From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I removed this from the external links section - maybe it was intended to point to a specific article, in which case it should include the specific url. Or maybe it just wanted to link to GoogleWatch in general, in which case its better in a separate section on the article page. Not quite sure which it was intended as. --Bob Burton 16:57, 30 May 2006 (EDT)

  • "Google Watch" - A criticism of Google; argues that Google's privacy policies are undermining the Web

I was just including it as part of the perception that Google is seen as a large organisation that is damaging the internet. I can certainly create a section on it if you think that is better. --Elgarth

article bias claim

I claim this article is slanted unfairly by not mentioning Google's attempt to mitigate damage to users by using a shell corp, which doesn't get to collect personally identifying data of users.

March 01, 2006 (IDG News Service) In an effort to protect users of its Web site, Google Inc. is moving search records out of China and into the U.S., a company executive said this week. is a version of its search engine that is hosted in China and adheres to Chinese censorship laws. It was launched in January.
The Mountain View, Calif., company has decided to store search records from the site outside of China in order to prevent that government from being able to access the data without Google's consent, said Peter Norvig, Google's director of research, speaking Monday at a panel discussion at Santa Clara University.
"We didn't want to be in the position of having to hand over these kinds of records to the government," he said.
Google retains information on the search queries performed by its users, along with the IP addresses associated with queries, to better understand how its search engine is being used, Norvig said.
Google's critics worry that this information could put users' privacy at risk by allowing anyone in possession of the information to learn who has been searching for what. IP addresses are unique numbers assigned to devices that are connected to the Internet.
The use of this data received widespread news media attention in the U.S. after Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN division and America Online Inc. revealed that they had provided search records after being subpoenaed last August by the U.S. Department of Justice (see "Microsoft defends decision to give up search data").
The DOJ has said it needs the information to defend a legal challenge to the Child Online Protection Act, but Google has fought its subpoena in court. Google argues that disclosing this information would "undermine" the trust of users and "unnecessarily burden Google."
Google has been criticized for cooperating with the Chinese government and censoring material on the site, a move that some consider contrary to its "don't be evil" corporate mantra.
Norvig said that news media coverage of Google in China has not properly "differentiated" these issues of censorship and user protection.
Google has agreed to Chinese censorship within the domain because that's simply part of lawfully doing business in China, Norvig said. "No matter what you do, censorship is there," he said. China's government can enforce censorship at the Internet service provider level, so having sites removed from the Google search results isn't necessarily making matters any worse, he added.
In fact, the performance slowdown associated with such ISP censorship is one of Google's stated reasons for launching the site.
Google has taken the tack of adding a "level of transparency" by indicating when results are being censored, "so at least the user knows what's going on," Norvig said.
On the customer protection front, Google has also resisted launching products like Gmail or Blogger in China to avoid being in the position of having to disclose user information to the Chinese government, he said.
These censorship and protection issues were part of what kept Google from entering China in the first place, Norvig said. He seemed frustrated by the widespread criticism of's censorship. "From 1998 up until this month, we resisted opening for these reasons, and we didn't see a lot of press coverage saying how courageous we were," he said.
But political issues aren't really paramount to most users in China, Norvig said.
"What's important to users is access to information," he said. "We're giving them that, and we think that's the most important. We'd like to give them all the information, but we just can't.
"Some of the people want to query about democracy, but most of them just want to know about their pop stars."
Robert McMillan, Google moving search records out of China", Computerworld, March 1, 2006

It is also germane to consider the timeline of Republican House members' outrage over Google's entry into China, and the public knowledge of their resisting the DoJ's request for search data.

Google is also presently under attack from WND for its removal of a few less than worthy blog-styled 'new sites' from their news service. The arguments used are specious, and at their core counter-conservative, yet have been embraced by a few fools. To state that a web news search service provided free by a private corporation is beholden to the first amendment is certainly not a conservative view. To claim that lame sites of dubious content should, under the guise of free speech, be forcibly included, and counteract the business decisions of a private corporation is an affirmative action claim. To claim that New media Journal is a news site is retarded.

Did you know that Larry Page, Sergei Brin and Eric Schmidt took 12 months to overcome their fundamental disagreements with each other?
I had always imagined it was a tough call, but now I knew.
"It was a hard call, but a clear call," he said.
This lunch was on the record, so I can tell you that the chief executive of Google sees this as the most controversial decision the company has ever taken.
He was swung, he says, by considering the alternative.
Google provides access to information. Information, it believes, is empowering - and not having access to the best information available is a denial of your human rights.
By this reasoning, Google would be infringing the human rights of a billion Chinese by NOT being in China. Better, then, to agree to some government censorship than deny people access to any information available through their search engine.
Guto Harri, "Google Charm makes its debut", BBC News, March 17, 2006

googleblog , Testimony: The Internet in China

i'll try to insert this soon, but i'm doing more research presently

--hugh_manateee 19:41, 31 May 2006 (EDT)

Found a very interesting website, this might be a good resource if you want to add it. --Steele 16:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)