Blogs and Stories
The Great Google Coverup?
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc.
Ng Han Guan / AP Photo
Is the search giant’s China firestorm a smokescreen for a far larger problem? Douglas Rushkoff on how your entire life, as stored on Google’s servers, may now be there for the taking.
Google's actions just don't add up. In response to what they say they suspect was a Chinese government-supported cyberattack, including hacking into the Gmail accounts of human-rights activists, the search giant says it has had a change of heart about censoring Google results on behalf of the Chinese regime and may instead leave the country. Which logically makes about as much logical sense as invading Iraq in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks. And probably hides just as much real information about what the heck is actually going on.
My fear—for Google and for us—is that the reason they know it’s the Chinese government behind these attacks is because Google gave them the key.
If accepted at face value, Google's argument now—in a reversal of a policy it put in place five years ago—is that it wants to be a staunch defender of "free speech on the Web." Instead of cooperating with the Chinese government's repression of its people, Google now demands that China let it be Google—the relatively totally open corporate-owned index to the Web.
• Gerald Posner: China’s Secret Cyberterrorism But then why the sudden wakeup call? In this scenario, it's because Google realizes it is in bed with the bad guys. It has supported the actions of a regime that eventually turned on its online facilitator, Google. So Google is saying it is fine with repressive regimes as long as they don't repress Google without the company's knowledge.
No, that's even too stupid for a corporate communications department to imply. Which, to me, means there's more going on.
The first and most likely possibility is that Google is attempting to create a distraction. From what?
From the fact that some Chinese hackers broke into their servers and gained access to what was supposed to be secure private and corporate data. Get it? That means none of our stuff on Google's servers is safe.
Now this would be a big deal—especially for those of us who have already bought into Google's halcyon promise of a secure, always on, and always accessible "cloud" in which to do our computing. The company's bid to lure us out of our locally run Microsoft Office suites and off our closed corporate mail servers loses more than a bit of its luster. The cloud is still really just a bunch of servers, owned by someone or something, whose decisions and competence must be trusted. This applies to everything from Google Docs to Gmail: Putting our data out there really means putting it "out there." For the first time, many of us Google converts feel like the cloud, where Google wants us to organize our personal and professional digital lives, is less secure than that encrypted hard drive under the desk.
So what is Google to do? Make sure that people don't believe that a few hackers could have accomplished such a feat. (And in case you didn't know, China has a few hundred thousand hackers for every one of ours. They gather outside their universities at lunch to discuss which corporate or government computer to try to break into, simply for the challenge.)
Instead of letting our minds even go there, Google blames the government. At least the Chinese government sounds big and scary and qualified enough to break into a few corporate servers—and surely they wouldn't be interested in any of America's companies or users. If they did, well, that would be real war. If it's true, at least it's something we can get our heads around and go to the United Nations and complain about.
But Google says it has some genuine reasons for believing that the Chinese government was involved in these attacks, and the international investigation now under way will reveal whether that evidence is legitimate, soon enough. So the biggest question becomes, why does Google believe its partner in repression—the Chinese government—is behind this violation of Chinese activists' and others' online privacy?
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
Google's Monopoly Play
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc.
The iPhone Becomes a Bully
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc.
Apple's Mac Killer Unveiled
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc.
waldenasta
Scary, Scary, Scary read. And here I was thinking about finally saying goodbye to MS Office, etc, and moving to the cloud. But, the sad fact is between Gmail, Google Docs, Calender, Google Voice (got an invite), Google Reader, Wave (got an invite), Google Search, there just might be no way back. I was thinking the other day that 1984 is happening with Google and very few of us seems to be taking notice.
NinjaSauce
"We have no way of knowing what the company surrendered technologically in its efforts to break into the fastest growing Internet market in the world. "
In order to refute this statement, google MUST prove, that they did not surrender anything to the Chinese. Yes. They must prove, they surrendered nothing to the Chinese. They MUST show evidence of NOTHING!!
Note to author: argumentum ad ignorantiam = fail
Excellent journalism there. Glenn Beck, you have some competition.
DaEarl8
where do you live? Beijing? Shanghai? Your masters must be proud of you
NinjaSauce
1) Don't use ad-hominem attacks.
2) I wasn't even defending China.
3) I wasn't defending Google.
4) My criticism was to the author journalistic ethics.
5) Please, consider taking some critical thinking courses.
manticore1223
Seriously. All he/she did was point out a glaring logical fallacy.
nortonclybourn
So we should presume that the Chinese are benevolent partners until proof to the contrary can be found? If you think "logically" like that, I bet your life is a real mess.
joedrapes
NinjaSauce:
The statement that: "In order to refute this statement, google MUST prove, that they did not surrender anything to the Chinese." is false to first order. I will go by contradiction.
For instance, Google might simply tell the subject "We", -or as intended, the author - precisely what was "surrendered", though indeed, that might be nothing. If this does not satisfy you: you interpreted "knowing" as "proving". There is a distinction - a huge one in this case.
If you must do this kind of thing, at least do so accurately.
Genni2002
Great article and agree that this sounds pretty scary. Just thinking about all the ways a person can break into a company either physically or cyberly and it just boggles the mind. Perhaps Google used the old, if we stay and work with China we can influence them enough to change them and bring them around to our way of thinking and maybe, just maybe, we can blah, blah, blah.
Like everyone always think they can crack China and they never do. China always figures out how to do it either by asking or taking and is known for then taking technology and using it, patented, corporate secrets, non-disclosure agreements, what have you, to their fullest advantage. I don't think they lose sleep over it and don't see them loosening their grip on their people any time soon.
PaulJG
Good article; good perspective, even if it's got to be so much conjecture, because Google may never come clean.
I support Google's withdrawl from China, but I don't think the full reasons have yet been disclosed.
FWIW, I don't think any of us -- anyone -- should have expectations of privacy, given the traces we all leave in our online travels. IP addresses; MAC addresses; "trust me" Terms of Service agreements in cloud services.
Perhaps you should have mentioned Yahoo's egregious behavior with regard to China, when it complied with the government in actually turning over information about dissidents, landing some a jail term.
whipmawhopma
Whether or not this is a well written or well researched article, the thought of putting either my personal information or company information into the cloud sounds reckless and foolhardy. It's scary enough having some of my information stored by various companies on their servers.
foodmike
It is understandable that people are nervous about putting their information in the cloud, but if you keep any private information on your personal computer, and then connect that computer to the internet, how are you any less exposed?
At least Google has true security experts and can respond to this type of situation. How do most people react to the last security breach on their personal computer? 1) They didn't even know it happened. 2) They run their virus scanner, click 'clean', and are done.
Veronicaxy
Actually Google is showing serious marketing chops here.
They're turning a business failure into a marketing triumph. Google is rapidly losing a small search engine market share to Baidu, China's premiere search engine.
As a business exit strategy they're taking the information they have on China (how old are these attacks and Google's knowledge of them?) and using it to regain some 'do no evil' credibility.
Brilliant smoke screen for failing business goals.
Zugzwang
I actually think Google's doing the right thing here--and that they have been all along.
Look, ignoring China as a market would have been stupid. So you have to play with the devil, and you bring a greater degree of openness than Baidu does (Baidu, after all, follows the Chinese government's orders to a T, whereas the CPC and Google were scratching and biting the whole time). So there is a fair argument that you're doing more good than harm in bringing *some* degree of openness, versus allowing a company with zero scruples whatsoever to dominate the market.
But there's a limit to how much investing you can do and how many PR hits you can take from haters who have never tried running an information company in one of the world's most restrictive states. Google reached their limit. I think it's honestly too bad that they are leaving--and I'm sure many of the Chinese activists laying flowers at their corporate office in Beijing would agree with me.
Veronicaxy
Why would anyone knowledgeable about the Internet buy into 'always available, secure' marketing from Google, Microsoft, Paypal or any other net based provider?
Even these giants are subject to technical failures of servers, networks and telecom infrastructures, or to attacks.
International laws don't even begin to hold cloud companies accountable to your consumer expectations. That alone should give you pause with your most valuable information and financial assets.
VinnyB
It seems the new marketing ploy is you can trust a billion-dollar corporation as long as their CEOs don't wear a tie. Google and Apple have such a nice-guy image that you're distracted from the reality of what it takes to survive and thrive in business. They do what it takes. I'd be more worried if Google gets cozy with any U.S. administration and, at some point, is coerced into providing information for political sport. Big Brother IS here, he's just not wearing a tie.
ThinkAgain
My wife twittered about going to China on business. Within seconds she had close to 50 new followers mostly identified as Chinese business groups. Nothing sinister but... it's best to keep any real info about yourself off the net to the extent possible.
DaEarl8
I am always amazed at the information people routinely "put out there" on the net. I just recently joined Facebook and Twitter and I still refuse to share every little tidbit of information about myself and my life.
#1: people don't want nor need to hear about every little thing I do throughout the day. NOBODY is that interesting... OK maybe Andy Warhol was!
#2: The ONLY person you can trust 100% with your information is YOU. Sure... we give up a lot about ourselves in order to plod thru life. Think H&R Block and our financial information. Think Facebook and our social lives. Think Hospitals/Insurance Companies and our medical/health information. But to yield so much information about your and your life/work/health/contacts to ONE company is INSANE.
Lets never forget that GOOGLE is a FOR PROFIT enterprise. It's not like we are dealing with the Red Cross or Unicef here folks. $$$$ and "market share" always trumps everything else
noodleman
That means none of our stuff on Google's servers is safe.
How many people are still clueless that the Internet is not private? Never has been; never will. Google certainly has never promised its users absolute security. One argument against "cloud computing," of which Google plays a role, has always the lack of security.
OffenbachStutz
Amen from the Choir!
wordtypist
Interesting that The Motley Fool recently came out with a prediction that cloud computing would leave Microsoft in the dust. If the cloud is that vulnerable they may have to revise that prediction.
Nuld001
Mr. Rushkoff, this is an astonishing eye opening article. This is a complement to Gerald Posner's Beast article released Tuesday on Chinese Secret Cyberterrorism (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-13/chinas-secret-cy ber-terrorism/). We find out among other draconian things that Microsoft willingly gave their source codes to the Chinese government in order to do business. So this makes two big U.S. high tech companies that have paid the price for dealing with the devil. There's probably a plethora of these companies that have done the same thing. Who are these stupid people making such incredibly stupid decisions? Do they not think that there will be adverse political/security ramifications in their decision making? Now that Google has seen that they are really wearing no clothes, they've decided to re-evaluate their relationship with the Chinese government. And now, it's too late. Once exposed, always exposed. It's only all about the profits.
TheMontu
You make a really interesting point. It seems to be well taken by Google, as well. Have you checked your Gmail today? There's a new link in red next to "Settings" called "More Gmail Security." Apparently they've turned on HTTPS for _all_ Gmail users. There is no explanation given, just a statement that it's been done and how it works.
jadedone
Help, the paranoids are after me! And oh, by the way,"Which logically makes about as much logical sense as invading Iraq in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks" is interesting grammer coming from a Media Professor.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.