Chinese hackers stole access control program from Google

BrendanD said:
Palimino, apartheid laws were wrong but companies doing business here still had to abide by them or face punishment.
Click to expand...

Exactly! That’s the key (punishment). There was no moral imperative. They **had** to abide by the law (jump through the hoops) or face sanction. And the apartheid regime was more effective than the ANC in applying sanction. Google is taking a holier-than-thou line. Spinning their withdrawal to their advantage. They could hardly say, “We are withdrawing because the local search engine has more market share, there are hacking attempts and it is difficult for us to do business in China”. Rather put a moral spin on it and get what PR you can.
 
Well if those hackers had stolen sensitive info critical to the stability of my company, then I complain to their Government and they say up yours ... I most certainly will NOT stay and continue doing business in that country where the Government supports criminals, and yes, I most certainly will also "spin" it to any PR advantage I may choose, if "spin" is really what's happening.

No, they moved their servers to Hong Kong - Legally. Then they stopped censoring the results - LEGALLY. So Google HAVE obeyed the laws of China when on Chinese soil AND when on "transition" soil. (FYI: The laws in HK have not yet fully changed from UK system to CN system...)
 
apogeeza said:
Well if those hackers had stolen sensitive info critical to the stability of my company, then I complain to their Government and they say up yours ... I most certainly will NOT stay and continue doing business in that country where the Government supports criminals, and yes, I most certainly will also "spin" it to any PR advantage I may choose, if "spin" is really what's happening.
Click to expand...

I am sure a country who has never respected copyright or intellectual property is trembling in their boots at your dire threat. If Google saw an advantage in staying, they would have – the shareholders would have insisted. Google held 30% of the market. The local search engine held 70%. The Chinese market is huge and Google weren’t getting anywhere. The only option was to leave, spitting invective and spinning their retreat to the maximum.

LEGALLY is context sensitive. The laws in apartheid SA were legal. Were they wrong? The laws promulgated by the ANC are legal. Are they wrong? The laws promulgated by China are legal. Are they wrong? Legal, shemegal.
 
You are still ignoring the fact that the Chinese government are protecting criminals because it suits them: they want access to the info stolen - yet they publicly execute a bunch of hungry guys who hijack a ship in a stance against crime. [The apartheid government did not publicly kill it's own kind to make a point about crime.]

So "morals" and "justice" etc is just context sensitive to use your analogy. Google can "spin" it any way they wish because the Chinese government are doing exactly the same.
 
apogeeza said:
You are still ignoring the fact that the Chinese government are protecting criminals because it suits them...
Click to expand...

Who defines ‘crime’? America? The West may subscribe (although even this is changing – Napster, Pirate Bay, etc.) but China certainly won’t. This sounds like the ‘intellectual property/copyright’ argument. If the West don’t like it, tough titty (steal China’s intellectual property).

Google can "spin" it any way they wish because the Chinese government are doing exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Of course, Google can "spin" it any way they wish. So can the Chinese government. ALL countries ‘spin’ any behaviour to their maximum advantage. It’s the way of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X