Normally, the idea of mega-companies telling governments what to do scares me far more than the reverse. Simply because politicians can be voted out of office, whereas the stock market handsomely rewards sociopathic behavior when it boosts the current quarter's numbers. This is not one of those times.
When the rumors leaked last week of Google shuttering its Chinese branch, I was pleased, naturally. But, to a certain extent, it had the feel of a tactical (maybe even strategic) retreat from a no-win situation. PR-wise, it was a win--after all, who's going to side with a government that will send tanks against demonstrators?
But it's another week, and Google taking on the ridiculous nanny-state censorship of Australia is something I consider a legitimate exercise in speaking truth to power, and applaud it accordingly. Because the most fundamental part of that "truth" is that when allegedly "democratic" governments impose sweeping restrictions on internet content, it leaves zero room for condemning real oppression. It's no different, really, from Western governments insisting on "back doors" be built into protocols to "intercept terrorist messages" or installing thousands of video cameras in the name of "reducing crime." Purity of intent has zero relevance, because the proverbial kitty's out of the burlap at that point: Snooping into the doings of the average citizen has been justified. And--let's be honest--even The Land of the Free and Home of the Brave has produced the likes of Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon's thugs. Can you just imagine what any one of them would have done with Carnivore at his fingertips? Pretty scary, hey?
Like Dennis says, if you want to wear the white hat, you'd better make sure it fits. And so I can only give major props to Google for calling out the democratically-elected Australian government for adopting the tactics of a totalitarian regime.
- - - - -
Speaking of transparency, something I should have thought to note with previous posts mentioning Google is the disclaimer that my husband & I jointly own stock in the company. And, if the market--as is its wont--punishes The Big G for doing the right thing, we may well snap up more.
