Eric Wise

Business & .NET

What happened to "Don't Be Evil?"

**UPDATED, I misread my previous source, it wasn't child pornography but pornography accessible to minors**

So let me get this straight.

It's being reported that Google has given into China and is not only censoring its search results but also outing people that could possibly be arrested by the chinese government for their beliefs.

It's also being reported the Google is refusing to work with the US Department of Justice to locate child accessible pornography.

Now I'm generally a free speech advocate, and I know that the other search portals are also caving into China's demands... but wasn't Google supposed to be the "good guy"? Why would they protect pornographers and out people who want to have a democratic voice? If the materials being blocked in China are blocked because they are "illegal" there then why would Google resist giving up information to the US Government seeking pornography sites that violate US law? Is Google saying that China's "morale standpoint" outweighs the United States' version? Strange strange world we live in.

Published Jan 30 2006, 11:46 AM by Eric Wise

Comments

Joe said:

Not to disagree with the evil bit, but the DOJ case that's been making the rounds has to do with people searching for free explicit material, not explicit material containing children.

The DOJ wants to find out how people search for stuff which can be accessed by children - not stuff that contains children. I think google already works with the government on the latter.

If you have a story about google refusing to turn over information involving child porn, please link to it. I don't think that's accurate.

# January 30, 2006 1:00 PM

dylan said:

I agree that the China thing is problematic.

However, as far as the pornography issue, at least from how I understand it:
1. The only reason the DOJ is asking for this is so they don't have to do the research themselves. As Joe said, this isn't about child pornography at all, it's basically about figuring out how much porn there is on the internet.
2. In my opinion using pornography is a wedge issue which would be used to allow government access for other reasons in the future. I think it is important that the government doesn't get free reign access to all of Google's information, from a privacy/rights point of view.

http://www.searchengineguide.com/laycock/006603.html

# January 30, 2006 2:18 PM

Shannon J Hager said:

Google is not protecting illegal pornography sites. The DOJ asked for EVERY SINGLE SEARCH QUERY from June 1, 2005 - July 31, 2005. That is not a reasonable request and has very little to do with illegal porn sites.

In my opinion, Google was right in not releasing those. I also think they were wrong in their China decision.

# January 30, 2006 3:17 PM

Sam said:

I'm with Bill Gates on this one. Better to be there.

Saying it's not reminds me of the "Digital Divide" argument during the dot-com boom. Then Gates said what anyone with a bit common sense already knew. The whole idea was stupid basically.

As is this one. When Amazon, AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc are all already on the band-wagon, what's Google going to do? Just leave the market? Because they certainly don't live in some ivory tower world where they can tell the Chinese Government where to stuff it.

Gates defended Google here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19149-2012784,00.html

You can see Google's "We did evil" response to criticisms here: http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/01/30/googlechina/index.php

# January 30, 2006 6:31 PM

Eric Wise said:

If Google was asked to return specific IP addresses that could be used to identify individuals and their searches I would consider that to be a privacy issue.

Releasing all search data in aggregate without identifiers is definitely not a privacy issue. I would also say that the suggestion that the government "do the research themselves" is not only not cost effective, but how would you suggest they go about that? Should they build their own search engine that no one would use?

Google has loads of data on user search behavior and patterns and one would think that if they are willing to bend over backwards for an arguably more socially harmful government request (China) that they would have no qualms with a request from the DOJ.

# January 31, 2006 7:43 AM

Sam said:

That's not a very pragmatic argument. Google isn't going to be kicked out of the US if they don't comply.

And frankly, I don't really care what the .gov wants. I don't think they can stop Johnny 16 year old from surfin' for porn as long as his parents buy him a PC. So MothersAgainstPornWhoDon'tDisciplineTheirKids can take a flying leap for all I care.

But somehow it seems like this post has little to do with the actual facts, and more to do with demonizing Google.

Google does some crappy things. These aren't among them.

# January 31, 2006 10:22 AM

Eric Wise said:

*chuckle* obviously I can't stop some guy from going on an axe murder spree as long as he's allowed to buy an axe.

Just because people have access to tools that enable them to break the law doesn't mean that law enforcement should be hindered from attempting to enforce the law in the best way it sees fit.

How is examining search and behavior patterns any different than examining behavior patterns of serial killers? Sure the severity of the crime differs, but the research concept is the same.

I also don't see what the threat of being "kicked out" or not has to do with the concept of being a good corporate citizen. A good corporate citizen complies with the law. A judge allowed the subpeona, so they should comply.

Either way, they're a business and they can run their business however they like. But I think they shouldn't go around toting a don't be evil policy and then turn around and talk about a "sliding scale". So now their motto is "Don't be really really evil" but slightly evil is ok?

Based on reports like this:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-02-13-google-give-usat_x.htm?csp=34

I have to wonder if Google's resistance to the DOJ is more about giving the current administration a hard time or whether they really are trying to take some ethical high road.

# January 31, 2006 12:15 PM