Categories
Quick Analysis

Google, China, and Censorship

It’s odd that you don’t see much anger expressed online about how social media giants have helped dictatorships.  Is that because those comments have been intentionally censored?

In a vitally important investigative journalism piece, an Intercept article by Ryan Gallagher recently reported that “google is planning to launch a censored version of its search engine in China that will blacklist websites and search terms about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest… The project – code-named Dragonfly – has been underway since spring of last year, and accelerated following a December 2017 meeting between Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai and a top Chinese government official…Teams of programmers and engineers at Google have created a custom Android app, different versions of which have been named ‘Maotai’ and ‘Longfei.’ The app has already been demonstrated to the Chinese government; the finalized version could be launched in the next six to nine months, pending approval from Chinese officials.”

China’s prodigious use of censorship has long been a concern.  In 2006, the State Department’s senior adviser on East Asian affairs,  James R. Keith, testified  before the House international Relational Committee that Beijing retains “thousands of government monitors – perhaps as many as 25-30,000 by one estimate – and the involvement of more than 20 ministries and government organs”  to manage the internet.

It’s not only free speech within China that is being affected. Google, which already has been accused of providing politically-biased search results favoring left-wing perspectives, may be influenced by the prospect of huge financial gain within the world’s most populous nation to paint a rosy picture of the Beijing regime throughout the world.

That would fit in well with China’s efforts. China’s leadership is not content to merely eliminate free speech and political dissent within its own borders. The New York Times reported earlier this year that “Within its digital borders, China has long censored what its people read and say online. Now, it is increasingly going beyond its own online realms to police what people and companies are saying about it all over the world.”
Kesar, Amla, Long, Chitrak, Kavach Beej, Ashwagandha, Musli Safed, Shatavari, Pipal, Jaiphal, Haritaki, Jhau, Vang Bhasma, Lauh Bhasma are downtownsault.org generic cialis online the main ingredients of this particular structure in market after its launching and post application. But the side effects due to intake of other pills buy sildenafil india that includes sildenafil citrate. Now let’s say that we abuse some of these essentials and consume junk foods, sugars in large quantities , processed http://downtownsault.org/freighter-coming-into-the-locks/ buy uk viagra foods, alcohol or foods and drinks with added chemicals intended to prolong their shelf life. Highway, hills, forest and sometimes even high rise buildings located in the middle of city. see address viagra discount india
Google is well aware of Beijing’s malicious use of the internet for the purposes of political repression. In 2010, the internet giant released a statement on an attack by China that affected not only Google as a corporation but the privacy and security of those who use its services. “…this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted…we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists…we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.”

Some believe that, like a magic elixir, expanding internet usage in China will promote greater freedom of information.  That has not proven to be the case in other nations. A Foreign Policy  analysis reported that “…, what is sometimes known as “liberation technology” is not, in fact, making pro-democracy movements more effective…nonviolent resistance has actually become less successful compared to earlier, pre-internet times. Whereas nearly 70 percent of civil resistance campaigns succeeded during the 1990s, only 30 percent have succeeded since 2010…governments are simply better at manipulating social media than activists. Despite early promises of anonymity online, commercial and government surveillance has made internet privacy a thing of the past. The Russian government, for example, has successfully infiltrated activists’ communications to anticipate and crush even the smallest protests.”

Google’s new relationship with Beijing comes at a time when China has become even more repressive. Freedom House’s 2018 rankings notes that “China’s authoritarian regime has become increasingly repressive in recent years. The ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is tightening its control over the media, online speech, religious groups, and civil society associations while undermining already modest rule-of-law reforms… nternet censorship and surveillance reached new heights as a Cybersecurity Law came into effect in June, alongside other new regulations restricting online communications. The authorities’ crackdown on civil society continued, with arrests and criminal prosecutions of bloggers, activists, human rights lawyers, and religious believers. Imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize laureate and democracy activist Liu Xiaobo died in July, less than a month after prison authorities announced that he had late-stage liver cancer.”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Corporate Treason

Both Conservatives and Liberals have expressed unease about corporations that, despite being based within the United States, have little or no loyalty to their home country.  Those fears are justified.

American companies have been forced to give trade secrets to the Chinese government in order to do business in that nation. At times, of course, this has been done at the behest of some politicians.

Roger Vadum, writing for the Capital Research Center  explains: “As president, Bill Clinton essentially wiped out any strategic advantage the U.S. had by selling advanced U.S. missile technology to our enemy, the People’s Republic of China…the Clinton administration accepted millions of dollars from the military and intelligence services of at least one hostile foreign power. All of this was done in exchange for illegal campaign contributions from a massive totalitarian country determined to eclipse the U.S. as a world superpower…President Clinton also lifted security controls, allowing thieves to access other vital military technologies, while disarming his own side and opposing needed defenses…Back in the 1990s… longtime Clinton bagman Terry McAuliffe, now governor of Virginia, set records raising money for the Clintons. In that era congressional investigators unearthed an elaborate Communist Chinese money-laundering scheme.”

While President Clinton’s tenure is now history, the acquiescence of some corporations to transfer data, or kowtow to practices that violate human rights, in order to gain market share within nations ruled by authoritarian governments, China being the prime example, continues.  Fighting this demand by Beijing has been a central issue in President Trump’s fight against unfair practices by America’s trading partners, friendly and otherwise.

Current corporate inappropriate interaction with hostile powers differs from the Clinton-era scandal. A key player in this issue is Facebook. David Shepardson, in a Reuters report notes:

“Facebook Inc (FB.O) said Tuesday it has data sharing partnerships with at least four Chinese companies including Huawei, the world’s third largest smartphone maker, which has come under scrutiny from U.S. intelligence agencies on security concerns. …Chinese telecommunications companies have come under scrutiny from U.S. intelligence officials who argue they provide an opportunity for foreign espionage and threaten critical U.S. infrastructure…”

Within continue reading address tadalafil buy the pages of this ancient testimonial is a reasonable vent for sexual power. These rates fluctuate based upon the technique applied and level of experience by order viagra levitra the doctor, and how results are evaluated. It is the quickest way of buying any levitra cost of medication online is quite simple. A well-known buy sildenafil canada Chinese natural herb, ginseng, has been used for centuries in Asia to treat stress-related health conditions. Google, another major internet-based giant, has proven to be a disloyal corporate citizen for other reasons. The most important military technology battlefield today is in the field of artificial intelligence. However, as reported by Douglas MacMillan in the Wall Street Journal  notes: “Google won’t allow its artificial-intelligence products to be used in military weapons…Google…has recently come under criticism from its own employees for supplying image-recognition technology to the U.S. Department of Defense, in a partnership called Project Maven. Google told employees earlier this month it wouldn’t seek to renew its contract for Project Maven, … that decision in turn was blasted by some who said the company shouldn’t be conflicted about supporting national security…Google’s YouTube, along with Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc., were criticized over the past year for failing to prevent a Russian campaign to use their services to sway the results of the U.S. election…Google was questioned by U.S. lawmakers … who are looking into the company’s relationship with Chinese tech giants. Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.) on Thursday asked Alphabet Inc. and Twitter Inc. about data-sharing with Chinese vendors, including Xiaomi and Tencent Holdings Google’s relationship with China’s Huawei Technologies Co., part of Washington’s escalating digital Cold War with Beijing.”

According to former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg (and a major information and technology corporate figure himself)  , writing for his eponymous publication, Google has “Walked away from America’s security…Google’s decision not to renew a contract to develop artificial intelligence for the Defense Department was a victory for the employees who had protested it. It was also a defeat for U.S. national security, patriotism, and the cause of limiting civilian casualties in war…Google’s leaders also seem to have forgotten the vital role the government, and especially the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, played in creating the internet and making their company possible in the first place. Yet, from Apple’s refusal to unlock the iPhone of a mass-murdering terrorist to Project Maven, tech firms have repeatedly snubbed law-enforcement, intelligence and defense agencies.”

It’s vitally important to read between the lines.  Are companies like Google, as well as Facebook, reluctant to assist the U.S. government, or give fair access and provide objective search results to pro-defense conservatives in the hopes of appeasing China and gaining access to its vast market?

How dangerous is the impulse by Facebook and Google to appease China? Consider Robert Schlesinger’s comment’s in US News: the Pew Research Center reported this week that 62 percent of U.S. adults get news on social media.  Fully two-thirds of U.S. Facebook users get news from the site…The role of big social media in news distribution has been top of mind with the recent controversy surrounding Facebook reportedly suppressing conservative content…Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology have conducted more extensive research measuring what they call “Search Engine Manipulation Effect” – looking at whether Google, say, could shift votes by tweaking its search engine to favor one candidate. His conclusion is that doing so could “easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more – up to 80 percent in some demographic groups,” as Epstein wrote in Politico last summer – with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated. Around the world, Epstein and Robertson calculate, Google could flip upwards of 25 percent of national elections if it wanted to wield that power.”

If that power were used on behalf of an American enemy in return for access to that nation’s markets, it could be devastating.

Illustration: Pixabay