inter:digital strategies

Maybe, maybe not! The Xinhua News Agency and Beijing News have both reported that Google is operating under the internet content provider license granted to Ganji.com. The paper suggests that this may be a technical violation of Chinese law stipulating that foreign companies may not provide Internet content without an ICP license.

However, analysts have stated that it is unlikely that this will result in a declaration of illegal activity by Google. Essentially, foreign internet companies operate under contracts with Chinese companies on a routine basis, with the local company listed as the license owner. Google’s search page does indeed display an indicator of an ICP license number, and has since at least January 25th, according to Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Watch.

It seems unlikely that Google did not investigate the legality of their behavior thoroughly - and it also seems unlikely that the Chinese government will take an action which may require other internet companies to pull out of the Chinese market.

I was sent by the agency, sir. I was given to understand that you require a valet.

-Jeeves, "In Court After the Boat Race (or, Jeeves’ Arrival)

At long last, Ask.com has done it. They’ve done away with the inimitable Jeeves. As a lifelong P.G. Wodehouse fan, I am, of course, emotionally distraught by this. This rebranding of Ask Jeeves comes with plenty of warning, having been discussed in the industry since May of 2005.

Today, Jeeves still stands on the Ask.com site - but not for long. Over his head hovers a daydream balloon of a long-awaited holiday. (Visit the Ask.com site to vote on his final choice of retirement!)

This change indicates, in some ways, an abandonment by the search company of the original concept of the search tool. I fear that, with Jeeves’ inimitable influence absent, the company may now stoop to heinous activities. Purple socks, white topcoats - where will it end?

But seriously, it is rather sad to see the change. I feel that the change reflects a sense that the company is losing it’s unique sense of service to embrace the (admittedly more successful) service presentations of its competitors.

For a reasonably thorough background of the AskJeeves history, read the Search Engine Watch article.

‘Yes, sir,’ said Jeeves in a low, cold voice, as if he had been bitten in
the leg by a personal friend.

Carry On, Jeeves (1925)

On Friday, February 17th, Google posted their official response to the Department of Justice subpoena they received in August. The reaction to this act of resistance has been mixed - and for good reason. There are very complicated circumstances surrounding the issue.

There are two controversies at issue, it seems. On the one hand, Google resists the request of the US Government. On the other, they concede to the censorship of the Chinese government. On the one hand, Google is protecting the privacy of its users - on the other, they’re refusing to help the government with a probe into child pornography.

The document itself is interesting to read - although heavy going for those unaccustomed to reading legal briefs. (Like myself.) However, one thing is fairly clear to me - the chief element of Google’s resistance to this subpoena has mostly to do with issues of burden and relevance.

Google contends that the subpoena, requesting two full months’ search queries and a random selection of one million URL’s from their database places an undue burden upon the company without justifiable cause. Amongst the issues which Google cites are the potential loss of secrecy for their heavily protected trade algorithms, the significant production time required to fulfill the request and the loss of trust they would undoubtedly suffer through compromising their privacy principles in such a manner.

It’s not that Google is refusing to help the government with their probe. Google is refusing to sacrifice the trust of it’s user base, it’s trade secrets, and it’s time to provide useless information.

What becomes more disturbing is that the ACLU has stated that they would issue a second subpoena on Google should the first be awarded. This subpoena would be directly targeted at learning how Google’s search engine handles queries. Though the ACLU is reluctant to invade Google’s trade secrets, they state that they feel they will have little choice should the government obtain this data.