[Off Topic] Google and fair access to information

Hi Folks

I apologize for being so off topic, but I hope this is important for you.

Please check http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen+square and compare
with http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+square .

I am worried. I thought we could trust google.

Regards,
Juan Vuletich

Juan Vuletich puso en su mail :
Google trade his access in China by political censorship by Comite.
They said is better access to some what to nothing.

Edgar



       

       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 

In http://www.google.com/intl/en/terms_of_service.html we read:

"...Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them..."

which is good, but afterwards it says:

"... under no circumstances shall Google or its licensors be held liable for
any delay or failure in performance resulting directly or indirectly from
... riots, insurrections, civil disturbances, ..., floods, storms,
explosions, acts of God, war, governmental actions, orders of domestic or
foreign courts or tribunals, ..."

Mentioning "acts of God" is at least funny, but "governmental actions"
isn't. And they offer no detail on how the fairness of the service is
currently affected, i.e. witch are today's "acts of God" and governmental
actions"?

I guess we must be as careful with google as we are when we watch news on tv
or read a newspaper.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene" <[hidden email]>
To: "squeakdev" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Google and fair access to information

You read 1984 , don't you ?
Well, maybe some 20 years later.
And we paid for Big Brother watch us...


Edgar



       

       
               
___________________________________________________________
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo
http://correo.yahoo.com.ar 

I think google takes into account the language, so maybe you should type
the same thing in chinese and the look for the difference. An you can
use this tool to visualize:
http://www.langreiter.com/exec/google-vs-google.html.

Petr

Juan Vuletich wrote:

I'm guessing you don't trust Yahoo, AOL or MSN either right? Google is
fighting a supoena from the US government for search engines records.
The fact that Yahoo, AOL and MSN have already complied is footnote is
some news stories, and not even mentioned in most. Where's the outcry
against them? How many other supoenas have they decided to not fight?
Why are more people worried about internet freedom in China than they
are outside of it?

IMO, Google made a choice in a no-win situation. If they did not agree
to censorship, Google would still be blocked. Now it is not, and the
Chinese people are getting more info than they did before.

On 2/3/06, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."  - Steven Wright

Eric Goebelbecker
[hidden email]
http://eric.ominor.net

In http://www.google.com/intl/en/terms_of_service.html we read:

"...Google cannot and does not screen the sites before including them..."

which is good, but afterwards it says:

"... under no circumstances shall Google or its licensors be held liable for
any delay or failure in performance resulting directly or indirectly from
... riots, insurrections, civil disturbances, ..., floods, storms,
explosions, acts of God, war, governmental actions, orders of domestic or
foreign courts or tribunals, ..."

Mentioning "acts of God" is at least funny, but "governmental actions"
isn't. And they offer no detail on how the fairness of the service is
currently affected, i.e. witch are today's "acts of God" and "governmental
actions"?

I guess we must be as careful with google as we are when we watch news on tv
or read a newspaper.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Goebelbecker" <[hidden email]>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Off Topic] Google and fair access to information


I'm guessing you don't trust Yahoo, AOL or MSN either right? Google is
fighting a supoena from the US government for search engines records.
The fact that Yahoo, AOL and MSN have already complied is footnote is
some news stories, and not even mentioned in most. Where's the outcry
against them? How many other supoenas have they decided to not fight?
Why are more people worried about internet freedom in China than they
are outside of it?

IMO, Google made a choice in a no-win situation. If they did not agree
to censorship, Google would still be blocked. Now it is not, and the
Chinese people are getting more info than they did before.

On 2/3/06, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."  - Steven
Wright

Eric Goebelbecker
[hidden email]
http://eric.ominor.net



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/249 - Release Date: 2/2/2006

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:07:52 -0800, Eric Goebelbecker <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> I'm guessing you don't trust Yahoo, AOL or MSN either right?

No. I don't get where "trust" enters into any of it.

> Google is
> fighting a supoena from the US government for search engines records.
> The fact that Yahoo, AOL and MSN have already complied is footnote is
> some news stories, and not even mentioned in most. Where's the outcry
> against them? How many other supoenas have they decided to not fight?
> Why are more people worried about internet freedom in China than they
> are outside of it?

Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. Another way is Google is more  
willing to deal with repressive dictatorships than the US gov't. My  
understanding is that the circumstances of compliance are not equal,  
either. That what the government is asking for is, essentially, public  
information that you or I could acquire on the web (which says something  
doubtless redundant about competency of officials). That MSN provided that  
and a lot more. That AOL provided a lot less. And that Google's stand is  
more political than meaningful--just as any stand they take on China is.

But it's safe to defy the US government. Less so the Chinese. An analogue  
can be seen in the current controversy about the caricatures of Mohammed  
run in Denmark. American media is suddenly filled with "respect" for  
religion (in the very same month Kanye West pretends to be Jesus on the  
cover of Rolling Stone and NBC rolls out a TV show in which Jesus makes  
regular appearances). That's not respect; that's fear.

> IMO, Google made a choice in a no-win situation. If they did not agree
> to censorship, Google would still be blocked. Now it is not, and the
> Chinese people are getting more info than they did before.

I don't feel strongly about it. The web existed before Google and will  
exist after. They're the ones who have "don't be evil" as their first  
corporate rule. If there's an issue, it's an internal one, unless you  
actually =believed= that they'd be able to live up to that.

On 2/3/06, Blake <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:07:52 -0800, Eric Goebelbecker <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm guessing you don't trust Yahoo, AOL or MSN either right?
>
> No. I don't get where "trust" enters into any of it.
>
I don't have the orginal post anymore, but I'm pretty sure that's
where I got the word  "trust" from. I don't trust a lot of
corporations.....make that "any". :-)

I don't think the information the US requested is all publicly
available. The U.S. is looking for searches made and the addresses
they came from. It is the epitomy of a fishing expedition, as the
request has been made to help the US defend a law in court.

(One could ask why the heck Google even has this data...but at least
they are putting up a fight before giving this info up, unlike the
other portals.)

As for be more willing to deal with repressive dictatorships that the
U.S, this is the land of "free markets" and we have a majority party
that believes that "free markets" can heal all, don't we? Shouldn't
that mean rarely dealing with the government? (Not trying to start a
left vs. right argument here.)

> And that Google's stand is
> more political than meaningful--just as any stand they take on China is.
>
There's not much political hay to be made - Google's stock isn't where
it is because they are a "liberal" or "conservative" company. There is
a business case to be made for protecting their data, though. If
people are afraid to search, they see fewer ads.

> But it's safe to defy the US government. Less so the Chinese.

When in Rome....

In the U.S. certain data is supposed to be private, and the government
is supposed to have to go through a process in order to get it. Even
though search warrant seem to be out of fashion this decade, Google's
lawyers would like to see one.

In China the government can say "Our way or the highway." Big difference.

> An analogue
> can be seen in the current controversy about the caricatures of Mohammed
> run in Denmark. American media is suddenly filled with "respect" for
> religion (in the very same month Kanye West pretends to be Jesus on the
> cover of Rolling Stone and NBC rolls out a TV show in which Jesus makes
> regular appearances). That's not respect; that's fear.
>
Agreed.

> > IMO, Google made a choice in a no-win situation. If they did not agree
> > to censorship, Google would still be blocked. Now it is not, and the
> > Chinese people are getting more info than they did before.
>
> I don't feel strongly about it. The web existed before Google and will
> exist after. They're the ones who have "don't be evil" as their first
> corporate rule. If there's an issue, it's an internal one, unless you
> actually =believed= that they'd be able to live up to that.
>

The only thing I feel strongly about is that I don't feel Google
deserves any extra scorn. They made a choice and frankly both options
can be called "evil".

(And no, I didn't believe that would be able to keep such a silly promise.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."  - Steven Wright

Eric Goebelbecker
[hidden email]
http://eric.ominor.net