Sean Miller

Final Essay
Econ 354

Google: Silicon Valley’s Foreign Policy

As the recipient of so many numerous awards such as, “World’s most

attractive employer,” “Most ethical company,” “Most innovative company,”

and “Most valuable Brand,” (Google Search, 2010) Google has established an

infamous legacy of itself to all of the close to one billion daily users searching

through the ‘Googols’ of megabytes of information given to their disposal.

Google’s streamlined and effective web-crawling spider software proves

unparalleled in rendering up precise search results rather than the EBay

inventory listings of obscure stuff found in the attics of grandmas nationwide.

As such a likeable company, on both the inside and outside; where exactly

does Google categorically fall among America’s mass of anti-trust

regulations? After all, most of us are already “googling” all of our daily

impulsive curiosities rather than simply ‘searching online.’ (Google-Watch,

2010)

Despite Google’s near monopolization of internet browsing, it manages

to stay well clear of such scrutiny in part because of its carefully fashioned
and flexible corporate image as an ethically responsible company. Public

relations work wonders and Google’s is unsurpassed as it responds swiftly to

all the pointed fingers through seemingly upfront honesty and/or

lighthearted humor. As a result, it consistently manages to free itself of the

incessant scrutiny of the public eye and abide by its simple, unofficial motto,

“Don’t be evil.” Nevertheless, as basic libertarian economics dictate,

monopolies are the breeding grounds for inefficiency. Yet where are

Google’s?

Google skeletons undoubtedly exist; however, in a new and widely

expanding marketplace such as the internet, we simply have no comparison

to benchmark Google, which draws all of its criticisms moot. Although what

we can chart are the numerous times the internet service company has been

targeted in lawsuits over the infringement of copyrights and intellectual

property, where the infamous Google ‘spiders’ clip out excerpts from

websites and deposits them in a compiled list of search results that most

closely align with the subject material that was just ‘googled.’

In its rational defense however, Google simply and steadfastly

reiterates its mission statement and its commitment “to organize the world's

information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Google’s

unyielding position of network neutrality coincides surprisingly with the

American attitude of freedom of speech and press. After all, the search

engine is only collecting information from root html format where the web
designer and/or author can prevent certain words, code, data, future lottery

numbers, etc. from appearing on a web search. (Google Wiki, 2009)

More concerning though, are the allusions of Google’s rapidly

advancing software. In efforts to enhance search abilities and effectiveness;

websites, including Yahoo and Microsoft, attach short strings of html code to

web browsers like Mozilla and Internet Explorer to better aid in identifying

users and their search tendencies and patterns which allow the Google

‘spiders’ to increase their efficiency in searches, while also creating an

invaluable ‘gold mine’ of data where its immensely successful advertising

software, “AdSense,” and “AdWords,” hone in on. It’s how all the

unobtrusive text ads listed within the sidelines of a user’s Gmail account are

strikingly accurate to the subject matter of an opened email message.

Yahoo and Microsoft’s hotmail service manage the same feats, albeit being

less accurate on subject matter and far gaudier with graphic flashing ads.

This intrusion is met with little outcry since ads keep Google services free.

(Google-Watch.org, 2010)

The more critical component is how long do companies like Google

keep your lists of information on past searches? Known as ‘cookies,’ the

short-stringed html codes function as the key link between an individual’s

personal computer and Google’s search history archives. The issued cookies

though, are set to expire every two years, but renews whenever the program

is accessed by a user. Google’s hoards of collected data could prove

detrimental with controversial anti-terror laws such as the 2001 Patriot Act,
allowing for potentially baseless searches and seizures of private property. It

is also this sort of valuable and personal information that become the envy of

deceitful governments and their attempts at herding the masses.

Google’s recent ‘strategic decision’ to withdraw from their operations

in China has cleared the way for an emerging new battleground between the

world’s most prominent search engine and a new developing world power.

Adding this to America’s sufferable foreign relation with the major world

exporter may tip this precarious position of power to either party. With

either outcome, Google’s bold and confident resolution in its dealings with

the very antithesis of what the company has prided itself for representing

has already shown itself to be a model in case studies for future companies

mitigating the line between public and private sectors. (Oreskovic, 2009)

(Frommer, 2010)

Stemming from the communist party takeover of the 1950’s and from

the Cultural Reforms of the late ‘60’s and ‘70’s, China’s attempts to promote

a nationalistic cultural mindset, and its results of widespread xenophobia,

were led ultimately by its iron-fisted control over all media outlets despite

constant admonishment ever since by world human rights’ activists and

Western nations. In catching up to the Four Tigers of Asia, its economic

reforms of the early 1980’s allowed foreign businesses limited access to the

world’s most populous country. It is through this framework that Google,

Microsoft, Yahoo, and countless other ventures adhere to when competing

for the lucrative market shares. (Oreskovic, 2009)

 Google’s late entrance into China in 2006 meant reluctantly abiding by

the country’s strict media restrictions and filtered searches for Google.cn,

the Beijing-based data center. In subtle defiance to the Chinese

government, Google’s censored searches intermittently and daringly

produced “un-clickable” URL addresses to sites containing proscribed

information. Its renowned corporate motto, “Don’t be evil,” boosted

Google’s image of openness and support of internet neutrality which in turn,

vaulted the company into becoming China’s second largest search provider.

(Google China Wiki, 2010)

China intensified their control over the internet in the first half of 2009

when government officials required search companies to redouble their

efforts in screening out searches over pornographic and or racy, “vulgar”

material. Google mundanely issued their statement acquiescing to local

government regulations over just the local Chinese language based

Google.cn site, citing that the Google.com website functions outside of

Chinese control. Yahoo however, complied more explicitly, and while at their

shareholders’ meeting stated that “Yahoo was not created to fix the Chinese

government.” In opposition, Google has increasingly toed the line of

limitations China has set forth. But as a newly developing industrialized

nation with a large population, China is a market Google simply cannot

ignore. (Google News, 2010) (Oreskovic, 2009)

The increased oversight by the Chinese government and its

subsequent interdiction of Google-owned “YouTube,” as well as inexplicable

Google outages, escalated further tensions between the two entities. Then

on an unexpected blog post on January 12, 2010, Google publicized

themselves as falling victim to an advanced cyber attack which further

compromised Google’s carefully cultivated public image. Following its

internal investigation during February, the internet giant released an update

heavy with implications of China’s direct involvement in the hacking plot that

stole the intellectual property of its proprietary source code as well as

contents of several Gmail email accounts; most notably the accounts of

several of China’s own foremost human rights activists. Google emphasized

the severity of China’s actions as “extremely dark and extremely

disturbing…because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger

global debate about freedom of speech.” (Zetter, Jan 13, 2010)

Google was listed as one of thirty-three or so high profile companies,

among them Adobe, Symantec Security, and Yahoo; as well as American

defense companies Northrop Grumman (aerospace) and Dow Chemical

(Napalm, nuclear weapon components). (Zetter, Jan 13, 2010) In keeping

with its image of promoting corporate social responsibility, Google officiated

its withdrawal from its Chinese office in Tsinghua Science Park, nearby

Tsinghua University, one of among the alleged sources of Google’s internet

attacks by security consulting company, McAfee and the U.S. Secret Service.

On March 23rd, Google began diverting its China search inquiries to China’s

city-state of free flowing trade and information, Hong Kong. But while China

can choose to block off Google entirely, as it did shortly after on March 30th,
it quickly realized the further associate risk of alienating and relinquishing

even more of the already little control it has over Hong Kong. Subsequently,

this ban was lifted just a day after. Google’s strategic trump card was

undeniably carefully planned out since Hong Kong’s servers had been

prepared beforehand to accommodate China’s added internet traffic.

(Huffington Post, 2010) (Operation Aurora, 2010)

Despite its responsibility to Google and the enforcement of intellectual

property rights, the United States’ already precarious financial relationship

with China has forced the U.S. to keep relatively mute over China’s blatant

infraction. However, with the uncorrelated aid of large companies such as

Google, the United States has been able to pressure outlying countries such

as China and also, Iran. In its recent June 2009 discordant elections,

unimpeded lines of communication played a notable factor in organizing the

many protests that took place around the country. The micro-blogging host,

Twitter, was urged by the U.S. State Department to delay a night-scheduled

update by just one day so as to avoid disruption of communication during

the daytime for people in Iran. Google, incidentally, has spurred itself onto

the fast track for introducing a Persian based edition of its online services to

improve the accessibility of networks and outside news material to Iranians.

(Zetter, Jan 12, 2010) (Zetter, Jan 13, 2010)

This new frontier of technology and information exchanges can slowly

illustrate the evolution of governments and business. With the onset of the

internet, this fast medium of information easily facilitates the globalization of

today’s ever expanding companies. Multinational conglomerates boast such

influential economic clout that they are just beginning to realize their

political power in foreign markets. For Google, and until very recently,

Facebook, we are lucky that our visions and those of American companies

are one of the same in setting out to achieve the American dream.
 Works Cited

Oreskovic, A. (2009, June 26). Google’s china rift hints at challenges

ahead. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/googles-china-rift-
hints-at-challenges-ahead/

Google's monopoly, algorithms, and privacy policy . (n.d.). Retrieved

May 2, 2010 from http://www.google-watch.org/

"A new approach to China". Google Inc.. 2010-01-12. Retrieved 17 January

2010.

Operation Aurora. (2010, April 30). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved 20:08, May 3, 2010, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Operation_Aurora&oldid=359205849

Google China. (2010, May 3). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved
20:09, May 3, 2010, fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Google_China&oldid=359742246

Google. (May 2,2010). Google search of, “World’s Most” Searched on May 2,
2010: http://www.google.com/search?
hl=en&source=hp&q=google+worlds+most&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&
gs_rfai=&cad=h

Google hacks from china originated at two prominent schools. (2010,

February 10). Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/18/google-hacks-from-
china-o_n_468361.html

Frommer, D. (2010, January 12). Did the chinese government hack

google?. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/did-
the-chinese-government-hack-google-2010-1
Zetter , Kim. (2010, January 12). Google to stop censoring search
results in china after hack attack. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/google-censorship-
china/

Zetter , Kim. (2010, January 13). Google hackers targeted source

codes of more than 30 companies. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/google-hack-attack/