Resolution #4: Google's Day of Infamy
|
Google has clearly identified itself as an agent of evil. Witness its recommendation to shareholders to vote "no" on Resolution #4. The Resolution, contained in the company's proxy statement which it just published, is pretty straightforward. Sponsored by the New York City Office of the Comptroller, it basically asks Google to refrain from giving aid and comfort to totalitarian regimes seeking to identify and punish free-thinkers. Judge for yourselves. Proposal Number 4: Internet Censorship Whereas, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to "receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers", and Whereas, the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major industry in the United States, and one of its major exports, and Whereas, political censorship of the Internet degrades the quality of that service and ultimately threatens the integrity and viability of the industry itself, both in the United States and abroad, and Whereas, some authoritarian foreign governments such as the Governments of Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam block, restrict, and monitor the information their citizens attempt to obtain, and Whereas, technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and Whereas, technology companies in the United States have failed to develop adequate standards by which they can conduct business with authoritarian governments while protecting human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, Therefore, be it resolved, that shareholders request that management institute policies to help protect freedom of access to the Internet which would include the following minimum standards: 1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system. 2) The company will not engage in pro-active censorship. 3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures. 4) Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access. 5) Users should be informed about the company's data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties. 6) The company will document all cases where legally-binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.
|
Comments (2)
I agree with the Google management here on ethical grounds. The problem of censorship is much much more complicated than this proposition implies. I don't see this accomplishing anything other than making Google less relevant and less influential in the places that it can do good.
Take China as a prime example. If Google followed this proposal, it would cease to operate in China altogether. Period. If it did so, Baidu would just take over and the Chinese people would be none the wiser for it. If on the other hand, Google plays by the rules that are forced upon them, they can at least have some influence and some potential to create more demand for information, and to gently push the boundaries. Or better yet, if it takes over the market and becomes the defacto search engine in China, maybe then it could consider a more forceful hand. It's far from ideal, but it's something rather than nothing.
A protest boycott may make us feel righteous, but the people of China wouldn't benefit from it at all.
Posted by Mokey | March 25, 2008 5:59 PM
IF! "Google has clearly identified itself as an agent of evil." and I am to judge for myself then I need to know the reasons behind Google's recommendation to vote no. Could it be that voting NO is what is best for the shareholders? Is it now "evil" to look out for the best interest of your share holders?
On the one hand limiting free-thinking is and I think most reasonable people would agree bad.
On the other side if the NO vote is what makes the business profitable shareholders are now in a position that if they vote yes the shares they hold could lose value. I'll reveal something about myself - For me it isn't clear, if I invest my money in google I'm not looking for a company that is going to do anything other than generate a return on my investment. I worked hard for that money and if I purchased shares of google I don't expect management to do anything besides what is best for the business. Making money isn't evil. Limiting free thinking is wrong. To say the issue is clear is not something I agree with. Would I vote NO? Yes.
To float the idea that google is evil becuase they advised their share holders to vote no if the no vote is what is best for the company then that is in my opinion an attempt to censor, and comes from a desire to limit free thinking of the individuals who own the shares and get to cast the vote.
Posted by Brandon | March 26, 2008 2:07 AM