China vs. Google: Who Will Win the Cyber Security War?

Table of Contents 

Introduction 3 

History of the Relationship between Google and China 3 

China’s Reasons for Controlling the Internet 4 

The Circumstances that Led to the Strife between Google and China 5 

Google’s Declaration to Leave China 6 

Comparison Between Google’s and China’s Approach to Cyber Security 8 

Chinese Netizens’ Reactions to Cyber Security 11 

Conclusion 12 

References 13 

Introduction 

Internet freedom has been a subject of political and cultural perspectives. In a country like China, the national government believes that citizens should have limited control over the cyberspace. Government officials assert that internet censorship can enhance political stability and unity. However, IT companies such as Google believe in providing their users with unlimited access to information. As such, there has been a conflict between the US IT companies and the Chinese government. Some companies have had to compromise their values when entering the Chinese market. Google is one of the firms that had to overlook their principles to conduct their activities in China. Differences between Google’s and China’s perception of internet freedom and cybersecurity provide insights into the political, cultural, and economic aspects of the US IT companies and the Chinese government concerning the use of cyberspace. 

History of the Relationship between Google and China 

China is among the countries with the highest populations, which translates into an increased number of internet users. In 2008, China had about 200 million internet users, making it one of the largest internet market (Cannici Jr., 2009). Google saw China as a region that has the potential for increasing its revenue. However, Google claimed that its focus on the Chinese market was not primarily meant to generate profits but to serve the interests of the Chinese people (Tsai, 2011). One of Google’s principles is to ensure that its user has access to information. Upon entering the Chinese market, Google encountered strict censorship laws. The “Golden Shield” statute is considered one of the most sophisticated mechanisms in the world (Chander, 2011). It allows government officials to intercept the communications of online users. China has placed the fiber-optic cables in strategic locations to ensure that the law enforcement agents can check the information that the Chinese nationals are looking for and posting online (Chander, 2011). These regulations were not only applied to the Chinese citizens but also the IT companies. Google was already aware of these policies but continued with the decision to invest in the country. Besides, Google agreed to some of the self-censorship policies to continue operating in China (Cohn, 2007). Google had to provide the Chinese government with vital personal information, such as web searches and emails. For a company whose policy is “Don’t be evil,” Google was violating the Chinese nationals’ right to freedom and autonomy (Cohn, 2007). Google agreed with the Chinese government to have some of its features flagged. As a result, Google faced sharp criticism from the US activists for violating the national and international laws that uphold the right to freedom. Despite this criticism, Google ensured that it followed the Chinese government’s requirements to continue generating profit. 

China’s Reasons for Controlling the Internet 

The Chinese government believes that it has the mandate to protect its citizens from the potentially misleading information available on the internet. While the Chinese government tolerates freedom of speech, it considers the internet as dangerous territory as it allows the users to interact with an unidentified audience (Cannici Jr., 2009). Such an interaction can result in the spreading of subversive and detrimental information. Hence, government officials are willing to exert different forms of measures, including harsh punishment and censorship to deter this behavior. China uses a multi-layered cybersecurity system, meaning that internet service providers (ISPs) are responsible for what they publish and distribute online (Cannici Jr., 2009). This action aims at preventing the distribution of information that may harm the unity of the Chinese citizens. Thus, the Chinese government requires the internet service providers to acquire a license and sign a pledge that refrains them from producing, posting, and disseminating information that may threaten the state security and disrupt social stability (Chander, 2011). However, only a few American companies agreed to sign to this pledge. Harvard Law School conducted a study in 2005 and discovered that over 5000 websites were not accessible in China due to the censorship policies (Eko et al., 2011). Apart from regulating the acts of ISPs, the Chinese government controls the user activity through the internet police, which patrols the chatrooms and Weblogs (Cannici Jr., 2009). The law enforcement agents monitor the users’ utterances and provide viewpoints that support the ruling party. Chinese nationals cannot find results to terms such as “dictatorship” and “truth” (Cannici Jr., 2009). China believes that the internet can be used as a tool for political activism. Hence, increased online censorships are meant to protect its people from the western countries’ perceptions of freedom. 

The Circumstances that Led to the Strife between Google and China

Although Google enjoyed significant returns in China, the increased acts of cybercrime led to disagreement between the two parties. Google started feeling the impact of China’s cybersecurity policies when it noted a significant increase in the hacking of its users’ profiles. In 2010, Google decided to move its search engine web sites to Hong Kong servers due to rising cases of network attacks, Gmail break-ins, harassment, and censorship (Gutman, 2010). Google officials noted that the Chinese government violated every principle that it supported. The firm’s original purpose was losing meaning since the Chinese netizens could not access the information that could enhance their understanding of vital matters. For example, the Chinese nationals could not find answers to terms such as “Tiananmen Square” and “Dalai Lama” (Upfront, 2010). At first, the Chinese government insisted that it was blocking the information that could result in political instability. Later on, the Chinese government increased its control over Google’s operations. For example, the Chinese government blocked YouTub e and Gmail and disabled the function that allows the search engine to suggest terms (Upfront, 2010). Besides, the Chinese government did not arrest the individuals responsible for hacking Gmail accounts. For example, Hao Fengjun, who worked for the Falun Gong movement, could intercept the emails within China (Gutmann, 2010). These actions prompted a response from the US government since they were considered as cybercrime. Besides, Google had already been a victim of theft of intellectual property in China (Upfront, 2010). Google was frustrated since it meant that the Chinese government was in charge of nearly all of its operations. As a result, Google started initiating a possible exit plan. 

Google’s Declaration to Leave China 

In 2010, Google announced that it would no longer work with the Chinese government citing different reasons that led to the decision. Google claimed that the Chinese government hacked into over 30 company accounts and Gmail accounts of human rights activists (Eko et al., 2011). This act was considered a violation of privacy and freedom of expression. As a result, Google moved its services to Hong Kong, which is considered to have significant freedom of speech and expression (Eko et al., 2011). Eventually, cyber protests ensued in China. In the US, Google received praise for supporting human rights. On the contrary, the Chinese government insisted that the concept of internet freedom is a form of western imperialism meant to cause political instability (Tsai, 2011). Other institutions also intervened the matter. Among them were the media houses. For instance, Xinhua claimed that the US government was misleading the Chinese and asserted that there were no internet restrictions in China; instead, the government followed the constitution which protects the people’s freedom of speech (Tsai, 2011). Google remained relentless in its actions. It challenged the Golden Shield when it allowed Chinese citizens to have access to unfiltered results (Eko et al., 2011). This move infuriated Chinese officials. They warned Google that it would lose its business license in China (Eko et al., 2011). When Google realized that its license was about to expire, it ignored the Chinese government’s requirements. One of the key personalities in the Google vs. China debate was the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She applauded Google for making such a bold move and stated that access to the internet is a human right (Hughes, 2010). Clinton’s message showed that the US government was willing to support the companies that challenged online censorship. Chinese government officials were surprised by these sentiments. Through a state-run newspaper, China Daily , the government officials claimed that the internet censorship in China enhances social democracy and pluralism and it is one of the mechanisms that provide tips about the abuse of power (Tsai, 2011). Chinese leadership does not consider the internet as a right but a privilege. Hence, the ruling party ensures that there are limited interactions between Chinese nationals and foreigners. In an article in the China Daily , the Chinese government claimed that the repression of information had brought significant benefits, including economic and political reforms and freedom of speech (Tsai, 2011). Notably, the Chinese government considered Hillary Clinton as an imperialist who wanted to impose American values on other cultures. 

Although Google did not entirely leave China, it did not support the Chinese values and principles concerning the use of cyberspace. In 2010, Google renewed its license to operate in China but provided the users with a link to the unfiltered results (Tsai, 2011). One may criticize Google for backing down from its earlier stance on internet freedom and following the Chinese government’s rules. Still, the company showed its dedication to improving access to information among the Chinese citizens. Unlike other companies that remained quiet during this period, Google requested the US government to include internet freedom in foreign policy (Tsai, 2011). Google shifted the blame to the US government since the issue of internet freedom in China was challenging to address. The Chinese government has openly expressed its concerns about the possible rise of self-appointed online guardians who may be impossible to control in case of a protest (Chander, 2011). For example, if a person spreads misinformation that misleads the public, there may be unnecessary conflicts—the cyberspace laws in China attempt to prevent this problem from arising. This stance created further conflict between China and Google and hence, the 2010 decision. 

Comparison between Google’s and China’s Approach to Cyber Security 

In 2010, Google noted that there are mechanisms that can be implemented to address the issue of internet freedom and cyber-attacks. It proposed that the US IT companies should disclose any requests by foreign governments to provide personal information or censor information of their clients (Tsai, 2011). This move was directed at China which tends to request the IT companies for the personal information of activists. Take, for example, the case that involved Yahoo providing personal data of activists such as Wang Xiaoning to the Chinese government leading to their arrest and torture (Cohn, 2007). At first, Google was among the companies blindly collaborated with the Chinese government, but it has since developed to a quasi-state. In 2010, Google launched an online tool that discloses the government intervention of the users’ online activities (Tsai, 2011). In case a foreign government requested a user data or removal of information, the technology would alert the US officials. Indeed, Google’s cybersecurity policies prioritize human rights, transparency, and freedom of expression. Google considers itself as a company that offers the freedom to users through free speech, privacy, and protection of intellectual property (Tsai, 2011). When Google stated that it would cease its operations in China, it attracted the attention of both the US and Chinese governments. This move asserts the position of Google as a quasi-state. 

While the Chinese government has put in place different measures to protect users from accessing certain information, the cyberspace is still vulnerable to attacks. For example, the Falun Gong movement has been hacking into emails of students and businesspeople (Gutmann, 2010). This group noted that there is a chance of conducting illegal cyber activities without being recorded by the Golden Shield. Even upon realizing that there were groups that hacked into personal accounts, the Chinese government did not stop them. Instead, the Chinese government encouraged them to provide vital information from countries such as Taiwan, Indonesia, and Japan (Gutmann, 2010). Notably, the Chinese government encouraged the growth of hacktivist culture as long as it benefited. Google noted that the Chinese government was involved in hacking activities. The company stated that the majority of the victims of hacking were Chinese journalists and western human rights activists (Gutmann, 2010). Although the Chinese government believed that its cyberspace was safe from hackers, it failed to consider the weaknesses of the Golden Shield. Google had the tools to note the infiltration of its users’ emails. 

Admittedly, Google believes that it has installed adequate security measures to protect its users from cyber-attacks. In 2010, Google provided an in-depth report which showed the schools involved in the cyberattacks (Changchang, 2014). As a result, Chinese netizens acknowledged Google for its transparency. When Google threatened to leave, there were increased cyber protests on Twitter (Changchang, 2014). Google has tools that alert its officials when a third-party is trying to access someone’s account. 

However, China has stricter cybersecurity measures. The internet laws in the country have resulted in the apprehension of many internet users as well as website owners (Eko et al., 2011). The Chinese government shuts down the internet whenever it detects a malicious activity. For instance, every month, the Chinese Communist Party issues instructions concerning internet use (Eko et al., 2011). Thus, the majority of IT companies in China hire staff that monitor their web activities. This staff is responsible for deleting messages that the government may consider as offensive or illegal (Eko et al., 2011). Unlike Google, which has progressive laws, China continues to impose stricter internet policies. Even after Google threatened to leave the country, China never changed its approach to cybersecurity. China has made it clear that non-commercial users whose records are not in the government’s system, should not have access to internet services (Eko et al., 2011). The critics of the Chinese government’s policies insist that some of the regulations are desperate measures which do not offer any significant value. For instance, China has automatic censoring systems that can detect words such as “truth” (Cannici Jr., 2009). Whenever the internet police come across such words on online platforms, they delete them and look for the users involved in the act. One of the extreme cybersecurity measures in China is the cartoon police couple JingJing and ChaCha who patrol the internet to find the individuals who post “illegal” content (Cannici Jr., 2009). Users can chat with them and provide anonymous tips. Notably, China has imposed the policies against internet freedom, making some of the users believe that the use of the internet is a privilege. When Google threatened to challenge these policies in 2010, some Chinese nationals accused Google of violating the country’s constitution (Changchang, 2014). While China’s internet rules protect the misinformation and availability of illegal content online, it infringes the people’s right to freedom. 

Although Google provides internet users with vast freedom, there is no assurance that the information one retrieves is accurate and objective. Besides, Google’s results are customized to western values. To understand the Chinese government’s perspective, one has to consider the political, social, and cultural aspects (Eko et al., 2011). China’s cyberspace appeals to these elements. Admittedly, China prioritizes moral values. Hence, the reason that it banned the search results that directed the users to porn sites, violent videos, religious hatred, and gambling (Eko et al., 2011). These issues are considered immoral in Chinese society. However, the case is different from Google. Unlike in China, Google does not protect users, including children, from having access to societal vices. Hence, Google’s cyberspace can promote illegal activities since it does not limit the user’ connection to criminals. Besides, a random Google search can redirect a user to tips about a given criminal activity. On the contrary, the Chinese government protects its citizens from misleading information. Besides, China’s cybersecurity system protects users from defamation and invasion of privacy (Eko et al., 2011). People are encouraged to practice self-censorship. The ones that violate the law are imprisoned. While using Google, a person can post misleading information on sites such as Wikipedia ; inexperienced users may not be able to differentiate between factual and false information. One of Google’s strengths is that people can access a wide range of data. However, there is a need for a system that regulates the content found online. Although at times, the Chinese government exerts extreme measures such as torturing the offenders, there is a need for a regulatory body that checks the credibility of the information that people access. 

Chinese Netizens’ Reactions to Cyber Security 

Majority of the Chinese Netizens enjoyed Google services compared to the local search engines. Baidu, the leading search engine in the country, is considered inferior to Google and Bing (Changchang, 2014). Thus, when Google stated that it would no longer abide by the regulations put forth by the Chinese government, the majority of the Chinese netizens felt disappointed. They criticized the Chinese cybersecurity laws for forbidding them from directly logging onto sites like Twitter (Changchang, 2014). Google’s 2010 decision was meant to address such issues. However, the Chinese government has been relentless on its stance against internet freedom. In 2009, the Chinese government banned Twitter and Facebook to silence the liberal groups (Changchang, 2014). This move angered the liberals who wanted internet freedom. Hence, they created Sina Weibo, a clone of Twitter to enable users to post information that the Chinese government perceived as illegal (Changchang, 2014). While the Chinese cyberspace is full of security measures, the liberals considered them as oppressing. However, the Chinese government may have implemented some measures to protect its people from being misled. When Google stated that it would leave China, Weibo was filled with gossips, rumors, and rampant updates (Changchang, 2014). This information was not useful to the Chinese netizens. Hence, the government had to intervene. 

Conclusion 

Overall, Google and China have a different viewpoint on internet freedom and cybersecurity. Google’s principles rely on the western principles which assert that people should have freedom of speech and expression. However, the Chinese government believes that granting its citizens too much freedom may adversely affect political stability. Thus, Chinese cyberspace is full of restrictions to prevent users from accessing “illegal” and misleading information. On the contrary, Google insists on granting people the freedom to retrieve information that they deem fit. In 2010, Google noted that it could no longer compromise its values in China and threatened to cease its partnership with the country. When China remained relentless on its stance, Google had to make a few adjustments. Each of these parties believes that their principles are right for the people they are serving. Hence, there should be a harmonization between Google’s and China’s perceptions of cybersecurity to enhance internet use in the country. 

References 

Cannici Jr. W. (2009, May). The global online freedom act: Combatting American businesses that facilitate internet censorship in China. Journal of Internet Law , 12(11), 1-12 

Chander, A. (2011, February). Googling freedom. California Law Review , 99(1), 2-44. 

Changchang, W. (2014). Inside-out and outside-in: The making of a transnational discursive alliance in the struggle for the future of China. International Journal of Communication , 8, 445-465. 

Cohn, W. A. (2007). Yahoo’s China defense: How western companies are helping China to filter democracy.  The New Presence , (2), 30-33. 

Eko, Lyombe, Kumar, A., Yao, Q. (2011, September). Google this: The Great Firewall of China, the IT wheel of India, Google Inc., and internet regulation. Journal of Internet Law . 

Gutmann, E. (2010). Hacker nation: China’s cyber assault.  World Affairs , 70-79. 

Hughes, C.R. (2010). Google and the Great Firewall. Survival , 52(2), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396331003764538 

Upfront. (2010). Google, China in internet scuffle. Information Management Journal , 44(2), 6. 

Tsai, K. (2010). How to create international law: The case of internet freedom in China.  Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,    21 , 401-430.