Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Dragonfly. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Dragonfly. Afficher tous les articles

jeudi 20 juin 2019

Tech Quisling

Google defeats shareholders on ‘Dragonfly’ censored search in China
By Zack Whittaker


A shareholder resolution aimed at halting Google’s efforts to bring a censored version of its search engine to China has failed.
Shareholders tabled a resolution to demand Google put the brakes on its controversial search engine efforts in China. 
The program, internally dubbed “Dragonfly,” is a censorship-friendly search engine with the capability to hide results at the behest of Beijing, which administers one of the most restrictive internets in the world.
The project remains largely secret, amid an internal upheaval and political pressure from the Trump administration over the project, but was later acknowledged by Google chief Sundar Pichai, describing China as an “important” market.
The resolution, which failed to pass during the meeting, would have instructed Google to conduct and publish a human rights impact assessment examining the impacts of a censored Google search engine in China.
It’s not immediately known what was the breakdown of the vote.
“The Chinese government already employs invasive, data-driven surveillance to track its citizens,” said Joshua Brockwell, an investment communications director at Azzad Asset Management, which supports the resolution. 
“The potential for it to weaponize data from Google searches could allow the government to expand its human rights abuses, including mass detentions of the Uighur minority.”
Among recent crackdowns, China has come under international pressure in the past year for targeting Uighur Muslims and holding more than a million in detention.
Google opposes the resolution, saying in its proxy statement: “Google has been open about its desire to increase its ability to serve users in China and other countries. We have considered a variety of options for how to offer services in China in a way that is consistent with our mission and have gradually expanded our offerings to consumers in China, including Google Translate.”
Open Mic, a nonprofit representing shareholders worth $3 billion in Google assets, brought the resolution.
Capital Research & Management Company, the shareholder in the top 10 with the least amount of shares, still has $3.9 billion in stock.

jeudi 28 mars 2019

Tech Quisling

GOOGLE IS CONDUCTING A SECRET “PERFORMANCE REVIEW” OF ITS CENSORED CHINA SEARCH PROJECT
By Ryan Gallagher


GOOGLE EXECUTIVES ARE carrying out a secret internal assessment of work on a censored search engine for China, The Intercept has learned.
A small group of top managers at the internet giant are conducting a “performance review” of the controversial effort to build the search platform, known as Dragonfly, which was designed to blacklist information about human rights, democracy, religion, and peaceful protest.
Performance reviews at Google are undertaken annually to evaluate employees’ output and development. 
They are usually carried out in an open, peer review-style process: Workers grade each other’s projects and the results are then assessed by management, who can reward employees with promotion if they are deemed ready to progress at the company.
In the case of Dragonfly, however, the peer review aspect has been removed, subverting the normal procedure. 
In a move described as highly unusual by two Google sources, executives set up a separate group of closed “review committees,” comprised of senior managers who had all previously been briefed about the China search engine.
The existence of the Dragonfly review committees has not been disclosed to rank-and-file Google employees, except for the few who have been evaluated by the committees because they worked on China search. 
Fewer than a dozen top managers at the company are said to be looped in on the review, which has involved studying documents and technical work related to Dragonfly.
Management has decided to commit to keeping this stuff secret,” said a source with knowledge of the review. 
They are “holding any Dragonfly-specific documents out of [employees’] review tools, so that promotion is decided only by a committee that is read in on Dragonfly.”


Executives likely feared that following the normal, more open performance review process with Dragonfly would have allowed workers across the company to closely scrutinize it, according to two Google sources.
If some of the documents about Dragonfly had been made more widely accessible inside the company, according to the two sources, it would probably have led to further controversy about the project, which ignited furious protests and resignations after it was first exposed by The Intercept in August last year.
The decision to carry out the review in secret, however, is itself likely to stoke anger inside the company. 
During the protests over Dragonfly last year, a key complaint from employees was that the China plan lacked transparency and went against the company’s traditionally open workplace culture
Until it was publicly exposed, knowledge about Dragonfly had been restricted to a few hundred of Google’s 88,000 employees — around 0.35 percent of the total workforce.
Facing pressure from both inside and outside the company, Google CEO Sundar Pichai told his staff during an August crisis meeting that he would “definitely be transparent [about Dragonfly] as we get closer to actually having a plan of record. We definitely do plan to engage more and talk more.”
But Google employees told The Intercept this week that company bosses have consistently refused to provide them with information about Dragonfly — leaving them in the dark about the status of the project and the company’s broader plans for China.
Late last year, amid a firestorm of criticism, Google executives moved engineers away from working on the censored search engine and said publicly that there were no current plans to launch it. 
Earlier this month, however, The Intercept revealed that some Google employees were concerned that work on the censored search engine remained ongoing, as parts of the platform still appeared to be under development. 
Google subsequently denied that Dragonfly remained in progress, insisting in a statement that there was “no work being undertaken on such a project. Team members have moved to new projects.”
Google previously launched a search engine in China in 2006, but pulled out of the country in 2010, citing concerns about Chinese government interference. 
At that time, Google co-founder Sergey Brin said the decision to stop operating search in the country was principally about “opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent.”
Dragonfly represented a dramatic reversal of that position. 
The search engine, which Google planned to launch as an app for Android and iOS devices, was designed to comply with strict censorship rules imposed by China’s ruling Communist Party regime, enabling surveillance of people’s searches while also blocking thousands of terms, such as “Nobel prize,” “human rights,” and “student protest.”
More than 60 human rights groups and 22 U.S. lawmakers wrote to Google criticizing the project. 
In February, Amnesty International met with Google to reiterate its concerns about the China plan. “The lack of transparency around the development of Dragonfly is very disturbing,” Anna Bacciarelli, an Amnesty researcher, told The Intercept earlier this month. 
“We continue to call on Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai to publicly confirm that it has dropped Dragonfly for good, not just ‘for now.’”
Google did not respond to a request for comment.




mercredi 20 mars 2019

Blood Money

U.S. Firms Are Helping Build China’s Orwellian State
BY LINDSAY GORMAN, MATT SCHRADER
When a Dutch cybersecurity researcher disclosed last month that Chinese security contractor SenseNets left a massive facial recognition database tracking the movements of over 2.5 million people in China’s East Turkestan colony unsecured on the internet, it briefly shone a spotlight on the alarming scope of the Chinese surveillance state.
But SenseNets is a symptom of a much larger phenomenon: Tech firms in the United States are lending expertise, reputational credence, and technology to Chinese surveillance companies.
The SenseNets database logged exact GPS coordinates on a 24-hour basis and, using facial recognition, associated that data with sensitive personal information, including national ID numbers, home addresses, personal photographs, and places of employment. 
Nearly one-third of the individuals tracked were from the Uighur minority ethnic group.
In a bizarre juxtaposition of surveillance supremacy and security incompetence, SenseNets’ database was left open on the internet for six months before it was reported and, according to the researcher who discovered it, could have been “corrupted by a 12-year-old.”
The discovery suggests SenseNets is one of a number of Chinese companies participating in the construction of a technology-enabled totalitarian police state in East Turkestan, which has seen as many as 2 million Uighurs placed into “re-education camps” since early 2017. 
Eyewitness reports from inside the camps describe harsh living conditions, torture, and constant political indoctrination meant to strip Uighurs of any attachment to their Islamic faith. 
Facial recognition, artificial intelligence, and speech monitoring enable supercharge the Chinese Communist Party’s drive to “standardize” its Uighur population. 
Uighurs can be sent to "re-education" camps for a vast array of trivial offenses, many of which are benign expressions of faith.
The party monitors compliance through unrelenting electronic surveillance of online and physical activities. 
This modern-day panopticon requires enormous amounts of labor, but is serving as a testing ground for new technologies of surveillance that might render this process cheaper and more efficient for the state.
Toward this goal, the party is leveraging China’s vibrant tech ecosystem, inviting Chinese companies to participate through conventional government-procurement tools.
Companies built the "re-education" camps.
Companies supply the software that watches Uighurs online and the cameras that surveil their physical movements.
While based in China, many are deeply embedded in the international tech community, in ways that raise serious questions about the misuse of critical new technologies. 
Foreign firms, eager to access Chinese funding and data, have rushed into partnerships without heed to the ways the technologies they empower are being used in East Turkestan and elsewhere.
In February 2018, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced a wide-ranging research partnership with Chinese artificial-intelligence giant and global facial-recognition leader SenseTime.
SenseTime then held a 49 percent stake in SenseNets, with robust cross-pollination of technical personnel. 
SenseNets’ parent company Netposa (also Chinese) has offices in Silicon Valley and Boston, received a strategic investment from Intel Capital in 2010, and has invested in U.S. robotics start-ups: Bito—led by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University—and Exyn, a drone software company competing in a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) artificial-intelligence challenge.
This extensive enmeshing raises both moral and dual-use national-security questions.
Dual-use technology is tech that can be put to both civilian and military uses and as such is subject to tighter controls.
Nuclear power and GPS are classic examples, but new technologies such as facial recognition, augmented reality and virtual reality, 5G, and quantum computing are beginning to raise concerns about their dual applicability.
Beyond SenseNets, Chinese voice-recognition leader iFlytek is also supplying software to monitor electronic communications in East Turkestan.
A 2013 iFlytek patent identified by Human Rights Watch specifically touted its utility in “monitoring public opinion.” 
Nonetheless, like SenseTime, iFlytek recently established a multiyear research partnership with MIT
These partnerships lend reputational weight to activities that undermine freedom abroad.
Equally concerning is that the details of technical and research collaborations with Chinese companies can be opaque to international partners, concealing ethically objectionable activities.
When Yale University geneticist Kenneth Kidd shared DNA samples with a scientific colleague from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security’s Institute on Forensic Science, he had no idea they would be used to refine genetic surveillance techniques in East Turkestan.
Massachusetts-based company Thermo Fisher is also implicated: Until it was reported last month, the company sold DNA sequencers directly to authorities in East Turkestan for genetic mapping.
Western companies and institutions must be far more vigilant in scrutinizing how Chinese partners are using their products, especially emerging technologies.
Facial recognition is a good place to start.
The industry needs to establish global standards for appropriate applications—use that respects human rights and the rule of law. 
In the United States, Microsoft has been an industry leader in calling for regulation and has tapped employees, customers, public officials, academics, and civil society groups to develop a set of “principles for facial recognition,” which it plans to launch formally this month.
When it comes to building out regulation, the devil may be in the details.
But the principles—fairness, transparency, accountability, nondiscrimination, notice and consent, and lawful surveillance—are sound.
Surprisingly, SenseNets lists Microsoft itself as a partner on its website, along with American chip manufacturer AMD and high-performance computing provider Amax.
In the case of SenseNets, these partnerships could be false claims by a company looking to boost credibility, unwitting collaboration on the part of U.S. tech firms, or true business relationships.
We have been able to find no evidence that Microsoft is involved in a partnership with SenseNets,” a spokesperson for Microsoft told the authors, “We will follow up with SenseNets to cease making inaccurate representations about our relationship.”
But if these partnerships are real, they would violate all six of Microsoft’s principles.
California-based Amax, which specializes in high-performance computing for deep-learning applications, touts a partnership with Chinese state-owned Hikvision, the world’s largest supplier of video surveillance products. 
AMD is also involved in a Chinese joint venture supplying proprietary x86 processor technology.
Despite a general awareness of the ways American companies and individuals are abetting surveillance in East Turkestan, U.S. Congress and government officials have yet to call for a review of the extent of U.S. investment and research partnership entanglements. 
The Commerce Department’s proposed rule-making on controls for certain emerging technologies is a start, but its scope remains unclear.
The international tech community can help guide the ethical application of its developments.
After employee protests, Google reportedly suspended plans to launch Dragonfly, a censored version of its search engine custom-built for China, although there are suspicions the project may not be entirely dead. 
Authoritarianism has proven it can use emerging technologies to undermine democratic norms and freedoms.
As such, U.S.-based research-and-development organizations should perform basic due diligence on partnerships to assess their connection to surveillance regimes.
International scientific exchange has yielded awe-inspiring achievements, from the discovery of the Higgs boson to the eradication of smallpox.
And cooperation is growing faster than ever.
But by taking basic steps to understand their partners, investors can mitigate some of the unintended risks of that cooperation.
If they fail to do so, they will end up owning some of the responsibility for human rights abuses in East Turkestan and elsewhere.

mercredi 12 décembre 2018

Tech Quisling

GOOGLE CEO HAMMERED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON CHINA CENSORSHIP PLAN
By Ryan Gallagher

GOOGLE CEO SUNDAR PICHAI came under fire from lawmakers on Tuesday over the company’s secretive plan to launch a censored search engine in China.
During a hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee, Pichai faced sustained questions over the China plan, known as Dragonfly, which would blacklist broad categories of information about democracy, human rights, and peaceful protest.
The hearing began with an opening statement from Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said launching a censored search engine in China would “strengthen China’s system of surveillance and repression.” 
McCarthy questioned whether it was the role of American companies to be “instruments of freedom or instruments of control.”
Pichai read prepared remarks, stating “even as we expand into new markets, we never forget our American roots.” 
He added: “I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way. To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests.”
The lawmakers questioned Pichai on a broad variety of subjects. 
Several Republicans on the committee complained that Google displayed too many negative stories about them in its search results, and claimed that there was “bias against conservatives” on the platform. 
They also asked about recent revelations of data leaks affecting millions of Google users, Android location tracking, and Google’s work to combat white supremacist content on YouTube.
It was not until Pichai began to face questions on China that he began to look at times uncomfortable.
Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., told Pichai that the Dragonfly plan seemed to be “completely inconsistent” with Google’s recently launched artificial intelligence principles, which state that the company will not “design or deploy” technologies whose purpose “contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.”
“It’s hard to imagine you could operate in the Chinese market under the current government framework and maintain a commitment to universal values, such as freedom of expression and personal privacy,” Cicilline said.
Pichai repeatedly insisted that Dragonfly was an “internal effort” and that Google currently had “no plans to launch a search service in China.” 
Asked to confirm that the company would not launch “a tool for surveillance and censorship in China,” Pichai declined to answer, instead saying that he was committed to “providing users with information, and so we always — we think it’s ideal to explore possibilities... We’ll be very thoughtful, and we will engage widely as we make progress.”
Pichai’s claim that the company does not have a plan to launch the search engine in China contradicted a leaked transcript from a private meeting inside the company. 
In the transcript, the company’s search chief Ben Gomes discussed an aim to roll out the service between January and April 2019. 
For Pichai’s statement to Congress to be truthful, there is only one possibility: that the company has put the brakes on Dragonfly since The Intercept first exposed the project in August.
During a separate exchange, Rep. Keith Rothfus, R-Pa., probed Pichai further on China. 
Rothfus asked Pichai how many months the company had been working to develop the censored search engine and how many employees were involved. 
Pichai seemed caught off guard and stumbled with his response. 
“We have had the project underway for a while,” he said, admitting that “at one point, we had over 100 people on it.” (According to sources who worked on Dragonfly, there have been closer to 300 people developing the plan.)
Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., quizzed Pichai on what user information the company would share with Chinese authorities. 
Pichai did not directly answer, stating, “We would look at what the conditions are to operate … [and we would] explore a wide range of possibilities.” 
Pichai said that he would be “transparent” with lawmakers on the company’s China plan going forward. 
He did not acknowledge that Dragonfly would still be secret — and he would not have been discussing it in Congress — had it not been for the whistleblowers inside the company who decided to leak information about the project.
At one point during the hearing, the proceedings were interrupted by a protester who entered the room carrying a placard that showed the Google logo altered to look like a China flag. 
The man was swiftly removed by Capitol Police. 
A handful of Tibetan and Uighur activists gathered in the hall outside the hearing, where they held a banner that stated “stop Google censorship.”
“We are protesting Google CEO Sundar Pichai to express our grave concern over Google’s plan to launch Project Dragonfly, a censored search app in China which will help Chinese government’s brutal human right abuses,” said Dorjee Tseten, executive director of Students for a Free Tibet. 
“We strongly urge Google to immediately drop Project Dragonfly. With this project, Google is serving to legitimize the repressive regime of the Chinese government and authorities to engage in censorship and surveillance.
Earlier on Tuesday, more than 60 leading human rights groups sent a letter to Pichai calling on him to cancel the Dragonfly project. 
If the plan proceeds, the groups wrote, “there is a real risk that Google would directly assist the Chinese government in arresting or imprisoning people simply for expressing their views online, making the company complicit in human rights violations.”

mercredi 28 novembre 2018

Tech Quisling

Google must not capitulate to China's censorship demands
Amnesty International

Yesterday Google staff published an open letter in support of Amnesty International’s campaign for Google to #Drop Dragonfly.
Part of the letter reads: “Many of us accepted employment at Google with the company’s values in mind, including its previous position on Chinese censorship and surveillance, and an understanding that Google was a company willing to place its values above its profits. After a year of disappointments including Dragonfly and Google’s support for abusers, we no longer believe this is the case. This is why we’re taking a stand.”
The letter will continue to be updated with new signatures.

Google must not capitulate to China's censorship demands
Google’s plans to launch a censored search app in China could irreparably damage internet users’ trust in the tech company, Amnesty International said today, warning that going ahead with the app would set a dangerous precedent for tech companies enabling rights abuses by governments.
.
Google should be fighting for an internet where information is freely accessible to everyone, not backing the Chinese government’s dystopian alternative 

Joe Westby, Researcher on Technology and Human Rights
The organization has launched a global petition calling on Google CEO Sundar Pichai to drop the app, which is codenamed Project Dragonfly and would blacklist search terms like “human rights” and “Tiananmen Crackdown”.
Following a public outcry from Google’s own workforce, Amnesty International is reaching out to the company’s staff through protests outside Google offices and targeted messages on LinkedIn calling on them to sign the petition.
A spoof promotional video offering Google staff the chance to participate in Project Dragonfly ends with a twist on Google’s motto: “Don’t be evil – unless it’s profitable”.
“This is a watershed moment for Google. As the world’s number one search engine, it should be fighting for an internet where information is freely accessible to everyone, not backing the Chinese government’s dystopian alternative,” said Joe Westby, Amnesty International’s Researcher on Technology and Human Rights.
“Many of Google’s own staff have spoken out against these plans, unwilling to play a role in the Chinese government’s manipulation of information and persecution of dissidents. 
Their courageous and principled stance puts Google’s leadership to shame. 
Today we are standing with Google staff and asking them to join us in calling on Sundar Pichai to drop Project Dragonfly and reaffirm Google’s commitment to human rights.”

State repression
The Chinese government runs the world’s most repressive internet censorship and surveillance regime. 
In 2010 Google publicly exited the search market in China, citing restrictions to freedom of expression online.
Since then, the Chinese government has intensified its crackdown and it is unclear how Google would safeguard human rights in this environment.
Leaked internal documents obtained by The Intercept show that the prototype app that Google built under Project Dragonfly would comply with China’s censorship rules by automatically identifying and filtering websites blocked in China and “blacklisting sensitive queries”. 
According to The Intercept, the blacklist that Google itself developed for the project includes the terms “student protest” and “Nobel Prize” in Chinese, as well as phrases that imply criticism of Chinese dictator Xi Jinping.
Google would cooperate with Chinese censors in cracking down on posts related to developing social issues, such as the Chinese government’s response to the growing #MeToo movement and the Chinese government’s internment of ethnic minorities.
The prototype app would also make it easier for authorities to track individual users’ searches, which means that Google would be helping the Chinese government to arrest or imprison people.
Chinese laws and regulations force tech companies to cooperate fully with inspections by public security officials.
Launching Project Dragonfly would also legitimize China’s vision of the internet, which gives governments absolute control over what information is available to the population and the power to freely access all online data about their citizens. 
A recent report by Freedom House found that China is actively exporting its model of internet control around the world by conducting large-scale trainings for foreign officials, providing technology to other governments and forcing international companies to follow its rules even outside China.

Sundar Pichai must do the right thing and drop Project Dragonfly for good. 
Joe Westby
In response to criticism over Project Dragonfly, Google has said it is committed to respecting the fundamental rights of its users.
However, the company has failed to explain how it would square this commitment with a project that appears to accept censorship and surveillance. 
The company’s leadership has also tried to shrug off criticism by saying it has simply been exploring the possibility of re-entering the Chinese search market and that it does not know whether it “would or could” launch such a product.
However leaked comments by a senior Google manager suggest that before the project was made public, the company had been working to have Project Dragonfly ready to launch as soon as possible.
“Google needs to stop equivocating and make a decision.
Will it defend a free and open internet for people globally?
Or will it help create a world where some people in some countries are shut out from the benefits of the internet and routinely have their rights undermined online?” said Joe Westby.
“If Google is happy to capitulate to the Chinese government’s draconian rules on censorship, what’s to stop it cooperating with other repressive governments who control the flow of information and keep tabs on their citizens? 
As a market leader, Google knows its actions will set a precedent for other tech companies.
Sundar Pichai must do the right thing and drop Project Dragonfly for good.”

Tech Quisling

Google employees go public to protest China search engine Dragonfly
By Hamza Shaban

More than 90 Google employees have joined a petition protesting the company’s plans to build a search engine that complies with China’s online censorship regime. 
An employee-led backlash against the project has been churning for months at the company, but Tuesday’s petition marks the first time workers at Google have used their names in a public document objecting to the plans.
The existence of the project, code-named Dragonfly, was confirmed by chief executive Sundar Pichai last month. 
While China has long blocked search queries for what it has deemed politically sensitive material, Pichai said Google could still help Chinese Internet users steer away from scams.
But the project has drawn critics, who question Google’s corporate values and have raised concerns about the consequences of tech companies cooperating with authoritarian governments.
“Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be,” stated the petition, published on Medium. 
“The Chinese government certainly isn’t alone in its readiness to stifle freedom of expression, and to use surveillance to repress dissent. Dragonfly in China would establish a dangerous precedent at a volatile political moment, one that would make it harder for Google to deny other countries similar concessions.”
Amnesty International, which launched a “day of action” Tuesday protesting Dragonfly, has pushed Pichai to drop the program and issued an open call for people to sign a petition.
“This is a watershed moment for Google,” Joe Westby, Amnesty International’s researcher on technology and human rights, said in a news release
“As the world’s number one search engine, it should be fighting for an Internet where information is freely accessible to everyone, not backing the Chinese government’s dystopian alternative.”
Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Earlier this year, more than 1,400 Google employees signed an internal letter demanding more transparency and accountability on the ethics of company projects, citing Dragonfly as an initiative that was developed without employee input. 
“Currently we do not have the information required to make ethically-informed decisions about our work, our projects, and our employment,” the letter read.
Pichai has said that Google’s China-compliant search engine is not a done deal. “I take a long-term view of this,” he said during an event hosted by Wired in October. 
“And I think it’s important for us — given how important the market is, and how many users there are — we feel obliged to think hard about this problem and take a long-term view.”
If Google moves forward with Dragonfly, it could allow the company to reenter China’s online search market after nearly a decade.
But Google’s plans in China have drawn the scrutiny of U.S. lawmakers who have accused the company of being evasive about the prototype search engine. 
More broadly, the tech industry is facing an intense backlash over its data privacy practices, with some members of Congress proposing legislation that would place new restrictions on how tech companies collect and use customer data.




vendredi 9 novembre 2018

Tech Quislings

When Google makes China’s firewall great again
Sundar Pichai thinks the search engine should be willing to work with Chinese censors. Will employees go along with the plan?

By Mark Bergen

If you’re planning on moving to China anytime soon, here’s a piece of advice: Get yourself a WeChat account. 
Open up the “super app,” as it’s known in China, and you can do almost anything: Pay your cab fare, order from a five-star restaurant, buy fruit from a street vendor, or even give alms to a panhandler—they often wear QR codes slung around their necks. 
It’s possible to spend long stretches in China without so much as touching a banknote.
This makes the world’s second-largest economy an internet-enabled paradise, albeit with an important caveat. 
Much of the internet isn’t available. 
Facebook, Twitter, and parts of Wikipedia are all blocked by the “Great Firewall,” the program of government censorship that keeps anything even vaguely subversive offline. 
You can read the BBC, but only if you speak English. 
China blocks the broadcaster’s Mandarin news service, along with Bloomberg.com, the New York Times, and pretty much any news that contradicts the Communist Party line about Tibet, Falun Gong, Taiwan, or the country’s slowing economy.
And there’s no Google. 
The website that for many people is indistinguishable from the internet hasn’t operated in mainland China since 2010, when founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page decided that removing controversial links from search results, as the government in Beijing requires, was unacceptable. 
“We don’t want to run a service that’s politically censored,” Brin said at TED that year. 
His employees applauded the move as a perfect expression of the company’s “Don’t be evil” ethos.
But in 2016 a small team that included Sundar Pichai—the new chief executive officer of Google, which had been reorganized as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.—began working on China-related projects, including a program, known as Dragonfly, to bring Google’s search engine back into the country. 
The plans, which were detailed in a report published in early August by the Intercept, a web news outlet, were remarkably granular. 
They included protocols to censor results to the government’s liking, barring search terms such as “Tiananmen Square” and ensuring that users looking for information about air quality would only get data approved by Beijing. 
Google’s prototype also required users to submit identifying information, including phone numbers, which could allow Chinese intelligence agencies to root out dissidents.
The revelations about Dragonfly reverberated widely, and the company’s efforts to quiet the furor only prolonged it. 
You don’t make the world’s information universally accessible and useful by kowtowing to dictators,” tweeted Brandon Downey, a search engineer who’d worked on an earlier effort to bring Google’s services to China before leaving for another job in 2014. 
“I just hope this story is wrong.”
It wasn’t. 
Two weeks later, Pichai acknowledged the program.
But at a weekly all-staff meeting, he and Brin argued that Dragonfly was being overplayed by the media.
It was merely “exploratory,” Pichai said.
“Every year or so there’s a new kind of project to do something or other in China,” Brin told staff, according to a transcript obtained by Bloomberg Businessweek. 
“We experiment with what it might look like.”
The mood inside the room was tense, and Google’s corporate message boards were instantly flooded with debate.
As the meeting continued, someone in the auditorium began leaking Brin’s and Pichai’s comments to New York Times reporter Kate Conger, who relayed them, verbatim, on Twitter.
Suddenly, those tweets were projected on screens behind Brin.
A person shouted, “F--- the leaker!”
Brin, according to three people who witnessed the scene, seemed more alarmed by the leak than by the ensuing outburst.
If employees were going to talk to the press, he said, they would have to shut down the meeting.
Pichai changed the subject.
Five days later, on Aug. 21, Jack Poulson, a Google senior researcher, submitted a resignation letter. “I cannot work at a company that will not internally or publicly clarify its ethical red lines,” he wrote. It was part of a wave of resignations that came in the days following the meeting.
Pichai dug in, and, according to people familiar with his thinking, he remains interested in launching Dragonfly, or something like it.
“It’s a wonderful, innovative market,” he said at a conference in October, referring to China’s 800 million internet users.

Google’s Chinese search engine in 2006.

The Valley’s tech giants tend to share his enthusiasm.
China’s consumers have embraced mobile phones, digital payments, and streaming media in unprecedented numbers.
But Google employees worry that Pichai is being willfully blind to the compromises China is asking the company to make. 
The search giant grew gigantic “on the premise that they were somehow exceptions to the corporate norm,” says a Google employee, who, like many interviewed for this story, declined to be identified discussing sensitive matters.
“They have immense and, in some ways, unprecedented power. And the checks on this power are currently scarce.”
These fears found expression in a memo Downey circulated privately in late August.
He was known within Google as an idealist; after Edward Snowden revealed that the National Security Agency had intercepted Google data, Downey railed against the program as an example of government overreach.
“F--- these guys,” he wrote about the NSA in a widely shared Google Plus post.
In his new memo, Downey contrasted the altruistic ambitions of Google’s founders with what he presented as a company now motivated by a desire for growth and profit.
Dragonfly, Downey pointed out, also happens to be the name of Brin’s megayacht. (A Google spokesman says this is a coincidence.)
“Google has changed,” Downey wrote.
Google declined to make Brin, Pichai, or any other executive available for an interview.
The company, which is also under fire for its handling of sexual harassment complaints, has yet to explain how search in China would square with its long-standing pledge to protect the privacy of its users. 
Privately, executives have argued that if Google wants to continue growing globally, it will have to work with governments that don’t share its values.
Interviews with more than 18 current and former employees suggest the company’s predicament resulted in part from failing to learn from mistakes that played out a decade earlier, when it first confronted the realities of China’s economic and political might.
This history is known to many at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., but mostly unknown outside of it.
In an interview in September, Downey, 42, elaborates.
“There’s this Utopian idea: Technology will come in, and people will take these tools, change their government, and get their freedom,” he says.
“We tried that experiment, and it didn’t work.”

Downey, photographed at his home in Mountain View.

Downey grew up in Bayou La Batre, a small town in southern Alabama, where he fell in love with the internet.
“It was just an unalloyed good,” he says of his first experience dialing up on a 2,400-baud modem he bought by mowing lawns one summer in high school.
When Google arrived in 1998, he saw it as a force for freedom and “a miracle.”
Then in 2004, something miraculous happened: Downey, who’d earned a degree from Tulane University, landed a job at the company writing code for the back-end systems of its search engine.
At the time, Google’s founders were struggling to square the ideals of the early web with the realities of running a for-profit company.
As early as 2002, Brin, who was born in the Soviet Union and has made no secret of his dislike of authoritarian regimes, was consulting experts on Chinese censorship.
“He gave me the impression that he was genuinely thinking about the issue of China and human rights,” says Xiao Qiang, a prominent China-born human-rights activist who now lives in the U.S. Xiao suggested to Brin that the search engine would be a liberalizing force there.
After months of planning, Brin and the executive team devised a strategy to deal with the requirements of China’s censors.
A local partner would filter results, and Google would store user data on servers outside the country. On the bottom of each page of censored results, coders added a disclosure in small type that informed web surfers that certain sites had been withheld, which was seen as a sort of middle finger to the People’s Republic.
“Let me tell you,” says Downey, who contributed code to the effort, “the Chinese government was not happy about that disclaimer.”
Employees nicknamed the service Dragon Index.
When Brin went to Xiao with the plans in 2006, the activist gave his blessing.
“It’s better than not being there,” he said at the time.
Brin and many Google employees agreed.
At the time, the web looked like a democratizing force.
Many assumed that Google, even if handicapped, could open the floodgates.
“People really believed that providing some information was better than none,” Downey recalls.
During a debate on an internal mailing list, an employee argued that Dragon Index was “not only not evil, but one of the most good things we’ve done.”
The message was published last month on Twitter by Vijay Boyapati, a former Google engineer.
One of the things he found most “disturbing” in retrospect, he wrote, was “the willingness of my former colleagues to not only comply with the censorship, but with their enthusiasm in rationalizing it.”
Almost as soon as Google started the service, demands from Beijing’s censors escalated. 
In 2006 the search engine had to filter out just a few hundred terms, Downey says; by the Beijing Olympics, two years later, the number had climbed to 10,000.
In addition to its web search engine in China, Google also created a search service for news articles, which was subject to even more stringent rules.
Chinese officials required the company to restrict Google News results to Chinese websites only and to suppress several large sections—World, Nation, and Business, according to Boyapati.
The government asked Google to commit to pull any article that offended the censors within 15 minutes.
Unlike search pages, blacklisted News results didn’t include a disclaimer. 
“No one in the company knew this,” Boyapati says.
“It just sort of came down from management.”
Then in December 2009, Google’s security team discovered something far more troubling.
Hackers had somehow tapped the system the company used to store people’s passwords. 
The hackers also injected malicious code onto staffers’ computers in Beijing. 
According to company sources and an account in Steven Levy’s book In the Plex, Google traced the attackers to China and quickly discovered their aim: to spy on email accounts maintained by dissidents. 
Marty Lev, Google’s security chief at the time, was forced to drive to Stanford University to rescue the laptop of one victim, a student who led pro-Tibet protests.
Soon after, Google learned that the hackers had somehow also stumbled onto the source code for google.com, the company’s version of Coca-Cola’s secret formula.
Immediately, Google sequestered a team in a top-secret “war building,” a participant recalls.
This person says the team was warned that their work could be controversial and would probably mean China would never grant them a visa again.
Like everything at Google, the building had a code name: Helm’s Deep, after the fortress in J.R.R. Tolkien’s books in which humankind, pursued by Sauron’s all-seeing eye, hides from the forces of evil.
Inside Helm’s Deep, the conversation turned to how to respond to China’s aggression.
Eric Schmidt, then CEO, argued that Google could wield more influence by staying in China.
Brin led the other flank, according to five people involved in the discussions.
Those people recall Brin as the most animated, raging less about the source code theft than about a state coming after Google users.
“Sergey was pissed off,” a former executive says.
Brin won out.
On Jan. 12, Google announced it was ending search in China.
“Our objection is to those forces of totalitarianism,” Brin told the New York Times. 
In Beijing people laid flowers at Google’s campus in a mix of grief and mockery over its departure. Reports surfaced that police had banned the practice, and the phrase “illegal flower throwing” quickly became a subversive joke on the Chinese web.
Downey and some co-workers made T-shirts bearing the phrase, another middle finger to the Politburo.

Outside Google’s China headquarters in Beijing on Jan. 13, 2010, shortly after the company announced it was pulling out of China.

Despite this experience, Google never really gave up on China.
The company tried many times, often fruitlessly, to tiptoe back.
A former Asia staffer says there was a running joke that the company was always one quarter away from some launch in China.
Among the key players was Pichai, who spent years running Android, Google’s free mobile operating system, before being elevated to CEO in 2015.
Around 2013, according to a former product manager, Pichai stopped a presentation, insisting that the Android numbers were incorrect because, as was customary at the time, they didn’t include usage of Android in China.
“It’s the biggest country in the world,” Pichai said, according to the ex-employee. “It doesn’t make sense not to think about it.”
During Pichai’s tenure, Google tried to bring its Android app store to China, just as Apple offers one to serve iPhone owners there.
Managers, including Pichai, felt the app store could be a side door into the country—hence the effort’s internal name, Sidewinder—according to two people who worked on it.
Beijing never rejected the proposal outright, but it never greenlighted it, either, these people say.
Other paths also dead-ended.
A former manager recalls a Kafkaesque scene when Google applied for a license to create digital maps of China’s roads.
A government official listened to the pitch and assented, with one condition: Google must avoid politically sensitive areas.
“Sure, where are those?” the company rep asked.
“Oh, no,” the official said, “we can’t tell you that.”
Today, internet users in China can search Google only with a virtual private network, or VPN, which gets around the Great Firewall via cloud servers. (China banned “unauthorized” VPNs in March; some still seem to work.)
And more modest Google offerings have made it past regulators.
Last year the company launched its translation app in China with regulators’ blessing.
This year it offered Files Go, a file-management app for Android phones, and a doodling game, Guess My Sketch, available on WeChat.
Pichai confers regularly with Martin Lau, president of WeChat parent Tencent Holdings Ltd., according to a Chinese tech veteran who knows both.
Part of Pichai’s interest in China stems from his focus on artificial intelligence.
Google is widely regarded as the world leader in the field, but Chinese dictator Xi Jinping has designated AI a priority as part of an ambitious industrial policy.
Google responded by opening an AI lab in Beijing in January to try to take advantage of China’s talent pool in the field.
And in September the company sponsored a government-organized AI conference in Shanghai.
The event’s title: “AI for everyone.”
China’s embrace of AI could eventually support the country’s efforts to control speech on the web. 
A 2017 cybersecurity law mandates that companies host Chinese customer data on servers in the country and requires users to sign up for online services using real names and mobile numbers.
That’s why prototypes of Dragonfly linked searches to phones.
Poulson, the researcher who resigned, says this was hidden from some on Google’s privacy review team, which he cited as a “catastrophic failure.”
“It feels like a war on truth,” Downey says.
Outside experts have raised similar concerns.
“Authorities can access the user data when they see fit,” says Lokman Tsui, a former policy manager for Google in Hong Kong.
“It’s impossible for Google to operate search in China without violating widely recognized human rights.” 
Tsui, now a journalism professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was among those who signed a public letter in August asking the company to reaffirm its 2010 commitment not to censor its search engine.
So did Xiao, who now says he’d advise Google’s founders to stay out: “China has no boundaries between the state and private companies. If you go there, you must be part of digital totalitarianism.” 
But nobody at Google asked Xiao for his opinion this time; he can’t recall when he last spoke to Brin.

Brin at the 2018 Breakthrough Prize award ceremony in Mountain View.

After the contentious August staff meeting, Google publicly defended its China plans, in part by criticizing Baidu, the country’s dominant search engine.
“Today people either get fake cancer treatments or they get valuable information,” Pichai said in October at a Wired conference in San Francisco.
The reference was probably lost on most of the audience, but it would have been well-known in China, where a Baidu search ad for an experimental medical treatment was blamed for giving misleading information to a young cancer patient, who later died. (Baidu tightened restrictions on medical ads in response to the incident.)
To ease tensions, Google has been holding informal meetings with staff opposed to Dragonfly to bring skeptics around.
Supporters argue that Google, even in limited form, will be an improvement over Chinese search engines and that the compromises the company is being asked to make have been made by other American tech giants.
Poulson says that at a staff meeting, Brin justified Dragonfly by pointing out that no one had complained about Sidewinder, the app store project.
According to someone close to him, Brin’s about-face on China came as a result of traveling to the country at least three times since 2016, during which he met with Google staff, tinkered with Chinese apps, and on one occasion met with a champion Go player.
But many at Google don’t seem convinced.
One participant in the meetings says the C-suite seems paralyzed, caught between whatever fallout will come with proceeding in China and the costs of ignoring an enormous business opportunity.
Downey sees no room for moral ambiguity.
“Google has no principled excuse left for doing this,” he wrote in August.
His essay ended with the most damning of critiques for a company that’s always seen itself as above concerns about revenue and profit.
“Google,” Downey wrote, “is acting like a traditional company.” 

lundi 15 octobre 2018

Tech Quisling

China just laid out how it wants Google to help it persecute its Muslim minority
  • Chinese authorities recently laid out the kind of speech suppression that Google will have to facilitate to launch its new product in China.
  • They passed new laws on how to crack down on its Uighur ethnic minority, which includes heavy surveillance, policing, and censorship from tech companies.
  • Google has received a lot of backlash from rights activists and the Trump administration for its nefarious China plans.
By Alexandra Ma
Google's secretive plans to launch a censored search engine in China are still bubbling away. Here, a Google sign is seen during a conference in Shanghai in August 2018.

Chinese authorities recently laid out the kind of speech suppression that Google will likely have to facilitate for the country's persecuted Muslim ethnic minority to launch its new product in China.
Authorities in East Turkestan, a colony in western China, on Tuesday, passed new local laws demonstrating how officials should root out banned speech to fight so-called religious extremists.
Around 11 million Uighurs, a mostly-Muslim ethnic minority, live in East Turkestan, and are subject to some of the most intrusive surveillance measures in the world, which include being monitored by 40,000 facial recognition cameras across the region, and having their DNA samples and blood types recorded.
Tuesday's laws made clear that authorities want tech companies to play their part in the surveillance, policing, and silencing of the Uighurs. 
Beijing justifies its crackdown in East Turkestan as a counterterrorism measure, though it's denied UN inspectors access to the region.
Google could be complicit in this persecution if its secretive plans to launch a censored search engine — codenamed "Project Dragonfly" — become a reality.Uighurs in East Turkestan are subject to some of the most intrusive surveillance measures in teh world. Here, Muslim Uighur women on a cellphone in Kashgar, in April 2002.

Article 28 of the new laws orders telecommunications operators to "put in place monitoring systems and technological prevention measures for audio, messages, and communication records" that may have "extremifying information."
Forms of "extremification," as laid out in the laws, are vague. 
They include "interfering" with people's ability to interact with people of other ethnicities or faiths, and "rejecting or refusing public goods and services."
It's not entirely clear what they mean, but authorities have detained Uighurs in the past for bizarre reasons like setting their watch to two hours after Beijing time and growing a beard.
According to the laws, when telecommunications companies find content unsatisfactory to the Chinese state, they will also be ordered to "stop its transmission, delete the relevant information, keep evidence, and promptly report the case" to Chinese authorities.
The companies will also have to "assist the public security organs in conducting a lawful disposition," which means giving up users' personal information — such as their addresses — so Chinese law enforcement can find them.

Google complicit if it enters China
Google is planning to launch a censored version of its search engine in China, which would block out websites and search terms unsavory to the ruling Communist Party — such as human rights, democracy, and religion, The Intercept reported this August, citing leaked documents.
An early prototype of the search engine also showed that Google would link Android users' searches to their personal phone numbers. 
This means that individual users could have their online activity easily monitored, and be at risk of detention if Google passed on the data to the Chinese government.Chinese dictator Xi Jinping is building a dangerously intrusive police state in China.
Chinese tech giants have always passed on user data and the contents of private conversations to Chinese law-enforcement in the past. 
Earlier this year, China's Ministry of Public Security announced that law-enforcement officers could obtain and use private conversations on WeChat, the popular messaging app, in legal proceedings.
Shortly after Google's China plans were made public, 14 human rights organizations wrote a public letter to Google CEO that said: "Google risks becoming complicit in the Chinese government's repression of freedom of speech and other human rights in China."
US Vice President Mike Pence last week slammed Google's China plans, saying: "Google should immediately end development of the 'Dragonfly' app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers."This mural in Yarkland, East Turkestan, photographed in September 2012, says: "Stability is a blessing, instability is a calamity."

Tech companies already play a huge part in China's police state
Earlier this year Yuan Yang, the Financial Times' tech correspondent in Beijing, reported that state officials had accessed her private messages on WeChat without her knowledge or permission. 
A police officer randomly cited messages she had posted in a private chat, she said.
Similarly, Chinese police visited the mother of Shawn Zhang, a law student in Canada, in China after Zhang criticized Chinese dictator Xi Jinping on social media.
"I also didn't expect police to respond so quickly. It suggests my social media account is under their close monitoring. They will read everything I say," Zhang told Business Insider earlier this year.Ethnic Uighur men in a tea house in Kashgar, East Turkestan, in July 2017.

Chinese authorities have also forced many Uighurs to download an app that scans photos, videos, audio files, ebooks, and other documents.
The app, named Jingwang ("cleansing the web" in Mandarin Chinese), extracts information including the phone number and model, and scours through its files, the US government-funded Open Technology Fund reported.
The screenshots below show what the app looks like. 
The grab on the left shows Jingwang prompting users to delete "dangerous content" on their phone, while the one on the right shows the app's access.Jingwang Weishi

The type of regime Google is getting into bed with
Rights groups have accused China of imprisoning up to 1 million Uighurs in concentration camps, where people are shackled to chairs, beaten up, and forced to sing patriotic songs in order to get food.
The new East Turkestan laws formalized the use of those camps despite Beijing's previous claims that they did not exist.
China is also creating a global registry of the Uighur diaspora, even if they are citizens of other countries. 
Multiple Uighurs living overseas have reported threats made directly to them or their family members in China if they did not give up personal data such as license plate numbers and bank details.
If Google sets up a base in China, it won't just be party to Uighur abuses, either. 

mercredi 10 octobre 2018

Tech Quisling

LEAKED TRANSCRIPT OF PRIVATE MEETING CONTRADICTS GOOGLE’S OFFICIAL STORY ON CHINA
By Ryan Gallagher


Ben Gomes, head of search for Google Inc., speaks during a 20th anniversary event in San Francisco, Calif., on Monday, Sept. 24, 2018.

“WE HAVE TO be focused on what we want to enable,” said Ben Gomes, Google’s search engine chief. 
“And then when the opening happens, we are ready for it.”
It was Wednesday, July 18, and Gomes was addressing a team of Google employees who were working on a secretive project to develop a censored search engine for China, which would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”
“You have taken on something extremely important to the company,” Gomes declared, according to a transcript of his comments obtained by The Intercept. 
“I have to admit it has been a difficult journey. But I do think a very important and worthwhile one. And I wish ourselves the best of luck in actually reaching our destination as soon as possible.”
Gomes joked about the unpredictability of President Donald Trump and groaned about the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China, which has slowed down Google’s negotiations with Communist Party officials in Beijing, whose approval Google requires to launch the censored search engine.
Gomes, who joined Google in 1999 and is one of the key engineers behind the company’s search engine, said he hoped the censored Chinese version of the platform could be launched within six and nine months, but it could be sooner. 
“This is a world none of us have ever lived in before,” he said. 
“So I feel like we shouldn’t put too much definite into the timeline.”
It has been two months since The Intercept first revealed details about the censored search engine, code-named Dragonfly
Since then, the project has faced a wave of criticism from human rights groups, Google employees, U.S. senators, and even Vice President Mike Pence, who on Thursday last week called on Google to “immediately end development of the Dragonfly app that will strengthen the Communist Party’s censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers.”
Google has refused to answer questions or concerns about Dragonfly. 
On Sept. 26, a Google executive faced public questions on the censorship plan for the first time. 
Keith Enright told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee that there “is a Project Dragonfly,” but said “we are not close to launching a product in China.” 
When pressed to give specific details, Enright refused, saying that he was “not clear on the contours of what is in scope or out of scope for that project.”
Senior executives at Google directly involved in building the censorship system have largely avoided any public scrutiny. 
But on Sept. 23, Gomes briefly addressed Dragonfly when confronted by a BBC reporter at an event celebrating Google’s 20th anniversary.
“Right now, all we’ve done is some exploration,” Gomes told the reporter, “but since we don’t have any plans to launch something, there’s nothing much I can say about it.”
Gomes’ statement kept with the company’s official line. 
But it flatly contradicted what he had privately told Google employees who were working on Dragonfly — which disturbed some of them. 
One Google source told The Intercept Gomes’s comments to the BBC were “bullshit.”
In July, Gomes had informed employees that the plan was to launch the search engine as soon as possible — and to get it ready to be “brought off the shelf and quickly deployed” once approval from Beijing was received.
Gomes’s remarks to staff, which can be read in full below, highlight the stark contrast between Google’s public and private statements about Dragonfly. 
The secretive project has been underway since spring 2017 — and has involved about 300 employees, the majority of whom have worked full-time on the plan. 
It was far beyond an “exploration,” and the plan to launch it was well-developed, as Google’s own employees have themselves highlighted in recent weeks, despite the company’s efforts to suppress such information.
Gomes’s remarks also shed light on why Google is interested in returning its search engine to China after a noisy departure in 2010, when the company announced that it “could no longer continue censoring our results” there due to concerns over free speech and security. 
In explaining to staff why the work on Dragonfly was “extremely important,” Gomes referenced the sheer size of the Chinese market, saying “we are talking about the next billion users” for Google. 
He also called China “the most interesting market in the world today.” 
“By virtue of working on this,” Gomes added, “you will act as a window onto this world of innovation that we are otherwise blind to.”

Engineers working on the censored search engine are continuing to actively develop it.

Since Gomes offered this optimistic take, the public exposure of Dragonfly and the backlash that has ensued both internally and externally appears to have unsettled Google’s leadership, and it has created a degree of uncertainty around the direction of the plan. 
However, according to sources with knowledge of Dragonfly, engineers working on the censored search engine, acting on instructions from management, are continuing to actively develop it.
The Intercept contacted Gomes for comment but he did not answer requests sent by email and text message. 
Reached twice on his cellphone on Saturday, Gomes claimed when asked about Dragonfly that he had a bad line. 
“I can’t hear anything that you are saying, I can just hear that you are talking,” he said, and swiftly hung up the phone.

Ben Gomes Addresses Google Staff Working on Dragonfly, July 18, 2018:
“I think this has been a long haul for many of you, I just want to acknowledge that first of all. 
Many of you have started working on this a while back. 
It’s not been easy working on a project with no obvious outcome. 
Thank you for that. 
In doing so you have taken on something extremely important to the company — our basic mission of serving all of the world’s users. 
Along the way, I think there are many benefits that come to us that are auxiliary, not just from the direct work, but from all of the auxiliary things of working in China.
There are two ways in which I think about Google. 
One of them is technology and the other one is product and serving users. 
So from the point of view of serving users, there is no question — we are talking about the next billion users. 
But actually I was looking at it, there’s like 5 billion adults in the world, so why are we thinking about the next billion users? 
Well, some of them are not enabled, internet-enabled, and so on. 
And of the people who are internet-enabled, a huge fraction of the ones we are missing out are in China.
And so the opportunity there is — all of you will know this, but — it’s clearly the biggest opportunity to serve more people that we have. 
And if you take our mission seriously, that’s where our key focus should be. 
That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. 
Many of these things are not easy, and you all know this now from personal experience. 
Also given the political climate. 
The future is very unpredictable. Six to nine months [to launch]. 
But we couldn’t have predicted the last three days of politics, let alone the last year of politics, [or] the last two or three years of politics. 
So we just don’t know what the future holds in some ways. 
We have to be focused on what we want to enable, and then when the opening happens we are ready for it.
And you guys have been working in that capacity and it’s not easy. 
We are working with you to make sure your careers are not affected by this. 
The difficult part is to maintain motivation on such a long haul. 
But that’s true of many difficult and worthwhile journeys. 
To maintain that motivation along the way, so that when you do reach that goal, it’s all the sweeter. 
I also want to say — I didn’t expect we’d be able to make the changes from a search perspective that we’ve been able to. 
So I think there’s a slide on this? 
There are improvements, and I thought that because we didn’t have all the signals from China, I thought we may make marginal progress and we’ll do our best. 
But you guys … this is really pretty amazing to me that we made this much progress. … 
When you begin to pay attention to things, things really do get a lot better, and the coverage, the improvements the team has made, I am so grateful for the work you have put in.
The second part of what I think we do that is the value of going into China, is that China I think is one of the most interesting markets, arguably the most interesting market in the world today. 
Just by virtue of being there and paying attention to the Chinese market, we will learn things, because in many ways China was leading the world in some kinds of innovation. 
We need to understand what is happening there in order to inspire us. 
It’s not just a one-way street. 
China will teach us things that we don’t know. 
And the people, as you work on this, both in the Chinese offices and elsewhere, paying attention to the things that are happening there is incredibly valuable for us as Google, potentially not just in China, but somewhere else entirely.
Everybody is aware of some of the key models, business models, that have changed in China. 
But I am sure there are more, other innovations we are not aware of today. 
And by virtue of working on this, you will act as a window onto this world of innovation that we are otherwise blind to. 
So overall I just want to thank you guys for all the work you have put in. 
I ask for your patience for continuing on this for a while longer. 
And I have to admit it has been a difficult journey. 
But I do think a very important and worthwhile one. 
And I wish ourselves the best of luck in actually reaching our destination as soon as possible.
While we are saying it’s going to be six and nine months [to launch], the world is a very dynamic place. 
A few weeks back, nobody would have predicted that the U.S. president would blame the U.S. for issues with Russia, and the Russian foreign ministry would respond [on] Twitter saying, “We agree.” And so the good or bad thing about this is, he’s shaken things up so much that things can radically change quickly. 
So at some level, at our scale, we need to maintain that optionality, in case suddenly the world changes or he decides his new best friend is [Chinese President] Xi Jinping. 
This is a world none of us have ever lived in before. 
So I feel like we shouldn’t put too much definite into the timeline too.
All I am saying, we have built a set of hacks and we have kept them. 
If there is a way to sort of freeze some of it, so it can be brought off the shelf and quickly deployed while we are dripping it all out, and changing it, we should take the long-term view. 
The pace of the world is changing. 
There is a huge binary difference between being launched and not launched. 
And so we want to be careful that we don’t miss that window if it ever comes.”