Murdoch needs to get with the program.
edit: I remembered the news.google.com trick:
By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO
Google Inc.'s startling threat to withdraw from China was an intensely personal decision, drawing its celebrated founders and other top executives into a debate over the right way to confront the issues of censorship and cyber security.
The blog post Tuesday that revealed Google's very public response to what it called a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China" was crafted over a period of weeks, with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
For the two men, China has always been a sensitive topic. Mr. Brin has long confided in friends and Google colleagues of his ambivalence in doing business in China, noting that his early childhood in Russia exacerbated the moral dilemma of cooperating with government censorship, people who have spoken to him said. Over the years, Mr. Brin has served as Google's unofficial corporate conscience, the protector of its motto "Don't be Evil."
The investigation into the cyber intrusion began weeks ago, although how Google detected it remains unclear. As Google employees gathered more evidence they believed linked the attack to China and Chinese authorities, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, along with Messrs. Page and Brin, began discussing how they should respond, entering into an intense debate over whether it was better to stay in China and do what they can to change the regime from within, or whether to leave, according to people familiar with the discussions. A Google spokesman said Messrs. Page, Brin and Schmidt wouldn't comment.
Mr. Schmidt made the argument he long has, according to these people, namely that it is moral to do business in China in an effort to try to open up the regime. Mr. Brin strenuously argued the other side, namely that the company had done enough trying and that it could no longer justify censoring its search results.
How the debate ultimately resolved itself remains unclear.The three ultimately agreed they should disclose the attack publicly, trying to break with what they saw as a conspiratorial culture of companies keeping silent about attacks of this nature, according to one person familiar with the matter.
Soon, Google's vice president of public policy and communications, Rachel Whetstone, began crafting and revising a number of versions of a possible statement the company planned to release publicly, these people said, sharing it with the three.
The top three agreed that in addition to discussing the attack, the blog post should contain some language about human rights, the strongest statement of which is a clause in the penultimate paragraph of the post.
The section said they had reached the decision to re-evaluate their business in China after considering the attacks "combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web."
Concerned about potential retribution against Google employees in China, the founders and their advisors agreed to include a line saying that the move was "driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China."
To further protect Chinese employees on the ground, executives didn't notify the vast majority of Google's China team until a few minutes before the post went up.
Disagreements among Google's top troika aren't unusual. Last year, for example, Mr. Schmidt told reporters that he had long opposed Mr. Page's desire to build a Web browser but ultimately came around.
Google's conduct in China has long incited broader geopolitical debate over whether Western companies should do business in the country. In 2006, after Google said it would censor its China search engine, Google was called to defend the move before the U.S. House of Representatives, which began contemplating legislation that would prohibit U.S. companies from cooperating with Chinese officials, except in certain circumstances.
On Tuesday, Google said it could no longer abide by Chinese government requirements that it filter the search results on its site in the country, Google.cn. The company said it will be discussing the matter with the Chinese government, stating that it realized that its move may mean that it will have to shut down the Web site and potentially its offices in China.
The question is whether other U.S. companies will agree with Google's definition of evil.Google's decision conflicts with the strategies of many U.S. companies to deepen their involvement in China, which is both a key market for their potential exports as well as a source for many manufactured goods on which U.S. companies and consumers depend.
Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.
Some expressions of support for Google's position flowed in from around the world, including from consumers in China as well as some U.S. companies—including rival Yahoo Inc.—and politicians. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday issued a statement saying Google's allegations "raise very serious concerns and questions," and that "we look to the Chinese government for an explanation."
Odds are high Google could be left largely on its own in taking concrete steps to confront the Chinese government. Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has very little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.
Besides the Google.cn Web site, Google has a range of other business initiatives and partnerships in China that could be affected by its decision. By snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government retaliation against itself or its partners. The decision also affects local competitors who could benefit from any retreat.Shares of Google's biggest Chinese rival, Baidu Inc., surged following the news.
Google's blog post Tuesday said cyber-attacks on its infrastructure resulted in "the theft of intellectual property," stating that it found evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human-rights activists. It said other U.S. companies were targeted by similar attacks, and dozens of Gmail accounts around the world had separately been "routinely" accessed by third parties it did not identify.
Gee, how about by paying the organization that employed a reporter to write the story......
I swear, it's like half the internet has forgotten what it's like to buy something.
Then, if it is not possible to legally read the text without paying, then I would suggest to not submit such content here to HN. Let the paying customers to discuss that stuff between themselves, then.
In the case of WSJ and NYT, they've provided an approved (by them) way to read paywalled content for free: by visiting via the google "trick." A post of the google search, like ars did, is enough.
It's one thing for a subscriber, or google trickster, to post a quote; I think that's generally accepted practice, Murdoch and AP notwithstanding. In the context of struggling content providers and blustering media owners it's at least ironic to post an entire article.
So far so good, if many HN members are WSJ subscribers, of course let's them to discuss that stuff here, no problem from my side.
Just a random thought, but wouldn't it be cool if the US had a hacker military branch?
Myself, I'm not going to pay for the Wall Street Journal but I will pay for The Economist and other news magazines/journals. So I'll be waiting till they have the story.
To further extend the analogy, it would be like announcing the donut shop in a forum where people are talking about free food. Then being baffled when people took that to mean tha the donuts would be free.
When explaining one's rationale for locking down information, people often use metaphors of physical objects. This is doomed to fail. Try to use non-physical objects that are similar in nature to information as metaphors instead. The problem with that is of course that it is also impossible, as the very nature information shares with intangible goods is that they also want to be free.
Someone worked hard to produce that article and if they want to charge for it it's their right to.
In your example, the employer buys time, not information. Time is significantly harder to reproduce or copy than information is.
So, one way to charge for information is to sell time sensitive information (like stock information), but then what you're really selling is time exclusivity.
Selling information without any kind of unique or time sensitive properties is doomed to fail — the only thing that made it once possible was technical limitations; information needed for instance paper as a vehicle to distribute it. Those technical limitations are gone now.
No need to wait:
A new approach to China http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china...
Google to Stop Censoring Search Results in China After Hack Attack
> Murdoch needs to get with the program.
The "I'm running one of the only two profitable newspapers in the US" program?
I think he's ALREADY with that program.
Sorry that you don't like it.
"suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has [very] little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues."
"Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues."
Seems like something a good copy editor would catch.