Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 372 posts

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#341

Post by _8j50 »

arthur_pryor wrote: post #110
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

> However, free speech and oppression of democracy is not a moral wrong. i and many others disagree with this statement. > "Free speech" in the west means the Government shouldn't censor speech,this is a relativly new concept almost unheard of in history. It certainly isn't a human right. If a legitimate government of a country censors speech they're merely excercising their authority unless their laws restrict them…

A government is legitimate if it can excercise authority over its people and land.

Sovreignity means even if others disagree with what a country is doing or with the way things are in a country,they have no authority to do anything about it by force. An individual may have their most basic rights violated, however everyone outside of that country lacks authority to help them. That's why countries keep militaries,to protect their sovreignity,not just borders and people. Sovreignity means they have the right to self-determination,the right to decide what they think is legal and what rights people can have and the people get to fight for what form of government they should have and how these rights and laws will be written and executed.

Yes,ethnic cleasing is very wrong,however other countries lack the authority to interfere. They can however ooenly welcome and protect refugees and take diplomatic action that affect that government's relations with other governments.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#342

Post by _8j50 »

yqx wrote: post #111
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

Your post introduces an imaginary issue. The question is not whether a company "gets to decide social norms", the question is whether a company gets to decide whether it agrees with terms set by a government that conflict with the social norms of the company. The the answer to that question certainly is positive.

A comoany gets to decide whether or not they'll do business in a country after considering its laws and customs. If they decide to do business,they don't get to pick and choose which laws and customs they'll respect. Refusing to provide a particular good or service because of a local law or custom is just as bad as providing a good or service in violation of local laws and customs.

Either you're in or you're out.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#343

Post by _8j50 »

analog31 wrote: post #123
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

>>> I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. Who does? How were those people chosen?

People and forces within the country. By peace,agreement and customs or by force and warring they get to fight for and decide what their government should be like and what rights and responsibilities their people will have.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#344

Post by _8j50 »

ngcc_hk wrote: post #121
_8j50 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get what you're saying but a country is sovreign from othets and corporations don't get to decide what's acceptable in a country. It comes down to this imo: will the product be used in ways that are morally wrong? Or will it be used in ways which are legally wrong or socially unacceptable? I agree with you that a company should not sell their products to enable a moral wrong in any country. However, free speech and…

Right is right. Socrates died for that. Not new. We fight for the other people right to speak even if we disagree so one day we are all free. And when idea’s time has come ... let us start earlier

You can fight where you have a right to fight. You don't get to fight for what's allowed in someone else's house.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#345

Post by binarysolo »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #301
Lazare wrote: post #214

It's interesting, because if The Intercept is to be believed, Beaumont has basically gone rogue, carving out his own little empire, aggressively preventing other internal teams from figuring out what he's doing, and engaging in behaviour that violates internal Google rules and policies, as well as which opening Google to significant reputational risk. I mean, I'll be the first to admit I have made mistakes in my care…

Working off the main campus, on a very sensitive project that the CEO himself likely shielded from other internal parties ... is not that bizarre really. I don't see how he's 'gone rogue' either, rather, this is more like a c-level sanctioned kind of skunkworks.

+1, this is a lot more common than people expect... though the "best practice" I've seen from megacorps doing morally gray things is to form a front/shell company that takes all the heat. Surprised Google didn't take this route.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#346

Post by tzakrajs »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #305
chippy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could imagine him thinking about him taking the job as a sacrifice. He will sacrifice his morals and what he cares about for the security of his family and children. He knows that he will sell his soul and be crushed, but he also knows that his family will be okay. It's one of the reasons suicide bombers blow themselves up too. But, as in this case he will live and it ignores the lasting psychological damage on t…

> but he also knows that his family will be okay. Not really. By succumbing to this temptation he's contributing to creating a worse future for everyone, including his children and their children.

Yes, the commenter we are addressing is a trash bag of a human being and wants us to know because they have anonymity. We don’t need to deep dive further.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#347

Post by koheripbal »

BurningFrog wrote: post #241
anonymouzz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'm taking the moral high ground here, but you should contact the media or human rights organizations, spill the beans to help them investigate. Anonymously if necessary.

I suppose you could, but it's hardly news that Saudi Arabia is deeply repressive regime.

No, but I think we should know which American company ultimately helped them.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#348

Post by p_b_r »

reimertz wrote: post #245
fipple wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evil is more banal than that. I have no ostrich jacket but I’d create a spying tool for an authoritarian government for the right price. For me it would be about $5-10 million.

Why?

More importantly, why is having an ostrich jacket relevant? I don't have a pony either.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#349

Post by guelo »

_8j50 wrote: post #335
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

I wasn't refering to what the UN thinks but what is universally accepted as rights humans have. For example liberty isn't a human right,neither is equal treatment. But food,shelter,dignity are human rights. These are rights humans get just for being human this includes prisoners,soldiers and the like. If you say freedom of expression is a human right,then how come no soldier or prisoner is afforded that right? Did th…

You're saying your definition of human rights is more universally accepted than the UN's?

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#350

Post by ethbro »

tinus_hn wrote: post #325
ethbro wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how things tend to get less black and white as more money is offered.

It’s funny how things tend to get less black and white if you actually look at pros and cons and listen to arguments. The fact that there actually are pros and cons to most things means they are not black and white.

Show me evil that cannot be justified with enough words, and I'll show you an uncreative salesperson.
Post reply on HN