French CaldwellSo how about that Google — they’ve finally come back to their core principle: Do No Evil.
Not so fast, though. With both Google and China, what’s on the surface is not what’s really happening.
So, some speculation on Google’s new approach to China — and remember this is just purely personal speculation — and maybe I read too many John le Carré novels:
This cyberattack gives Google a great cover — the prodigal vendor returning to their core principle “do no evil.” Tears my eyes.
You gotta love the plot. Schmidt backs out of an untenable situation that he created, blaming the Chinese. The prodigal vendor returns to its principles, and Google is lauded for standing up to the Chinese.
Notice how Google also spins the good work they’ve done in helping the Chinese human rights activists who through no fault of Google had their Gmail accounts hacked. That’s a nice little sub-plot (also known as a red herring).
Bottomline — The substance of this event within Google’s executive chambers has nothing to do with security. Publicly announcing this attack and the suspected source is a PR event by Google to extricate itself from China, just like other web services firms Yahoo and eBay before them — we may never know the real business reason.
———————————————–
p.s. — the next time you send Gmail, think about this: How does Google know which Gmail users are “advocates of human rights in China?”
Category: Uncategorized Tags: Public Policy, reputational risk
9 responses so far ↓
1 Michael B January 13, 2010 at 11:12 am
They know if they are humans rights activists or not because they google.cn’d them
2 Bob Sorel January 13, 2010 at 11:24 am
Good for Google. Whatever the reason, this sends the message to the Chinese people that freedom of speech and thought are fundamental to a “liberated” modern society. There is a cumulative effect in people’s minds of these limitations, that eventually will bring the walls of control tumbling down.
3 Bob Olwig January 13, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Agree…good for Google.
And, I’m not following the “p.s.” If they investigated that certain accounts were being attacked, wouldn’t they try to determine a pattern and perhaps researched who the gmail users were? I don’t have a problem with that.
Best Regards, Bob
4 French Caldwell January 14, 2010 at 12:48 am
Reply to Bob Olwig — The quote from Google’s blog in the p.s. refers to the investigations that were unrelated to the cyberattack. Since they stated that the other investigation was not related to the cyberattack, how did Google know they were activists? Do they investigate phishing against all activists or just activists for human rights in China?
5 French Caldwell January 14, 2010 at 12:51 am
Reply to Bob Sorel — Was being good their motivation for bailing from China? In matters of principle, ie, do no evil, motivations are relevant.
6 Tweets that mention Spy vs Spy — China and Google -- Topsy.com January 14, 2010 at 3:37 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by French Caldwell, Ex7loit. Ex7loit said: RT @iTGuru: Great drama — #Google vs #China — Spy vs Spy. Am I too cynical? http://is.gd/6c5hF [...]
7 anil January 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm
may i help in any way to google
Thanks & regards
Anil Kumar Pipaliya
8 A new approach to China January 20, 2010 at 1:33 am
[...] Spy vs Spy — China and Google [...]
9 reputation management March 3, 2010 at 2:08 am
Google and China are bringing up a 21st century battle of democracy and freedom verse Communism and restricted personal freedom. When we started using cloud computing systems we saw the HUGE area of security problems being created in cross country internet usage.The recent cyber attacks launched within China against Google and several other companies raised questions about the state of industry preparedness to help