Google and Censorship in China
by Jody Tsigarides
Google is the fastest growing company in history and is worth an estimated £72 billion. By virtue
of this fact, its operations and ethics are consistently scrutinised.
The recent decision by Google to implement its search facilities within the jurisdiction of the Chinese territory has subjected the company to the heaviest bout of criticism since it was founded in 1997.
The reason for this criticism is that in order to operate the search facilities within the country, Google must adhere to the stringent and excessive censorship of the internet conducted by the Chinese government. Therefore the new Chinese strand of Google, Google.cn, will employ self censorship to satisfy the Beijing authorities.
Back in the USA, Google, along with various other internet companies, will sit before a Congressional Human Rights Panel to explain the exact reasons for agreeing to comply.
When discussing the decision, or when reading the vast amounts of literature which focus on the issue, Google's mission statement is often quoted - “to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. In addition, their motto is "Don't be evil".
It is widely suggested that the actions of Google, to censor the internet content available to the Chinese user, breaches not only internationally accepted assumptions of good practice but also its own ethics and intentions.
I will cover, below, some of the arguments used against Google as well as its own answers.
Arguments against Google's actions
Currently, the internet content retrieved through a Google search in China is monitored by 30,000 police officers employed by the Chinese government. However, with the new self-regulatory approach to be adopted by Google, it will soon be the case that it is the company itself which denies access to certain content and not the Chinese authorities. This is where the contradiction comes: to deny access by its own actions is to enact a policy in direct opposition of its objectives.A further argument stems from the recent dispute between Google and the United States Department of Justice. The Department of Justice demanded a list of every website address and every search term entered for the months of June and July last year. The government was attempting to use the data to compile a report on content which is ‘Harmful to Minors’. This is harmful content which could inadvertently be accessed by children using the internet. However, Google refused to comply and instead struck a deal which involved the submission of a random list of 1 million websites.
The fear stemming from these developments is that search engines could soon become a government tool used to monitor the general public. Search engines such as Google store every website visited by every computer indefinitely, and this information could potentially cause huge problems for issues such as data protection and privacy.
It is argued that whilst Google stood its ground against the American government, its submission to the Chinese authorities could be an indication of things to come and indeed an unwelcome alliance of internet companies and government desires.
Another argument which is being cited, is that the systems already in place to serve the Chinese market were more than adequate and functioned quite competently. Google has, for many years, offered a Chinese language site based on computers situated outside of the country. The service was successful and enjoyed a 33% market share, it is also believed that the search engine out-performed all its rivals.
It is argued therefore that there is no apparent reason why Google would seek to alter its systems in China - except that Google would appear to be not satisfied with its current market share and, like all companies in all market sectors, wishes to develop and expand even further.
This then is the crux of the debate. If the move is purely motivated by money, should Google not sacrifice one territory where its operation would contradict its entire philosophy?
Arguments from Google
Google argues that the decision is in fact consistent with its mission statement. It believes that it is better to provide censored information to China than no information at all. The company states that it would be more damaging to pull out of China all together then it would be to serve the Chinese people within the restrictions placed upon them by the government.Another argument in favour of the decision, is that the Chinese user will experience greater internet speed and performance from a server placed within the country, then if it remains, as it has been so far, outside of the country.
A further argument is that of business growth and the obligation which all for-profit corporations have. Google, like any other company, has an obligation to pursue the lucrative markets and assist the growth of the company, its brand and its financial position in any way it can. China currently has a huge and expanding market (expanding at approximately 18% per year) and it currently has an internet user base of approximately 110 million. Therefore it could be argued that Google is entitled to compete for the revenue which the Chinese market can offer.
Conclusion
Google’s position is very difficult. It of course wishes to expand its product and reap as high a financial reward as possible. However, ethical considerations must be considered before such profound decisions are made.This author does not contend that Google did not consider the ethics of such a decision in great detail, but rather that the world wide ramifications of the decision appear to be so vast that perhaps the continued respect for the companies policy, missions and objectives should outweigh the future financial benefits of a geographical market whose ethics are so far removed from its own.
Jody Tsigarides works at Lawdit Solicitors, in Southampton, www.lawdit.co.uk. He has a
Masters degree in Law (LLM) and is due to begin training as a Solicitor in September.
Email jody.tsigarides@lawdit.co.uk.
Back to Contents.