WebProNews

Tag: censorship

  • Should Vimeo Reinstate This Animal Cruelty Investigation Video?

    Mercy for Animals has written a letter to Vimeo trying to get an investigative video exposing animal cruelty at the E6 Cattle Co. reinstated on the site after it was pulled as a violation of Vimeo’s terms of service. If you’re unfamiliar with the story up to this point, allow me to quickly summarize.

    Last week, Mercy For Animals sent us a letter it had written to YouTube after that site had pulled the same video. YouTube had previously labeled it a “gross out video” and banned it. After our initial report on that, YouTube took another look and reinstated the video, adding a warning. Meanwhile, Vimeo had originally allowed the video. We embedded it on our original article, only to find later that they had decided to pull it around the same time YouTube reinstated it. YouTube told us that sometimes they make the wrong call. Vimeo told us:

    “We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals. While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”

    Now, Mercy for Animals Executive Director Nathan Runkle has written another letter, this time to Vimeo, and shared that with us as well. Here it is in its entirety (minus Runkle’s contact info):

    Dear Mr. Klein:

    I am writing on behalf of Mercy For Animals (MFA), a national, non-profit animal protection organization, to ask that you reinstate the “No Mercy – Calf Farm Cruelty Exposed” video on Vimeo. The video can be viewed via YouTube at www.mercyforanimals.org/calves.

    Earlier this week, MFA’s “No Mercy” video documenting routine abuse of calves raised for the dairy industry at E6 Cattle Company in Texas was removed from the Vimeo website. We have learned through a WebProNews.com article that Vimeo removed the video because it violates the company’s Terms of Service. According to the article, a Vimeo spokesperson stated: “Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains gratuitous animal cruelty… While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”

    We understand the importance of prohibiting videos of gratuitous animal cruelty, but “gratuitous” means “lacking good reason.” MFA’s videos document egregious cruelty to animals, but for a very good reason: to expose and end animal abuse. While we admire their intent, it would be more beneficial to animals if Vimeo created a clear policy against “glamorized” animal abuse videos instead of censoring educational videos and effectively shielding animal abusers from public scrutiny. MFA’s groundbreaking investigations have a long history of leading to successful criminal prosecutions of animal abusers, raids of factory farms, corporate animal welfare policy reforms and increased legal protection for animals – all testament to the crucial role these videos play in preventing cruelty and educating consumers. Censoring these videos is counter productive and harmful to the animals Vimeo claims to care so deeply about.

    MFA’s meaningful gains for animals include the results of our Conklin Dairy investigation, which was widely viewed on Vimeo and exposed animals being beaten in the face with metal pipes, repeatedly stabbed with pitchforks, having their tails broken, and being kicked, thrown, and punched by employees. Upon release of the investigative video, a farm worker was arrested and charged with 12 counts of cruelty-to-animals, numerous dairy suppliers ended their relationships with the facility, support was generated for a statewide animal protection initiative, and consumers nationwide learned about the dark side of dairy production.

    A 2009 MFA investigation at an egg farm in Maine, which was posted on Vimeo, prompted the Maine Department of Agriculture and state police to raid the farm on grounds of cruelty to animals. Grocery chains nationwide dropped the farm as an egg supplier, and as part of a landmark civil settlement, the mega-farm pleaded guilty to 10 counts of cruelty to animals, agreed to pay over $130,000 in fines and restitution, and handed over authority to the state of Maine to conduct unannounced inspections of the
    facility for the following five years.

    The “No Mercy” video posted on Vimeo is part of MFA’s important mission to educate consumers and bring justice to animals who are routinely tortured and killed in factory farms and slaughterhouses. It is vital to our efforts to hold the E6 Cattle Company and its owner accountable for egregious cruelty to animals and that the public be able to access and disseminate this video. We respectfully request that the “No Mercy” video be reinstated on Vimeo as soon as possible, in order to help us bring these animal abusers to justice.

    Thank you for your time and consideration. You may contact me directly at…

    I look forward to your positive
    response.
    Sincerely,

    Nathan Runkle
    Executive Director

    Here is the video, in case you haven’t seen it by now (warning: graphic and disturbing):

    As of the time of this writing, the video is still missing from Vimeo. Currently it has over 1,800 views. We have to wonder how many more it would have if sites would stop pulling it. As is clear from the comments we’ve received on our coverage of the story. People feel very passionately about the content of this video, and its need to be exposed. It will be interesting to see if Vimeo follows YouTube’s lead and/or alters its ToS, or if it stands its ground on the content.

    Runkle certainly raises a good point about the word “gratuitous”. Do you think Vimeo should reinstate the video and adjust its terms of service? Tell us what you think.

  • YouTube On Video Ban: Sometimes We Make the Wrong Call, Vimeo: It Violates Our Terms

    Last friday, we reported that YouTube had banned a video from the group Mercy for Animals, which featured hidden camera footage of workers for the E6 Cattle company, mistreating calves. The video was indeed quite brutal and disturbing.

    Mercy for Animals had reached out to WebProNews, explaining that YouTube had deemed the video a “gross out” video, that was ‘intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful.” Looking at the video (embedded below), it’s obviously presented as an investigative report (warning: the content is graphic and disturbing):

    Interestingly, Vimeo, a competing video site, had not pulled the clip…at first. After our first report on the subject, Vimeo actually did pull it, and YouTube reinstated it. A spokesperson for Mercy for Animals told WebProNews, “Nathan [Runkle – Executive Director} says that it appears that YouTube is once again hosting the video, while it appears Vimeo has removed it. They will be communicating with Vimeo, as they did with YouTube, urging them to repost the video.”

    Runkle actually wrote a long letter to YouTube about the video before it was reinstated. We included that in the previous report. YouTube has since told WebProNews that it does not comment on specific videos, but a spokesperson did give us the following statement:

    With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.
    The video now carries a warning with it, and requires the user to be signed in when viewing from the site, not unlike other graphic videos (including movies).

    Mercy for Animals might not have as much luck with Vimeo, however. Vimeo tells WebProNews, “Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains ‘gratuitous animal cruelty.’”

    “We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals,” Vimeo adds. “While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.”

    Those terms of service can be found here. The relevant section says that users agree no to “upload, post, email otherwise transmit any Submission depicting gratuitous animal cruelty.”

    So, Vimeo is right. The video, by definition, does violate these terms. Perhaps the real question is whether the ToS should be amended to reflect cases such as this. Vimeo has the right to keep this kind of content off its site if it so chooses. Nickelodeon probably wouldn’t want this content on their channel either, but Vimeo at large isn’t simply a kids channel either (though it does tout itself as a “respectful community”). It’s still a major channel for online video. It’s no YouTube, but it’s not a small fry either.

    Do you think Vimeo should allow investigative reports like this, even if they are graphic in nature? Tell us what you think.

  • Has YouTube Had a Change of Heart on This Animal Cruelty Video Ban?

    Update 2: Vimeo gave us the following statement:

    Vimeo cares deeply about the issue of animal cruelty and has specifically banned content that contains “gratuitous animal cruelty.” We removed this particular video because of its depiction of excessive violence against animals. While we understand that the point of the video is to protest cruel practices against cattle and we are sympathetic to that cause, it nonetheless violates our Terms of Service.

    Update: YouTube tells WebProNews that it does not comment on specific videos, but did give us the following statement:

    With the massive volume of videos on our site, sometimes we make the wrong call. When it’s brought to our attention that a video has been removed mistakenly, we act quickly to reinstate it.

    A spokesperson for Mercy for Animals tells us, “Nathan [Runkle – Executive Director} says that it appears that YouTube is once again hosting the video, while it appears Vimeo has removed it. They will be communicating with Vimeo, as they did with YouTube, urging them to repost the video.”

    The other day, we reported that YouTube had banned an animal cruelty investigation video put together by the group Mercy for Animals. The video shows disturbing hidden camera footage of calves being mistreated by workers of the Texas-based E6 Cattle Company.

    In the article, we had included an embed from YouTube competitor Vimeo, which had not blocked the video, though the tides appear to have turned now. The Vimeo embed now says, “Sorry…this video does not exist”.

    Vimeo Video Pulled?

    Meanwhile, the video is up now on YouTube, and it is hosted on Mercy For Animals’ own YouTube channel. Warning: It does contain disturbing content.

    It comes with the following disclaimer from YouTube, which appears before the video is able to be viewed from the site:

    This content may contain material flagged by YouTube’s user community that may be inappropriate for some users.

    To view this video or group, please verify you are 18 or older by signing in or signing up. If you would instead prefer to avoid potentially inappropriate content, consider activating YouTube’s Safety Mode.

    It’s worth noting, that if you do a search for “no mercy calf farm” on YouTube, the top result is the video described above, and the second result is the same video posted by a different user, with no disclaimer or mandatory sign-in.

    Video in YouTube Search Results

    We’ve contacted Mercy for Animals, YouTube, and Vimeo about the whole thing, and will update as we get new word. So far, Vimeo has been the only one to respond, simply asking for the broken link so that they can “investigate from there”.

    As far as I can tell, Mercy for Animals has not censored the video in any way to get it back on YouTube.

  • AT&T CEO Gets Blasted on USAToday

    AT&T CEO Gets Blasted on USAToday

    The first newspaper to introduce color into the world of black and white print media is still going strong, effectively transitioning to Internet-based content. This, of course, is not newsworthy. However, because USAToday.com allows comments, every so often, there are social media issues that some companies have to deal with; and when USAToday interviewed AT&T’s CEO, readers let their displeasure with AT&T be known in the comments. This, apparently, didn’t sit well with the publication, and so, the comments were removed.

    USAToday’s message seems to be, “If you don’t like the way you’re being criticized via Internet comments, delete them.” Before that, however, some tidbits from the AT&T interview. Understandably, the focus of USAToday’s interview with Randall Stephenson addressed the potential T-Mobile acquisition.

    As expected, Stephenson’s content was full of corporate-speak, as well as a desire to twist the largely-negative reactions to the AT&T/T-Mobile deal. While that approach is understandable, responses like these are baffling:

    The large majority of Americans, when they go to buy cellphone service, have a choice of at least five providers. In 18 of the top 20 markets, the customer has a choice of five different competitors. It’s a fiercely competitive market today. It will be a fiercely competitive market after this deal is done. We don’t see that changing.

    Meaning the reduction of choice by one is a good thing and will benefit consumers? If Stephenson is referring to AT&T customers who may or may not be able to access an AT&T-powered 4G network, well, good luck with all that.

    While Stephenson indicates the potential merger is to improve AT&T’s infrastructure — something they themselves are incapable or unwilling to do, apparently — it is believed this attempt is merely a grab that increases the company’s customer base. When consumers lack alternatives, the ruling companies understand the power that comes from having choices decreases as well. In turn, less AT&T customers would be inclined to leave the service because of ridiculous Internet connection caps.

    Considering the negativity surrounding AT&T in general, it’s no surprise USAToday readers let loose on Stephenson in article’s comment section. What is surprising, however, is the idea that USAToday would delete comments for being too critical of AT&T. According to a couple of comments, the article originally produced over 100 comments, and apparently, these were reset by USAToday, something the following responses indicate.

    From reader floydcash:

    why do they keep erasing all the comments and starting over? Must be ATT doesn’t like all the angry responses. Corporations looking out for corporations. Got to love our media.

    Reader tiny_toes supports floyd’s position:

    To funny . 100 comments bashing the thought of this merger & all the posts are reset . It looks like Randall Stevenson & AT&T can buy off more than politicians .

    While this writer can’t confirm or deny whether or not there were over 100 comments, it’s easy to see that, of the 32 that remain, the disdain for AT&T and the T-Mobile deal is palpable. If USAToday’s readers are anything to go by, the public is almost unilaterally against AT&T merging with T-Mobile. Unfortunately for the American Telegraph and Telephone company, having the CEO address these concerns didn’t work as planned.

    Of course, it might help if these kinds of people would stop telling us how a reduction of choice is good for the consumer.

  • Google Censors “BitTorrent” Suggestions

    Early in December, Google vowed to distance itself from piracy. To do so, the company agreed that it would remove terms that are closely associated with piracy from appearing in their Autocomplete and Instant services.

    Google has since rolled this questionable feature. Now terms like BitTorrent, uTorrent, and RapidShare are filtered out. However, terms like BitComet and Vuze remain, which suggests that the keywords were picked rather arbitrarily.

    This censoring does not affect full search results, but it does show a clear signal that Google is willing to filter its services more proactively than anyone thought.

    However, now that the entertainment industry has gotten their way, they’ll pressure Google in an attempt to get them to censor search results too.

    It appears to be only a matter of time until those results do disappear.

    Originally published on Hypebot.com

  • Is Censoring Craigslist the Right Way to Go?

    Update: The EFF has weighed in on the topic, talking about what the censoring means for free speech.

    Craigslist has removed the censored box, and the adult section is just gone entirely.

    Original Article: As you may have read by now, Craigslist has censored its "adult services" section. This appears to stem from a combination of pressure from numerous state attorneys general and negative media exposure. The issue at hand:  prostitution and human trafficking being solicited through the site. 

    The situation brings to mind the conviction of Google execs over content uploaded to Google-owned YouTube, which led us to asking if social media sites should be held accountable for user actions.  Should Craigslist be held responsible? Comment here.

    Craiglist opted to display a "censored" bar over the "adult services" category, caving to the pressure to remove it, while also making it obvious that its not really what they wanted to do. They could’ve simply removed it. Craigslist clearly feels attacked. Some have even suggested that the move was made to influence public opinion. 

    Some are coming at the story raising questions about free speech, and while that is one issue, not even all supporters of online free speech find this to be the real issue at hand. Microsoft Research Senior Researcher Danah Boyd wrote a lengthy editorial on the subject for the Huffington Post in which she comes to Craigslist defense (as a service provider, not for censoring the section). Boyd, who claims to be a victim of abuse herself, makes the case that censoring Craigslist does more to add to the problem than to help solve it, saying that it helps the abusers. 

    "The Internet has changed the dynamics of prostitution and trafficking, making it easier for prostitutes and traffickers to connect with clients without too many layers of intermediaries," she writes. "As a result, the Internet has become an intermediary, often without the knowledge of those internet service providers (ISPs) who are the conduits. This is what makes people believe that they should go after ISPs like Craigslist. Faulty logic suggests that if Craigslist is effectively a digital pimp who’s profiting off of online traffic, why shouldn’t it be prosecuted as such?"

    "The problem with this logic is that it fails to account for three important differences," Boyd continues. "1) most ISPs have a fundamental business — if not moral — interest in helping protect people; 2) the visibility of illicit activities online makes it much easier to get at, and help, those who are being victimized; and 3) a one-stop-shop is more helpful for law enforcement than for criminals. In short, Craigslist is not a pimp, but a public perch from which law enforcement can watch without being seen."

    Craigslist censors adult services section

    Boyd elaborates on each of these points in the article. Despite the censoring, Craigslist appears to agree with Boyd.  

    "The law is on craigslist’s side – websites are not liable for content posted by users under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But craigslist has given up anyway," says Adrianne Jeffries at ReadWriteWeb. "It’s not because its owners want to prevent sex trafficking – craigslist has maintained that it does more harm than good because law enforcement agencies can use it just as easily as pimps can."

     There has been a lot of criticism about how the media has covered the story in general, with Craigslist itself probably being the harshest critic. CNN’s Amber Lyon recently interviewed Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, apparently catching him off guard on the subject. In a post at The Faster Times, Newmark says:

    Amber approached me after an event where I had just spoken about stuff like getting real support for our troops and veterans — a cause I care about and support whenever I can. She said because “I’m the Craig in craigslist,” she expected me to have all the answers on the spot about anything to do with the company. Well, I don’t. Jim Buckmaster, our CEO, has been running craigslist for the last 10 years. I am a customer service rep, and I still love being connected to our users and trying to help people. But I have no role in managing the company’s operations because basically (a) I suck as a manager, and (b) while overall company direction matters to me as founder and a board director,  the deal was to hire good, trustworthy people and then get outta the way.     If Amber had done her homework, she would have known ambushing me with questions I am not qualified to answer, or even the right person to ask, would not get CNN’s viewers the accurate information they deserve.

    Buckmaster also posted a letter to Lyon on the company blog, criticizing her approach. In this clip, Lyon says Craigslist isn’t living up to its promise of filtering ads, and offers a rebuttal to Craigslist accusations that  she "ambushed" Newmark (though doesn’t mention the part about him not running the company).  Since the Newmark interview, there has been no shortage of media coverage of Craigslist, though as Jeffries and Lyon both note, Craigslist itself is no longer talking. 

    Craigslist had another blog post up recently criticizing the notion that alternatives to Craigslist are any better for preventing human trafficking. The post was a response to a Facebook Page based on that notion, indicating that eBay was such an alternative. The post goes on to discuss examples of ads that would contradict that notion.  In Boyd’s piece, she compared the whole thing to a game of whack-a-mole, suggesting that if you censor one site, the content will simply pop up on another one. 

    Is censoring Craigslist the answer? Share your thoughts.

  • China Blocks Google’s Latest Hong Kong-Based Site

    Google’s new question and answer site for people in China is not off to a great start.  Although the site was based in Hong Kong for the sake of avoiding problems related to censorship, would-be users have been unable to access it today.

    As you probably guessed, all signs indicate that the Chinese government is to blame.  Melanie Lee reported earlier this morning that some of the user-generated questions appearing on the site concerned touchy subjects like Tiananmen Square and the Cantonese language.

    Also, a Google spokesperson told Lee, "If you are noticing there is a blockage you would need to ask the government as it would be an issue at their end."

    So it looks like the launch of the site, which occurred less than a month ago, may largely amount to wasted effort on Google’s part.  And at this point, it almost seems that Chinese authorities are toying with the search giant, granting it an Internet Content Provider license one month and cracking down again the next.

    Anyway, the Chinese government has stayed mum on the subject so far, neither confirming nor denying anything.

    Interestingly, however, Google’s stock is up a tiny bit so far this morning compared to Baidu’s (they’re down 0.29 percent and 0.72 percent, respectively).

  • Google Readies Hong Kong-Based Q&A Site

    Although many human rights and free speech advocates may not approve of the concessions the company’s made, it looks like Google’s attempt to stand up to the Chinese government is continuing.  Google is supposed to launch a new Q&A service to compete with other products it will stop supporting.

    Owen Fletcher reported this morning, "Google Inc. said Tuesday it will stop providing technical support this week for two online services in China run by the operator of one of the country’s most popular online forums, after the U.S. firm said earlier it would phase out censored search deals with its Chinese partners."

    Now, that last statement is somewhat debatable, considering that many of Google’s Chinese partners themselves decided to break off deals when Google started angering the government.

    But the key point is that Fletcher continued, "Google . . . will launch its own question-and-answer service on the Hong Kong site for mainland China users in ‘the coming few days,’ it said in a Chinese-language blog post."

    That should prove useful to the many Chinese citizens who are able to find their way around the Great Firewall, while at the same time following the letter of the law and keeping Google out of further trouble.

    Meanwhile, Baidu’s stock is still taking a beating following a report that the company’s again been selling ads to counterfeit drug sites.  It’s down 2.24 percent so far this morning, while the Nasdaq and Google are only down 1.47 percent and 0.37 percent, respectively.

  • Google’s New Plan for China

    Google’s New Plan for China

    We haven’t heard much about the Google/China situation lately, but now Google’s Internet Content Provider license is up for renewal, so Google has provided an update.

    On the Official Google Blog,SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer David Drummond says:

    We currently automatically redirect everyone using Google.cn to Google.com.hk, our Hong Kong search engine. This redirect, which offers unfiltered search in simplified Chinese, has been working well for our users and for Google. However, it’s clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government officials that they find the redirect unacceptable—and that if we continue redirecting users our Internet Content Provider license will not be renewed (it’s up for renewal on June 30). Without an ICP license, we can’t operate a commercial website like Google.cn—so Google would effectively go dark in China.

    That’s a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive. We have therefore been looking at possible alternatives, and instead of automatically redirecting all our users, we have started taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk—where users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, which we can provide locally without filtering. This approach ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page.

    Google China - New landing page

    Google will end the redirect completely over the next few days, and Chinese users will be directed to the new landing page. Google has already submitted its license renewal application based on this strategy.

    What do you think of Google’s new approach to China?

  • Google Introduces Uncensored Results In China

    Google’s followed through on its promise to promote free speech in China, as Chinese citizens who attempt to conduct searches on Google.cn today will not encounter censored results.  Instead, they will redirected to Google.com.hk, where Google is offering an interface and uncensored search results in simplified Chinese.

    David Drummond, Google’s SVP of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, announced this move minutes ago on the Official Google Blog.  He explained, "We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we’ve faced – it’s entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China."

     

    With regards to the obvious question of whether the Chinese government will allow this maneuver, Drummond then continued, "We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.  We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have created this new web page, which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China."

    Finally, here’s a statement making clear that Google doesn’t want to cut all ties with China, and also that Google’s Chinese employees shouldn’t be punished for anything that’s happened.  Drummond wrote, "In terms of Google’s wider business operations, natural penis enlargement we intend to continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there, though the size of the sales team will obviously be partially dependent on the ability of mainland Chinese users to access Google.com.hk.  Finally, we would like to make clear that all these decisions have been driven and implemented by our executives in the United States, and that none of our employees in China can, or should, be held responsible for them."

  • Google China Shows “Tank Man,” Tibet Search Results

    The clash between Google and the Chinese government appears to be coming to a head.  Various sources have reported that Google ignored a cut-off date to reregister as an Internet content provider in China, and more importantly, that the company has stopped censoring search results.

    Google LogoLet’s get the paperwork-related story out of the way first.  Charles Arthur wrote this morning, "Google missed a deadline to re-register as an ‘internet content provider’ (ICP) in China last night, which observers say is a sign that it is preparing to shut down its search engine there."

    As for the news related to Google.cn and a lack of censorship, something has definitely occurred.  Following some tests, Adrienne Mong wrote, "Web sites dealing with subjects such as the Tiananmen Square democracy protests, Tibet and regional independence movements could all be accessed through Google’s Chinese search engine Tuesday . . ."

    Other people have seen uncensored results, too, although filters apparently kick in on occasion.

    Google’s stayed pretty tight-lipped during all of this.  One spokesperson told Arthur that the company actually has until the end of March to reregister.  Another told Mong that nothing’s changed.  So it’s possible that we’re just seeing a case of deadline confusion strike at the same time as some technical problems.

    Google may have finally taken a stand with regards to censorship in China, though, and is just daring the Chinese government to challenge its position.

    We’ll be sure to stay on top of this situation as it develops.

  • Google May Offer Services In Cuba, Iran, Sudan

    It looks like Google may be ready to wade into another controversial censorship vs. availability of services situation.  A high-ranking corporate representative has welcomed the U.S. Treasury’s decision to allow the exportation of online communications tools to Cuba, Iran, and Sudan.

    Google LogoAccording to Frank Jordans, Bob Boorstin, Director of Corporate and Policy Communications at Google, said during a human rights meeting in Geneva, "This is a great accomplishment.  We are hopeful this will help people like yourselves in this room and activists all over the world take a small step down what is certainly a long road ahead."

    What’s more, Boorstin indicated that Google isn’t going to just sit on the sidelines, wishing everyone well.  Boorstin reportedly "said the Web search company would now be able to offer some of its other products in those countries," including Google Earth, Google Talk, and Picasa.

    This is an interesting turn of events, considering that China recently threatened to leave China over free speech issues.  If Google follows through on Boorstin’s remarks, the search giant’s sure to face fresh questions over whether it’s more interested in profits than human rights.

    We’ll of course report on any further developments as they occur.

  • Google Reiterates Support For Uncensored Results In China

    When Google made its dramatic "new approach to China" announcement in January, it sounded as if the company might leave the country within the month.  Obviously, that didn’t happen.  But according to testimony given today before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, Google hasn’t forgotten its ultimatum.

    Nicole Wong, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, spoke today about China, the Internet, and censorship, and by way of recap, said, "The attack on our corporate infrastructure and the surveillance it uncovered – as well as attempts over the past year to limit free speech on the Web even further – led us to conclude that we are no longer willing to censor our results in China and we are currently reviewing our options."

    Wong then argued, "This decision is in keeping with out pledge when we launched Google.cn that we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services.  As we stated then, if we determine that we are unable to achieve our objectives, we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."

    This should provide some reassurance to free speech advocates who feared Google was backing down from a fight (and/or trying not to abandon a potential profit center).

    Unfortunately, Wong didn’t provide any sort of timetable with regards to when Google will reach a decision, which seems to leave the figurative door open to weeks or months of waffling.

  • Twitter Excited About Ducking Censors

    Twitter claims not to be taking an active role in the dispute, but it’s definitely applauding developers who try to make Twitter.com available in China and Iran.  Ev Williams endorsed workarounds and rejected compromises while speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

    According to John Gapper, Williams said, "We are partially blocked in China and other places and we were in Iran as well."  He then continued, "The most productive way to fight that is not by trying to engage China and other governments whose very being is against what we are about.  I am hopeful there are technological ways around these barriers."

    Note: this doesn’t mean that Twitter’s joined any sort of free speech fight.  Williams specifically mentioned third-party developers at one point.

    Still, it appears that Williams, who has said before that he’s proud of how Twitter helped Iranian protesters spread their message, won’t in any way cooperate with oppressive regimes.  And his comments could definitely equal a show of support for Google as it considers abandoning China.

    Just don’t expect to hear much more about this stuff from Williams, as Gapper wrote, "Mr Williams did not want to give details of the technology being developed in order to avoid giving clues to governments that wanted to block its service."

    Related Articles:

    > Twitter Launches Local Trends For Everyone

    > China Won’t Stand In The Way Of Google’s Android Business

    > Bill Gates Sides With Ballmer, MSFT On China

  • Were Googlers Involved in Chinese Cyber Attack?

    Reuters is reporting that Google is now investigating the possibility that one or more Google employees could have been involved in the recent attack in China, but is not offering comment on any details. The news agency reports:

    Security analysts told Reuters the malicious software (malware) used in the Google attack was a modification of a Trojan called Hydraq. A Trojan is malware that, once inside a computer, allows someone unauthorized access. The sophistication in the attack was in knowing whom to attack, not the malware itself, the analysts said.

    Local media, citing unnamed sources, reported that some Google China employees were denied access to internal networks after January 13, while some staff were put on leave and others transferred to different offices in Google’s Asia Pacific operations.

    Regardless of whether or not insiders were involved, it’s important to note that "Operation Aurora", as the attacks have been dubbed, stem from a particular vulnerability in Micosoft’s Internet Explorer. Security giant McAfee has a page set up with information on protection. The company explains: 

    McAfee Labs identified a zero-day vulnerability in Microsoft Internet Explorer that was used as an entry point for “Operation Aurora” to exploit Google and at least 30 other companies. Microsoft has issued a security advisory and McAfee is working closely with them on this matter. “Operation Aurora” was a coordinated attack, which included a piece of computer code that exploits a vulnerability in Internet Explorer to gain access to computer systems. This exploit is then extended to download and activate malware within the systems. The attack, which was initiated surreptitiously when targeted users accessed a malicious Web page (likely because they believed it to be reputable), ultimately connected those computer systems to a remote server. That connection was used to steal company intellectual property and, according to Google, additionally gain access to user accounts.

    Operation Aurora

    The company’s "Security Insights" blog has been updated continuously, and may be a good spot to keep in mind for the latest developments on Operation Aurora. 

    The attack on Google has of course led to Google stopping the censoring of its search results in China, which could in turn lead to the company having to shut down its Chinese operations. Philipp Lenssen at Blogoscoped points to some other instances where Google is censoring results.

    More WPN articles on the Google/China story here.

     
    Related Articles:

    > China Responds To Google Situation

    > Baidu’s Stock Soars Following China News

    > Google May Quit China

  • White House Sides With Google In China Standoff

    Due to a new development, you may be able to either thank Google for getting China to censor less information, or blame the company for starting World War III.  The reason: the White House has sided with Google in the free speech and hacking conflict that cropped up this week.

    According to John Letzing, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said today, "We support [Google’s] action . . . to no longer censor searches that happen using the [Google] platform . . . .  [O]ur concern is with actions that threaten the universal rights of a free Internet."

    That’s a rather bold statement.  The first part might imply that companies still doing business on China’s terms do not have the White House’s approval, and from there, it’s a slippery slope to cries of "un-American!" and other unpleasant accusations.  The part about threats to universal rights then almost brings to mind the idea of some sort of intervention.

    Of course, governments have been known to declare much more dramatic things and do precisely nothing afterward, so don’t take this as WebProNews’s call to prepare for an armed international showdown.

    It’s just very interesting that the U.S. government would weigh in on a company’s business decision at all, and then that it would do so in such a forceful manner.

    Related Articles:

    > Researchers Clarify What Is Known About Chinese Google Attacks

    > China Responds To Google Situation

    > Baidu’s Stock Soars Following China News