Go-ogle: New tactic in China

Starting today (23rd March 2010), users of Google.cn website will now taken to the Google.com.hk site as Mountain View, California-based company seeks to operate an uncensored service in China that won't infringe local laws, the Internet operator said.

As such, Mountain View had escalated a two-month censorship row with the government in the world's biggest Internet market yesterday by routing China-based subscribers to a search service on its Hong Kong site.

Was this a good move by Google?

In my opinion, this is a clever-cum-tactical move by Google to takes on China, because the playing ground had swifted to Hong Kong now. And, this could inviting backlash from Hong Kong people, if China want to completely ousted Google out of its territory.

Remember, Hong Kong has a separate government and economy, though mainland authorities have exercised powers to reinterpret local statutes since 1997. China had promised to preserve Hong Kong's capitalist system and free press for a further 50 years, when handing over of sovereignty then. However, traffic redirected to Google's Hong Kong site was still subject to Chinese government filters today. Can Hong Kong out-spoken citizens live without Google?

To recap:
Google said on Jan.12 it was no longer willing to censor content on its Chinese site after it was targeted by cyber attacks from within China. Hackers obtained proprietary information and e-mail data of some human rights activists in a "highly sophisticated attack", said Google. Clearly, Google is upset with the move by "Chinese hackers" or "hackers of China".

Disclaimer: This article is purely of personal opinions with no intention of biased to neither party.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more