Over the last few years, ACB has tried a variety of introduction methods. Ranging from the conventional to the downright bizarre. However, as regular readers will tell you, there is one phrase that ACB has used over and over again “you probably don't need to be a China watcher to know …..”.

Sometimes this phrase is used accurately: to introduce a topic that is so hot or so common that the average Westerner will instantly be familiar with it. Sometime it is not so accurate. Introducing something that foreigners should know about, but don't for various reasons (Sadly, often relating to the so-called free press).

In this case, ACB hopes that it is the former.

You probably don't need to be a China watcher to know that there has recently been somewhat of a contratont between US search Giant Google, and the diaspora commonly known as China. But more accurately known as Beijing.

As is often the case, the relationship between information and supposition has been rather one sides, as has the relationship between facts and opinions. Some of which masquerade as the other.

So, for better or for worse, here is ACB's contribution to the confusion. A brief analysis of the topic.

Announcement?

On Tuesday 12 January 2010 local time Google released a statement on their blog announcing that the one of it's flagship services “Gmail”: a popular email service, had suffered a sustained attempt to breach its security. The statement declared that the attempted breach had originated from China, and that it appeared to be targeting accounts belonging to Chinese dissidents and those associated with them/ See link for full statement  (http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com/google_to_pull_out_of_china.htm).

The statement also accused persons unspecified of illegally accessing the Gmail accounts of a number of other dissidents and their associates though subversive means. Namely: log in credentials stolen directly from account holders through phishing scams and malware installed on non Google computers.

Although statements of this nature are not new, or unique to Google - Indeed accusations of so-called cyber espionage/terrorism against China are so old that they have almost become passe - what made the announcement different was that it concluded by saying that Google intended to take a good long look at its relationship with the China, particularly in regards to censorship, and to enter discussions with Beijing with the aim of negotiating the right to run an unfettered service in China, and the closing of Google China in the event that its demands were not met.

After the announcement was made, Google shutter it's Mainland office. Sending many staff home, and blocking the office from accessing a number of key computer systems relating to Google's wider running.

Shortly after Google's statement was released reports began to circulate that Google had lifted some, or all, of the filtering from it's Mainland search engine. Allowing search results to include previously filtered content, including images of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and website relating to the banned FLG spiritual movement.

Some later reports appeared to contradict this. Indicating that the filters may have been restored in whole or in part.

Interestingly, perhaps tellingly, Goolge's public statements did not elaborate on exactly why the US company was choosing to link attempts to breach its email security to censorship Only that it was no longer willing to continue filtering its service at a time that an attempted incursion was made.

In a later interview on CNBC, Drummond, referred to the move as a matter of conscience, but did not elaborate as to whether it was due to ongoing issues, or if Beijing had made fresh censorship demands.

Official Response?

Beijing's official response to Google was delivered by by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu, and stuck rigidly to the standard state line: That China considers the internet to be an important tool, but one that requires some level of state management in order to protect Chinese citizens, and that foreign companies operating in China have to abide by local laws, just as they would in any other country.

This line was backed up by officials in other state departments who similarly carried the state line that regulation was necessary, and that Google had to obey local laws if it wished to operate in local markets..


For their part, Xinhau, the Mainland's state backed news agency described Google's announcement as a business matter, and called for calm. Urging others not to try to use it as a political tool.


China watchers noted that all of these responses fall within the known parameters of a state response to such an issue in that they typically try to portray the issue as one of Google V regulation: A foreign company coming form an “anything goes” low regulation environment and coming into conflict with China's more managed media environment. As opposed a free speech issue.

Analysis?

At present, it is too soon to reach any firm conclusions on where the Google-Beijing confrontation may lead, or even if there will be a confrontation of any substance. What is certain is that a direct confrontation between Google and Beijing can only have one outcome: The closure of Google China. Either voluntarily or by force.

It is also certain that Google is aware of this. A fact which has created a notable level of confusion amongst analysts as to exactly what Google's ultimate agenda is.

One hypothesis put forward by analysts is that Google does not intent to confront Beijing directly, but instead intends to use the threat of a confrontation as a means to “renegotiate” its relationship with China exactly as stated in its press release.

Though it remains unclear what Google could possibly gain in terms of concessions from Beijing.  As president shows that Beijing is more likely to push harder than to give ground, due to the fear that giving ground may encourage others to push for further ground to be given, and due to the loss of face that ground given would cause.

With this in mind, some analysts have suggested that Google may have no intention of winning real concessions from Beijing, but may instead be hoping to “go down in a blaze of glory”. Using  its Chinese operations to launch a so-called “divine wind” attack on the Chinese government - in a similar fashion to Japanese pilots who purposefully dove their planes into American ships during WWII knowing that they would be killed in the process.

As such, Analyst have suggested that Google may be provoking a confrontation knowing that it it cannot win, and that its Mainland branch will not survive, but that its demise could be put to use in terms of publicity back in the US, where there remains significant anti-China sentiment, and where “standing up to dictators” could buoy domestic support.

China watchers note that many of Google's competitors are as deeply embedded in state censorship in China. Many deeper. Including Yahoos: which has handed over details of dissident to the Mainland government, and Microsoft: which has applied tighter levels of censorship to some of its own services that Google has to their own.

Thus, a confrontation with China could be used by Google as a propaganda tool. Allowing it to shed its Mainland baggage as a collaborator, and to denounce its rivals for their continuing complicity.

Alternatively, it cannot be ruled out that Google may be making a genuine moral stand, and that Google officials have genuinely decided that the fiscal rewards for operating in China's highly restricted (but rapidly expanding) market was not worth the free speech costs.

As for Google's primary official reasons for concern. The attempted intrusions on its Gmail service, it remains unclear how pulling out of China would resolve the issue as such geographic locations and intentional boundaries are not relevant in such attacks, neither is the country of a company's operation. Unless Google plans to ban Mainland users from having Gmail accounts, or intends to provoke Beijing into banning Gmail on the Mainland. Which would resolve the issue by removing likely targets from Google's system.

What does Google Stand to loose?

If China were to take on Beijing in a direct confrontation, and were to be blocked in whole or in part the most obvious lose would be financial. Mostly resulting form a lose of advertizing revenue.

According to US based investment bank Piper Jaffray Google, prior to its announcement, 2% of Google's projected global revenue for 2010 was predicted to come from its China operations.

While this is far from a killing blow to Google, it does amount to an estimated $US400 million for 2010. With a pre announcement year on year growth estimate rate of between 17 and 18.5%.

Even if this latest incident proves to be a storm in a teacup Google is likely to see its future growth prospects in China diminished. What form this may take is not clear, but Beijing is more likely to be wary of Google in future, and is less likely to be willing to make concessions when it comes to allowing Google to launch new services in China.

Thus one possible repercussion is that Google is likely to  have less control in any future joint ventures. With Beijing insisting that it acts more as a silent partner providing technology and expertises, than as a controlling entity.

The View from Beijing?

When viewed from Beijing the current Google-Beijing spat appears to be a one sides affair. A foreign company stating that unless it is given a free pass to ignore local law it will break them.

To Beijing this is the equivalent of a Sony telling Washington that unless it is allowed to distribute graphic child pornography over PSN, Sony would do it anyway, and that it would cut off all US user if Washington attempted to move against it.

While this may seem like an exaggeration, and while many people will certainly blanch at the thought of comparing the right to criticize your government to child pornography, to Beijing the content difference is largely immaterial. Undesirable content is undesirable content, regardless of what it actually contains.

Although Google has expressed a willingness to enter into discuss with Beijing over the issue of censorship, Beijing has repeatedly show itself to be unwilling to enter into such negotiations, or to make exceptions regarding censorship. For this reasons, any confrontation between Beijing and Google is likely to follow a predictable path. Google can comply with domestic law by censoring its service, or Google can leave.

Indeed, based on past case studies, the only issues that Beijing is likely to allow to be put on the  negotiation table are 1) how far Google is willing to compromise its principles un order to continue operating in China, and 2) how much humble pie – as Westerners would say – Google is willing to swallow to allow at least some of its services to remain unblocked on the Mainland if it chooses to remove its censorship filtering.

What Does Beijing Stand to Loose?

What Beijing stands to loose depends on which side of the fence you are sitting.

From an international perspective, Beijing stands to take a notable public relations hit if it blocks or otherwise censures Google. It will be seen to have supported censorship and moved against freedom of speech, and attention will be drawn back to past controversies of a similar nature.

Much of this hit will be from the general public, but China will also likely see diplomatic repercussions in the form of international rebukes. There is also a certainty that this incident, and any that later arise form it, will be used by anti China factions around the world in efforts to pressure their governments to take a less favorable stance towards China.

Traditionally, Beijing has paid little heed to international public opinion, and has often ignored it completely. In many cases its reaction has been simply to try to prevent domestic audiences from finding out about international opinion by blocking website and news services carrying it.

Domestically, opinions are likely to be mixed. On one hand pro freedom groups have reacted with dismay about Google's potential pull out, fearing that the space left by Google will be filled companies with even tighter censorship regimes. Though they also reacted with dismay at Google's  censorship in the first place. With some criticizing Google for propping up Beijing's policy of“What you cannot see does not exist”: a policy under which Beijing has attempted to persuade people that it has an open system, and that the reason that they do not see dissent and differing opinion on a regular basis is that they either do not exist or are in such a minority that they might as well not exist.

There has also been sharp criticism from students, one of Google China's main demographics, who have made extensive use of Google as a research tool. Particularly Google's book and scholarly search services. With students arguing that if they loose Google, then they will also loose access to a vast array of non controversial material - Material whose circulation is actively encouraged by Beijing – or at least access to an easy way to obtain said material. Which is often be considered the same thing in some circles.

Leading some to call for Beijing not to overreact, and to reach a settlement that at least allows Google to maintain its current level of service, with filters intact.

On the other hand, Beijing Google has also received stern criticism from within China for its low levels of regulation. With some voicing that Google should increase its level of censorship for the good of Chinese society, and accusing Google of providing a portal through which young Chinese can access morally degrading material. Much of which is banned in China under laws that have strong public support.

For example, Google's image search engine was recently accused of acting as a distributor of pornography due to its easy of use in searching for porn, and it was found that Google Japan was picking up a notable level of international traffic from Chinese seeking to view adult material that is banned in China.

Google China also often allows access to web sites promoting unhealthy ideas, such as websites that promote eco terrorism, suicide, or which provide information on how to conceal an eating disorder or how to manufacture illegal drugs. China could easily justify a ban on Google to the Mainland population on any one of the above without ever broaching the human rights issues of censorship.

On the economic front Beijing is expected to see little if any direct lose if Google pulls out or is  blocked whole-sale.

While Google is arguably one of the largest players on the international internet circuit, and is pretty much the undisputed king of search engines, it has achieved only moderate market penetration in Chinese markets.

Estimates vary, but Google is thought to have captured between 16-18% of China's total market. Compared to the 60% market share held by domestic company Baidu. Although this market share is worth an estimated $US400 million, were Google to exit the market, the vacuum that it left would likely not cause Beijing much discomfort as it would be rapidly filled by domestic companies. As well as by foreign companies willing to censor their services.

Equally, other popular services have made no inroads into the Chinese markets at all. For example, Youtube, which is also owned by Google, has minimal market share on the Mainland, despite it being the world leader in legal video streaming, because it is already banned on the Mainland due to its refusal to comply with local censorship laws.

Many of Google's other service only have a marginal presence in China, and so their loss would not be noticeable.
Many faces of censorship?

China watchers note that while Google has made headlines with the suggestion that it will stand up to Chinese censorship, one question that it  has so far failed to answer is whether it intends to carry its new found “conscience” across to markets outside of China.

Although it remains early days, there has been no suggestion from Google itself that it intends to “negotiate” with other countries regarding the removal of censorship filters in their countries.

Similarly, there have been no reports of Google informally approaching governments of countries such as France, Germany or Israel, which maintain heavy censorship regimes. There have also been no reports of Google attempting to tackle censorship in countries that censor Google indirectly such the UK, which maintains a sophisticated ISP level blocking system that prohibits UK users from visiting an unspecified number of sites that appear in the Google search index, and which would prevent Google  servers based in the UK gathering data on the same said sites. So potentially manipulating search results gathered from UK based servers to make it appear that certain website did not exist.

Based on Google's past actions analyst believe that such approaches are unlikely to be made.

Over the past few years many Western technology companies have earned an unenviable reputation in relation to their activities in China. In particular, in relation to their willingness to restrict or otherwise hobble their services in order to comply with Mainland censorship laws.

A few companies, such as AOL, have notable bucked the trend by coming out publicly to state that they believed that the moral price was too high to pay, but by and large most of the big name Western companies seem to have accepted that the financial benefits of working in China outweighs the moral turbidity of censorship and complicity in censorship.

However, it would seem that things may be beginning to turn around. At least in a small way.

According to postings on its corporate blog. US Search giant Google may be poised to pull out of China in protest over state restrictions, and efforts by agencies unnamed to access information about Chinese activists stored on its systems.

Although information is limited, Google have publicly stated that they are seeking to renegotiate their presence in China with Beijing. Either to allow them to operate an unfettered service, or to allow them to exit the Mainland market in whole/part.

As yet it remains unclear whether Google is serious about pulling out of the Mainland market, or how complete a pullout may be. It also remains unclear what Google means by "an unfiltered search engine within the law", a phrase that seems contradictory in itself given that Mainland law require filtering to be put in place.

Furthermore, it remains unclear whether Google intends cease all operations if it cannot reach a negotiated solution with Beijing, or whether it merely intends to cease operations under its own name but continue funding/investing in other named entities so as to avoid having the name Google tied directly to censorship, but continue to run a censored service under a different name.

Further information and analysis will be provided once it becomes available.

Whichever way you look at it, the Dali Lama is a pretty well known figure on the international stage.

Most of the world's population will know who he is and what he does, even if they don't know the intricate details of his life and work. However, according to Apple Inc, he doesn't exist. At least not as far as China is concerned.

Censorship?

According to researchers, US based Apple Inc - The company behind the iconic Ipod and iPhone -  has caved into demands from the Mainland government and purged it's Chinese app store of applications relating to the Dali Lama.

Multiple applications relating to the Dali Lama which are available international do not appear on the Mainland iteration of the Apple App store. The purge covers both applications directly relating to the Dali Lama as well as applications that reference the Lama

Purged applications include “Paging Dalai Lama”: An application detailing the Lama's current schedule as well as “Dalai Lama Quotes” and “Dalai Lama Prayer wheel”. Both of which display quotes from the Dali Lama.

An application titled “Nobel Laureates”, which includes details about of the Dali Lama's background and international piece work, has also been purged.

Secret Purge?

According to researchers, the purge was carried out in secret by Apple's own administration staff. Those developers who could be contacted stated that they were not informed that their apps were being censored, and were thus not offered the opportunity to challenge Apple's decision.

Powerless?

Under US law, Apple has the right to refuse to distribute applications through its app store, and there are currently no laws preventing it from being complicit in overseas censorship, leaving application developers powerless to act against Apple.

Apple's own terms of service do not bind it to inform developers of market specific censorship.

According to Apple, it's service must comply with local laws when operating in their markets. A similar argument has been used by companies such as Google: which offers Chinese citizens a cut down version of it's search engine that provides only incomplete search results based on black/gray lists provided by Beijing, and Yahoo: which infamously handed over information about the Chinese journalist Shi Tao, resulting in them receiving a 10 year prison sentence.

Other Instances?

Reports indicate that several applications relating to other figures have also been purged from the China app store. Other censored applications include those relating to Rebiya Kadeer, a well known activist Uyghur rights activist from East Turkestan, known on the Mainland as Xinjiang Province.

Business as Usual?

Beijing routinely censors all references to the Dali Lama on the Mainland, and requires foreign companies operating in Chinese territory to do the same.

It forbids the domestic media from referencing the Dali Lama except in specially sanctioned situations, most of which are critical and/or carry inaccuracies about the Dali Lama and their activities.

Beijing fears the Lama as they represent a symbol of the Tibetan people's independent cultural and social identity, and a reminder that Tibetan history is independent of Mainland history.  All of which come in direct contradiction to the official state line that Tibet is an extension of the Han China.

In Tibet itself, it is an imprisonable offense to possess a picture of the Dali Lama, and it is prohibited for Tibetan monks to recognize the Dali Lama as their spiritual leader.

For most people in the world the Internet can largely be divided into three separate categories

1) Website that they visit
2) Websites that the don't visit, either because they do not interest them, or because they are written in a language that they cannot understand
3) Websites that they don't visit because they haven't found out about them yet.

Things are a little different for Mainland Chinese, though. Instead three categories of website, there are four. With the fourth and final category being

4) Websites that Beijing doesn't want you to read.

Publicly, this fourth section consists almost entirely of pornography. Most of which Beijing claims as being foreign. Often American or Japanese (Or Japanese pretending to be Chinese). And the rest of which consists of sites that degrade morals, or which threaten the Chinese way of life.

Privately, this fourth categories consists mostly of websites that either contradict Beijing's official line in issues such as politics, history or society, or which at some point became popular with Mainlanders wishing to discuss the afore mentioned things in an unfettered way.

For most Chinese this four part division of the internet is the norm. In fact, in some places it's so seamless that many Chinese are barely aware of it's existence. Which is how Beijing likes it. After all, what people can't see obviously can't exist, can it?

There are ways round Beijing's state enforced partitioning of the internet. Some ways make use of software design to avoid internet censorship, such as the TOR proxy network. while others make use of ordinary everyday services from foreign companies that are based outside of China.

Needless to say, Beijing has been doing its level best to crack down on the former. However, it is often the foreign companies themselves that have been found to be cracking down on the latter.

Indeed, companies who fight tooth and nail against online censorship in their own countries (for example, protecting their users' constitutional right to download hard core pornography) have actively facilitated censorship in China by forcing Mainlanders on to specially hobbled versions of their services.

Hobbled Services?

Over the last few years there have been many examples of foreign companies producing semi functional versions of their software or services for the Chinese market. With notable examples including the Simplified Chinese version of the Microsoft and Google search engines, which failed to return search entries from popular websites that are subject to Mainland censorship or for certain key terms.

Beijing Opera?

One of the latest additions to this list of Beijing's Western co-conspirators in Mainland censorship is the mobile internet browser service Opera.

Late last month, 20 November to be precise, Mainland users of the Java based Opera Mini Browser were greeted with a message telling them that their service required upgrading to "Opera Mini China version". However, upon upgrading, mobile users quickly found that multiple websites were no longer accessible. What's more they also found that it was impossible to regain their previously available level of service by downgrading to their original version of Opera as any attempt to access the internet via older versions returned the same upgrade message, and would not allow them through until they had upgraded back to the hobbled service.


Despite the reduced level of service - including the inability to access popular websites such as Facebook - Chinese users must still pay the same access fees.

Back Door?

Prior to the so-called "upgrade" Opera Mini had provided Mainlanders with a back-door through state censorship mechanisms using what is known as a "Proxy server". A server located outside of China through which Internet traffic was routed.

The original purpose of the Opera proxy server was to provide a faster mobile internet connection to Opera Mini users.

Rather than directly accessing the internet over the slow mobile connection Opera Mini would contact the Opera proxy server, which would contact the required website on its behalf. The server would then alter and compress the contents of the website into a format that was more efficient, and then transmit it back to the user.

This allowed Opera Mini users to have a faster internet experience by reducing the amount of data that it had to receive in order to view a website. However, because the server (a network of approximately 100 individual server system) was located in Europe and other world regions beyond the Mainland, and was thus not subject to Mainland interference, it not only returned web pages faster, it also returned web pages that were banned in China.

The so called "upgrade" closes this back door by re routing Mainland users onto a special server or servers that are subject to Beijing's censorship regime.

Official Response?

When questioned the forced transference Opera's spokesperson refused to be drawn on the subject of censorship. Neither confirming or denying that the new "China service" provided only semi functional internet access, nor confirming or denying that it had been pressured into doing so by Beijing.

According to the spokesperson the "upgrade" would allow Chinese users faster access to the internet, though they did not provide any evidence, nor metrics, to back this up.

Common Stance?

As with other Western companies who have hobbled their services in order to comply with Chinese state secrets, Opera maintain that if they wish to do business in China they must obey Chinese laws. Which, although most companies do not publicly acknowledge, include the requirement to block access to material that may embarrass Beijing by contradicting its position on society, history or culture.

To date, many Western companies have decided to comply with Chinese censorship on the grounds that the alternative to maintaining a moral high ground is to hand a rapidly expanding - and thus potentially lucrative - market over to their less ethical competitors. A few companies, such as AOL have decided to pull out of Chinese deals due to censorship demands. Though few big names have been prepared to go public about it.

State Censors?

Although China is probably the world's best known internet censor, it is a less known fact that many supposedly liberal democracies maintain highly advanced internet censorship networks in direct contradiction to their own freedom of speech laws. Many of these censorship mechanism are as advanced, or more advanced, than China's own mechanisms.

Western countries with censored internet access typically require similar levels of corporate conspiracy to the Mainland. Some require higher levels.

Amongst the most infamous examples of state censors are France and Germany. Both countries have strict laws prohibiting the contradiction of the official state line on multiple social, cultural and historical issues. Or the distribution of artefacts and/or media relating to these issues. These prohibitions extend to both on and off line activities, and violation of them can result in a prison sentence of up to 10 years. Even academic research and/or discussion is prohibited unless it observes the strict state line, and reaches the same conclusions as the official state line.

Most of these prohibitions, but not all, come in relation to WWII, pre and post war leaders and politics, and modern revivals.

Although Paris and Berlin have repeatedly refused to accept the parallels, China watchers note that the national laws of both countries are near identical to Mainland policies governing issues such as the Dali Lama, the FLG spiritual movement, and the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Another infamous example is that of the United Kingdom, which maintains one of the world's most sophisticated blocking system through the deployment of two software packages known as Cleanfeed and WebMinder at the ISP level.

Cleanfeed and WebMinder both operate as web blocking utilities, prohibiting access to internet resource contained on a blacklist written up by a body known as the Internet Watch Foundation. A non elected body with no public or private accountability, and no official oversight.

Initially set up to block access to child pornography, the IWF has gradually expended it's remit to cover anything that it determines to be "potentially illegal". Although there is no actual requirement for the legality of a blocked site to be verified as illegal by any official body.

As with China, the list of blacklisted sites is a closely guarded secret. People whose websites are blocked are not informed, and they have no right to appeal. The public also has no legal right to know the contents of the list, or the reasons behind the banning of a particular website. Web users are additionally not informed that they are attempting to visit a blocked site. Instead they receive a generic error message. The same message that they would receive if they had typed in an incorrect web address.

As with governments of France and Germany, London denies parallels between it's own censorship regime and Beijing's. However, it's reasoning for the existence of UK censorship is almost identical. The need to protect UK citizens from so-called "harmful" material and/or influences. Equally, as with China, pornography is the most commonly cited form of “harmful” material.

Unlike in China, adoption of the blacklist by ISPs is not mandatory in the UK, though take up amongst ISPs is estimated to be approximately 95%. Including all of the UK's largest ISPs.

Mostly, this is down to pressure from vested interest groups who abuse the IWF's original purpose of blocking child pornography to force adoption.

ISPs who do not censor their services are risk being branded supporters of child abuse.

Child pornography is particularly sensitive topic in the UK, where sex crimes against both children and adults are significantly higher than levels in Asia.

Due to the "what the public cannot see does not exist" principle, and the lack of notification and/or oversight, applied to the UK's blocking regime, the  true extent of censorship is difficult to determine, and it remains unknown what percentage of the site that are blocked actually relate to sexual material, and what percentage relate to more political topics.

What is known is that the UK government has a history of censoring website opposing the so-called war on terrorism. Including using controversial anti terrorism legislation to force website to remove, or forcing the blocking of a variety of material opposing the official state line in much the same way that Beijing does in relation to material supporting the independence of countries such as Tibet and East Turkestan, which are currently under Mainland occupation.