U.S. Law Is Not Global: Why Google Wasn’t Being Evil
05/19/2008, 3 months 2 weeks ago
When I first saw Mike Arrington's post about Google revealing the identity of an Orkut user to Indian officials (leading to an arrest) hit Techmeme yesterday, I knew it was going to stir a bunch of people up. Until the Monday morning Twitter stream started going full-blast, however, I didn't know how vocal the Google detractors were going to be. Google's alleged mantra "Don't Be Evil" gets used quite a bit whenever people don't agree with one of Google's moves, and I've used it myself in that regard. However, while I regularly rake Google over the coals, for once I'm firmly in their camp. Google wasn't being evil.
The prevailing mentality in the U.S. is that U.S. laws are the One True Law and the rest of the world should abide by them in some form of global agreement. I'm sure that given the U.S. government's tendency to reinterpret even the U.S. Constitution (Gitmo), there are many countries out there who are more than happy that they aren't subject to the laws of the U.S.
First, let's dissect the arrest, Google's involvement, and figure out what really happened. The alleged criminal, Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid, is an IT professional in India, an he was found guilty under section 67 of India's IT act, which states:
67. Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form. - Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.
The accused admitted that he posted the content to the Orkut group "I hate Soniya Gandhi." Note that neither the creator of the group, nor any other member of the group was arrested, only the one who posted content that was in clear violation of Indian law.
The U.S. is the same population up in arms over a Wikipedia image of an album cover used in most European countries, but banned here in the States, remember? We expect that our laws be honored in our country, but other countries' laws shouldn't be honored in theirs? Even here in the U.S. "free speech" only applies to being able to speak out against the government. It does not guarantee citizens the right to say whatever they want whenever they want, or yelling "Bomb" on an airplane wouldn't cause a problem, then, would it? We need to remember that not all other countries are evil, and that each country has its own set of laws that apply to their society. And if we expect foreign companies to abide by our laws, then our countries should abide by those of the countries they do business in. This wasn't a human rights violation issue like previous issues that companies have had in China; it was a violation of a law that Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid was surely aware of, especially since he worked in the industry.
Image credit: Sara Ascalon's parody of "Evil Google"
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to profy RSS feed!
Its the same issue as in China. You’re just a Google apologist.
Obviously, you've never read anything I've written before, because I'm about the farthest thing from a Google apologist you're likely to find online. How do you compare it to China? Or Egypt? Or Syria? Or any of the tons of other places who regularly persecute and jail people for posting their opinions anywhere online? You can't come close to comparing this to China (and I'm assuming you didn't even bother reading the entire article), simply based on the fact that only ONE person was arrested for a criminal act, and it was one who took it over the line. Would a group that existed ranting about a public official be allowed to exist in China? Would the creator of such a group have escaped criminal prosecution in China? Hardly.
I always wondered why I didn’t see more Indian amateur porn…
Laws and morals don’t always align. And it’s a slippery slope between the two. My sense is it’s just a preview of things to come…here.
@Zane, that’s an excellent way of putting it. I think there are several U.S. laws that cross that moral boundary, but I choose to live here and do business here, so I live with them. Personally, I wouldn’t choose to do business in China because of my personal ethics, but if I were in the position of the Googles/Yahoos/Microsofts of the world, I’d probably have to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. I don’t, however, see that a country’s stricter definition of obscenity or libel laws makes doing business in that country and abiding by those laws more evil than doing business here.
You appear to make the proposition that any arrest for violating any law is just.
The fact that India has a law such as the one you cite above isn’t the issue. China has laws it uses to justify its actions. Was the arrest of Shi Tao, based on information provided by Yahoo, for ‘espionage’ just? It was certainly ‘legal’ as defined by China. The same was true for companies that did business with Nazi Germany.
The issue is whether the arrest of Rahul Krishnakumar Vaid violates The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by the UN in 1948 with no votes against it.
I’m not aware of the specifics of the case, but it seems to me that Vaid was objecting to a political figure in his country. Thus, as long as he didn’t advocate violence, Vaid should be viewed as a political prisoner.
It may be that the specifics of the material uploaded put Vaid in a different category…I haven’t read the text he allegedly uploaded.
But your post is about whether it’s okay for Google to reveal information when presented with a legal justification. Is that really a position you want to take?
PS: Mentioning the IP address of an anonymous poster is poor form. If the poster is posting from Yahoo, he or she is doing so as an individual. Trying to associate the individual with that company’s less than stellar human rights record is unfair…the poster may have nothing to do with Yahoo’s policies.
@Thomas That isn’t the point that I’m making at all. There is a huge difference between expressing yourself and doing it in a way that’s over the top as far as the law is concerned, which is why complaining about a government official in the U.S. is legal, but using any sort of language implying or threatening violence against said official is not. According to the complaint, the individual in question crossed a similar line as it applies to Indian law. If it was a matter of simply expressing himself, then don’t you think others, including the group’s creator, would also have been charged? There is this quick jump to judgment by Americans over anything “furrin” when our own adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights isn’t exactly stellar at the moment.
You are correct in that it was bad form, and I have removed it. However, I would like to point out that posting via an employer’s network when you are going to slam someone for pointing out that a competitor is getting some (for once) undeserved bad PR is also bad form, and rather silly. With several easily accessible proxies out there, more people should think about using them in situations like this one.
Before I put in my two cents worth, some context. I’m Indian. But I grew up in the middle east. I worked for the US Navy for almost 4 years and now live in Hong Kong. My job takes me to China & around S.E. Asia where I have to deal with sister companies. I have quite a few American friends. Some of them I consider as family.
Now the rant:
Regular people think conjoined twins must have terrible lives and therefore should be separated but studies show that conjoined twins can’t imagine their lives without their twin and rate their lives as happy.
I’m tired of the moral imperialism that some Americans keep pushing. What people like Arrington don’t realize is that their talk is influenced from always living stateside. They’ve never lived in the ‘real’ world of shiites versus sunnis, alarms going off because of scuds flying overhead, being demeaned because of skin color or caste or political affiliation or the other hundreds of reasons people use to discriminate against each other. I’ve lived my entire life as an expat and have met the gamut of nationalities. And most Americans have the tendency to build little America wherever they are. They’re just as parochial as the other immigrants who create Chinatown or little Italy/India etc.
If you live or do business in another country, if you want to succeed and have goodwill, you need to live by their rules. You can’t just come in and say, “Guess what? We know better than you.” If you think you know better, then stick it out and bring change from within. Thrashing the system from the outside doesn’t work.
If you want to take a stand or get American companies to take a stand, then get them to help not rebel. Why isn’t Google more involved in social endeavors in the third world? Why isn’t Arrington? It feels great to talk about the moral high ground, but if you aren’t doing anything constructive and concrete, then please take your holier-than-thou attitude somewhere else. The world needs more DO-ers not preachers.
Here is an eye opener for some Americans.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf
Go to page 3 to see that India’s electoral process and civil liberties are rated 9.58/10 and
9.41/10 respectively…
The corresponding numbers for the US are 8.75 and 8.53 .
And the Washington Post should make note of the fact that India does not require its legislators to swear on a particular religious book, nor does it require currency to be stamped with the name of God.
Conclusion: Different nations have different curbs on civil liberty. The US should stop pretending that they are the “one free country”. Indian law also discriminates against certain sexual minorities etc, just as US law discriminates against non Christians. The UK, for instance, discriminates between “monotheistic religions” and “polytheistic religions”, as if it were better to substitute one piece of nonsense for another. So: we are all trying to be better on civil liberty and the US is actually falling behind…
Kiran and Abhishek have made me ashamed of my shallow post earlier… I’d still like to see more amateur Indian porn though, so I’m torn…
It would be nice if Google were simply - ‘not evil’. But, and I am sorry for all the brainwashed Googlers who think they are in a progressive company, Google are no different from any other firm. Unfortunately it’s not about laws in the US or anywhere, it’s about a little piece of branding that Google uses to try and separate it from every other corporation that ignores human morality for profit. Google clearly recognized that to be a multi-national corporation run by process and not innovation, then it has to create a brand which deflects from their true goals - their goals are not bad or wrong as such, they are just the same as every large firm whose race to increase their profit margins have exploited, ignored or overlooked instances of human rights, human development or simple human progress. Haliburton, Nestle, GE, PG&E, Google, Coca Cola etc. have all washed over human rights and used the law to out run morality charges just to make a profit. Google is the only firm though to agressivly state the opposite. “Don’t Be Evil” is an insulting and hypocritical term to be used by the firm, it may seemed nice back in 1998 in some small Menlo Park office but those ideals are long gone.
Google could act in a more progressive and sound business manner, it would be revolutionary and amazing. But as long as there are a herd of mid-range graduates willing to settle for free food and clever branding over progressive, innovative business practices that lean towards…well…’not being evil’ - I guess we are stuck in this new world or corporatism.
This talk of laws is stupid - why can’t Google just practice what they believe is right? And if that is to expand it’s global presence at the cost of human civil liberites, then so be it. Just don’t brand the company as anything other than a normal, purely capitalistic, online ad agency, whose technology records every persons interaction with all of their products. People should not pick on Google though, they are just regular corporate spin doctors. The only reason Google gets into trouble among the World’s educated is because their branding is specifically designed to re-shape an external truth - that their policies and the applications of them can be disasterous for freedom of speech, freedom of information and fascist/corporatist control.
How amazing would it be if Google decided to focus on markets that adopted a policy of freedom of expression. Sure they would lose out on valuable markets but like Larry and Sergy say - “Don’t Be Evil”, maybe it should be “Don’t Be Evil, unless there is a shit load of cash in it”.
The context is wrong, but the principal of free speech stands. The local laws of any country should not impede basics principles of free existence. When you make a stand like every country has separate laws, and their laws should be honored, you’re siding with laws that jail a citizen for 10 years because he stomped on a currency note that has the picture of the king. Yes, there’s a law like that in Thailand.
You’re siding with the prosecution of free-thinkers in China.
You’re siding with the military junta in Burma that wants to crush all voice of dissent.
Before you present the argument that we must honour the law, remember it’s the rulers who make the law, and that the law can be changed to suit the tastes of the ruler.
Do you fail to recognize that laws can be brutal, one-sided, and even dishonest?
There’s a law in Iran which makes it illegal to practice the bahai religion.
Do you support it?
What are you standing for?
Unlawful freedom, lawful or oppression?
Remember, this is not in the present context, but in the broader view.
I apparently lost my own comment and will have to go find it again!
But @Cyril, the “principal [sic] of free speech” is NOT what people understand it to be. It does not EVER, in ANY society, mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want to. That is anarchy. If freedom of speech means what you are interpreting it to be, then why is it illegal to make threats against people? Why is it illegal to post child pornography? There are decency laws in the U.S. as well; why is no one protesting those laws? If this was a cut-and-dried freedom of speech case, others in the group would have been arrested as well, but that fact seems to be ignored again and again.
I am frustrated by the attention this one article has received without any reading of past articles I have written about the issues in China and in Myanmar and in other countries.