search where Google could
participate. Google has 17% of the Chinese search market in the latest figures
I could see (significantly down, they're losing due to the first two points
I've made above). Doing the math this equates to some potential $73M in
revenue for 2010. Probably equivalent to what they get from Northern Ireland.

There is no upside for Google in China.

Adding to that depressing bottom line is the fact of the continuous attacks on
the infrastructure, the probable infiltration of Google by Chinese spies (see
Wikileaks for more), the demands by the Chinese government for access to
Google's logs and the beating that Google's reputation is taking in its
important markets it's pretty obvious that the Google exec is fed up. Leave
China to the Chinese and return when there's rule of law is their likely
strategy.

My background is as an Internet entrepreneur that worked on a startup in
Beijing for the past couple of years, having recently returned to Canada after
falling prey to many of these issues, though at a much smaller scale than
Google of course.

~~~
jhancock
I take Google's statement at their word. If its no longer feasible to compete
in China, they know and will make the best decision for themselves.

As to corruption in China, it certainly exists. If you come from the U.S. and
have never been privy to the payoffs that do occur in the U.S., seeing it so
much more open in China can be shocking. U.S. companies may not be legally
allowed to make payoffs, but they certainly do. Its also illegal in China. If
Google China has never paid kickbacks, they would be the first company of
their size in China I have known to not do so.

One thing I've noticed in Shanghai is that businesses in competitive markets
are increasingly not giving kickbacks as its simply not profitable to compete
in some markets this way anymore. Additionally, there are many (not saying its
the majority) Chinese business men and women that take great pride in running
a clean business. For every Chinese dissident whose email the gov wants to
snoop on, there exist many hard working people "doing the right thing". I've
witnessed my Chinese wife run businesses and she would never payoff a business
partner or gov official. She would fire any staff member she suspected of
doing so.

Yes, its complex and sometimes risky to do business in China, but for the most
part the net change is positive. This net positive change may not stay that
way, but the only reasonable hope is that it will.

------
DavidSJ
A thought: if several other Western-based web service providers (Yahoo? MSN?
etc.) all made a similar move in a short period of time, the effects on
Chinese policy could be substantial.

Is this an opportunity for a grass roots petition?

------
bemmu
Baidu stock +7% after hours.

~~~
kirse
If people had any idea this was coming down the Google PR pipeline this would
have been a huge money-making play... BIDU is up 13% today and BIDU options
are set to expire 3 days later... JAN420 calls are up 7000%... Game over, time
to retire.

And don't even mention "insider trading" because we all know the SEC has its
head up its rear when it comes to knowing when it's happening.

------
JulianMorrison
I think Google entering China, agreeing to censorship, was an umbrella that
provided ethical shelter to a lot of other companies who were willing to take
the same deal. So the biggest impact of them walking away has to be that they
take their umbrella with them, and suddenly everyone else is getting wet. They
are in effect threatening the Chinese government with a stampede of all
companies that care about being seen to be ethical, and a substantial
blackening of their name. This is absolutely hitting the Chinese where it
hurts.

------
storborg
If Google has concrete evidence to suggest that the Chinese government was
behind these attacks, why did they stop just short of saying so?

And if they don't, why would they even consider implying that?

~~~
netcan
They are treading thin ice.

 _"We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the
United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in
China"_

I'm glad they are standing up and taking the high road. Still, no need to be
stupid.

~~~
davidmurphy
One could argue they may have purposely done it this way to protect the
Chinese staff from blame for this decision, hoping that the Chinese gov't
wouldn't prosecute Google.CN staff because the "fault" for the decision lies
back in the USA.

(FWIW, some reports say Google.cn already is uncensored, which may be against
the law. Thus the staff could be at risk.)

------
wallflower
So what this means is that all searches to Baidu are most likely government
monitored.

I remember watching a Frontline documentary about China in the 2000s. It
profiled one guy who kept on moving to more egregiously luxurious apartments,
as his government contracts grew (he ran an advertising agency and as the
Frontline series had concluded he had landed a major contract for Beijing 2008
and was moving into the penthouse of an elite residence.)

~~~
netcan
Where did you read that?

~~~
wallflower
Nothing concrete. I did not state anything, just a hunch.

> The secret to Baidu's success -- and Google's failure -- is largely
> positioning. First, Baidu has managed to win Beijing's favor, a trump card
> in this command economy. The government controls the Internet and
> appreciates loyal partners. Baidu understands that it operates under the
> good graces of the Chinese Communist Party, and continues to show it. As
> Robin Li, the company's chief executive, said in an interview with the
> Guardian, "As a locally operated company we need to obey the Chinese law. If
> the law determines that certain information is illegal, we need to remove it
> from our index."

[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/29/where_googl...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/29/where_google_loses)

> Privacy and Security. Google is committed to protecting consumer privacy and
> confidentiality. Prior to the launch of Google.cn, Google conducted
> intensive reviews of each of our services to assess the implications of
> offering it directly in China. We are always conscious of the fact that data
> may be subject to the jurisdiction of the country where it is physically
> stored. With that in mind, we concluded that, at least initially, only a
> handful of search engine services would be hosted in China.

We will not store data somewhere unless we are confident that we can meet our
expectations for the privacy and security of users’ sensitive information. As
a practical matter, meeting this user interest means that we have no plans to
host Gmail, Blogger, and a range of other such services in China.

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-
in...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-
china.html)

------
lefstathiou
As important as this is to the spiritual debate I dont see it resonating that
much with the Chinese. Google was a major underdog and lacked guanxi. The
propaganda machine is undoubtedly unleashing its army of bloggers to talk
about how it's a sorry excuse because baidu was owning them. China will raddle
if and when Microsoft makes a similar announcement, but they have way too much
at stake to do that.

------
userrob
In western democracies governments come and go and do not generally have a
strong relationship with the population! I believe that this is different in
the PRC where most of the population will ultimately put party and country
first. Google is not taking on a temporary western style government it is
effectively taking on most of the country! - who will no doubt largely side
with the government line.

------
Frazzydee
Google has an online store: <http://www.googlestore.com/>

This really is a landmark announcement and really shows that they still take
their corporate motto seriously. The announcement may not mean anything until
they take concrete action, but they have pretty much committed to doing
/something/. Anyways, I'm going to start showing my support now :)

------
JunkDNA
Just awesome. I'm so glad google did this I can barely describe it.

I can't help but think of the old saw about "feeding the alligator hoping he
will eat you last". It appears google has realized that the alligator
sometimes comes after you anyway. This is a wakeup call to other companies
that tolerate oppressive regimes all over the world.

------
fauigerzigerk
That's brilliant. I guess Eric Schmidt has finally realised that there are
legitimate reasons for privacy after all.

------
rms
First 1000 point story?

~~~
jmatt
Ya looks like it

<http://news.ycombinator.com/best>

------
djcapelis
There are very few hacking incidents that have led to such public
international incidents.

I think this is one of the first times I've seen a company publicly pin
attacks of nationalistic hackers against a government.

This is incredible in a plethora of ways and its impacts on computer security
shouldn't be overlooked either.

------
morphir
Don't be evil, right? ;) Instead of being the bully, pick on the bully, as
that will bring google even more of the 'good guy' points that Ballmer so
desperately needs.

If you think the Chinese gov. will give after for this kind of pressure, then
I would say you are naive.

------
yumraj
According to CNet at least Adobe was also impacted. Link:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10433538-265.html?tag=news...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10433538-265.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1)

------
adrianwaj
"In the last two decades, China's economic reform programs and its citizens'
entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out
of poverty."

Yeah, through slave-like conditions. Well done.

------
xiaoma
For those who are interested and can read it, here's a Chinese analysis of the
situation:

<http://www.kenengba.com/post/2248.html>

------
jacquesm
Since dfranke hacked HN I don't think there has been a score like this for a
submisison.

If this goes on it will be the all-time high for HN for a long time to come!

------
est
The last thing I want from Google is to open source their Google PinYin IME
and Google Talk win32 client product.

------
steveplace
Why are we assuming that corporate responsibility and the shareholder interest
are mutually exclusive?

------
mrtron
Few people take a stand for human rights.

Fewer corporations take the stand.

Kudos Google.

------
jacktang
now baidu.com stopped its censorship ....

~~~
davidmurphy
A CNN Beijing Bureau Associate Producer tweeted _"Craziness on #Baidu.
Searched sensitive term+got huge results list, that never happens. 20min later
results GONE, error msg back up."_

<http://twitter.com/joCNN/status/7703269253>

------
nice1
Somewhat must have said this already, but what the heck, this is emotional
stuff. The value of Google as a company rests on the trust we invest in it. I,
among many I imagine, am much more confident today that they are worthy of it.
Well done.

"Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid."

~~~
davidmurphy
I feel inspired to want to go work for Google now....

~~~
nice1
All you have to do now is figure out a way to inspire them to want you to work
for them ...

------
utx00
go google. that does it, i just put an order for a google phone.

------
Flemlord
Ballmer must be ecstatic.

~~~
whughes
Come on. Only Western search engines exist? There's more to it than just
Google and Bing. Baidu has 60+% of the Chinese search market.

~~~
jacquesm
Make that 90% as of tomorrow.

------
maxklein
It's easy to shut down the site when you are losing the search game to local
competition.

In any case, even though I find freedom of speech to be necessary and
encouraged, I do not think that Google is right to imply in this blog post
that the Chinese government is behind the attacks.

~~~
JCThoughtscream
The targeting of Chinese human rights activists' email accounts don't seem
Suspicious to you? Exactly what /private/ group would have motive for this?

~~~
pyre
There are supposedly a lot of hyper-nationalistic youths (specifically in the
teens-20s age range) in China right now. I could see a group of them being
hackers and feeling that they are doing this for the 'honour of their country'
or something similar.

~~~
adrianwaj
It'd be more like 1 hyper nationalist cherry picking the best hackers through
tests and exam results and then telling them (ie forcing them) to weed out
dissenters and whatever else they can get.

------
anApple
Wouldn't every entrepreneur hope google would pull out of his market? :-)

~~~
Raphael
Doubt it. Google search is instrumental in driving traffic to one's site. And
its other products are integral in so many other areas, from docs to email,
and so many other services I won't even try to list.

------
torrenegra
The US is not too far away from China in terms of human rights violations (see
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,,258330,00.h...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,,258330,00.html)
) - Will Google pull out from other countries having similar issues? I doubt
it. The reasons and consequences behind Google's decision won't be obvious, if
ever, for a while.

