At least according to Sergey at the time, the key issue was "opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent".

> Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side.

>SPIEGEL: Four years ago, you allowed your service to be censored. Why have you changed your mind now?

>Brin: The hacking attacks were the straw that broke the camel's back. There were several aspects there: the attack directly on Google, which we believe was an attempt to gain access to Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. But there is also a broader pattern we then discovered of simply the surveillance of human rights activists.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-co-found...

I always thought there were two ways to interpret that, and I was never sure which one was correct.

One is that the hack made Google realize it was not a good, stable place to do business, and the other reasons were just a good PR side effect. The other is that the hack gave Google occasion to reevaluate, and they realized being involved in that kind of censorship didn't sit right with them.

I suppose it could also be some of both.

There were other, bigger, non-public reasons.

Care to elaborate?

You'll probably have to wait for Larry or Sergey to write their memoirs...

> > Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our side.

It reads to me like: "I really oppose prostitution, but I go to prostitutes anyways"

> Google employee did become more active on these issues which I think is progressive.

Because the world is changing. The concern around privacy and censorship hasn't reached that level back in 2006 (Mainly because most westerners hasn't been effected by it, funny).

The situation today is much different now.

BUT, I don't think this will be a easy battle. Many people on Slashdot don't even believe Google will just stop trying after this.

The harm is done, Google.

> Many people on Slashdot

Because Slashdot is a good source for unbiased opinions :-)

Seems it is a good source if you want to know what kind of biased opinions the Slashdot crowd has.

| I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

That seems to be the general consensus on /.

Or at least has been for decades.

I'm partial to the complete and utter destruction of robots using overwhelming force. Except obviously for No 6 and the Boomer bots. They're smoke shows.

Well, I think all opinion is biased. After all, opinion is not truth, and lets face it, people are biased.

The thing is, the reason behind those biases is rather logical, that makes those comments worth noting.

(And yes, I know how bad some comments on Slashdot can be :)

Seems the reply is not on the thread about log search and find people. It is not what you not see is the problem. It is the question you have asked that may get you if the log is “hacked”, shared or sold ultimately to the state. Or like apple have to relocate their data centre to compile with the laws.

And if you are on the wrong side of the current political regime ....

It is not just freedom to read but the protection of you against a totalitarian regime that worry us. Especially if you think it is safe to ask to google.cn

Also privacy concern of using 265.com data seems nothing but a process issue. Aggregating search log is such a common task for any search engine in US and EU, there has to be a way to achieve that while comply all the privacy/legal concern. Dragonfly lead skipping that is unwise and unnecessary IMHO.