The request for data from Google
 

Recently Google made headlines by refusing to provide the government with information about searches conduced on its web site. Good for Google.

I wonder if this has anything to do with it.

Just my little contribution to keeping this "Google bomb" alive.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

Drudge is very happy this afternoon that Google's shares dropped after earnings news.

Google is hated by the monied elite in this country because they do not control the company.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...le_failure.jpg

I love Google!

Re: The request for data from Google
 

The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

Google has a responsibility to their shareholders to drive profit. Volunteering search records to the federal government goes against this responsibility. Offering a search engine in a HUGE market in China (even with the limitations) goes toward this responsibility.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't they just following the laws of both counties?

Re: The request for data from Google
 

Ellwood, by that same reasoning, an American company that sold electrodes, and knowing that the Chinese intended to use them for electro-shock torture of prisoners, would feel obligated to sell them anyway in order to fulfill their responsibility to shareholders to make a buck any way possible. Like the German firms that sold supplies for concentration camp death chambers to the Nazi German government.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't they just following the laws of both counties?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a law in the U.S. that states that Google can't turn over the information the U.S. government seeks. It's a business decision by Google.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ellwood, by that same reasoning, an American company that sold electrodes, and knowing that the Chinese intended to use them for electro-shock torture of prisoners, would feel obligated to sell them anyway in order to fulfill their responsibility to shareholders to make a buck any way possible. Like the German firms that sold supplies for concentration camp death chambers to the Nazi German government.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think that it's a completely irrelevant example.

A better example would be "In country A, you can not farm unless you use pesticide X because it prevents the growth of locust populations. In country B, you can not use pesticide X because they determined that it is detrimental to your health. So the Transnational Farming Company (TFC) doesn't use the pesticide in country B, but does use it in country A."

So is the TFC wrong for using a detrimental pesticides in country A and not controlling the locust population in country B? All they're doing is following the laws of the country they're trying to do business in.

Now, you can argue about the laws, but I don't think that you can argue about whether or not the company is wrong for obeying them.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

People living under repressive regimes that seek to limit their access to information aren't locusts.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
People living under repressive regimes that seek to limit their access to information aren't locusts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed a frequent trend in your posts, namely that they are completely devoid of anything which remotely addresses the issue at hand.

I'm really curious how it is wrong for a company like Google to obey the laws of the country in which they are trying to do business.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

They have the option not to do business with the devil, which cooperating with a repressive regime's wish to limit free access to news and information is.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
They have the option not to do business with the devil, which cooperating with a repressive regime's wish to limit free access to news and information is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that allowing access to limited information is worse than not supplying access to any information at all?

Re: The request for data from Google
 

I am saying that agreeing to be the devil's assistant and only help people of his choosing, doesn't make one a good samaritan.



P.S. Notice that I didn't need to quote your most recent post for it to be clear to others which I am responding to.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that agreeing to be the devil's assistant and only help people of his choosing, doesn't make one a good samaritan.



P.S. Notice that I didn't need to quote your most recent post for it to be clear to others which I am responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm sorry. I generally just hit insta-quote when I'm responding to short posts, just because if it isn't clear to anyone, it clarifies.

Also, I'm not claiming that Google is, or has any obligation to be, "a good Samaritan." In fact, I don't think that I've taken any kind of stance about what my feelings are on the matter.

Anyway, assuming that, as your reply insinuates, you think that Google has a moral obligation here, are you saying that Google needs to decide whether they will do business with "the devil" and shirk their moral obligation to the people of China, refuse to do business with China and ignore their obligation to their shareholders, or offer their services unfiltered in China, thereby undermining the laws of a sovereign nation?

I'm just wondering if you can see the bind that Google would be in having to juggle all of their obligations.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, the Google subpoena had nothing whatsoever to do with finding terrorists. Damn, another right-wing talking point goes up in smoke!
[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The request for data from Google
 

Google has no obligation to act in an immoral manner in order to increase shareholder profit, which cooperating with repressive measures is. If the contrary were true, then they should also seek to diversify and start hosting kiddie porn sites (which is information that should be blocked).

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
Google has no obligation to act in an immoral manner in order to increase shareholder profit, which cooperating with repressive measures is. If the contrary were true, then they should also seek to diversify and start hosting kiddie porn sites (which is information that should be blocked).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Google doesn't "host," any sites. They're simply a search engine which guides users to sites hosted elsewhere.

Obviously, Google would be wrong to freely allow access to kiddie porn in the United States because it is illegal here. I'm curious if you have justification for Google limiting access to pornography in other countries which is illegal here, but might be legal there.

Of course, if you were consistent, you would condemn Google for limiting users' access to kiddie porn, the same way that they limit users' access to information deemed to be illegal in other parts of the world.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

I don't feel the need to be consistent to the degree of helping perverts feed their sick fantasies that harm children.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel the need to be consistent to the degree of helping perverts feed their sick fantasies that harm children.

[/ QUOTE ]

So long as you concede the fact that your arguments are logically inconsistent and therefore flawed, that's fine.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't feel the need to be consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

You are the one needing a course in logic. You can't construct a syllogism of my statements above which is flawed, as they don't depend on consistency. My arguments rest on objective moral standards. Of course if you wish to maintain that censure of pedophilia is subjective, then feel free to show yourself without conscience or decency.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are the one needing a course in logic. You can't construct a syllogism of my statements above which is flawed, as they don't depend on consistency. My arguments rest on objective moral standards. Of course if you wish to maintain that censure of pedophilia is subjective, then feel free to show yourself without conscience or decency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strawman, Ad hominem and shifting the onus of proof all in one post. I have to admit, even I'm impressed.

I never condoned child pornography. I'm simply trying to show the inconsistencies in your arguments.

You can claim that moral standards are objective, but being that they have changed over the course of time and differ among cultures and indivduals, I think it's hard to prove that they are, although you're more than welcome to do so.

You stated that Google was wrong for not allowing the free dissemination of information in China. You later said that they would wrong for NOT restricting the free dissemination of information.

Now I'm not disagreeing with you that child pornography is morally reprehensible; I doubt that many people would. I'm simply curious how you can, in nearly the same breath, both condemn and applaud the restriction of the freeflow of information.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

This thread is indeed about standards and not logic. So do you disagree with the standard of allowing people anywhere in the world free access to information, except that which is used to harm others? If not, or if you think shareholder profit is a higher standard, then say why. Or say why helping a repressive regime repress is a higher standard.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with the standard of allowing people anywhere in the world free access to information, except that which is used to harm others?

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds like a fine standard to me, but exactly what information is harmful? Is a video of a 17 year old girl having sex harmful if she is a willing participant and sufficiently compensated? Are the Federalist Papers or Common Sense harmful because they could lead people to revolt against their government which would lead to political turmoil? I think that logical people could come to different conclusions about both based on differing moral standards.

[ QUOTE ]
If not, or if you think shareholder profit is a higher standard, then say why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't believe that shareholder profit is more important than the freeflow of information, but that Google, as a company, certainly has an obligation to their shareholders. Having to choose one, I personally believe that the freeflow of information should be more important, but there are certainly cases (such as in China) where they can not allow the freeflow of information (due to Chinese law) but certainly can fulfill their obligations to their shareholders.

[ QUOTE ]
Or say why helping a repressive regime repress is a higher standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think that logical people could draw different conclusions about whether or not Google providing their services insofar as it does not violate Chinese law is necessarily "helping" the repressive regime (as opposed to simply not actively disrupting them).

Re: The request for data from Google
 

On a completly unrelated note, what are your opinions on Nike hiring third world children for pennies a day on the grounds that that pay level is better than nothing and that Nike have a resposibility to pursue profit?

Re: The request for data from Google
 

When corporations start practicing morals over profit maximization we're going to be in big trouble. As you've already seen, they have enough money to get anything they want done.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

aren't they just following the laws of both counties?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there is a law in the U.S. that states that Google can't turn over the information the U.S. government seeks. It's a business decision by Google.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that Google would turn over the records in the U.S. if a court told them to do so. They just don't trust the government.

Re: The request for data from Google
 

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing, and one which shows the double standards of google, is that they won't help the US gov to find terrorists, but they will help the Chinese gov by blocking access of their citizens to websites and search terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Post my Christian Brother. As you will notice from my recent posts. I am currently in the process of indentifying the reds in our midst in the two plus two community.