【Google帶種系列】Google執行長Eric Schmidt回應google事件

Cache

Google CEO Eric Schmidt回应谷歌事件



matrix 发表于 2010年1月18日 17时20分 星期一      
来自拒绝审查不可能部门

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt接受了《新闻周刊》的独家采访，回答了谷歌事件相关的各种问题。他说：在中国运营的问题十分复杂，必须要求接受Google不情愿的审查系统，但他们得出结论是在中国经营对每个人——Google和中国人——都有好处。但他们现在的决定是不再参与审查。之所以将整件事公诸于众，而不是私下谈判解决争端，原因是为了透明化，Google不想暗箱操作。他们现在正在与中国政府协商谈判。中国在全球化的同时，对信息采取了严格审查。谷歌中国是Google唯一一个遵循审查法律的本地网站，Google在其它国家没有采取相同措施。其它国家偶尔也会屏蔽Google旗下网站，如YouTube，但当Google与该国政府取得联系，从数以亿计的视频中找出惹恼它们的一个视频，随后问题就迎刃而解了。但中国对信息的限制是其它国家所未见的。Schmidt承认，如果谷歌退出中国，一个可能的结果是百度统治搜索市场，另一个结果是与政府达成协议，继续运营。“我们热爱中国和中国人民，这与他们无关，而是关于我们不愿意再参与审查”。

http://goo.gl/CG4B

新聞周刊專訪內文如下↓http://www.newsweek.com/id/231117Google CEO Eric Schmidt has long defended his company's decision to do business in China despite the restrictions that Beijing imposes on Internet freedom. Nevertheless, last week the company abruptly threatened to pull out after suffering hacker attacks believed to have originated in China. Schmidt explained why to NEWSWEEK's Fareed Zakaria in an exclusive interview. Excerpts:
SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 88% »
Why did you make this decision? It surprised many people and many companies.
Google is a different kind of company than many others. The issue of operating in China was always complex for us. We were asked to accept a system of censorship that we were very uncomfortable with. But we had come to the conclusion that operating in China was better for everyone—us, the Chinese people—than staying out of the country. We have decided that we cannot participate in censorship anymore.
What happened over the last months to come to this decision?
We came across a lot of evidence of the monitoring of Chinese dissidents through the Web. We do not have clear evidence as to who was doing the monitoring, but you can draw your own conclusions.


Is there a lot of such monitoring?
There is probably a lot more than what we found.
Why did you announce this publicly rather than go to the Chinese government and try to work things out?
We are going to the Chinese government, and we hope we can work things out. But we want to be transparent. We don't want to keep secrets. So we decided to first make a public announcement and now we are having discussions with the Chinese government.
Are they going anywhere?
It's much too early to tell; they really have just begun.
Won't some people say that you have a fiduciary responsibility to your shareholders to maximize profit?
When we filed for our IPO, we attached to the document a statement about how we wanted to run our business. We said we were going to be different. We said that we were going to be motivated by concerns that were not always or strictly business ones. This is an extension of that view. This was not a business decision—the business decision would obviously have been to continue to participate in the Chinese market. It was a decision based on values. We tried to ask what would be best from a global standpoint.
Do you believe that China can still globalize while maintaining its censorship system?
China's embrace of globalization has been a great boon for China and the world. It has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But China is placing restrictions on information that few countries place. China is the only country in the world where Google was willing to offer a local site that followed the regime's censorship laws. We haven't done this anywhere else. Other countries sometimes block, say, YouTube for a few weeks. But then we talk to them, point out that they were offended by one video out of literally hundreds of millions. And we work things out. So, China places unique limits on information.
And this will hurt them economically?
I believe it will in the long run. You're much better off with a system in which people can be free to imagine, invent, and connect with one another. The more people who can speculate, the better. The more human-to-human connections, the better. Everything we do at Google empowers the individual. And we want to empower the individual.
What's the likely outcome here? That [Chinese search engine] Baidu will totally dominate the market?
That's one possible outcome. The other is that we can work out an agreement with the Chinese government and continue to operate. Or that some other company moves in. And please understand, we will still have engineers, programmers, and others in China. We love China and the Chinese people. This is not about them. It's about our unwillingness to participate in censorship.

Cache

美國《波士頓新聞」》－谷歌門前的鮮花
2010-01-19 旺報 【本報訊】
    　世界各報連日以頭條顯眼地位登載谷歌的公布，因為這是第一家國際大公司挑戰中國的中文資訊檢查過濾制度。

    　因為牽連不只是一家公司與中國政府之間的商業決定。此事直接關聯中國3億多網民的精神生活，間接關係13億人的思想自由。兩天來北京年輕人暗暗把鮮花放在谷歌總部門口招牌字前面。表示對谷歌的敬意，對檢查制度的抗議，對失去表達自由的人的哀悼！

    　相當多的中國人相信中國是一個內向自足的民族。對其他民族的領土與文化相當尊重。但是在中國周邊的民族，卻似乎有別的想法。我所接觸的南韓留學生曾經禮貌而堅持地說，中國曾經想吞沒他們的文化，所以他們才會堅持放棄漢字，希望能從漢文化圈中獨立出來。

    　中國過去弱的時候，尚且有拳匪暴民的出現。今天中國略有興盛強大的姿態，最先冒出來的竟然是網上的網民與暴徒。我們不得不考慮到，過去一甲子間，中國文明是否產生了極大的質變。

    　但是一個民族的靈魂，不容易被完全汙染。谷歌門口的鮮花就是明證。有關谷歌聲明的消息，縱然在國內互聯網上被全面封殺，還是有抗議的聲音隱隱流傳出來。從廣東傳來「不是谷歌退出中國，而是中國退出世界！」的抗議聲音。

    　文化不是個奇異的概念！文化有它自己的生命，能在巖石峭壁間生長。中國或許可以把谷歌攆走。但是無家可歸的網民絕不會變成二十世紀初的愚民。網上可以有網民通風報訊，但是當網民發覺他們自己的網上生活受到壓制的時候，他們自然會站到網民一邊來。

    　上世紀六十年代初，中國難民潮湧進香港。中國宣傳機構想封鎖新聞消息。香港明報的查良鏞在社評中大聲疾呼，呼籲不能無視饑民的痛苦。當時他被香港左派稱為「豺狼庸」，認為可殺。但他堅持「新聞」必須反映現實，後來鄧小平與查氏會面。不得不承認當時查良鏞的做法有他的理由。不能看作反華的「唱衰中國」罪名論。

    　如果谷歌被趕出中國，網路上也會湧現大量精神饑餓的難民。我們可以預期這批難民會在網路上捲起一個全球網民運動。從這兩天報紙大篇幅的報導看，這個運動可能已開始。

    　（摘錄自美國《波士頓新聞」》2010-1-14，作者陸惠風為哈佛大學學者，原題《空谷中的鮮花與悲歌》）