[mahranch]

> pulled their search engine out of China, defying their censorship attempts

They didn't pull their search engine out of China because of censorship requests, they pulled their search engine because the government kept trying to hack them and steal their source code, which they eventually did. So Google up and left.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303493904575167...

They like to cite censorship and free speech to look better, but they knew exactly what they were getting into before setting foot in China -- the government of China made specific requirements before they could do business in China and Google agreed to those requirements. In fact, Google was criticized heavily for doing so. So don't buy into their history revisionism, they were on board with censorship from day 1. They had to be, or the PRC wouldn't allow them in.

[joshuamorton]

Fwiw I think you're being mildly too revisionist in the other direction. The major issue with the hacking wasn't stealing source code, but attempts to access user data. Certainly accessing source code is bad, but imo in general Google protects user data much moreso than source code.

(I work at Google)

[DINKDINK]

>in general Google protects user data

How is storing and cataloging reams of private data 'protecting' it? If your significant other was constantly noting every friend you talked to, every purchase you made, videotaping your every move, would you call that protecting them?

To protect a user's data, it shouldn't even be collected in the first place. I think a better choice of words is that Google does a better job at monopolizing user data.

[bad_user]

People mistake privacy for security.

Google has one of the most secure services on the Internet. At the same time Google is the biggest threat to privacy.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. People simply don't get what privacy is about.

[thatcat]

Security is complicated. I think the point was that if you don't store the unnecessary data then that data is 100% secure.

[joshuamorton]

Sure, but the corollary to that is that security is complicated. Do you really expect the average user to have a more secure system than what they would otherwise have. In other words, is a Gmail account more or less secure than what you would have otherwise.

I think the answer depends, but it certainly isn't always "less". There's some information that you have to store somewhere, and is having a world class security team who works to actively mitigate things like phishing better than storing it yourself?

[thatcat]

I'm just saying not saving data is simpler than saving data and avoids the complication. The average user doesn't need 99% of the data that google saves about them and would have no reason to store it themselves. You can have phishing protection and the world class security team while also not saving the unnecessary data resulting in an even more secure model. Protonmail seems to be just as secure without requiring data collection, for example.

[extralego]

Not as secure as, say, Wikipedia. Personal data is far more secure when it's not stored anywhere at all.

[smsm42]

I think the parent meant that they are very vigilant about not giving access to this data to anybody who is not affiliated with Google. Which makes a lot of sense for both business and privacy reasons - you don't want to let others access your valuable assets, and the backlash for leaking out the data usually is much larger than for just having it. Nobody cared about Equifax knowing everything about everyone until it was hacked.

[philipov]

Despite the 15 minutes of outrage-entertainment it provided, it seems no one really cared about Equifax getting hacked either.

[extralego]

Or, more likely, they were simply helpless and realized so from their experience with these sorts of companies.

[ubernostrum]

Companies like Google and Facebook protect user data the way a bank protects its vault.

[zaarn]

Google protects the user data from access by others. The data is valuable only if Google alone has access to this data and can sell it as a monopoly premium product.

If everyone had access to the user data the value would be 0.

Of course, Google doesn't give a shit about protecting the privacy of their users, they hoover up all they can and then bunker it.

[HelloNurse]

Haven't you seen wildlife documentaries where, say, lion A protects a zebra carcass (killed or stolen from other predators) from lion B, in order to eat enough of it?

[knuththetruth]

Whatever the case, as someone inside Google, I’d urge you to resist this effort like many of your colleagues did with Project Maven.

Helping the Chinese government consolidate power by censoring information and silencing dissidents (among whatever else they’ll end up doing within the context of this partnership), is a dark road to go down. It will also undoubtedly set a dangerous precedent that will be demanded by like-minded regimes outside China.

[skybrian]

I don't know one way or the other, but this proves too much. You're talking about this like Google is the Borg and everyone always has the same opinions. It's certainly possible some of the people in the room at the time actually were motivated by free speech issues.

I agree about not trusting corporate PR, but the conclusion is that we don't know the company's motivations and it's probably a mistake to treat it as a consistent entity. Executives come and go. Sometimes they win arguments and sometimes they lose them. Sometimes they change their minds over the years.

[knuththetruth]

Whether or not people at Google have different opinions is largely irrelevant, unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program.

Google, despite all its townhalls and Q&As, is not a democracy. It’s a corporation governed by an authoritarian command hierarchy who have seemingly chosen to get in bed with another authoritarian regime called the Chinese government.

[skybrian]

There is a large middle ground between democracy and purely top-down command. I was actually talking about disagreement among executives. In an environment where people respect each others' opinions and areas of expertise, you don't need coordinated labor action for that to influence top-level decision-making.

The fact that this all has been kept secret (even from the rest of the organization) and that it leaked are both evidence for internal political divisions. Internal politics does matter, sometimes. I wonder what happens now that more Googlers know about it?

[BrandonMarc]

> unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program.

What was this?

[svachalek]

I believe this is in reference to employees quitting over the company's participation in the development of artificially intelligent weapons.

[knuththetruth]

That was a big part of it, but there were also several other coordinated, internal campaigns. Here’s a good account by one of the Googlers involved:

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military...

[degenerate]

Full article: http://archive.is/eOm2B

Thanks for sharing, I've only ever heard the "PR" flavor of why they left. This makes more sense.

[DogOnTheWeb]

Stephen Levy covers it heavily in "In The Plex".

If my memory serves, they censored Google.cn, but did not block users in China from the un-censored Google.com. The PRC alternated between blocking and unblocking .com.

My understanding of the final straw was the hacking of gmail to steal the communications and network info of Chinese dissidents and activists.

More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Giving_up_Google_...

[mkol2]

That was all part of the official story. It was "only" about 8 years ago so it is available online as well as on HN.

"A new approach to China"

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048800

"A new approach to China: an update"

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211090

"China condemns decision by Google to lift censorship"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm

[ehsankia]

I honestly don't understand why censorship is relevant. It's not like Google is going to change how China works, nor should it be in charge of that. Google being there or not has zero impact on how China treats its people, but at least some users may get access to services they find useful. Limited is better than nothing for many, especially Android users.

What DOES matter is Chinese government accessing data Google collects on users. If China takes over the data like with iCloud [0], then that actually puts user's life in danger. My understanding is that they left back then because they couldn't protect users, but they are back because they believe their security is better now.

[0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...