Introduction and Situational Analysis
Google as a company was incorporated in 1998 by American nationals. Google launched its version in version of Google.com in 2000. Google had sporadic interruptions and blockages in China between the years 2002 and 2005. This period was very trying for the company in the country. In this period and the subsequent times therefore lost some share of the market to Chinese internet companies like baidu.cn to the extent that as of current it is the second most popular search engine in the country after baidu.com (Broerse,2006). After 2006, Google decided to rebrand and change the search engine in China to Google.cn, the name under which they operate today but without the email and blogging features. This therefore altered the searches and filtering and at the same time showing notices to their users about the blocked pages as a response to the government regulations. However, the original version of google.com remains in operation though with limited services.
These actions by Google were criticized and protested by several organizations some of which include amnesty international, the human rights watch, reporters without borders and similar rights bodies and campaigners. These bodies argued that the human right to freedom of expression and access to information had been violated by Google when it changed to conform to the Chinese government regulation. They also argued that Google as a company was more interested in profits and so they were ready to suppress the freedoms of the people in connivance with the Chinese government (Musielak). There were suggestions that Google should have stopped filtering the information flow, even when it meant that the company was to leave country and relocate their business elsewhere. The critics thus argued that Google’s response was inadequate with regard to the conflicts they had with the Chinese regulation system. Some even suspected that Google was an accomplice in the denial of human rights to the Chinese.
There were arguments that through certain conditions and circumstances, there were permissible moral compromises for these actions. The justification was that Google’s behalf that they were only implementing the government regulation to filter the information but not initiative of their own. To this therefore Google responded that whereas they wanted to give satisfaction to their internet users, they also wanted to expand the access to information of the people of China but at the same time they also needed to be responsive to the local conditions and regulations set by the government which was responsible for their continued stay of business in China. This response was not inadequate according to some critics because it did not address the people’s concerns and that people required more information than they accessing.
Google has therefore has issues with human rights. The rights to freedom of expression and access to information as provided for by the United Nations international covenant on civil and political rights were being curtailed by its actions as directed by the Chinese government. These questions arise as whom is to blame for this. This was because Google is a private organization which may not oblige to human rights but instead they are motivated by profits. This therefore necessitated them to block some pages in response to government but not as objective to infringe the people’s rights and deny the people their freedoms.
Google also argues that the rights to information are the responsibility of the government and any cases of infringement was to blamed on the government’s violation of people’s rights. The company argues that they only operate under the authority of the government and so whatever they were doing, they act to honour regulations for their continued presence in business. The search engines in china are known not provide any access to websites which are independent and provide freely information pertaining to political topics like democracy or the human rights in china, Fulan Gong or the independence of Taiwan. We should note here that it is not only the state apparatus that censors and monitors the internet in china but also the internet industry themselves as well. The dilemma in this case is whether it is ethical and justified to do business in the censored china or go elsewhere given the high population of the country.
Stakeholder Analysis
In efforts to have Google establish them in the People’s Republic of China (PRC), interest was generated in many circles both within the country and outside with observers and human rights activists watching to see what is happening in the country. The stakeholders in this scheme are therefore various and some of them are;
The government of the People’s Republic of China; in the foregoing years China as a country was known to be a closed country which was known to completely censor the press and access to various types of information to their citizens. However with the changes in the world and globalization, and with the country growing in population and production of exports besides the growing hunger of information by especially their youth, it became very imperative to have flow of information and out of the country. This was to help in the marketing of their products which they produce in large quantities and besides the ruling Chinese communist party also tried to posture to the outside world that they have brought in a level of democracy.
The world over, there is increased level of information and communication technology (ICT), as a driver of the economy in various ways. In China especially the internet has become very popular to the extent that websites for trading like globasources.com and alibaba.com have been put in place. These are besides the ebay.com, amazon.com, bestbuy.com, the virtual markets that are also accessible to the Chinese people. Now if there is need to have information for trading then surely information in different ranges would also be necessary like education, social life, and medical knowledge to mention but not all.
Other stakeholders in the accessibility of internet and Google in China include all the internet users in the country who are estimated to be around 500 million people who have today made the internet integral in their lives. The internet society of China, the national telecommunications and information (NTIA), the united states department of commerce, the business community of China and other concerned people and organizations who fight for the right to information (Cao C). With respect to business, several manufacturers and suppliers of several products as produced in China have internet sales people who track customers all over the planet especially from Africa and other importing countries.
The internet society of China therefore believes that all the stakeholders in the internet in the country should be endowed equally with equal and fair participation and has their rights to information and expression. The internet society of China espouses therefore that the stakeholders have supervision rights over the function of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) that would ensure accountability to ensure transparency of the authority and the related decision making functions.
Analysis Based on Ethical Theories.
As any of the countries that neighbour China, it also seeks to balance the benefits that accrue from the growth of technology together with its trappings in the social development and the related potential risks to its government and the control over the media and the dissemination of information. Although there is remarked speed of the internet growth in China as a result of the use by its high population, the same country remains to be known as one of the largest and also the most sophisticated in filtering systems of internet content.
The legal and the regulatory framework over the internet in China is one of the most strict the world over. The framework underscores the internet landscape in China which may be shaped by the desire by the government to develop the access to the internet as the driver of the national economy and also maintaining the security of the state and keeping the social harmony while observing the state sovereignty but without denying the people of the basic rights and interests (Information Office, 2010).
Among the regulations and prohibitions, citizens and the internet users in the country were banned from disseminating and or accessing any online content which the government deemed to be subversive or in any case harmful to the society or to the state. There are therefore laws and regulations that were placed to regulate and control online content affecting the distribution of criminal and financial liability. They regulate the licensing and registration of the internet service providers. To some extent, the providers are expected to do self monitoring in accessing the internet content and the provision to the end-user.
The information and internet service providers like the internet information service providers (IISP) and internets service providers (ISP) are charged by the government to follow the laid down rules like the article 20 of the measures for managing internet information service (IIS) which prohibits the production, reproduction, release and any dissemination of any information that falls under basic nine categories that are forbidden by the state and also laid down in the article 15 of the same measures. The forbidden information ranges from the information that is assumed to be prejudicial to state security, the order of society, national unity to moral information like pornography (Measures, 2003).
The internet information news is not an exception either as it also has to abide with the regulations as they laid down under the provisions on administration of internet news information services of 2005. This provides for a complicated system of regulation which only allows for news that originates and supervised by the state to be produced by outlets under the state watch to be posted on the internet. These news outlets however are limited to very basic specific subjects that are approved by the state (Provisions, 2005). The level of original reporting allowed to these news outlets is limited to the current news events like reporting about and commenting on local politics of the ruling Chinese people’s congress, the country’s military affairs, the economy of the country, limited news on the foreign affairs of the country, social and public affairs and also reporting on the so called breaking news in the society.
The legal framework is also observed in the attempts to bring the social media to tow the state line as regards internet regulation system regarding the content that is accessed by the vast population. An example is the provisions on management of internet audio and video programming services that was issued in January 2008 by the state administration of the radio, film and television (SARFT) and the MIIT. Similar to these is the internet audiovisual service providers that are producing original content are required to obtain a special license for broadcasting their production from the MIIT. In similar fashion, the video providers are also prohibited from allowing any individuals or a group of them from uploading any content relating and pertaining current news to the internet without having a special license.
Conclusion and Recommendations
As clearly enumerated above, Google as a company from the west and also driven to expansion all over the world is caught in a dilemma. This is not to say they should defy the Chinese regulatory system because the country also reserves right to its sovereignty. Therefore on moral engagement, the company can do limited filtering for the purpose of regulation and working with the Chinese government but also keep in mind that the human right to access information is observed. We also truly note that the more information available on the search engine, the more people shall be attracted to using the search engine.
It possible for the western internet engines and services to carry out business in china ethically provided that the local laws and the presence can be seen as complimentary to the already existing uncensored services which accessible. Though a utilitarian framework is what is used by all relevant companies that justify their actions in china, ethical obligations can be suiting when there endeavors to come to a correct solution and even china’s censorships can be dealt with in an ethical manner.
Despite the complaint raised about Google by analysts and human rights campaigners, it stills the only company by far that has observed ethical standards in their business in china in the face of the limitations and censorship by the government. Unlike other players that put their users in danger like Yahoo!, remove people’s web blogs in response to complaints as raised by the state like Microsoft, Google has remained as ethical as they can. Most search engines some which are Baidu, Sina block users who type words that are presumed forbidden by the state and many others except Google to do not give any indication as whether some results are being filtered for users to be aware of their searches. To this extent Google has tried in the circumstances to ethical, however limited it has been.
This would also imply that whereas there is need to regulate flow of information as a government would do to any other aspect that may be prejudicial to the economy and security of a country, the context of the actions would be addressed though the conflicts would always remain. There are compromises that need to be made in this consideration.
References
Broerse (2006). Google in China.
Cao C, Simon DF & Suttmeir RP (2009). Chinas Innovation Challenge. Innovation, Management, Policy And Practice.
Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China, the Internet in
China, June 8, 2010, http://www.gov.cn/english/2010-06/08/content_1622956.htm
Measures for Managing Internet Information Services, Article 20 [In Chinese], Issued By The
Musielak LT: An Ethical Analysis of Google’s Censorship Activities in the Peoples Republic.
Provisions on the Administration of News Information Services, Article 2 [in Chinese], issued
