 |
Sashi Balaraman, February 2006. "Mao Zedong said that to have power you need two things: the gun and the pen. The Communist party has the gun, but the Internet is now the pen. If they lose control of it, something will happen to challenge their authority." Guo Liang, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, in an interview with CPJ. The Chinese government is notorious for the censorship of its people. For decades people have attempted to raise their voices in China in the hope of awakening the slumbering democratic political beast within them, but to little avail. The Chinese government's iron fisted approach to anything related to democracy has without a doubt been effective, as voices of dissent have usually been swiftly silenced. But with the advent of the Internet, many observers are questioning whether the existing communist approach can continue to prosper. Unfortunately, the answer appears to be yes. The internet in China is vastly different to the internet we experience in the Western world. When using the internet in China, every web page is regulated. Ostensibly, the warning system in place to prevent Chinese citizens from breaking the law is comical, with 2 cartoon policemen in a police car appearing on screen with their red lights flashing, to warn the user that the content being viewed is prohibited. But internet censorship is no joke. Even an accidental attempt to view an anti-government website can bring the user under government scrutiny (this isn't just limited to Chinese natives - even tourists at an internet café suffer due to sophisticated surveillance systems). The system in operation is known as the "Great Firewall of China", and without a doubt, it has been remorselessly effective in enforcing Chinese government policy on its people. So what is the "Great Firewall"? In essence, it's one big cyber 'Big Brother'. In addition to the computer filter system, the government employs over 30,000 people to browse the Internet for content deemed "anti-Chinese". Nothing is private in the Chinese system. Personal emails, discussions in chat rooms or blogs - anything where an opinion can be expressed - are subject to the harshest of scrutiny. Contrast this to the fact that the CIA employs a relatively modest 16,000 people to monitor the Internet (primarily for counter-terrorism purposes). The fundamental difference between the 2 systems is that, whereas the American system allows for relatively total viewing freedom, the Chinese system is one of strict regulation. The "Great Firewall" works off a list of banned sites, in addition to a list of specific terms (such as democracy) that are blacklisted, commonly referred to as keyword 'blocking technology'. The Chinese Internet is no information highway; it's effectively an extension of the government's information policies. For multinational cyber corporations, to operate in China effectively requires them to enforce Chinese government policy. For cyber companies who wish to host their sites on Chinese servers, they are required to sign a document, titled "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry". In signing the agreement, companies such as Google, Yahoo and Microsoft agree not to spread information that "may jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability". In essence, these corporations abet government policy in ensuring democratic discussion does not take place, and the iron fist of the Communist regime continues. When Yahoo and Microsoft agreed to operate in China, the ruckus that was raised in discussion circles internationally was intense but short-lived, and within a couple of months, the policy was generally accepted. Contrastingly, the effect of Google's decision to launch a Chinese based Google has triggered a major debate, both in China and internationally. Additionally, Google's share price dipped slightly, and for the first time since Google's launch, the corporation failed to meet industry forecasts for performance. The debate has rested on the principles of corporate responsibility, but the question that arises is this: why has Google's decision in particular resulted in such commotion? To answer this question, we must look at how Google has operated in China. Since 2000, a normal google.com has operated in China, heavily censored and very slow to use. The main structural difference between the Google we know and the Google Chinese citizens experience is that it is based on a Chinese server, and hence, any information that is run through the search engine is not private, or for Google's eyes only. Although they did launch a Mandarin version of their iconic search engine, Google has thus far consistently refused to offer its email, chat room and blogging services to the Chinese public. The main reason for this is that if they were to offer these features, in signing the self-censoring agreement, they would legally be required to hand over private information about users to the government. This is the major difference between the manner in which Yahoo and Microsoft operate in China, as all their services are on offer to the public. It is widely alleged that Yahoo provided email information (information one would normally consider private) to the Chinese government that resulted in the jailing of the pro-democracy journalist Shi Tao. Whilst Yahoo was legally required to hand over this information, the episode was widely seen as symptomatic of the risk in operating in China. However, it's important to note that internet searches in Western democracies are not completely free from regulation. Censorship of internet searches is nothing new, in fact, it's relatively common. It's just the methods employed that differ. In the US, service providers make it clear to their users that terms and conditions exist in regards to what can be posted online. Google, Yahoo and MSN routinely check their indexes to ensure content does not infringe copyright or is illegal. In other countries such as Singapore, the government determines which websites its citizens can access. China, surprisingly, occasionally employs a subtle approach. Using the MSN search engine in China, a search for the group Falun Gong actually registers some results, although most are either government approved or sponsored sites emphatically stating the heresy of Falun Gong philosophy. Google's motto is to "do no evil". Many critics of the company suggest that contrary to their motto, by agreeing to not only censor its searches, but pander the Chinese government in using a Chinese based index the company is demonstrating its willingness to bend over backwards in order to score further financial success. What differentiates Google China from Yahoo China is, as previously mentioned, the services offered. Google's search engine makes its user aware if the user attempts to access a blacklisted site, bringing up a message saying the government has banned the website. Baidu, on the other hand, merely doesn't show the site. Google's move is yet another small step towards engagement with China, and there can be no doubt that isolation with the burgeoning economic super power would be dangerous. Furthermore, critics state that what Google is doing is hypocritical, in that it's refusing to disclose search information to the US government, yet the Chinese government has free for all access. The US Government recently demanded access to Google search history, on the flimsy basis of gathering evidence to re-instate online child protection laws. The problem highlighted here is the nature of the searches. Google has argued that if forced to hand over information, it's violating the privacy of its users, and potentially compromising Americans' rights to free speech (this is because the information requested is not specific, but a random selection of a million searches). Contrast this stance with the Chinese issue, and one is forced to ask the question as to whether this is pure capitalism - resisting the government on one side in order to maintain a market share, whilst agreeing to archaic laws in another to gain market share. US Congressmen, members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, have condemned Google and the other companies in China for prioritising profits ahead of free speech. Microsoft argues that it can't force governments to change their policies, but had enabled millions of Chinese to access a wider plethora of information. It must be noted, however, that firms such as Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are not the only ones aiding and abetting the government's agenda. The "Great Firewall" is run on technology developed and provided by Western corporations. The primary problem that then arises from such blatant capitalism is whether corporations should place their social responsibilities ahead of the potential plethora of profits being made available to them. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that companies such as Google and Microsoft cannot force government policy to be changed so radically. As mentioned, engagement with China is the tantamount to progress and development. Google has continued to argue that operating in China enables the users there to access a wider plethora of information. As previously mentioned, the CIA employed 16,000 people to monitor the Internet. This number more than doubled after September 11, and the primary function of these people is to monitor and pick up on any terrorism related issues. If a stinging critique of the Bush government is published, it's not shut down. Unfortunately, as Google China's index is effectively open to abuse by the Chinese government, the concept of privacy, even a simple search is further compromised. Google is effectively breaking its own motto, and its public statements as to why they launched Google China only add credence to this theory. The side issue that has arisen out of this is why companies such as Google and Yahoo even need to maintain an index of their users' searches. China maintains an index to ensure its citizens comply with its iron-fisted approach to governance. Google maintains that it needs the index to continue to grow (ie. analyse usage trends etc), and that handing over such information to the US government would compromise its trade secrets. For all the criticism Google has received, some facts do serve to strengthen the reasons for their foray into Chinese cyberspace. The telling argument they make is this: ever since Yahoo and MSN introduced themselves to the average Chinese Internet user, dissidents (in the eyes of the Chinese government) have been able to voice their opinions at an international level. The increased interaction of western corporations, on Chinese terms, has slowly but surely led to an opening of the country. China continues to steadfastly resist Western liberal ideals, but in allowing Google, Yahoo and MSN to operate in their country, they tolerate them to a degree. The oppressed Chinese are mostly in agreement that whilst these corporations sometimes toe the line, it is the presence of such companies that allow them to express their views. Furthermore, Google has acknowledged that in offering a censored version of its search engine, it is compromising their values, but to not offer Google at all to one of the world's most populous countries compromises their values even more. It is because alternatives to state based internet search engines exist that Chinese have been able to learn how to bypass the "Great Firewall". Due to the continual improvement in technology, Chinese, to a degree, have been able to bypass the firewall and access sites that are usually restricted to them. It is no coincidence that since the Internet was introduced to China in 1995, anti government discussion has grown. In allowing its cyber doors to be opened to the outside world, internet users have been able to gain access to advanced software that allows for their internet activity to be redirected through a third party computer, hence making it impossible for the government to trace the data to the offending user. "Do no evil". In agreeing to Chinese terms, perhaps Google is committing the gravest of sins - aiding the oppression of free speech. But in subtly exposing Chinese to a world beyond their borders, they fuel engagement and bring to the government's attention the benefits an open Internet can bring. And with that comes hope, something the Chinese government cannot regulate. For more information:
Back to MAD Homepage |