Walu,<br><br>Let's look at this critically;<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Walubengo J <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jwalu@yahoo.com">jwalu@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">Check this out this interesting link<br><br><a href="http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/</a><br>
</td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br>First of all this is a great move by Google to increase transparency, no? <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top"><br>Apparently Google is more government friendly than imagined - it tends to comply with most Government requests to block certain content/services...</td>
</tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br>Secondly, they don't block services IIUC, just contnet.<br><br>So let's examine the league leader, Brazil, with 291 removal requests.<br><br>291 removal requests<ul class="detailPane-detail">
<li>82.5% of removal
requests fully or partially complied with.</li></ul><br>of these 291, 185 are by court order, so of course they "had" to do those (for some value of "had"). So 106 were "voluntary", that is ~36%.<br>
<br>When you factor in the AUPs for orkut, blogger and youtube, one can assume that at least some of the rest were violations of those AUPs.<br><br><ul class="detailPane-detail"><li>21 Blogger (court order)</li><li>5 Blogger</li>
<li>4
Gmail (court order)</li><li>1 Google Suggest</li><li>99 orkut (court
order)</li><li>119 orkut</li><li>9 Web Search (court order)</li><li>32
YouTube (court order)</li><li>1 YouTube</li></ul> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">(this makes me wonder what their beef was with China). <br></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br>Beef seemingly was that Google was willing to bend, but China pushed them to the breaking point. Plus the whole hacking thing. I applaud Google for their actions on China.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">
<br>So anyway, when Google complies with Govt requests, it means that when users in Kenya search for e.g. kenyan-hate-speech related content they wont see that;</td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br>The map shows no requests from KE gov't.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top">
but if the same Kenyan does the same search from the US territory, they can see the very hate-speech that has been blocked within the Kenyan territory...<br></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br>Is this actually the case? If Google removes content, then it's not "blocked" per country is it, it's removed for all.<br>
<br>If it was the case, one could easily use a proxy to access Google content blocked to a certain set of IP address ranges.<br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font: inherit;" valign="top"><br>mmhhh...talk of technology controlling society.<br></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div><br><br><br>I can't parse this one, sorry.<br>
<br>-- <br></div></div>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>