12 February, 2006

the great firewall takes off

Air China is planning to offer broadband internet service on international flights:

Airchina    BEIJING, Feb. 12 (Xinhuanet) — Air China, the flagship international air carrier in China, and Connexion by Boeing, a business unit of the Boeing Company, announced a preliminary agreement they have reached to provide real-time, high-speed connectivity to air travelers traveling to and from China.

    The announcement in Beijing included as many as 15 firm and optional retrofit installations on Air China’s Boeing 747-400 aircraft, and other long-haul aircraft models to be determined at a later date.

    Aircraft installations are expected to begin in Oct. 2006 and, once completed, the Connexion by Boeing service will provide Air China passengers with in-flight access to the Internet, real-time email, instant messaging, corporate intranet access, including virtual private network capability, and the ability to stay in touch with friends, family and colleagues while enroute to their destination.

It is unlikely that the firewall will be airborne. On top of the logistic problems of linking aircraft to China’s constrictive system of filters, AsiaPundit assumes international travelers will not appreciate the Great Firewall. Still, if an Air China plane operates a firewall-free flight, wouldn’t that be in violation of Chinese Internet regulations?

by @ 11:51 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Censorship

chinese net censorship: out come the wolves

Next week, AsiaPundit hopes to see some frank disclosure about US internet and technology companies activities in China, with the four most-discussed companies being brought before Congressional hearings. AsiaPundit is naturally expecting much bombast and hyperbole as well. The WSJ item below mentions two suggestions from lawmakers: one is reactionary and hopefully a non-starter, but the other is more measured and could have some interesting implications.:

The hearing will likely produce more embarrassing publicity for the companies, and it may drive legislative momentum among lawmakers concerned about China’s influence on the U.S. economy. Congressional aides are expecting a standing-room-only crowd, and the reception from politicians may be chilly.

"I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That’s the wrong question," says Rep. Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing. "It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship."

Mr. Smith plans to introduce legislation next week that would impose restrictions on Internet companies seeking to expand into China but also provide some legal protection from Chinese demands.

The bill would require U.S. Internet companies to keep email servers used for Chinese traffic offshore. That would help prevent the Chinese government from compelling the release of Internet user data. The bill also calls for creation of an office inside the State Department that would make an annual determination about which countries are restricting Internet use. It would provide a framework for users to pursue legal action against U.S. Internet companies over privacy violations.


The disclosures about Internet companies cooperating with the Chinese government are having a wider political impact. Last week, Sens. Lindsey Graham, (R., S.C.) and Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) cited Internet companies’ efforts to help the Chinese government monitor citizens’ online activity as a reason to permanently revoke China’s most-favored-nation trading status.

A removal of China’s trading status, also known as "normal trade relations," is unlikely to happen. And it shouldn’t. China is making progress in meeting most of its WTO commitments and is opening up faster than anticipated in other areas such as financial services. There is a push internally to accelerate opening and sanctions would clearly hurt reformers in China.

Graham  - along with Democrat Charles Schumer - has been pushing to put a 27.5% tariff on Chinese goods over charges that the country is a "currency manipulator." There is little doubt that China’s censorship regime concerns Graham, it concerns most people from free countries, but he will take any opportunity to bash China’s MFN status. The latest outburst shouldn’t yet be taken too seriously.

More interesting are Smith’s proposals. AsiaPundit is withholding full judgement on them for now, but based on the one-paragraph description above they seem relatively non-interventionist. Requiring that servers that contain users’ data be kept offshore would indeed directly limit what US companies could do in China. However, this seems to be the route that is now being taken by the companies themselves. Google is not offering Blogger or Gmail for due to privacy concerns and Microsoft’s altered blog-hosting policy is now attempting a compromise solution. After the highly publicized cases of Shi Tao and Li Zhi, Yahoo most certainly regrets establishing its Chinese e-mail service.

The idea of allowing users to pursue legal action against U.S. Internet companies over privacy violations is far more interesting.

On top of providing some measure of redress for those wrongfully jailed, AsiaPundit also assumes such legislation would extend to Chinese companies with US listings. Roland noted that the Nasdaq-listed  Sina provided information in the Li case.

US trials are expensive, and verdicts - particularly those delivered by juries - can be crippling. There are a number of Chinese internet companies already listed in the US and others, such as blog service provider Bokee, that are known to be seeking listings.

Things to consider: Could such a law scare some new listings away from US markets? Also, would its implementation force some interesting disclosures from Sina and others? If providing user information to authorities created significant financial risks, US-listed Chinese companies would surely be required to inform shareholders. This could move things beyond the realm of tech companies and NGOs and into the realm of trial lawyers and investment banks (hence the title of the this post).

Expect much chest thumping from Congress, defensiveness from the search engines and lobbying from everyone.

Related reading:
Silicon Hutong: Time for a Solution
ESWN: The Third Way for Yahoo

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

by @ 3:43 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

10 February, 2006

msn blocks blog; ccp blocks newspapers

Nvr

China Digital News linked to this Chinese journalist’s blog only a couple of days ago. I could log on it yesterday, but today I see this.  Apparently it’s only blocked in China, as MSN has promised.

Things are getting crazier by the day.

I wonder if language is my only layer of protection right now. Maybe I’ll be taken offline soon too.

This is how MSN’s new policy on censoring blogs is being practiced. The company will no longer erase a blog, as it did with Michael Anti’s site. It will only block it in the country where the government has requested a block. This is a step up, as users can still see the site through a proxy and as postings can be retrieved and placed elsewhere. AsiaPundit does hope that MSN will not be collecting the IP address and user details if the author chooses to do so.

Still, it would have been nice if Microsoft displayed the above notice in Chinese. That keeps the company still a few notches below Google, which does display its censorship notice in the local language.
(UPDATE: MSN does display a notice in Chinese.).
As AsiaPundit has mentioned earlier, the cooperation of internet companies in China’s censorship is only marginally upsetting. Users can still access the ‘real’ Google and more importantly the real simplified-Chinese Google, MSN Spaces still provides room for expression - even if the company did delete and now blocks blogs by the request of the state.

The thing that upsets AsiaPundit is that these moves are assisting in a greater evil, that which is the Chinese government’s attempt to muzzle an emerging critical press. With the shutdown of Michael Anti’s site, the block on the above site and the jailing of Shi Tao — something that is completely unforgivable — the targets were the domestic press.

The local press is where positive change will come from in China. A vibrant domestic press is more important than an unfiltered Google, or Microsoft, or Yahoo, although that would be welcome. The domestic press is what is read in China, and change will not come because of news articles by the BBC, NYT or my own agency, although these too are welcome. Change will certainly not come from US bloggers who seem more interested in picking on Google than they are in talking about the actual situation of the press in China. But AsiaPundit imagines that the CCP is less of a threat to Pajamas Media advertising revenue than AdSense is.

That internet portals are censoring themselves is bad, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. This is the true Evil!

Announcement of Beijing Municipal Administration Office of Internet Propaganda

All,

The media listed below are frequently chosen as sources for internet website, but they are currently not legally allowed to be copied. Please do not copy current news and politics from those media. Please especially keep away from copying them in the front page or headline areas.

We understand that the current limits on copying news are not easy to implement, but before we find better solutions, please cooperate with us. We will also keep guard for you, and penalize each of those sites that we find fail to follow the rules.

The Huashang Daily, The Chinese Business Morning View (Hua Shang Chen Bao), The Jiefang Daily Online–Shanghai Morning Post (Xin Wen Chen Bao), The Jin Chu Online-Chu Tian Metropolitan News (Chu Tian Du Shi Bao), The Bei Guo Online—Ban Dao Chen Bao, The Star Daily (Bei Jing Yu Le Xin Bao), The International Herald Leader (Guo Ji Xian Qu Dao Bao), The China Business News (Di Yi Cai Jing Ri Bao), The Hua Xia Jing Wei Online, The China Taiwan Online, Chongqing Morning News (Chongqing Chen Bao), The Oriental Morning Post (Dong Fang Zao Bao), Chongqing Business News (Chong Qing Shang Bao ), The First (Jing Bao), YNET.com (Bei Qing Wang), The Legal Evening News (Fa Zhi Wan Bao), The Today Morning News (Jin Ri Zao Bao), The Southern Metropolitan News (Nan Fang Du Shi Bao), Chengdu Evening News, Lanzhou Morning News, Haixia Dushi Bao.

There was indication that this was imminent in yesterday’s South China Morning Post:

Mainland internet companies are expecting new controls over their content that would prevent them from posting political and current affairs articles published by metropolitan newspapers on their websites, sources said.

But articles from magazines and party newspapers would be exempt from the soon-to-be-announced directives, the sources said, adding that metropolitan newspapers were targeted probably because they ran more negative news.

"Sohu will be the most affected because it focuses on domestic news, while Sina will be affected to a lesser extent because it carries more international news. Netease will also be affected because it needs local content to fill its news packages," one source said, referring to three of the mainland’s most popular news portals.

An outspoken journalism professor, who had been warned not to speak to foreign reporters, said he was not aware of the new policy, but described it as "beyond comprehension" and against the trend of the mainland’s economic openness.

"Portals cannot help but respect the rule, but in the longer term, such controls will not work because they go against the trend of economic opening-up," he said.

"We have to work for greater openness otherwise [the whole system] will break down."

AsiaPundit is thankful that, for the moment, the newspapers have been blocked from reproduction by the portals rather than shut. And Interfax notes an upside, both from the local press and from the internet.:

Most news published on the country’s top portals consists of republished reports from Chinese newspapers, not news written by the portals own staffers. By republishing stories on the Internet a report published in a regional newspaper can receive national attention.

The circular was originally leaked by a popular Chinese journalist blogger. Chinese journalists are increasingly turning to blogs and email to publish news that would otherwise not be published. It is likely that this new rule will only strengthen this trend, and will increase blog traffic to the detriment of China’s top portals, many of which are listed abroad.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

by @ 9:24 pm. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

china’s internet hype

AsiaPundit has an itch that he, once again, needs to scratch: Please, please, please stop calling China the world’s second largest internet market!

The above link is to a CBS report, but AsiaPundit could have picked from thousands of blog entries and news items.

Below are the domestic revenue numbers and estimates for the top search engines in each of four markets - the US, Japan, South Korea and China. These numbers are just pulled from quick searches and are not deep analysis. Though they should demonstrate something about the so-called second largest internet market.

USA: Google

, Google reported total revenues of $6.139 billion, an increase of 92.5% over revenues of $3.189 billion in 2004. Revenue growth was attributable to both Google sites and Google network sites…

International Revenues - Revenues from outside of the United States contributed 39% to total revenues for the year compared to 34% in 2004.

Revenues from US were $3.75 billion

JAPAN: Yahoo Japan Corp

For the full-year to March, the company expects to post net profit of 46.40-47.95 bln yen on revenue of 175.24-178.44 bln yen.

(fiscal year ends 31 March)

About $1.48 billion at low end of guidance.

SOUTH KOREA: Naver

Sure, NHN is still a midget compared with Google. Its revenues leapt 53% last year, to $351 million, while earnings should come in at $86 million, Daewoo Securities estimates (for 2005).

Estimated revenues $351 million

CHINA: Baidu.com

Total Q1 revenue $5.2 million.

Q2 at Rmb65.2 million (Rmb8.3/$1) $7.8 million

Q3 2005 was Rmb83.2 million (Rmb8.1/$1) $10.3 million

Baidu.com, Inc. announced that it expects to generate total revenues in an amount ranging from RMB102 million ($12.6 million) to RMB106 million ($13.1 million) for the fourth quarter of 2005.

That would be a ballpark total of $35.9 million (not adjusting Q1 for revaluation and going with low end of guidance)

There are many differences that could be noted about the above companies - Google is very big in advertising while Yahoo Japan is big at auctions - but these are not the biggest reason for the discrepancies. These are the top brands in their respective markets and the revenues they generate should be a more important indicator about the size of the market than the raw number of users.  Baidu is expecting revenues of about one-tenth of Naver, and a just fraction of those of Yahoo Japan or Google.

AsiaPundit is not downplaying the fact that there is significant growth opportunities for Chinese internet businesses, the quarter-on-quarter rise in Baidu revenues clearly indicate that there are.

However, the amount of cash that can be gained through direct investment here is still small. Picking a few local Chinese stocks - or playing the venture capital angle - is a far more reasonable way to make money through internet investment in China.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

by @ 12:24 pm. Filed under Japan, South Korea, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech

9 February, 2006

yahoo!: how many more?

This is the reason Google will not offer a localized version of gmail.:

CHINA

Another cyberdissident imprisoned because of data provided by Yahoo

Reporters Without Borders today condemned the US firm Yahoo ! for handing over data on one of its users in China which enabled the authorities there to send him to prison for eight years, the second such case that has come to light in recent months.

It called on Yahoo ! to supply a list of all cyberdissidents it has provided data on, beginning with 81 people in China whose release the worldwide press freedom organization is currently campaigning for.

It said it had discovered that Yahoo ! customer and cyberdissident Li Zhi had been given his eight-year prison sentence in December 2003 based on electronic records provided by Yahoo. “How many more cases are we going to find ?” it asked.

“We were sure the case of Shi Tao, who was jailed for 10 years last April on the basis of Yahoo-supplied data, was not the only one. Now we know Yahoo works regularly and efficiently with the Chinese police.

“The firm says it simply responds to requests from the authorities for data without ever knowing what it will be used for. But this argument no longer holds water. Yahoo certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals. The company must answer for what it is doing at the US congressional hearing set for February 15.”

The foreign-based news website Boxun.com posted on February 5 the plea of cyberdissident Li’s lawyer, Zhang Sizhi, at an appeal court hearing in February 2004. Zhang said his client, who used the e-mail address and user-name lizhi34100, had been sentenced on the basis of data handed over by Yahoo ! Hong Kong in a report dated August 1, 2003.

Li, a 35-year-old ex-civil servant from the southwestern province of Dazhou, had been sentenced on December 10, 2003 to eight years in prison for “inciting subversion.” He had been arrested the previous August after he criticized in online discussion groups and articles the corruption of local officials.

Local sources said Yahoo! Hong Kong’s cooperation with the police was also mentioned in the court’s verdict on Li.

The US house of Representatives Committee on International Relations will hold a hearing on February 15 about the ethical responsibilities of Internet firms. Yahoo! has been invited to attend.

49 cyberdissidents and 32 journalists are in prison in China for posting on the Internet articles and criticism of the authorities.

For the Shi Tao case : www.rsf.org/article.php3 ?id_article=14884

‘How many others have there been?’ is a valid question. 

"How many more will there be?" is a better one.

(UPDATE: How many more? Technically zero.

Shortly after that question was written, AsiaPundit was reminded of his comment at China Herald on how many Yahoo staffers were relieved that the company "gave the whole China shop to Jack Ma" and won’t have to deal with something like the Shi Tao incident again.
That’s true, China’s Alibaba now controls Yahoo China, so there will be no direct control of activities in China by Yahoo itself (aside from a 40 percent shareholding in Alibaba and a seat on Alibaba’s four-man board held by Yahoo chief and co-founder Jerry Yang.)
Yahoo was today directing all media querries toward Alibaba. Alibaba responded, properly , that the company could not comment on a case from 2003 as Alibaba did not take over Yahoo China until 2005. So, the Chinese company said ‘talk to Yahoo Inc about anything Yahoo China did before October.’
That would put into doubt RSF’s statement that: "Now we know Yahoo works regularly and efficiently with the Chinese police." First of all it needs to be put into past tense.
Sure, Yahoo may have worked regularly and efficiently with the Chinese police, it may have just handed over whatever information Chinese authorities asked for at any time without question, or it may have only responded to formal legal warrants and requests without having a clue about the purpose of the warrants.
Also, assuming that either Chinese police or US Internet companies in China are ‘efficient’ is a rather bold idea. Yahoo’s China business was generally seen as a failure, which was part or the reason they ditched it. And Chinese police have a reputation for bumbling and brutishness. Efficiency really should not be expected from either of those two parties.
That said, as Yahoo hasn’t really explained the process that led to the arrests, RSF’s guess is as good as any. Unless Yahoo cares to fully detail what happened in both cases - and give some indication on how many incidents of this have not yet been uncovered - speculation must be welcome.)

(Addendum: While AsiaPundit is nitpicking the RSF’s statement, where the hell is  the southwestern province of Dazhou?)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

by @ 10:18 am. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Censorship

singlish spam scam

Keen! Scam e-mail was received by dullneon, in Singlish!

Happy New year !!!!! Long time never email you lieow, heh. Anyway i got one new lobang to introduce you, err.. this is not those scam emails that you receive which will promise you don’t know how many millions if you send them money. No need credit card no need brain juice, no need big investment (We are talking about around SGD$17 here only) SHIOCK MAN!

This company that is making my chinese new year is call www.7daysdeal.com which are options and gambling experts. The minimum to invest on them is only around USD$10 (around $17 SGD).

The full letter is here, and translation can be aided by the Coxford Singlish Dictionary.

(Via Tomorrow)

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 12:18 am. Filed under Singapore, Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Web/Tech

8 February, 2006

the middle landscape

At We Make Money Not Art, excerpts from a discussion of the internet and social networking in China.:

000Irep
There’s over 100 million users of internet in China, making it the country with the most internet users in the world. The typical net surfer used to be male, urban, high-educated, in his 20-30. It’s becoming less so. Active bottom up. Now more women and less educated people are catching up.

How people use the internet: in China there’s a very lively amateur culture. What’s different in China from other parts of the world is the huge sense of humour when writing about daily life and world/national events.

Many people make and exchange flash movies, swap lots of files. Commercial portal are thriving (big portals dealing with celebrities for example) but e-commerce hasn’t taken off yet.

The Middle Landscape. The internet has become a middle landscape between the public sphere and the commercial sphere. These two separate realms merge on the internet. On blogs and bulletin boards that mostly discuss commercial matters, someone might start a discussion on a recent event (like a murder hidden by the authorities) and a long discussion will start.

The Middle Landscape in another sense: the internet as a middle landscape between the private and the public sphere. Bloggers and wikipedians against the governement. Governement is loosing control over the private domain (in the past, employees had to get an authorisation to get married, it’s no longer the case.) The internet is very hard to control although there are rules to restrict what people can write. If you want to open a blog you have to give your name and address. Companies like Google, Microsoft or Cisco, help the governement to shut up the voices and restrict the new freedom.

On the other hand, Chinese have now a service they didn’t have before. For each new rules imposed by the government, bloggers and wikipedians make a counter attack.

The Social Brain Foundation is inviting people in the West to adopt a Chinese blog on their personal web server to make it harder to control or block the blogs (only i found).

Are public sphere and civil society emerging? De Waal asked several actors whom have different perspectives.

Jack Qiu: no, we’re not seeing this promised new freedom. In China, internet is given as a toy to people to play with, not to provide them with more possibilities of expression.

Michael Anti (who had his weblog shut down by the governement): yes, there’s a gradual development. People are willing to see things change even if the governement doesn’t agree.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 7:49 am. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

7 February, 2006

baidu gets girls

Google’s top China challenger Baidu has put out an internet viral indicating that Google can’t speak Chinese, and further that Baidu is better for wooing women:

Baidugirls

and t

(Via Bill Bishop)

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

by @ 2:20 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech

6 February, 2006

’irrational’ non-exuberance

After the sudden of burst of activity last week, when every second post here was about internet companies in China, AsiaPundit was not going to touch the topic today. However, Tom Zeller Jr today said something in the New York Times that struck a nerve.:

What if Chinese law required Internet companies to reveal the identities of all users who forwarded really bad e-mail jokes, lame chain letters or any messages containing the terms “free speech,” “Tiananmen Square” or “Super Freak,” because such activities carried a 10-year prison term?

“With all due respect to the memory of Rick James, the king of funk,” an executive might say, “we must abide by the laws of the countries in which we operate.”

And what if — as a mark of good faith for being permitted to do business in what any rational observer has to admit is now the most tantalizing Internet and technology market on the planet — an executive from each company were required to assist, mano a mano, in the beating of an imprisoned blogger?

While Tom makes a few interesting points, AsiaPundit is going to be “irrational” and suggest that China’s internet market is far from the most tantalizing on the planet. Off the top of the head, AsiaPundit would suggest that the most-tantalizing internet markets are — in descending order — the wealthy and tech-savvy United States, followed by the EU, e-commerce friendly Japan and possibly then the well-wired South Korea. China would certainly be in the top-10, and maybe even the top five, but it’s not the most tantalizing by a longshot.

Here’s a note from a MarketWatch item on Google’s prospects in China, issued after the China censorship issue was announced but ahead of the company’s earnings announcement. ():

One Wall Street analyst wrote in a report that Google’s China decision could cost more than it’s worth in the short term.

“We do not see meaningful revenue” in China for Google in the near term, UBS analyst Benjamin Schachter told clients Wednesday.

“We are concerned that the inevitable negative PR will damage Google’s brand,” wrote Schachter, who has a buy rating on Google shares.

Schachter downgraded Google to neutral after the earnings announcement, via Dow Jones:

UBS cut Google Inc. (GOOG) to neutral from buy, due to concerns over international revenue growth and the rising investment needed to potentially improve performance in key international markets.

The analysts said that while it agrees with Google that these markets provide important potential opportunities, it may take “longer than expected to effectively monetize them.”

UBS’ China analyst was bearish on the company’s prospects here ahead of the formal launch of the China portal:

Eric Wen, the UBS Internet analyst based in Asia, sums up what he believes are some of the prevailing issues in China for Google in a research report published this month.

Mr. Wen believes that Google is still testing the waters, and does not yet have a clear China strategy. Google has partnered with NetEase and Sina uses Google for some of its technology, but Google.com is facing a dilemma in China. The company recently began conforming to Chinese censorship standards, but Mr. Wen believes that Chinese users chose Google precisely because it was not censored. By conforming to the government standards, Google is trying to enable itself to enter the market in terms of attracting local businesses to advertise. However, by conforming, Google loses its differentiator. This is a dilemma for Google and the reason Mr. Wen believes that Google will not dominate the Chinese search market.

As Bill Bishop noted, China is not an essential market for Google to be in financially:

I am guessing that Google will be happy if they can generate $30M in revenue in China in 2006. Baidu, the market leader, is projected to generate somewhere between $65-70M in revenue in 2006. I believe Google is expected to generate over $8B in revenue worldwide in 2006. If my math is anywhere in the ballpark, China will account for LESS THAN 2 DAYS of Google’s 2006 revenue. And given the economics of the keyword value chain in China, that revenue should be significantly lower margin revenue than is US revenue. So if the China business went away, would investors care?

Perry Wu, in an exceptionally bearish item, says bluntly that Google will have about as much success as its Western rivals who are also getting lambasted on blogs, in the press and Congress. Basically, very little.:

Yahoo (YHOO) tried many times to adapt. As far back as 1998 (or Web 0.98 Beta) when its then-VP, Heather Killen, made high-profile visits to China, the Western Internet company tried to sit at the Chinese banquet table. But Yahoo finally gave up last year when it bought a billion dollar stake in China’s Alibaba.com and then gave Alibaba the rights to run Yahoo! China. There was not even a whimper from the company as its Chinese portal was torn down and replaced with a simple search engine. Sohu (SOHU), Sina (SINA), and Netease (NTES) had finally beaten the foreign interloper.

Lycos tried too. It bought firms like Myrice.com. Netscape tried, via AOL. MSN has also been bobbling along with a few victories here and a few setbacks there–nothing much to be proud of.

All of these companies have one thing in common: they entered China to win, but left only remnants of their power after a few years’ struggle. Chinese history is filled with tales of foreigners coming to the Middle Kingdom with money, but leaving the country poor, confused and embarrassed. Ask Chris Patten.

While the UBS boys, Wu, Bishop and others may be a touch , none are irrational. China’s internet penetration rate is still growing at an impressive pace, but the rate is slowing and the average user is still not deep-pocketed.

There’s a great deal of cash to be made in providing infrastructure for the build out of third-generation networks and broadband capacity, but there’s not a lot yet there for search- or advertising-based business models; certainly not when compared to Western markets.

Zeller is not the first pundit to hype the China market, most commentary seems to assume that the companies that are active here are putting principle at risk over in order to get massive returns. That’s far from true.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by @ 7:16 pm. Filed under South Korea, Blogs, China, Money, Asia, East Asia, Economy, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

2 February, 2006

hu jintao is a wanker

AsiaPundit is enjoying the holiday today and was not going to blog. However, – pointed out by Rebecca — is really fun to play with. You can search Google.cn and Google.com at the same time. From it, AsiaPundit discovered that Google.cn does not censor search results for ""

Wanker

Click on the image for larger size. The search in both portals turn up 395 sites. AP was not too surprised that Google.cn hasn’t set its filters for British slang but he was a bit shocked that Michael Turton’s site showed up as the second-highest ranked result. Blogspot is blocked in China, so according to Google’s statement that it will remove ‘dead’ links, Michael’s site should not exist.
Could Google be fallible? Or does the party approve of the View from Taiwan? Is Michael actually a pro-CCP stooge?
We report, you decide!

(Updated below, click on "continue reading" )

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

(more…)

by @ 10:20 pm. Filed under Blogs, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

1 February, 2006

While companies do avoid answering questions from the press, and from Congress, they do open up a little more :

Anthony Noto - Goldman Sachs

Thank you very much. I wanted to focus on three areas that I think you’re generating very little revenue from if not any at all. Specifically, Google images, Google local and then Google China. I think the last time we touched base you were generating zero revenue in Google China, is that still the case?

Omid Kordestani Senior Vice President, Global Sales and Business Development

Hi, yes. China, we actually have both the online availability, the advertising available so that customers can come through the online channel and we’re very actively building our direct capabilities there. One of the things that’s important, obviously, is having all the right infrastructure on licensing available for us to be able to operate locally. So we’ve been very focused on just establishing ourselves. We’ve had great success actually in signing up resellers and the results from working with these resale appointments have been excellent, actually, in terms of a number of advertisers have actually joined our online program. And we’re looking forward to establishing direct relationships with both agencies and clients directly as our capabilities are getting built up.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

by @ 11:07 pm. Filed under China, Cambodia, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech

evil! evil! evil!

Evil is afoot!  In China!  Evil, Evil Evil!!! Lets boycott everyone!

From Getty Images:

GettyThe third part of our business is the Licensing of our International Imagery on the Editorial side into China, in other words, News, Sports, Entertainment Imagery from all around the world being sold into China. That is done by an agent and that agent operates under the auspices of one of the organs of the Chinese, not government but related to the Chinese government. And as a result of that, they make sure, that agents that they do not pull foul at the authorities because we think that it’s very important to be very sensitive to what’s happening in that market. I mean at the end of the day what speaks most about the Chinese situation is that long-term, it’s going to be very big market for us, short-term it won’t be and it’s the only joint venture we had anywhere in the world and that’s the joint venture on the Creative side and that’s because of sensitivity to the local market and how things are going over there. So yeah we are investing in it and we are pretty confident but don’t expect China to significantly or radically move to get the images numbers in the next several years.

News Corp:

NewscorpGoogle isn’t the first to put profit above principle in China. In 1994, Rupert Murdoch stopped broadcasting British Broadcasting Corp. programs on the News Corp. network in China after the government complained about coverage of the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. In 1998, News Corp.’s publishing house, HarperCollins, refused to publish a book by Christopher Patten, former governor of Hong Kong, that was critical of China.

Siemens AG:

SiemensShanghai’s city administration has already enquired (about subscribing) and wants to use IPTV for its own community information network, Muhrer said.

Programming contents are supplied by Shanghai Media Group, a media subsidiary of Shanghai Media & Entertainment Group.

‘Programming content is a delicate subject in China, of course, so any information content supplied through the Internet must be treated according to the country’s regulatory laws,’ Muhrer said of the prevailing censorship by the Chinese authorities.

‘However, there still is content that does not fall under censorship laws, like online games or sports broadcasts.’ Leading Chinese online games provider, Shanda in Shanghai, had already expressed interest in the IPTV project, he said.

AsiaPundit recently spoke with a Siemens executive who was in China who was very upfront in admitting that the company would be abiding by Chinese restrictions in its Internet protocol television (IPTV) venture. Fons noted (in comments here) that European companies have confided that their filters are just as good as Cisco’s.

The above items are worth noting for several reasons. Firstly, the big US search engines are not the only companies censoring content in China — they just get the most attention due to their successful branding.

As well, it seems that many of those who are calling for a boycott of Google are avid watchers of Fox News (brought to you by the company that censored both the BBC and Chris Patten).

This is not to suggest that they should also be calling a boycott of News Corp or Siemens products. AsiaPundit is deeply concerned about censorship in China but he will still use gmail, play with his xbox, watch the Simpsons and make toast with his Siemens toaster.

However, those who are having so much fun suggesting that Google is hypocritical and those who enjoy bashing American tech companies should take a wider view.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 7:14 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Censorship

good, evil, stupid, uncool?

AsiaPundit’s initial take on Google’s foray into China was not that the company was committing a grave sin, nor that it was doing a good thing for Chinese users (see and ). Establishing the China portal was neither good nor evil, but it may yet prove to have been profoundly stupid. AsiaPundit believes that Google has diminished its brand to enter a market that is simply not (yet) lucrative.

That theme has now been picked up and argued elsewhere.

A Tech Central Station column by Instapundit Glenn Reynolds argues that Google has lost something that made it special.:

In taking this approach, Google doesn’t distinguish itself much from other big American companies — Microsoft, Cisco, Yahoo!, etc. — that have cooperated with the Chinese. (Arguably, its behavior here is “less evil.”) It’s a big market, offering over a billion customers, and the Chinese government itself is a big purchaser. Why make them mad? How many people, besides a few human-rights types, will care that according to the Chinese Google, that And how much money do they spend on IT?

There’s also a not-entirely-bogus counterargument, that Chinese citizens with access to a censored Google are still more powerful, relative to their government, than Chinese citizens with no Google at all. Though this claim seems a bit, er, convenient, it may still have a grain of truth to it. The experience of empowerment that the Internet provides seems to affect people in ways that go beyond specific issues, and make them less tolerant of bossiness elsewhere; the more Chinese surf the Web, the more will have that experience. Maybe. It’s possible. After all, plenty of people made similar arguments in favor of “constructive engagement” with the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and against sanctions designed to force an end to its racist policies.

But it’s kind of odd to find Google in the position of making those sorts of arguments. There was always the sense — despite its ruffling a lot of feathers over what sources were included in Google News, or various complaints about the limited privacy afforded by Gmail — that Google was something different: Not just another big corporation.

A Wall Street Journal column by Andy Kessler argues that Google is no longer cool.:

Americans have a long history of selling out - think Warren Beatty and “Ishtar” or politicians and Indian casinos. The public is trusting until proven otherwise, then turns on icons like rats on garbage. Never more so with culture: Being “cool,” “tight” or “wicked excellent” is a hard image to keep and one boneheaded move can send you to tomorrow’s cut-out bin. Ask Michael Jackson. Or Madonna.

Which brings us to Google. As a company, even more so than Ian Schrager’s hotels, it reeks of cool—Google Maps and Google Earth and gmail bring a kind of geek chic to the dull old media world. Plus, there are those lofty ideals like “organizing the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” It’s why we all use them. Google should do everything to stay cool. GM is spending millions on ads that say “Just Google Pontiac” to get in on the zeitgeist.

And now, poof.

a billion soon-to-be-online Chinese will forever associate Google with lame and censored search results

One of the ways urbandictionary.com defines “sellout” is to alienate core fans by changing one’s style to appeal to a broader audience—and becoming what one’s fans were rebelling against in the first place. The U.S. government wanted search history to help fight child porn and Google said no way, to cheers from their Big Brother-hating constituency. But for its search service in China, Google caved to the communists, removing offending results for “Human Rights” and “Things that are Democratic.”

And Nicholas Carr writes that Google simply did something stupid.:

I think the reason Google is getting its feet held to the fire is simple: It asked for it. As soon as the company broadcast its “Don’t Be Evil” pledge, it guaranteed that any time it stepped into ethically ambiguous territory it was going to touch off a firestorm in the press - and, in turn, draw the attention of the public and the public’s media-hungry elected representatives. It’s the old Gary Hart effect. Plenty of Senators get a little on the side without finding their dalliances on Page One, but as soon as Hart claimed to be pure, he guaranteed that reporters and cameramen would come knocking on the door of his lovenest. Whether it was hubris or just naivete that led Google to proclaim its moral purity can be debated, but from a business standpoint it was a surpassingly dumb thing to do - and the consequences were entirely predictable.

While censorship on Google.cn is regrettable, the company is not blocking its main site or redirecting China users to the eunuch version. It has simply launched a lame product. With that, calls for a Google boycott are not warranted. Especially as the company is being more open than its rivals MSN and Yahoo!, a point that’s very well made .

AsiaPundit has also expressed reservations about US legislation restricting activities of companies. While it would be nice if Congress can force the firms to be more open, this is not just a US issue. European and Asian firms operating in China are doing the exact same thing that their US counterparts are, although the bad publicity tends to only stick to the US firms.

It would not improve China to drive US firms out, in some cases it would likely make things worse. Even a “democracy-filtering” MSN Spaces does offer a service and promote greater openness in China.

So, what should concerned Internet users do? The criticism of companies is not a bad thing. In spite of protests that Western activism will do no good for Chinese users, it was Western protests that have just provoked Microsoft to adopt a more user-friendly censorship policy for MSN spaces. Still, AP would encourage people to do more than just write blog posts condemning companies as ‘evil.’.

A recently added link on the left-hand sidebar points to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s bloggers’ rights campaign. A donation there would be a good place to start.
Support Bloggers' Rights!

Support Bloggers’ Rights!

Among its many activities, EFF promotes one of the best proxy server packages available - allowing users in China to access any number of blocked sites. In lieu of a donation, users in the West can volunteer time or bandwidth to help improve the service.

AP picked EFF for support because of it’s blogging focus, because of its proxy tool and because he gets a really cool t-shirt.

As EFF may not be to everyone’s liking, there are other organizations that can be supported, either financially, through volunteering or by aiding publicity. They may or may not have cool shirts.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

by @ 3:36 pm. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

31 January, 2006

feeling lucky?

780

(via Geek Culture)

Googleevillogo

(Boing Boing)

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

by @ 5:22 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Censorship

28 January, 2006

search and repress

Ouch.

Picture6

(Via CDT)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

by @ 11:52 am. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

AsiaPundit is critical of Google’s decision to launch a censored China portal, though not predominantly because of the censorship issue. As long as the company continues to provide access to its uncensored site and simplified Chinese searches, it really isn’t that big a deal that it has launched an emasculated Chinese version.

However, Google has made a joke of both its mission statement and its corporate motto. It has undermined its highly valuable brand to enter a market that simply isn’t worth that much money.

They probably could have done this a year ago without causing much of a fuss, but the company has seriously misread the current zeitgeist. After the Yahoo! and MSN incidents, and the upcoming congressional hearings, Google should have run a few dozen more focus groups to see how this would be seen in the US.

Instead, they’ve left themselves open for this.:

Google_china

(Via Glutter)

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 12:17 am. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Censorship

27 January, 2006

I take it back. :

made a more thorough comparison between the three US search engines Google, Yahoo and Microsoft.

    Google’s new China search engine not only censors many Web sites that question the Chinese government, but it goes further than similar services from Microsoft and Yahoo by targeting teen pregnancy, homosexuality, dating, beer and jokes.

Evilwankers

Wankers

Censoring politics is bad enough, but censoring results about beer is unacceptable!

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 10:22 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Censorship

26 January, 2006

In most criticisms of Google’s decision to censor its newly launched China portal, it’s assumed that the company is sacrificing its ethics for the huge China market. That’s not quite true, it is sacrificing them for the potential of China’s market.

Bill Bishop crunches the numbers.:

I am guessing that Google will be happy if they can generate $30M in revenue in China in 2006. Baidu, the market leader, is projected to generate somewhere between $65-70M in revenue in 2006. I believe Google is expected to generate over $8B in revenue worldwide in 2006. If my math is anywhere in the ballpark, China will account for LESS THAN 2 DAYS of Google’s 2006 revenue. And given the economics of the keyword value chain in China, that revenue should be significantly lower margin revenue than is US revenue. So if the China business went away, would investors care?

No question there is value in setting up an R&D center in China; China has some of the best engineers in the world, and Google can probably hire anyone they set their sights on.

But does the China business really matter for Google, and will it ever? And is it worth the potential damage they may be doing to their brand, deserved or not (I believe not), over their decisions regarding Google.cn?

As long as access to the US-hosted site is maintained in China, the fact that Google has a portal on this side of the Pacific is of little relevance. China-based users can opt to select the non-censored site. Google is not redirecting China users to Google.cn. Jeremy’s view at Danwei is worth reading.

Still, I fear the establishment of the China site could prove to be an immensely boneheaded move by the company.

Dumbass

In spite of being hosted outside of China, Google was consistently highly rated by local internet users. Barring being blocked by authorities, It would have likely continued to be. Remember, Google was previously blocked in China, and the block was removed in part because users objected.

Google could have gained market share in the country simply by doing what it does well - offering great search functions and developing new ones. Instead, it’s facing calls for a boycott, the dumping of stock, the certainty of increased Congressional scrutiny and possibly regulation.

Richard at Peking Duck notes this theme occurring in two separate news items. From :

And filtering in general would also hurt Google more than its competitors. The Google brand is built on the notion that the engine gives users the clearest picture of the Web, without playing favorites. Restricting content in any way could hurt Google’s carefully burnished image, its 60% market share for search queries and its share price.

And from the Guardian.:

Whether Google might have done better in the long run commercially by keeping to the high moral ground at a time of rapid change in China will now not be known. It has an approach that is more ethical than most, but the multitude of enthusiasts will find it hard to reconcile its mission to provide all information to everyone when there are exceptions for words such as "democracy". It is easy to see why Google is doing this. This does not alter the fact that, sadly and in a significant way, it is not the same company today that it was yesterday.

UPDATE: It seems about the launch of Google’s "special" China service (as Xinhua had described it). So, the low-key launch of the China service has caused a backlash not only in the US, but also in China. Smooth move.
Worse, as Rebecca notes by translating a post, the rumor is that Google will start redirecting traffic to Google.cn. If that happens, my conclusion about the company may shift from ‘Dumb-Ass’ to ‘Evil.’

But I have heard some terrible news, which I cannot verify:
In the future, for mainland users, only the Eunuch version will be
available. If you type in www.google.com, the system will automatically
switch you to www.google.cn

That will be terrible. If Google does this, it will be dammed. This
company that self-claims "don’t do evil" will become the son of Satan
completely. It will not only be condemned by global users, but will
also be marginalized in China.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 8:17 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Censorship

17 January, 2006

south korea president has three blogs

Oranckay says the South Korean president has three blogs:

It’ll probably be in the English press by morning but president Roh Moo Hyun has got his own blog.

Or two.

Or three.

One at Naver, one at Daum, and one at Paran.

Some have said one of Roh’s biggest problems is that he’s got his head buried in the internet. You know, instead of just governing without constantly trying to be best buddies with The Netizens all the time. I wonder if he is going to be able to sleep at night without wondering what kind of comments he’s been getting. (He’s been known to leave a few himself here and there.)

Hopefully these will be more active than the three blogs of his northern counterpart. Kim Jong-il has let two of them slide. Speaking of that, we should have all checked the infrequently updated Beloved Leader site for details of his China trip. It would have spared us a lot of speculation:

Visit

Screw those Beijing Clowns

I am going Shopping!
Damn! Is today a holiday? I had some of my Overseas Bureau lads put me ashore this morning so I could shop for some hard-to-get items. Are those little LG things the same as iPods?

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 11:45 pm. Filed under South Korea, Blogs, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, North Korea

16 January, 2006

mr gates, washington (part II)

At the risk of developing a huge circular linkfest that will cause the blogosphere to implode, AsiaPundit is further consolidating the China internet censorship dialogue as Bingfeng, Angry Chinese Blogger and Tom Legg join in.

Tom rebuts several of Imagethief’s arguments and, like AP, is welcoming hearings, but with a lot more enthusiasm than was done here:

As long as decisions on who obtains access to the Chinese market is given a thumbs up or thumbs down by Chinese government bureaucrats, there is the possibility that US businesses could lose access to the Chinese market for extra-legal reasons. Given the vague and broad regulation of Internet Content Providers in China, which require responses to both judicial warrants {Shi Tao and Yahoo!} and extra-judicial requests from Media Control/Propaganda Officers {apparently, Anti and MSN Spaces}, and the wiggle room for arbitrary "rule of men", how will US corporations doing business in China react to extra-legal requests for action by Chinese authorities given the threat of loss of access to the market? {Should we argue for the repeal of US laws barring US corporations from bribing foreign officials to obtain business, if that is custom of that country? Is it a stretch to suggest that other extra-legal favours for foreign officials constitute an in-kind bribe? Would yanking a troublemaker’s blog, which hasn’t been officially censored, on behalf of an annoyed government official, who has the power to make the regular conduct of your business difficult, constitute an in-kind bribe?}

Shanghai-native blogger Bingfeng is opposing US meddling as unproductive:

…talking about internet censorship in china, suggestions like punishing MSN, yahoo or regulating foreign internet firms sound so stupid to me. it won’t contribute anything positive except increasing the already high level awareness of chinese internet censorship. and even worse, such regulatons might thwart the expansion of free thinkings in china which is hard to image without the involvement of foreign tech firms.

simply put it this way, chinese internet censorship can only be demolished by chinese people themselves. all the underlying reasons for internet censorship, the tradition of patriarch culture, the outdated ideology, the legitimate claim to protect kids, the difficulty of regulating internet in such a fast-developing market and immense country, are all hard to conceive to outsiders and such a system problem with so many intertwined elements requires wit to understand, strong desire to fight against, and patience to solve.

Angry Chinese Blogger takes a very analytical view bringing up, among other things, the long-passed out of discussion Internet Freedom Act:

In October 2002, Congressmen Christopher Cox and Thomas Lantos proposed legislation (The Global Internet Freedom Act) to create the ‘Office of Global Internet Freedom’. A body working under the auspices of the ‘Broadcasting Board of Governors’; the federal agency that maintains the ‘Voice of America’ and ‘Radio Free Asia’.

Under proposals, the Office of Global Internet Freedom would have the remit to "develop and implement a comprehensive global strategy to combat state-sponsored and state-directed Internet jamming, and persecution of those who use the Internet."

  "The Chinese government, and sadly, too many other regimes around the world, have been aggressively blocking access to the Internet, monitoring Internet activity and punishing those who seek only to share information"

Christopher Cox, Congressman, US (speaking before the US-C ESRC, June 2003)

Initially, OGIF was proposed as having a budget of $US100 Million over two years, however, this was paired down to $US16 in July 2003.

AP has stated the views he currently holds - these may shift with circumstances, arguments and new developments - but all of the above are worth reading in full (including Bingfeng’s first two posts on the topic).

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

by @ 11:32 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs

shenzhen cyber cops

The Nanny has just received a facelift. And she’s kinda cute:

Chachashenzheninternetpolicechina

The internet nanny is cute, until she confiscates your computer and hauls you away and locks you up for a couple of years on trumped up charges relating to national security leaking national secrets — and then you realize she’s a hard ass. Inspired by the hideous and tacky mascots of the Beijing Olympics, the Shenzhen police devised a way of making their new internet police force (which started work on January 1 of this year) seem more cute and acceptable to the masses — using cartoon mascots of their own. One is named Jing Jing (the male), and the other Cha Cha (the female). ‘Jing’ and ‘cha’ are the characters that comprise the word for ‘police’ in Chinese. Shanghaiist is sure that some of you readers are no doubt Westerners that just don’t get China and Chinese values, which is why the po-lice have to spell it out for you:

网上的各种行为同样有网络警察维护“社会秩序”,网站、论坛等都是网络公共场所,网民要注意自己的言行。

This basically states that websites, including BBSs, discussion groups (and most definitely blogs) are public places, and so internet denizens must likewise watch what they say and do. Thus the two cartoon figures will appear on various Shenzhen sites from now on. Apparently, you can click on either one and then be brought to a page (here or here) where you can talk live with real cops

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

by @ 11:00 pm. Filed under China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

15 January, 2006

mr gates goes to washington

News that the US Congress is going to hold hearings on corporate involvement in Chinese censorship has prompted some great essays from this side of the Pacific. Two of the best, as can be expected, are from Imagethief and ESWN. AP recommends reading each in full.

For starters, Will at Imagethief seems to have spent his entire weekend writing a thorough essay on what hearings could mean, and how they could be counterproductive.:

LogosWe westerners seem to be conflicted in how we feel about China. We have an idealistic conviction that the simple flow of our ideas and culture and the relentless march of technology will somehow precipitate change, yet we can’t resist an interventionist desire to actively impose our values. At the same time we mythologize China into something unknowable and impenetrable. The result is that no matter what we do we risk patronizing the Chinese Internet users we want to help, and driving them further away.

Imposing foreign activism on China has a pretty dismal record of failure. In a country where nationalist sentiment runs high and is easily provoked, it is liable to backfire. Imagine for a moment that American Internet firms are drummed out of China by legislation or activism. My guess is that Chinese youth would not swell with admiration for courageous, highly-principled foreign companies. Rather, they would likely seethe with nationalist contempt for companies that don’t "get" China and for foreign governments that are trying to dictate what is good for China. That won’t do wonders for dialogue. I can tell you who would be happy though: Bokee (who launched a devastatingly self-interested attack on MSN prior to Anti’s removal, as reported here by ESWN) and other Chinese blogging engines who would be pleased to see off foreign competition.

Not that they need to at the moment. Most Western Internet companies in China are not doing very well. In the grand scheme of forces affecting China, the inclination of American (as opposed to Chinese) Internet companies to toe the censorship line is so far down the list as to be nearly beneath concern. The free operation of China’s domestic mainstream media ranks substantially higher. Although the two issues are tangentially connected via the Shi Tao case, US Internet companies and American interventionism are probably not the key to freeing Chinese media.

Roland at ESWN also argues that legislation could be a mistake, a key passage is his translation of a post by Michael Anti (the blogger who was shut down by MSN):

As for what the US Congress Representatives want to legislate, this is totally the business of the American people.  I don’t feel that the freedom of speech of the Chinese people can be protected by the US Congress.  If the freedom of speech of the citizens of a great country has to be protected by the legislature of another country, this shows how distant the country is from the greatness that we longed for.  Opposing the shutting down of my blog and my defense of my freedom of speech should not be based upon relevant legislation by the US Congress.

To state it more clearly, we want legislation from China’s Congress.  We want the Chinese to defend the freedom of speech by the Chinese.  Maybe not today, but it will be possible tomorrow.  This is the only glory and dream for continuing to live on. …

Furthermore, at a time when globalization and politics are mixed up, I do not think that we can treat everything in black-and-white terms as being for or against the improvement of freedom and rights for the people of China.  On one hand, Microsoft shut down a blog to interfere with the freedom of speech in China.  On the other hand, MSN Spaces has truly improved the ability and will of the Chinese people to use blogs to speak out and MSN Messenger also affected the communication method over the Internet.  This is two sides of the practical consequences when capital pursues the market.  How the Americans judge this problem and mete out punishment is a problem for the Americans.  If they totally prevent any compromised company from entering the Chinese market, then the Chinese netizens will not be freer at least in the short term.  Besides, we must distinguish between the sellout by Yahoo and the compromise by Microsoft, because they are completely different matters.

Roland concludes: "it will be a net loss for freedom and democracy if MSN Spaces were to depart from China.  In fact, given the circumstances, the best thing is to allow MSN Spaces to grow as rapidly as possible in China.  For example, if they can get 50 million users, who is going to block them?"

It’s regrettable, but these are much better defenses of the actions of US corporates in China than the companies have  themselves offered.

That’s part of the reason AsiaPundit is welcoming hearings. AP hopes that they will force the companies involved to provide more information on their activities. Microsoft, Yahoo!, and other firms stonewall the press when asked for information on their China activities - they are less likely to do that to requests from Congress. AP’s hope is that the additional pressure would encourage those involved to adopt a code of conduct and to state - bluntly - what they consider acceptable or unacceptable.

That said, AP questions the desirability of legislation. Partly, that’s because AP swings libertarian and always questions the need for legislation. but on top of that Congress tends to go overboard on issues related to China. This was shown with the proposed 27.5 percent tariffs for alleged currency manipulation and the bipartisan intervention in the Unocal/CNOOC matter.

One of AP’s first reactions to news of the hearings - after thinking "good" - was to envision a McCarthy-esque spectacle. This is an issue that will almost certainly lead to overblown rhetoric and could lead to legislative overreach. Quite simply, there’s lots of room for both the left and right to engage in the populist bashing of both China and evil corporations. Plus, Congressmen would surely welcome a chance to paint themselves as defenders of free speech.

As for the RSF petition, again AP welcomes the fact that groups like RSF and CPJ see this as an issue - not only because of the awareness of the issue, but also because the organizations are considering issues affecting their unpaid brethren in the blogosphere.

That said, AsiaPundit is a bit ticked that the Paris-based RSF decided to focus on US corporates and ignore those from the Continent. While Cisco has faced scrutiny for its business in China many of its main competitors here are European. Whatever questions are put to Cisco could also be directed at Alcatel, Siemens, Ericsson and others.

Also see Danwei, Rebecca and Howard French.

UPDATE: Roland has adjusted his position:

The responses on the US Congressional Hearings seemed to be far too homogeneous around here: RConversation, ESWN, Imagethief, Danwei, AsiaPundit.  This is the whole problem about Group
Polarization on the Blogosphere

in which like-minded people in a group talk to each other in the same
way.  So it will do here to bring up a dissenting opinion: "I
absolutely support the action taken by American congresses and senates.
Those opposed to these such measure are dirty, unethical and ummoral
liberal who want to support the communist regime under the name of
mulitculturalism."  Take that!

 

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

by @ 9:14 pm. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

8 January, 2006

microsoft: keeping state secrets secure

China’s constitution assures us that the country does have free speech. To maintain this illusion, the Party believe it essential to make the ad-hoc edicts that ban particular issues from discussion a ’state secret.’ Because of this twisted logic, AsiaPundit does not expect to hear much more from Microsoft on the reasons Michael Anti’s blog was shut down.

Microsoft is likely not just acting as a proxy for the ministry of propaganda by shutting Anti, by not saying why it shut Anti it is keeping ’state secrets’ of behalf of China.

ShitaoAsiaPundit has been bothered by the shutdown of Michael Anti’s site, plus the complicity of Yahoo! in the jailing of Shi Tao, not just because these are large technology companies aiding in the shuttering of free speech online. More disturbing is how these self-proclaimed ‘new media’ companies have helped undermine China’s emerging critical press.

Shi Tao was arrested because he provided details on what Chinese media were ordered not to report, Anti was likely shut down because he was offering moral support to journalists and editors at the Beijing News tabloid.

As ESWN’s Roland noted, and as AsiaPundit has heard from well-placed staff at the company, Yahoo! did not likely know what data it was providing the state when it handed over details on Shi Tao. But Microsoft knew exactly what it was doing.

Working backward, from information in the press and on ‘the Internet,’ a likely chain-of-events that led to the censoring of Anti begins to form.

The New York Times reported that Microsoft spokeswoman Brooke Richardson gave the paper considerably more detail than the one-paragragh waste of bandwidth that it e-mailed other reporters:

A spokeswoman for Microsoft said the company had blocked "many sites" in China. The MSN Spaces sites are maintained on computer servers in the United States.

Ms. Richardson of Microsoft said Mr. Zhou’s site was taken down after Chinese authorities made a request through a Shanghai-based affiliate of the company.

The company did not give details on what the contents on the request were. It shouldn’t be a surprise, but it is almost certainly a ’state secret’. Roland cited on Thursday:

"…according to a Bejing News editor, the Beijing City Government News Office issued this notice on December 30, 2005: "1. Effectively immediately, all websites shall treat the words ‘Bejing News’ as a keyword to filter at all forums, news comments and blogs.

The NYT notes that Anti’s blog was the first to report on the purge at the Beijing News (having the story days before the actual sackings). But Anti’s blog was not the first one to be silenced on this, as noted at Danwei, leading portal Sina had shut the blog of an editor at Beijing news two days earlier.:

An editor at The Beijing News named Wang Xiaoshan responded to the hostile takeover on his blog with a post in large highlighted characters:

    There’s no way to retreat, so we won’t retreat. The butcher’s knife is already raised… We’re going to die so let’s make it a beautiful death.

The post was copied as an image by Massage Milk (reproduced above, links to Massage Milk below). But Wang Xiaoshan’s blog is hosted on Sina.com’s blogging service; less than 24 hours after he published his battle cry, Sina’s censors deleted it from his blog, together with all comments that readers had made to the post.

As mentioned in this Salon article reproduced by Howard French, Sina is also a portal and news provider. Because of this the company - along with Yahoo! - is privy to direct briefings from the Beijing’s Information Office, which passes on information on what to cannot be reported and what must be censored. MSN Spaces is just a blog host, one of more than 600, so it possibly didn’t get the memo until a bit later than Sina.

Still, Microsoft’s Shanghai joint-venture did eventually receive either a direct order to shut Anti’s blog specifically or a more general order to shut all blogs discussing Beijing News. As disclosing the content of such orders is revealing a ’state secret,’ I expect no comment from Microsoft on the matter at this end.

There are a couple of things to consider on this. As all MSN Spaces blogs are hosted in the US, would the company be obliged by Chinese law to shut down a site discussing the Beijing News walkout were it put on MSN Spaces by a blogger outside of China? Hypothetically, If the Dalai Lama were a blogger, would MSN shut his site upon receiving a request from Beijing? Or if MSN’s Tehran office received a request from the government, would it shut Salman Rushdie’s blog? (and would it issue a statement: "MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms, and fatwas"). 

As a test, AsiaPundit has set up an MSN Spaces site with a collection of Anti’s posts taken from ESWN and Google’s cache of the now deleted site, 

Picture-5

This was done using a Singapore-registered MSN account and was not done through a Chinese IP address. The site is currently available within China. If MSN deletes it, then it should be assumed that Microsoft will accept the CCP’s orders in regards to sites that are neither hosted in or registered in China.

Like all Chinese blog service providers, Microsoft’s MSN Spaces have been shutting sites on behalf of the state since it established a presence in the country. What happened to Anti isn’t new - although it most certainly is of a higher profile.

AsiaPundit has been accused of making too much of a fuss of China’s censorship. There are bigger concerns to worry about, such as the elimination of poverty and corruption, critics say. That’s certainly true, but in AP’s view the censorship of papers like the Beijing News and bloggers like Anti allows the state to cover up corruption and the problems of rural peoples (including beatings by government authorities).

Again, while it may be only a handful of residents who are affected by a block on a single website, the control of information in China promotes ignorance, retards democratic and economic development and prevents the building of an educated civil society.

Further on the Beijing News and journalism in China, Running Dog offers his invaluable insights:

BirdsBeing a journalist in China is never simple. Some westerners dismiss all Chinese reporters as Xinhua lackeys and lickspittles, as cynical hacks in the pay of the Party, and the only time they are given any praise at all is usually after they have been arrested by the government and sanctified by Reporters sans frontieres. Such critics rarely take time to question how they would behave under similar working conditions. The prison system is littered with reporters who strayed too far from the Party line, and Running Dog is often astonished by the talent, tenacity and courage shown by many of our Chinese counterparts. Since last week’s sackings, several journalists were still submitting coruscating accounts of the fiasco to the Xici journalist forum, and even as the moderators were deleting the threads, the reporters continued to defy them and post their pieces anew.

They are acutely aware of the risks. The 21st Century Global Herald was forced to close in 2003 after an interview with Mao Zedong’s secretary, Li Rui, who called for free elections. The Worker’s Daily spin-off, Beijing New Times, was also shut down in the same year after printing a provocative article that included the National People’s Congress in a list of the country’s ’seven disgusting things’. Since then, the authorities have decapitated the Southern Metropolis Daily and sentenced its chief editor to prison, while the ostensibly well-protected China Youth Daily was also subject to regime change last year.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

by @ 9:04 pm. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Media, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

6 January, 2006

1,000 words

Ouch.

Ms And China

By Sheepdog (via Rebecca)

UPDATE: AsiaPundit is pleased that the Anti-Microsoft story is gaining legs, being picked up today in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the UK’s Daily Telegraph and the Red Herring. Hopefully the attention will prompt the company to issue a more substantial explanation than it’s earlier one-paragraph “making the Internet safe” statement.

UPDATE 2: Further reading from the Blogosphere:

Imagethief talks about Microsoft’s public relations problem and its corporate social responsibility.

ESWN argues that Microsoft’s censoring of Michael Anti is worse than Yahoo!’s complicity in the jailing of Shi Tao, plus more.

Rebecca, who really should be credited for bringing this to the world’s attention, offers a post on Isaac Mao’s anti MSN Spaces protest, translations from the Chinese blogosphere and her opinion on why this matters outside of China.

Jeremy at Danwei, who usually is quite tolerant of companies ‘lapses’ in China, says: Cherish Freedom: Stay far away from MSN Spaces.

Bingfeng argues that this should be expected of Microsoft, and the critics are naive.

From Internet Censorship Explorer, an argument that MSN should have fought this legally.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

by @ 1:39 pm. Filed under Blogs, China, Asia, East Asia, Northeast Asia, Web/Tech, Weblogs, Censorship

[powered by WordPress.]

Free Hao Wu
Keep on Blogging!

Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!




Search Blog

Archives

October 2006
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
  1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31  

Categories

China

Japan

Hong Kong

The Koreas

Taiwan

India & South Asia

Global & Regional

Meta Data

Listed on BlogShares Ecosystem Details

Other

Design By: Apothegm Designs

sponsors



AsiaPundit Friends

Adopt


Recommended


Mr. China - by Tim Clissold:

How to lose $400 million in the world's biggest market.


Imelda - Power, Myth, Illusion:
A documentary on the former Philippine first lady that is damning, sympathetic and incredibly funny.


Yat Kha - Re Covers:
Siberian throat-singing punk band searches for its roots


5.6.7.8.'s - Bomb the Twist:
Three Japanese women play 1950's-inspired punk.


Gigantor Box Set Volume 1:
The original giant Japanese robot


Mao: The Unknown Story - by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday:
A controversial and damning biography of the Helmsman.

Recent Posts

recent comments

  • Falen: Michael, Are you trolling from one website to the next? How dare you to call Blues "anti-democratic"! I think...
  • Michael Turton: Both those commentors above are incorrect. Taiwan must have weapons to guarantee its own security,...
  • mahathir_fan: The source of the anger is probably because the Stephen YOung the unofficial "ambassador" to Taipei...
  • mahathir_fan: I want to applaud legislator Li Ao for his outspokenness on the arms procurement issue and for debating...
  • mahathir_fan: "A widening Chinese anti-corruption inquiry has targeted Beijing’s party leaders, in a sign that...

Sponsors

Your Ad Here

singapore

Malaysia

Indonesia

Phillippines

Vietnam

More from China

28 queries. 1.149 seconds