I.

Robert Schwien
ACSG 575
Essay #1 Analyzing Googles censorship in China

II. Introduction
Google made a deal with a country that has free-speech restrictions in order to have
better access to the internet users there, that country is China. The Chinese government
forbids several subjects including the Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwans independence,
certain religions, and pornography. Google must censor its search results to have a license
to run servers in China using the domain google.cn. All internet traffic is monitored and
enforced by the Chinese Government.

III. Stakeholders
Internet search engine companies available to China, such as Google, Baidu, Yahoo, and
MSN, all have advertising revenues at stake. The Chinese people can connect to outside
search engine servers; although China has firewalls in place that will block non approved
web content. To get licensing, Internet search engines operating servers in China are
required to censor their results. The company that provides the public with the most
information would have an advantage. If Google is able to operate servers in China, there
would be less Chinese users on Baidus search engine resulting in lost revenue.

Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group, feels that freedom of speech
information through the internet is at stake especially when search engines are willing to
make agreements like the censorship with the governments that censor what information is
given over the internet. With these censorships in the works, the freedom of information
and speech is at stake for not just search engines but could make an impact on reporting
information to people as well.

The Chinese government does not want certain information to be leaked to the public
which they feel would be disgraceful to China, leaving their reputation and honor at stake.

Chinese citizens have the ability to search information as needed through these various
search engines, but with censorship, this is left at stake for them. The faith in Chinas
government by their citizens is at stake due to the censorship. The citizens may feel the
government does not trust them to handle the truth regarding certain information such as
the Tiananmen Square Massacre. People in china who disobey internet regulations also face
legal consequences from internet monitoring authorities.

IV. The technology issues to be disclosed
Internet technology in this case is being used to keep information from the citizens of
China. An advanced system of internet firewalls were installed and maintained by China to
block incoming data through the internet to anyone within its borders. These firewalls have
been dubbed the Great Firewall of China by many. The first layer of the firewall involves
network routers and other infrastructure that is programmed to filter and block websites.
This layer also monitors how people communicate. The second layer consists of many
people monitoring, tracking, and policing internet users.

As with most forms of regulation come the workarounds to bypass the regulation. An
article in the BBC News stated "So roughly 20% of Chinese internet users now understand
what 'Fan Qiang' ('circumventing the firewall') means, and they also have a strong
determination to do so." Of course, serious penalties are given to people that are caught
trying to get around the firewall just to see what the rest of the world can see.

V. The moral issues to be considered
Millions of people around the world use the internet to search freely for all types of
information. Why should the people of China be denied the freedom to get information that
the rest of the world has access to. Then, on the other hand, China has laws and other
companies that operate in China most follow these laws. Why should Google have immunity
to Chinas laws and regulations, even if some of them seem unethical.

VI. Utilitarian analysis
By censoring internet communications China has the power to control information that
may degrade the countries honor to their citizens. Because of Google censoring the results,
it is less possible for banned content to get found before the China firewalls can block the
actual pages.

Part of the firewall system incorporates people that monitor internet traffic to enforce
and prosecute unlawful activity. The information that is blocked varies from riots and
events to certain religions and pornography. Some of the information that is blocked may in
fact help the Chinese community to act more dignified by disallowing bad and inappropriate
web content. If results from Google does not have information that is banned, less people
will get in trouble for breaking internet laws. Distasteful websites that young internet users
should not have access to are easily found other countries but are blocked in China.

By using an analysis based on utilitarianism, the bad aspects of web censorship is hiding
factual web content from one section of the world and privacy issues, along with content
that may get unintentionally blocked by the firewalls. Good aspects are that the people in
China as a whole may in fact benefit by not having bad ideas seeded in them, less bad ideas
should come from them.

By looking at the bad versus the good, a utilitarian may say that censoring internet
search results may have more of a benefit to the people by protecting them from
inappropriate web content than a detriment from blocked results.

VII. Deontological Analysis
Censoring web content may lead to better behavior from the people of China, although
there is a fine line between censoring information and hiding information. Many people
thought Google was wrong for giving in to Chinas internet control.

Immanuel Kant had strong feelings about human dignity. He felt that part of human
dignity was the ability to freely make decisions for oneself. By Kants beliefs, the China
government is taking away some of their peoples rights and dignity simply by blocking
internet content. It seems like the Chinese government is assuming that their people may
not be able to act accordingly if they have access to the information they are blocking.

Dignity is lost knowing that the rest of the world knows you have an internet filter
similar to the filter put on an immature childs television to block adult programming.
Another deontological problem is the right of privacy. By Google working with China, all
searches would get analyzed by the China governments internet regulators. One decision
Google made was not to allow Gmail or Google Blogging for the specific reasoning that
Google did not want to have to turn over private records to China.

In the previous section I gave an example of young internet users that can find
distasteful content on the web. If Googles results were not filtered, the parents would have
the responsibility to block content not meant for the young internet users which is easily
done in most web browser settings. This will give the parents more control over what their
children are viewing on the internet.

A Kantian would feel that taking away freedom of information that is available to
everybody else is wrong, even if there is an escalated possibility of wrong doing by the
people.

VIII. Virtue
The virtues displayed by Google as a company seem to be honorable. By censoring
results, Google is able to have servers within China that will serve the country with filtered
internet search results just like the other search engines in China.

Google displays fairness by censoring results in the same way the other search engines
censor results. Honesty is shown by not hiding results, but by displaying a blocked
information page, so the people know the government is blocking the content. Google can
get allowable search results to users in China quicker, and at the same time receive
revenues from advertising to the ever growing internet users in China. Results that are
censored are likely to have been blocked by Chinese firewalls. It is not Google that is
withholding information from the Chinese people, Google is just returning results that are
viewable by the people.

IX. Conclusion
My conclusion from the utilitarian view is in favor of Googles decision to censor results,
and not in favor of the censorship decision from the deontological view.

In the utilitarian analysis, it was clear that the people of China are getting unfair
treatment by laws enforced by their own government, but these laws may improve their
way of life. There is a potential for less crime due to the filtering. No pornography may lead
to less sex offences. Monitored internet communications will keep people acting accordingly
on the internet. A utilitarian would believe that having a better way of life is more important
than not having access to some blocked internet content.

The deontological analysis, clearly would not be in favor of censorship by not trusting
the people of China by taking away choices that people can make and hiding the truth
behind past events. The right to privacy is also infringed by hired people tracking and
monitoring internet activities. Internet monitoring and enforcement for information
pertaining to subjects such as homeland security or child pornography is understandable.
Getting legal action taken against you for searching a particular local history topic or a
religion is wrong.

Myself, I agree with Kants beliefs, I prefer the ability to make my own decisions. Making
decisions for oneself is a form of freedom and trust. Freedom to have full access to the
internet should be available to anyone that does not abuse it.











Sources

SXU Dr.Appel
Essay #1 handout

Wikipeda
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

BBC News
China condemns decision by Google to lift censorship
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8582233.stm
Chinese learn to leap the 'Great Firewall'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8575476.stm

CNNMONEY.COM
China renews Google license, ending standoff
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/09/technology/google_china/index.htm

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL DIGITAL EDITION
Google Fighting the Good Fight in China
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/30/google-fighting-the-good-fight-in-china/

WIRED
Google, China and Censorship: A Wired.com FAQ
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/04/google-china-and-censorship-a-wiredcom-faq/

The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
Google's dilemma: privacy vs. police
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0126/p01s02-wogi.html

REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS
Various pages throughout this search
http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=recherche&lang=en&recherche=google+china