Today we start with the question “Is it ethical for IT vendors such as Google to promote the use of their information technology products in pursuit of political revolutions in various countries?” We will look at some IT venders and how they support political revolutions in the world to include not only how but why they support or do not support them.
Lets start with everyone’s favorite search engine and purveyor of everything cloudy Google. In Google’s own Code of conduct they say in the preface “”Don’t be evil.” Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil” is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably and treating each other with respect.” (Google, 2012) Google’s mantra of “Don’t be evil.” In its ethical basis largely falls into what can be considered American ethical point of view where as Free speech, the right of protest, and civil disobedience are a right and should not be abridged. Theses ethical principles are largely what drives they way of thinking for most of what is considered the Western world.
Google has used its information technology in the past to support political revolution. As in Egypt “Google said it came up with the “speak-to-tweet” service to help Egyptians “stay connected at this very difficult time” — a move very much in keeping with the Internet giant’s stated commitment to the free flow of information.” (WASHINGTON, 2011) This allowed Egyptians to organize under one voice even when the internet was shutdown (Williams, 2011) even with the Egyptian governments attempt to stem the communication capabilities of the protesters. Did Google have the right to overrule the decision of the standing government of Egypt at the time. In my opinion they not only had the right but also the responsibility to support the will of the people of which the government of Egypt was trying to stop. Under the United Nations “Declaration of Human Rights” Article 21 (3) it states “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” (Nations, 2012) Under that article we can see that Egypt’s president Mubarak who had been in power for almost 30 years therefore making himself the de facto dictator of Egypt all the while staging rigid elections to make it look like he was a freely elected leader was in clear violation of Article 21of the UNs Declaration of Human Rights (wikipedia, 2012)
Google has also added fuel to the fires in 2010 when it said that it would no longer filter search results for the Chinese government which was a reversal of its 2006 opening of google.cn where at the time it promised the Chinese government to follow all its rules and regulations to include filtering search results and the handover of emails related to Chinese dissidents. (Warman, 2010) This aging is consistent with Google’s mantra and in its desire to protect its users privacy and has gone so far as to warn its users of state-sponsored hacking of their Gmail accounts by China. (Mills, 2012) So why would Google decide to not play ball with China and there by turning its back on 7% of the worlds internet users and 35% of Chinas search market. It is because they can, in Warman’s article he said “his is not the first time that Google’s ideals have clashed with a country’s censorship rules. In Germany, for instance, laws on Holocaust denial are explicit. But democratic governments are willing to meet, explain and negotiate with a company whose services, it is widely acknowledged, promote freedom of information and, consequently, serve democracy. China is not.” And with 86% of the world wide search market it 2010 it can afford to be a little selective in the way it works. (Warman, 2010)
Then there was Twitter who’s website and technology has been linked to at least four revolutions to include 2009 Moldova civil unrest, 2009–2010 Iranian election protests, 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution, and Egyptian Revolution of 2011. (wikipedia, Twitter Revolution, 2012) The power of Twitter lays in its simplicity to send messages to the world through another technology SMS (Short Message Service) a text messaging service component of phone, web, or mobile communication systems, using standardized communications protocols that allow the exchange of short text messages between fixed line or mobile phone devices. (wikipedia, Short Message Service, 2012) this allowed even users without internet to send texts otherwise known as tweets in the twittervers to a global audience acting as sort of news caster in real-time recording history 160 characters at a time. How is this related to Political Revolutions, well “Already, Twitter has become an essential — no, the essential — tool for following and understanding the momentous changes sweeping the Arab region. It’s surprisingly smart and fast — if sometimes a little too quick on the draw — and human where other sources feel impersonal. “I think of it as a giant speech bubble for what’s happening in the world,” says Riyaad Minty, head of social media at Al Jazeera.” (HOUNSHELL, 2011) Twitter is unbiased in it the way it can be used it does not care who sends a tweet as far as it is concerned it is a information distribution service good or bad of which can be used by both side. And frankly they make money from it as more tweets, leads to more interest, which in turn leads more people to their site, who see the ads which the company gets paid for, overall, leading to a win-win for all parties involved. So in the end as with Google and Twitter you can see it is all about the money and as long as it fits into our morel view of the universe it will be accepted as Good Will.
Works Cited
Google. (2012, 12 13). Code of Conduct. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from Google.com: http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html
HOUNSHELL, B. (2011, 7 1). The Revolution Will Be Tweeted. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from foreignpolicy.com: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/the_revolution_will_be_tweeted
Mills, E. (2012, 6 5). Google warns Gmail users about state-sponsored email hacking. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from http://news.cnet.com: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57447906-83/google-warns-gmail-users-about-state-sponsored-email-hacking/
Nations, U. (2012, 12 13). Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a21
Warman, M. (2010, 1 13). Google’s U-turn on web censorship in China is unexpected but widely welcomed . Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/6983551/Google-and-the-Great-Firewall-of-China.html
WASHINGTON. (2011, 2 10). Google executive’s role in Egypt a corporate dilemma. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from alarabiya.net: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/10/137046.html
wikipedia. (2012, 12 13). Hosni Mubarak. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak
wikipedia. (2012, 12 13). Short Message Service. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Message_Service
wikipedia. (2012, 12 13). Twitter Revolution. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution
Williams, C. (2011, 1 28). How Egypt shut down the internet. Retrieved 12 13, 2012, from telegraph.co.uk: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/egypt/8288163/How-Egypt-shut-down-the-internet.html#
