Google-China Controversy
Executive summary
We cannot imagine our life without internet, it become internal part of our life. Some researcher considered internet to be the greatest innovation of modern’s time. Suppose the facility of internet given to us taken by someone forcibly, then imagine our life without it.
In recent development china and iran have restricted the information flow throughout their country, specially china have ban Google-universal search engine and email in its country.
Firstly question arises why any country will ban if internet is so useful. There lots of hidden agenda of the govt that has to be protected, if there is free flow of information is there public start questioning on the procedures of govt work.
Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other Internet sites The government’s computers intercept incoming data and compare it against an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites, screening out even more information. The motive is often obvious: Since late 2010, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word “freedom.”
In March 2011, Google accused the Chinese government of disrupting its Gmail service in the country and making it appear as if technical problems at Google — not government intervention — were to blame. At the same time, several popular virtual private-network services, or V.P.N.’s, designed to evade the government’s computerized censors, have been crippled. V.P.N.’s are popular with China’s huge expatriate community and Chinese entrepreneurs, researchers and scholars who expect to use the Internet freely
Few analysts believe that the government will loosen controls any time soon, with events it considers politically sensitive swamping the calendar, including a turnover in the Communist Party’s top leadership in 2012.
As
We cannot imagine our life without internet, it become internal part of our life. Some researcher considered internet to be the greatest innovation of modern’s time. Suppose the facility of internet given to us taken by someone forcibly, then imagine our life without it.
In recent development china and iran have restricted the information flow throughout their country, specially china have ban Google-universal search engine and email in its country.
Firstly question arises why any country will ban if internet is so useful. There lots of hidden agenda of the govt that has to be protected, if there is free flow of information is there public start questioning on the procedures of govt work.
Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement, and other Internet sites The government’s computers intercept incoming data and compare it against an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites, screening out even more information. The motive is often obvious: Since late 2010, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word “freedom.”
In March 2011, Google accused the Chinese government of disrupting its Gmail service in the country and making it appear as if technical problems at Google — not government intervention — were to blame. At the same time, several popular virtual private-network services, or V.P.N.’s, designed to evade the government’s computerized censors, have been crippled. V.P.N.’s are popular with China’s huge expatriate community and Chinese entrepreneurs, researchers and scholars who expect to use the Internet freely
Few analysts believe that the government will loosen controls any time soon, with events it considers politically sensitive swamping the calendar, including a turnover in the Communist Party’s top leadership in 2012.
As
References: [3] Government Control of Information Cass R. Sunstein, California Law Review, Vol. 74, No. 3, Symposium: New Perspectives in the Law of Defamation (May, 1986), pp [4] See K. DAVIS, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE? 4.45, at 442-46 (2d ed. 1978). [5] See, e.g., Pell V Procunier, 417 U.S [6] W. WILSON, THE NEW FREEDOM1 13-14 (1913); see also id. at 130 ("Government must, if it is to be pure and correct in its processes, be absolutely public in everything that affects it.")