Google, China + a Clinton: the semantics of cyber coexistence
This Internet flame between Google and China is interesting because the question has been posed previously:
· CAN THE NATION STATE SURVIVE THE WEB?( http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalrevolution/makingofprog2.shtml )
And the Google situation is possibly the first example of an influential Web co taking on the power of a nation state, China.
Well, it’s probably helpful to keep apace of the story and online threads to-date so here are some links:
· http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
· http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/25/content_9368402.htm
· http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60L1DK20100125?type=politicsNews
· http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8478005.stm
· http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/092d5ab6-08fc-11df-ba88-00144feabdc0.html
· http://news.cnet.com/Evidence-found-of-Chinese-attack-on-Google/2100-7349_3-6250413.html
· http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google’s-china-stance-more-about-business-than-thwarting-evil/
Plus here’s some context on Google’s interactions with the People’s Daily site and the current situation with Chinese authors and Google Book’s alleged infringement of their copyright:
· http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/6813963.html
Oh and let’s include how the “Iranian Cyber Army,” who got a reputation for disabling Twitter on 17/18 December 2009, was said to be responsible for attacking Baidu this January with trojans. Baidu is China’s top search site with two-thirds of the market share and Google’s direct competitor:
· http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/12/iranian-hackers-chinese-search-engine
So…………..it’s interesting that Google complained of an alleged security breach by CHINA-IP-ADDRESS-USING hackers on the same day (12 Jan 2010) that the Chinese’s top search site was also supposedly subjected to an attack by the “Iranian Cyber Army”.
Of course, none of the media or tech commentators have put this together yet so readers of @T are the first to even be made aware of this “oddity of coincidence”.
Could it be that there are black hat hackers (also known as “crackers” and let’s remember the word associations with “crackpots” and “crazies”) who are NEITHER American nor Chinese — or maybe include both nationalities plus some other countries — playing the US and China off each other?
Readers will note that I use the term “CHINA-IP-ADDRESS-USING HACKERS” rather than “Chinese hackers”. Just because the source address of Google’s hackers originated from a China-based server does not necessarily mean that Chinese hackers were involved. Let’s make the distinctions clear.
Ditto just because a hacking team call themselves the “Iranian Cyber Army” it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re Iranians.
After all, some people online are not who they seem: they use all sorts of pseudonyms and false information. Some might even claim their names are “Snow White”, they live in Russia and they work for the KGB or that they’re a Nigerian and have US$1 million in prize money waiting for you in a Swiss bank account that you can access if you’ll only provide all your bank details or that they can make you sexier than Casanova himself. In reality, their name is probably Ted or Ting Ting, they live in Mississippi or Manchuria and they’re a 300lb postman or housewife.
Anyway, it would be a lot more conducive if the likes of Senator Clinton and Google’s strategy team adopted a SMARTER AND MORE EXPERIENCED DIPLOMATIC approach to resolving the current scenario with China. Direct challenges about how China operates its policies on freedom of information, censorship and cyber-security are probably going to be counterproductive for resolution.
From my perspective, there are clearly language and cultural philosophy issues involved. The US government definitions of “freedom”, “censorship” and “security” aren’t the same as the Chinese government’s. Neither definitions are the absolute nor the best, imo.
Sometimes, some governments’ definitions of these three words are not even the same as its own electorate’s. For example, it’s said that censorship and anything against freedom of information doesn’t happen in Western democracies. Hmmn……….then news items like these appear:
Even between American technology aficionados there’s an array of definitions on “freedom, censorship and security”. When a US social network decides to close a user group or remove their content that’s also an infringement of the principle of free flows of information; censorship like this happens and it’s rarely reported upon by the media.
Moreover, any form of editorialism (whether self and voluntary, imposed by journalistic regulatory associations with industry standard practices or a reflection of political affiliations) is a form of censorship.
Now another interesting perspective is that, sometimes, some Western democracies levy the “It’s government propaganda!” against other states — as if the Western democracies don’t and have never used the media for their own purposes (e.g., winning elections, concealing information from their people and pushing through policies).
Okay, here’s the thing: if there was no propaganda (or to use its preferred euphemism “PR / spin in the national or public interest”), there’d have been no wars……….EVER. PERIOD. No Crusades, no Hastings, no Alamo, no Trafalgar, no 1812, no Indochine, no World Wars, no Israel vs Palestine, no Cold War, no Iraq War, no Afghanistan, no trade wars, no etcetera etcetera.
So…………..this all leads us back to one of our pet subjects: IT’S ALL SEMANTICS, RAGAZZI.
Now begins the journey towards language, standards and conduct that’s more conducive to cyber coexistence.
