谷
歌(Google Inc.)威胁退出中国的惊人之举，其决策过程具有强烈的个人色彩。两位明星创始人与其他高管辩论探讨，处理内容审查与网络安全问题的恰当方式。谷歌称，它遭到了源自中国、针对其公司基础架构的高技术、有针对性的攻击。谷歌对这一情况非常公开化的反应酝酿了数周之久，其间谷歌创始人佩奇(Larry Page)和布林(Sergey Brin)深度参与。
Bloomberg News
谷歌CEO施密特，谷歌创始人佩奇和布林，照片拍摄于去年7月。
针对网络攻击的调查在数周前展开，但谷歌是怎样侦测到攻击的还不清楚。据知情人士称，当谷歌员工搜集到更多证据、并相信这些证据表明攻击与中国和中国当局存在关联时，首席执行长施密特(Eric Schmidt)与佩奇、布林开始一起讨论应该如何做出反应，由此展开一场激烈的辩论，探讨究竟是留在中国、尽力从内部改变这个政权，还是应该离开。谷歌一位发言人说，佩奇、布林和施密特都不会发表评论。
据这些知情人士称，施密特坚持一贯看法说，在中国经营业务以尽力开放这一政权是道德的。布林竭力反驳说，公司已经尽了力，继续审查搜索结果再也说不过去。
据一位知情人士称，三人最后一致认为，他们应当公开披露这起攻击，努力与他们眼中企业界存在的一种暗箱文化决裂，不像它们那样对这种性质的攻击保持沉默。
相关报导
三位大头一致认为，博客文章除了谈论攻击事件本身以外，还应该加上一些有关人权问题的措辞，其中最强硬的措辞是博文倒数第二段中的一句话。
该段落说道，在考虑了这些网络攻击以及中国过去一年试图进一步限制网络言论自由的行为后，他们决定重新评估谷歌在中国业务运营的可行性。
由于担心谷歌在中国的员工有可能遭到报复，谷歌的两位创始人及其顾问要求在声明中加入了一行文字，说该决定是由公司在美国的管理团队做出的，谷歌中国团队对此毫不知情，也未曾参与。
据两位知情人士说，谷歌的一批管理人士周一被告知，公司计划周二公布上述声明。
为了进一步保护在华的中国员工，谷歌的管理人士在声明发布前几分钟才将此事通知中国团队的绝大部分员工。
谷歌三位最高决策人士发生意见不一并不是什么新鲜事。比如说，施密特去年就对记者们说，他曾一直反对佩奇让谷歌推出一个网络浏览器的想法，但最终还是接受了佩奇的意见。
谷歌在中国的行为一直在为西方公司是否应在中国做生意这一涉及范围更广的地缘政治争论输送话题。2006年，在谷歌表示将审查其中国搜索引擎后，美国众议院要求该公司前往国会解释其这一行为。美国众议院已开始考虑通过立法手段禁止美国公司除某些特定情况外与中国官员合作。
谷歌周二表示，它将不再遵守中国政府的要求，对其在华网站Google.cn的搜索结果进行过滤。该公司说它将与中国政府讨论此事，并表示，它意识到此举可能意味着公司将不得不关闭Google.cn以及公司在华的办公室。
谷歌的决定与许多美国企业加大在华涉足力度的经营策略可谓背道而驰。中国既是美国企业重要的潜在出口市场，也是美国企业和消费者所需众多制成品的来源地。
美中贸易的资深观察人士暗示，谷歌和美国总的来说没有什么可以迫使中国放弃互联网审查或其他行为的影响力。
除了Google.cn这个网站外，谷歌这一决定还有可能影响到该公司在中国的一系列商业项目与合作伙伴。由于如此公开地斥责了中国当局，谷歌自身及其合作伙伴有可能遭到中国政府的报复。谷歌的决定也会影响到其在中国本地市场的竞争者，谷歌撤出中国有可能使他们受益。
Jessica E. Vascellaro
（更新完成）
Google Inc.'s startling threat to withdraw from China was an intensely personal decision, drawing its celebrated founders and other top executives into a debate over the right way to confront the issues of censorship and cyber security.
Google's very public response to what it called a 'highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China' was crafted over a period of weeks, with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
For the two men, the China has always been a sensitive topic. Mr. Brin has long confided in friends and Google colleagues of his ambivalence in doing business in China, noting that his early childhood in Russia exacerbated the moral dilemma of cooperating with government censorship, people who have spoken to him said. Over the years, Mr. Brin has served as Google's unofficial corporate conscience, the protector of its motto 'Don't be Evil.'
The investigation into the cyber-intrusion began weeks ago, although how Google detected it remains unclear. As Google employees gathered more evidence they believed linked the attack to China and Chinese authorities, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, along with Messrs. Page and Brin began discussing how they should respond, entering into an intense debate over whether it was better to stay in China and do what they can to change the regime from within, or whether to leave, according to people familiar with the discussions. A Google spokesman said Messrs. Page, Brin and Schmidt wouldn't comment.
Mr. Schmidt made the argument he long has, according to these people, namely that it is moral to do business in China in an effort to try to open up the regime. Mr. Brin, strenuously argued the other side, namely that the company had done enough trying and that it could no longer justify censoring its search results.
The three ultimately agreed they should disclose the attack publicly, trying to break with what they saw as a conspiratorial culture of companies keeping silent about attacks of this nature, according to one person familiar with the matter.
Soon, Google's vice president of public policy and communications, Rachel Whetstone, began crafting and revising a number of versions of a possible statement the company planned to release publicly, these people said, sharing it with the three.
The top three agreed that in addition to discussing the attack, the blog post should contain some language about human rights, the strongest statement of which is a clause in the penultimate paragraph of the post.
The section said they had reached the decision to re-evaluate their business in China after considering the attacks 'combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web.'
Concerned about potential retribution against Google employees in China, the founders and their advisors pushed to include a line saying that the move was 'driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China.'
A group of Google executives were told Monday of the plan to release the post on Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
To further protect Chinese employees on the ground, executives didn't notify the vast majority of Google's China team until a few minutes before the post went up.
Disagreements among Google's top troika aren't unusual. Last year, for example, Mr. Schmidt told reporters that he had long opposed Mr. Page's desire to build a Web browser , but ultimately came around.
Google's conduct in China has long incited broader geopolitical debate over whether Western companies should do business in the country. In 2006, after Google said it would censor its China search engine, Google was called to defend the move before the U.S. House of Representatives, which began contemplating legislation that would prohibit U.S. companies from cooperating with Chinese officials, except in certain circumstances.
Tuesday Google said it could no longer abide by Chinese government requirements that it filter the search results on its site in the country, Google.cn. The company said it will be discussing the matter with the Chinese government, stating that it realized that its move may mean that it will have to shut down the Web site and potentially its offices in China.
Google's decision conflicts with the strategies of many U.S. companies to deepen their involvement in China, which is both a key market for their potential exports as well as a source for many manufactured goods on which U.S. companies and consumers depend.
Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.
Besides the Google.cn Web site, China has a range of other business initiatives and partnerships in China that could be affected by its decision. By snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government retaliation against itself or its partners. The decision also affects local competitors who could benefit from any retreat.
Jessica E. Vascellaro
Google's very public response to what it called a 'highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China' was crafted over a period of weeks, with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
For the two men, the China has always been a sensitive topic. Mr. Brin has long confided in friends and Google colleagues of his ambivalence in doing business in China, noting that his early childhood in Russia exacerbated the moral dilemma of cooperating with government censorship, people who have spoken to him said. Over the years, Mr. Brin has served as Google's unofficial corporate conscience, the protector of its motto 'Don't be Evil.'
The investigation into the cyber-intrusion began weeks ago, although how Google detected it remains unclear. As Google employees gathered more evidence they believed linked the attack to China and Chinese authorities, Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, along with Messrs. Page and Brin began discussing how they should respond, entering into an intense debate over whether it was better to stay in China and do what they can to change the regime from within, or whether to leave, according to people familiar with the discussions. A Google spokesman said Messrs. Page, Brin and Schmidt wouldn't comment.
Mr. Schmidt made the argument he long has, according to these people, namely that it is moral to do business in China in an effort to try to open up the regime. Mr. Brin, strenuously argued the other side, namely that the company had done enough trying and that it could no longer justify censoring its search results.
The three ultimately agreed they should disclose the attack publicly, trying to break with what they saw as a conspiratorial culture of companies keeping silent about attacks of this nature, according to one person familiar with the matter.
Soon, Google's vice president of public policy and communications, Rachel Whetstone, began crafting and revising a number of versions of a possible statement the company planned to release publicly, these people said, sharing it with the three.
The top three agreed that in addition to discussing the attack, the blog post should contain some language about human rights, the strongest statement of which is a clause in the penultimate paragraph of the post.
The section said they had reached the decision to re-evaluate their business in China after considering the attacks 'combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web.'
Concerned about potential retribution against Google employees in China, the founders and their advisors pushed to include a line saying that the move was 'driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China.'
A group of Google executives were told Monday of the plan to release the post on Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
To further protect Chinese employees on the ground, executives didn't notify the vast majority of Google's China team until a few minutes before the post went up.
Disagreements among Google's top troika aren't unusual. Last year, for example, Mr. Schmidt told reporters that he had long opposed Mr. Page's desire to build a Web browser , but ultimately came around.
Google's conduct in China has long incited broader geopolitical debate over whether Western companies should do business in the country. In 2006, after Google said it would censor its China search engine, Google was called to defend the move before the U.S. House of Representatives, which began contemplating legislation that would prohibit U.S. companies from cooperating with Chinese officials, except in certain circumstances.
Tuesday Google said it could no longer abide by Chinese government requirements that it filter the search results on its site in the country, Google.cn. The company said it will be discussing the matter with the Chinese government, stating that it realized that its move may mean that it will have to shut down the Web site and potentially its offices in China.
Google's decision conflicts with the strategies of many U.S. companies to deepen their involvement in China, which is both a key market for their potential exports as well as a source for many manufactured goods on which U.S. companies and consumers depend.
Veteran observers of trade between the countries suggest that Google, and the U.S. generally, has little leverage to press China to back down on Internet censorship or other issues.
Besides the Google.cn Web site, China has a range of other business initiatives and partnerships in China that could be affected by its decision. By snubbing Chinese authorities so publicly, the company risks government retaliation against itself or its partners. The decision also affects local competitors who could benefit from any retreat.
Jessica E. Vascellaro
没有评论:
发表评论