Goodbye Google, we will miss you

[shenzhen]

As Tsap rightly points out ----this is mostly a business decision on Goggle's part. Here in Oregon, the very liberal Oregonian, continues to post editorials about their courageous stand in China.

 

No word (in The Oregonian) about the criminal convictions of Goggle's highest officers in Italy yet, for failing to take down material 'objectionable' to the Italian gov. -- But one needs to look at the details in the italy case and understand the PM also is in control of much of the media in Italy. This case is more about political control from the Italian PM than anything else. What I don't understand is where is the rest of the western media on the white horse crusading against Italy's (and too lesser extent EUR) attempts to censor the internet.

h

Regarding censorship----here's China's big problem: World's largest number of users, and I'm betting on average, 10 years younger than in the US, which equals----much more tech savvy in getting around the truly feeble 'Great Fire Wall of China' ----and totally social animals online----so sharing their info at warp speed. --- totally agree as I said in an earlier post

Internet censorship in China is doomed right out of the gate, and the Western liberal press is hopelessly out of touch with the reality of that --- choosing to believe 'free expression' issues which largely don't exist in China, at least as far as the internet is concerned.

[knloregon]

All good points Alan, and as an example in certain EU countries -----criminal convictions for being a holocaust denier . Hope it doesn't slide over to global warming deniers as well ...

[shenzhen]

Seems like a good business decision by Google ..... Traffic for Google since pulling out of mainland China is about the same because everybody (me included) just started using Google HK site. Customers, advertisers in mainland China however are leaving Google after the decision. So basically they keep their market share and lose their revenue by this "keep the internet free" decision. Maybe I am the only one who is totally confused about the real reason behind this PR nightmare.

 

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2010...ent_9680226.htm

[GDBILL]

For those who think China is bad for censoring the net:

 

http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/

 

The US is second highest requester excluding China. And the US is throwing stones?

 

"Government requests directed to Google and YouTube"

 

Apples & oranges?

 

Don, you should know better than that. Unless you can show that most of the requests made by the US didn't involve YouTube IPR issues, the comparison with China means little.

[GDBILL]

Well, ask and ye shall receive ...

 

 

United States

3580 data requests

123 removal requests

80.5% of removal requests fully or partially complied with.

2 AdWords (court order)

1 AdWords

1 Apps (court order)

6 Blogger (court order)

6 Blogger

1 Book Search

1 Geo (except Street View)

1 Gmail (court order)

1 Google Video (court order)

4 Groups (court order)

1 Groups

1 orkut

2 Universal Search (court order)

20 Web Search (court order)

5 Web Search

7 YouTube (court order)

63 YouTube

 

 

China

Chinese officials consider censorship demands as state secrets, so we cannot disclose that information at this time.

[GDBILL]

FAQ

What do the numbers represent?

These numbers represent the number of requests we received from government entities for the removal of content or the disclosure of user data from July 1, 2009-December 31, 2009. There are limits to what this data can tell us. Some requests seek the removal of multiple pieces of content, or seek data for more than one account. There may also be multiple requests that ask for the removal of the same piece of content, or data for the same account. Because of the complexity of these requests, the numbers we are sharing do not reflect the total amount of content that we are asked to remove, nor the total number of accounts subject to data disclosure requests by governmental agencies. Also, this initial report doesn¡¯t indicate whether Google complied with or challenged any request for user information, although we do provide percentages about our compliance with requests to remove content. We haven¡¯t yet found a way to provide more detail about our compliance with user data requests in a useful way, but we plan to in the future.

 

Is this data comprehensive?

No. While we have tried to report as accurate a number as possible, the statistics are not 100% comprehensive or accurate. For example, we have not included statistics for countries where we¡¯ve received fewer than 30 requests for user data in criminal cases during the 6-month period. Where the numbers of requests are relatively low from a particular country, revealing the statistics could place important investigations at risk and interfere with public safety efforts of the authorities. For content removals requested by government agencies, we haven¡¯t released specific numbers for those countries in which we received fewer than 10 requests. Many of those one-off requests may coincide with our own content policies, so when the numbers get small enough, they don¡¯t necessarily reflect anything about the level of censorship in that country. Similarly, if a governmental agency used a web form to demand removal of content, we generally have no way of including those reports in our statistics.

 

What is the difference between removal requests and data requests?

Removal requests ask for removal of content from Google search results or from another Google product, including YouTube. For purposes of this report, data requests ask for information about Google user accounts or products.

 

Do your statistics cover all categories of content removals?

No. Our policies and systems are set up to identify and remove child pornography whenever we become aware of it, regardless of whether that request comes from the government. As a result, it¡¯s difficult to accurately track which of those removals were requested by governments, and we haven¡¯t included those statistics here. We counted requests for removal of all other types of content (e.g., alleged defamation, hate speech, impersonation). In addition, for YouTube, we have not included government requests for removal of copyrighted content. The vast majority of requests for removal of copyrighted material on YouTube are received from private parties; some may come from state or foreign governments, but that number is very low. Regardless, such requests are not reflected in these statistics.

 

Do your statistics cover all categories of data requests from governments?

No, the statistics primarily cover requests in criminal matters. We can¡¯t always be sure that a request necessarily relates to a criminal investigation, however, so there are likely a small number of requests that fall outside of this category. For example, we would include in the statistics an emergency request from a government public safety agency seeking information to save the life of a person who is in peril even though there is not necessarily a criminal investigation involved. As we improve our tracking, we may add more categories.

 

How is removal different from blocking services?

Some governments and government agencies choose to block specific services as a means of controlling access to content in their jurisdiction. The numbers we¡¯ve reported do not include any data on service blockages. We are working on a separate tool to show you when Google services have been blocked by governments or government agencies.

 

How many of these requests did you comply with?

The ¡°removal request¡± numbers represent the number of requests we have received, and the percentage we complied with in full or in part per country. The ¡°data requests¡± numbers reflect the number of requests we received about the users of our services and products from government agencies like local and federal police. They don¡¯t indicate whether we complied with a request for data in any way. When we receive a request for user information, we review it carefully and only provide information within the scope and authority of the request. We may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request in some cases.

 

We would like to be able to share more information, including how many times we disclosed data in response to these requests, but it¡¯s not an easy matter. The requests we receive for user data come from a variety of government agencies with different legal authorities and different forms of requests. They don¡¯t follow a standard format or necessarily seek the same kinds of information. Requests may ask for data about a number of different users or just one user. A single request may ask for several types of data but be valid only for one type and not for another; in those cases, we disclose only the information we believe we are legally required to share. Given all this complexity, we haven¡¯t figured out yet how to categorize and quantify these requests in a way that adds meaningful transparency, but we plan to in the future.

 

Do you ever remove content that violates local law without a court order or government demand?

Yes. The statistics we report here do not include content removals that we regularly process every day across our products for violation of our content policies (for example, we do not permit hate speech in Blogger and other similar products) in response to user complaints. In many cases, those removals result in the takedown of material that violates local law, independent of any government demand or court order seeking such removal.

[david_dawei]

For those who think China is bad for censoring the net:

 

http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/

 

The US is second highest requester excluding China. And the US is throwing stones?

 

"Government requests directed to Google and YouTube"

 

Apples & oranges?

 

Don, you should know better than that. Unless you can show that most of the requests made by the US didn't involve YouTube IPR issues, the comparison with China means little.

I posted before about a [white] paper where the US government wants to take over the internet in the face of 'any' threat'... guess who defines that!

 

Not rumor; I saw the paper.. I'll like be shot soon to say any more...

 

so I should just say, I heard from a friend who has an uncle who claims a nephew once spoke of a friend who had a fight with a guy who yelled at him about the neighbor who claimed that the son's terrible daughter once said... yada yada yada...

[GDBILL]

Sooooo, this 'data' is a bunch of crap, but if you don't know what is really is, it looks really spiffy.

 

The real point, I think, is "...about the users of our services and products..". Do you recall the Patriot Act? Where libraries are subject to penalty for disclosing government requests for info on borrowers, do those sanctions also apply to PA requests to Google? Maybe those numbers aren't included in the stats?

 

I just thought it was interesting that for all the bitching about China, the US came in ahead of everyone else other than Brazil. Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

You know, by now everybody knows that, if anything, I am an equal opportunity asshole. And try as I might, I just cannot see lumping the US in the same canoe as China when it comes to human rights.

Edited April 23, 2010 by GDBILL (see edit history)

[chilton747]

Sooooo, this 'data' is a bunch of crap, but if you don't know what is really is, it looks really spiffy.

 

The real point, I think, is "...about the users of our services and products..". Do you recall the Patriot Act? Where libraries are subject to penalty for disclosing government requests for info on borrowers, do those sanctions also apply to PA requests to Google? Maybe those numbers aren't included in the stats?

 

I just thought it was interesting that for all the bitching about China, the US came in ahead of everyone else other than Brazil. Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

You know, by now everybody knows that, if anything, I am an equal opportunity asshole. And try as I might, I just cannot see lumping the US in the same canoe as China when it comes to human rights.

 

Not in our lifetime anyway if ever.

[tsap seui]

Sooooo, this 'data' is a bunch of crap, but if you don't know what is really is, it looks really spiffy.

 

The real point, I think, is "...about the users of our services and products..". Do you recall the Patriot Act? Where libraries are subject to penalty for disclosing government requests for info on borrowers, do those sanctions also apply to PA requests to Google? Maybe those numbers aren't included in the stats?

 

I just thought it was interesting that for all the bitching about China, the US came in ahead of everyone else other than Brazil. Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

You know, by now everybody knows that, if anything, I am an equal opportunity asshole. And try as I might, I just cannot see lumping the US in the same canoe as China when it comes to human rights.

 

Not in our lifetime anyway if ever.

 

You fellars shoulda been with me when Mr Customs Man had me locked up in a room and was reading every page of my checking account registry and yelling and grilling me about my trips to China, where did I get the money to go, "what, did some CHinese woman send you money to marry her?", and took an hour and a half to read through every paper I had for my upcoming visa application...and on and on...all in the name of the HOLY moniker....HOMELAND SECURITY

 

Or how about the Department of State VO who angrily threw all of my wife's bona fide relationship evidence on the fucking floor at her interview as she yelled and screamed at her, and her 10 year old son.

 

Yessir, they didn't take any of us out back and shoot us because of their profiling, speculation, and conjecture in the name of Homeland Security but I am still trying to get the taste of SHIT outta my mouth when I think about Uncle Sam's high jinks...anyone else notice how Uncle Sam is lookin' more and more like Uncle Mao?

 

 

Hehehe...I'm an asshole too, and I jest couldn't contain myself in this here thread.

 

tsap seui

With eyes wide open watchin' the monster watchin' us all

[chilton747]

Sooooo, this 'data' is a bunch of crap, but if you don't know what is really is, it looks really spiffy.

 

The real point, I think, is "...about the users of our services and products..". Do you recall the Patriot Act? Where libraries are subject to penalty for disclosing government requests for info on borrowers, do those sanctions also apply to PA requests to Google? Maybe those numbers aren't included in the stats?

 

I just thought it was interesting that for all the bitching about China, the US came in ahead of everyone else other than Brazil. Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

You know, by now everybody knows that, if anything, I am an equal opportunity asshole. And try as I might, I just cannot see lumping the US in the same canoe as China when it comes to human rights.

 

Not in our lifetime anyway if ever.

 

You fellars shoulda been with me when Mr Customs Man had me locked up in a room and was reading every page of my checking account registry and yelling and grilling me about my trips to China, where did I get the money to go, "what, did some CHinese woman send you money to marry her?", and took an hour and a half to read through every paper I had for my upcoming visa application...and on and on...all in the name of the HOLY moniker....HOMELAND SECURITY

 

Or how about the Department of State VO who angrily threw all of my wife's bona fide relationship evidence on the fucking floor at her interview as she yelled and screamed at her, and her 10 year old son.

 

Yessir, they didn't take any of us out back and shoot us because of their profiling, speculation, and conjecture in the name of Homeland Security but I am still trying to get the taste of SHIT outta my mouth when I think about Uncle Sam's high jinks...anyone else notice how Uncle Sam is lookin' more and more like Uncle Mao?

 

 

Hehehe...I'm an asshole too, and I jest couldn't contain myself in this here thread.

 

tsap seui

With eyes wide open watchin' the monster watchin' us all

 

Cuzin Tsap, GDBILL was tawking bout them "human" rights and not them "hillbilly" rights. Ya know I've been ponderin whether or not to go all out and become one of them "humans." Sometimes this here hillbilly life gets a little tuff fer me.

[shenzhen]

Well, ask and ye shall receive ...

 

 

United States

3580 data requests

123 removal requests

80.5% of removal requests fully or partially complied with.

2 AdWords (court order)

1 AdWords

1 Apps (court order)

6 Blogger (court order)

6 Blogger

1 Book Search

1 Geo (except Street View)

1 Gmail (court order)

1 Google Video (court order)

4 Groups (court order)

1 Groups

1 orkut

2 Universal Search (court order)

20 Web Search (court order)

5 Web Search

7 YouTube (court order)

63 YouTube

 

 

China

Chinese officials consider censorship demands as state secrets, so we cannot disclose that information at this time.

So only 123 were removal requests and 3580 were data request when mean .... the govt is asking Google to provide specific information about people/user accounts. Do you have a breakdown on this 3580 requests and how many were by court order?

 

Since China is not listed does this would imply they had no data requests on specific users to Google? Internet censorship of sites and data requests about specific users are two different things. I tend to be more concerned about data requests granted without court orders than specific site censorship.

 

 

What is the difference between removal requests and data requests?

Removal requests ask for removal of content from Google search results or from another Google product, including YouTube. For purposes of this report, data requests ask for information about Google user accounts or products.

 

National security, computer security

Concerns related to national security have led more to online surveillance by the state than to content filtering. The Bush Administration's warrantless wiretaps are reported to have included taps on major Internet interconnect points and data-mining of Internet communications.45 Tapping these interconnect points would give the government the ability to intercept every overseas and many domestic communications. At press time, the U.S. government has moved to dismiss lawsuits filed against it and against AT&T by asserting the state secrets privilege; district courts in California and Michigan have refused to dismiss the lawsuits. If the allegations prove to be true, they show that the United States maintains the world's most sophisticated Internet surveillance regime. The Bush Administration is pushing to expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to force providers to give law enforcement wiretap access to electronic communications networks. Attorney General Gonzales has called for data retention laws to force ISPs to keep and potentially produce data that could link Internet subscribers to their otherwise-anonymous communications.46

 

Conclusion

Although we tend to think of the United States and Canadian Internet as relatively free from technical Internet filtering, Internet activity is far from ¡°unregulated.¡± With respect to online surveillance, the United States may be among the most aggressive states in the world in terms of listening to online conversations. Lawmakers in both countries have imposed Internet-specific regulation that can limit their citizens' access and view of the Net. In addition they have empowered private individuals and companies to press Internet intermediaries for content removal or to carry out the filtering in the middle of the network. Although the laws are subject to legislative and judicial debate, these private actions may be less transparent. Governments in both countries, however, have experienced significant resistance to their content restriction policies and, as a result, the extreme measures found in some of the more repressive countries of the world have not gained ground in North America.

Edited April 24, 2010 by shenzhen (see edit history)

[tsap seui]

Sooooo, this 'data' is a bunch of crap, but if you don't know what is really is, it looks really spiffy.

 

The real point, I think, is "...about the users of our services and products..". Do you recall the Patriot Act? Where libraries are subject to penalty for disclosing government requests for info on borrowers, do those sanctions also apply to PA requests to Google? Maybe those numbers aren't included in the stats?

 

I just thought it was interesting that for all the bitching about China, the US came in ahead of everyone else other than Brazil. Freedom of speech, my ass.

 

You know, by now everybody knows that, if anything, I am an equal opportunity asshole. And try as I might, I just cannot see lumping the US in the same canoe as China when it comes to human rights.

 

Not in our lifetime anyway if ever.

 

You fellars shoulda been with me when Mr Customs Man had me locked up in a room and was reading every page of my checking account registry and yelling and grilling me about my trips to China, where did I get the money to go, "what, did some CHinese woman send you money to marry her?", and took an hour and a half to read through every paper I had for my upcoming visa application...and on and on...all in the name of the HOLY moniker....HOMELAND SECURITY

 

Or how about the Department of State VO who angrily threw all of my wife's bona fide relationship evidence on the fucking floor at her interview as she yelled and screamed at her, and her 10 year old son.

 

Yessir, they didn't take any of us out back and shoot us because of their profiling, speculation, and conjecture in the name of Homeland Security but I am still trying to get the taste of SHIT outta my mouth when I think about Uncle Sam's high jinks...anyone else notice how Uncle Sam is lookin' more and more like Uncle Mao?

 

 

Hehehe...I'm an asshole too, and I jest couldn't contain myself in this here thread.

 

tsap seui

With eyes wide open watchin' the monster watchin' us all

 

Cuzin Tsap, GDBILL was tawking bout them "human" rights and not them "hillbilly" rights. Ya know I've been ponderin whether or not to go all out and become one of them "humans." Sometimes this here hillbilly life gets a little tuff fer me.

 

Well cuzin', ya might be able to take Billy outta the hills, but ya can't take the hills outta Billy Know wudda mean?

 

All this other crap with Google, and Uncle Spams conjecture and speculation and detaining innocent folks at airports...shucks, it don't mean nothing...ya roll with the punches, laugh at their silliness, and

make sure you have plenty of time to catch yore next flight so's the lil' boys with a uniform, a badge, and a small willie can "do their jobs" for the ...cough cough...Freedom and safety of Americans everywhere.

 

tsap seui

[Guest Tony n Terrific]

Baidu stock is soaring in China now since Google said Zai Jian. It has went up $90 the past 5 days.