Speaker 1: Brought to you by the reinvented two thousand twelve camera.
Speaker 1: It's ready. Are you get in touch with technology with
Speaker 1: tech Stuff from how stuff works dot com. Hello there, everyone,
Speaker 1: and welcome again to tech stuff. My name is Chris Philette,
Speaker 1: and I am the tech editor here at how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. And as he often does on these occasions,
Speaker 1: sitting across from me is senior writer Jonathan Strickland. Major though.
Speaker 1: Right then, so uh let's talk politics, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: because that's what we normally talk about. Tech stuff is
Speaker 1: all about the politics. And we're not talking PC versus
Speaker 1: MAC people. Um, although we could talk PC versus Mack people.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't have any research on it, but
Speaker 1: I like John Hodgman frankly that that's sort of a
Speaker 1: political topic to right, we're really looking at all. Right,
Speaker 1: So the web is a global entity, Okay, so we're
Speaker 1: talking about the you know, the web is all over
Speaker 1: the world, and there are web companies that have a
Speaker 1: presence now all over the world. You might the web
Speaker 1: is really made it a lot easier to become a
Speaker 1: multi national global organization. Uh, you know, back in the
Speaker 1: the good old days of the eighties. Um, you pretty
Speaker 1: much had to be a mega corporation to have any
Speaker 1: sort of presence outside of your country of origin. You
Speaker 1: might have a few sites in and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: another country, but um, it was only a few companies
Speaker 1: that really had a global presence. Well, now with the Web,
Speaker 1: everyone kind of has a global presence, whether they like
Speaker 1: it or not. Right, and some of these companies don't
Speaker 1: like it. We'll get to that. But part of the uh,
Speaker 1: the flip side of the coin of having a global
Speaker 1: presence is having to deal with global politics. And uh,
Speaker 1: not every country treats the web the same way that
Speaker 1: we in the West do. No, I say we because
Speaker 1: you know I live in the United States. That's really
Speaker 1: where my frame of reference is. The way the United
Speaker 1: States handles the Internet and the Web. Actually not even
Speaker 1: all Western nations, that's true. That's true. So so companies
Speaker 1: that have a presence in various countries, especially any anyone
Speaker 1: that is trying to generate revenue in these countries. Uh,
Speaker 1: they may find that they have to operate under a
Speaker 1: different set of parameters and they had originally intended and
Speaker 1: in some cases this comes into direct conflict with the
Speaker 1: company's philosophy. And um, I wasn't sure about all the
Speaker 1: different things you wanted to talk about, but I think
Speaker 1: the bulk of this conversation would really center around Google
Speaker 1: and China because it's a great example of how a
Speaker 1: a multi national company can have some problems within one
Speaker 1: single country and what could lead to it deciding to
Speaker 1: no longer do business there. Now, just there's a bit
Speaker 1: of clarification, especially for those of you who are catching
Speaker 1: up on our podcast now. A lot of you like to,
Speaker 1: you know, when you first tune in, go back and
Speaker 1: listen to earlier episodes. So as we are recording this,
Speaker 1: we're actually in the throes of conversation about what has
Speaker 1: happened over the past few days in our time UM
Speaker 1: with an attack on Google's servers. Apparently it just came
Speaker 1: out today the day we are recording this, that the
Speaker 1: attack came from a computer in Taiwan, UM and what
Speaker 1: happened was, UH, emails containing PDF attachments went out to people,
Speaker 1: UH from many different organizations. Uh. They are apparently about
Speaker 1: thirty three different companies, including Google, where people individuals received
Speaker 1: emails with these PDF attachments. Well, the PDFs were exploiting
Speaker 1: a zero day vulnerability, which means unpatched. Basically, UH hole
Speaker 1: in the back of the UH Adobe Acrobat reader code.
Speaker 1: And what that allowed UH the attackers to do was
Speaker 1: essentially reroute traffic from the affected computers with they trojan
Speaker 1: what they call a trojan horse. It appears as one
Speaker 1: thing in this case of PDF, but contains malware. UM
Speaker 1: and UH they were able to take UM intellectual property
Speaker 1: from in this case what we're talking about mainly Google
Speaker 1: and the Gmail servers. Now, um it it affected a
Speaker 1: lot of people obviously, UM. But Google has been the
Speaker 1: most outspoken as of this date, UM and said, look,
Speaker 1: as a result of this, we are not going to
Speaker 1: comply with the censorship requirements that the Chinese government has
Speaker 1: put on us, which is causing a great bruhaha in
Speaker 1: countries all over the world right now. To give a
Speaker 1: little more perspective, China does have some pretty strict restrictions
Speaker 1: on what the citizens of China can and cannot access.
Speaker 1: That may be the biggest understatement you've spoke in this year. Yeah, alright,
Speaker 1: So China likes to keep a very firm grip on
Speaker 1: what the Chinese citizens are China. When I say China, mainly,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about this shorthand for Chinese government. So the
Speaker 1: Chinese government likes to keep a tight grip on what
Speaker 1: the citizens can access, uh so much so that there
Speaker 1: is a a h the Great Firewall of China. It's
Speaker 1: something that we all refer to outside of China. Um
Speaker 1: the Great Firewall of China is this this firewall that
Speaker 1: blocks incoming data that the Chinese government doesn't want citizens
Speaker 1: to access. This ranges from everything from pornography too, anything
Speaker 1: that criticizes the politics and policies of the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: including things like its position on tibet Um. There are
Speaker 1: things are just considered taboo within Chinese culture that stuff
Speaker 1: is blocked. And then there's the stuff that the government
Speaker 1: just doesn't want citizens to have access to that gets blocked.
Speaker 1: To Yes, that information like Tienamen Square. That's a huge one,
Speaker 1: and so go ahead. I wanted to point out, though,
Speaker 1: just as a as a point of clarification, that the
Speaker 1: person who wrote this actually came out on Google's blog.
Speaker 1: It was written by David Drummond, who is the senior
Speaker 1: vice president and of Corporate Development and the chief Legal
Speaker 1: officer of Google, and he pointed out, we don't know
Speaker 1: whether or not the Chinese government is actually involved with this.
Speaker 1: There's no way to tell for sure who is who
Speaker 1: was the attacker in this case. Yeah, but if you
Speaker 1: read between the lines, it is essentially saying that we
Speaker 1: can't be certain, but we're you know, I would say that,
Speaker 1: I would say that the reasonable interpretation of reading any
Speaker 1: of the reports suggests that ultimately the Chinese government had
Speaker 1: something to do with these attacks. Put it this way,
Speaker 1: we haven't mentioned I just realized we haven't mentioned one
Speaker 1: of the things that might lead them to believe that
Speaker 1: what the information was. Yes, the information actually the the hackers, Um,
Speaker 1: we're targeting accounts of Chinese non Chinese dissidence. Yeah, people
Speaker 1: who were advocating for human rights within China. That was
Speaker 1: it was their information, and as far as we can tell,
Speaker 1: it wasn't like their emails or their documents or anything.
Speaker 1: It was more just who they were and you know,
Speaker 1: where they were really well, and which is bad enough.
Speaker 1: So it could honestly could have been somebody who wanted
Speaker 1: to make it appear as that the Chinese government was
Speaker 1: behind it, but also could have been the Chinese government.
Speaker 1: What motive would would anyone have to frame the Chinese government?
Speaker 1: Why would they need that information. I mean, it doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense. I think it was it. He's notorious like that.
Speaker 1: I'n't going to take a little moment here and think
Speaker 1: about pie Um. So I wanted to mention here about
Speaker 1: the the whole Google China event. Google going into China
Speaker 1: in the first place was kind of a sticky situation.
Speaker 1: The reason being is that Google has an informal motto
Speaker 1: that says, don't be evil, all right, and they define
Speaker 1: that motto within their investor relations page as meaning a
Speaker 1: couple of different things. One of the things they mean
Speaker 1: is that they want to provide their customers with unbiased information.
Speaker 1: So when you put in a search result in Google,
Speaker 1: you should get unbiased search results, right, you shouldn't. You
Speaker 1: shouldn't be getting uh you know, these are the ones
Speaker 1: that Google thinks are best or they have a deal
Speaker 1: with this company, and so their search results are going
Speaker 1: to come back to you, and other search results from
Speaker 1: competing companies won't come back to you. That is against
Speaker 1: Google's policy. So you should whenever you put in a
Speaker 1: search query, you should get unbiased information and return. Their
Speaker 1: second tenant and don't be evil, is to operate within
Speaker 1: the boundaries of the law. So Google can't do something
Speaker 1: that's illegal. Even if they think that this is quote
Speaker 1: unquote right, Um, they wouldn't do it because it's against
Speaker 1: the law. Instead, they would lobby to have the law change.
Speaker 1: They would work, you know, in a in a legal
Speaker 1: manner to have the whatever it was removed so that
Speaker 1: they could operate the way they wanted to. David Drummond
Speaker 1: has actually made that clear that as of again as
Speaker 1: of the date we're recording, is Google wants to work
Speaker 1: with the Chinese government to find a way that it
Speaker 1: can deliver search results in China without censoring the material.
Speaker 1: And yeah, right, Well that was the point, was that
Speaker 1: back when Google first got into China, those two tenants
Speaker 1: of don't be Evil were at odds with each other
Speaker 1: because they could not provide unbiased information to customers in
Speaker 1: China and operate within the parameters the law. The two
Speaker 1: things were at odds. There was no way you could
Speaker 1: do both at the same time. You could either do
Speaker 1: it illegally where you're providing uncensored search results, which would
Speaker 1: just mean that the Chinese would eventually filter out your
Speaker 1: site and no one would have access to it anyway,
Speaker 1: or you would have to play ball with the Chinese
Speaker 1: government and filter your search results to remove any links
Speaker 1: to things that the Chinese government deemed inappropriate for the
Speaker 1: citizens to see. So the was no way that they
Speaker 1: could follow their own motto by going into business in China.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, they said, you know, we
Speaker 1: think that being able to provide some information is better
Speaker 1: than not being able to provide any information. So we're
Speaker 1: willing to take a chance and operate within China, see
Speaker 1: what happens, and if the situation goes for the worst,
Speaker 1: then we will reevaluate our position within China. And that's
Speaker 1: kind of what seems to have happened over this past week.
Speaker 1: And uh, it should be pointed out too that China
Speaker 1: is not exactly a small market for Internet users. So
Speaker 1: there are at one report I saw states that there
Speaker 1: are around three d fifty million people who use the
Speaker 1: web on a regular basis in China, and that number
Speaker 1: is growing, and that's actually getting to the point where
Speaker 1: it's it's eclipsing the United States. No small market, so
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be hard for people like Microsoft
Speaker 1: and Yahoo just to walk away and ignore them. Now,
Speaker 1: on the flip side of that coin, you could argue
Speaker 1: that Google itself is not a big player within the
Speaker 1: search engine space in China, which is true now in
Speaker 1: the United States, Google has the majority of the market
Speaker 1: share in search. I mean it's like sixty something percent.
Speaker 1: It's crazy amount of considering how many companies are out
Speaker 1: there that provide search. In China, it is I think
Speaker 1: in third or fourth place. Uh there's a Chinese government. Uh, well,
Speaker 1: it's an organization that is friendly with the Chinese government.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that is state sponsored, right, Okay, but
Speaker 1: there's Yeah, there's a search engine that within China cooperative,
Speaker 1: its cooperative with the government. That is then the number
Speaker 1: one space. Right, So bay Do is number one in China.
Speaker 1: Google is is trailing behind bay Do, but is catching up.
Speaker 1: It is made up some ground. However, some people have
Speaker 1: pointed out that since Google isn't the number one, they
Speaker 1: don't have the same kind of stock in China that
Speaker 1: they would in other countries. It's easier for them to
Speaker 1: pull up stakes and leave because they're not abandoning a
Speaker 1: huge market the way they were they would be if
Speaker 1: they were in the United States. So the question is
Speaker 1: if Google were the number one search engine in China
Speaker 1: and this had happened. Would Google still make the same
Speaker 1: move of saying, you know what, you have violated our trust.
Speaker 1: We weren't really sure about this or this situation in
Speaker 1: the first place when we came in here, we're gonna leave.
Speaker 1: Would they be able to do that if they were
Speaker 1: number one, would they be able to to to say
Speaker 1: goodbye to all that money? Part of that question is
Speaker 1: hard to answer, just because Google has to answer to
Speaker 1: shareholders and shareholders as a whole. I don't mean to
Speaker 1: paint all shareholders with the same brush, because I know
Speaker 1: it's not the case. But there's there's kind of a
Speaker 1: general rule of thumb, which is that shareholders are willing
Speaker 1: to put up with a lot if it means that
Speaker 1: they're going to get a return on their investment. And
Speaker 1: that may even mean, say, you know what, I understand
Speaker 1: that this violates principles that you hold dear, But at
Speaker 1: the same time, we're making lots of money. So as
Speaker 1: long as we're able to make that money, we will,
Speaker 1: you know, just kind of look the other way on
Speaker 1: the whole human its issues and censorship issues. Um, I
Speaker 1: don't know if Google would have been able to walk
Speaker 1: away and Google, let me be clear, at the time
Speaker 1: we're recording this, Google hasn't walked away yet. Um, but
Speaker 1: they have said that they are willing to pull up
Speaker 1: stakes and leave the country if they are not able
Speaker 1: to come to some sort of agreement with the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: and the Chinese government, for its part, so far, as said,
Speaker 1: we're not in the wrong here. We have these rules. Google.
Speaker 1: You either obey these rules or you don't work within
Speaker 1: our country. So it's kind of a standoff right now.
Speaker 1: We have to see whether or not Google is going
Speaker 1: to make good on its threat to to leave. Uh.
Speaker 1: I'm very curious to see how this affects the landscape
Speaker 1: in China if Google were to leave, and actually the
Speaker 1: global landscape really when you think about it. There was
Speaker 1: an article in the New York Times too that it's
Speaker 1: very very curious because the Chinese people are aware that
Speaker 1: something is going on with Google, but they are unaware
Speaker 1: that it revolves around any arguments surrounding free speech. Um. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what happens when your speech is controlled, right. Uh.
Speaker 1: But there has been um an outpouring of sympathy for Google.
Speaker 1: People have been coming to the headquarters in Beijing and
Speaker 1: leaving flowers and candles and other mementos. Uh. So you know,
Speaker 1: just all kinds of people have been dropping by, which
Speaker 1: is not something that I would necessarily expect to see. Uh.
Speaker 1: For the third or fourth place, um, uh, you know
Speaker 1: search engine in China, I have the feeling that some
Speaker 1: people may know more than they may be letting on. Well,
Speaker 1: it is known that there are plenty of people in
Speaker 1: China who are using various services to get around the
Speaker 1: firewall and are accessing information that is verboten in uh
Speaker 1: in China. Um, there are plenty of people who are
Speaker 1: using proxy servers and things like that in order to
Speaker 1: get access to more information than they otherwise would be
Speaker 1: allowed to to see. So some of that might be
Speaker 1: coming into play. Um. Yeah, it's kind of hard to
Speaker 1: say without without being there and knowing the whole situation,
Speaker 1: Like we can't, for instance, we don't know if Google's
Speaker 1: motives are really pure. We don't know if Google has
Speaker 1: been looking for a while to get out of China
Speaker 1: and this latest incident is kind of acting as a
Speaker 1: springboard so that they can. Yeah, it's like an unforeseen
Speaker 1: exit strategy, like, oh yeah, let's take it. Take this
Speaker 1: opportunity to get the heck out of dodge. UM, we
Speaker 1: don't know if if other companies are going to follow suit.
Speaker 1: I mean, one thing about Google leaving China is right now,
Speaker 1: it's like the best move they can make because they
Speaker 1: are not number one, They're not They're not gonna lose
Speaker 1: a huge amount of revenue by getting out of China
Speaker 1: right now, but they are going to get a huge
Speaker 1: PR boost by saying, look, we're gonna do what's right
Speaker 1: because we either want to provide uncensored search results or
Speaker 1: we don't want to work there at all. That's like
Speaker 1: a really nice high moral ground to that you can
Speaker 1: you can cling to and UH, whether or not it's genuine,
Speaker 1: it's kind of beside the point. It's a huge PR
Speaker 1: win for Google. So it puts pressure on other American
Speaker 1: companies UH and other international companies companies like Yahoo and
Speaker 1: Microsoft that's still operate within China and are still operating
Speaker 1: under China's rules. UM saying like, well, now these companies
Speaker 1: have to ask the question do we stay in China?
Speaker 1: UH playing but playing the playing ball with the Chinese
Speaker 1: government continuing to obey the rules of censorship and UH
Speaker 1: and and accept the fact that that's going to be
Speaker 1: awful PR back in the rest of the world. But
Speaker 1: we'll do it, you know, We'll make that sacrifice because
Speaker 1: there's all that money over there. Or are they going
Speaker 1: to say, you know what, we're gonna pull up stakes
Speaker 1: too because the heat is too high, or maybe even
Speaker 1: they genuinely feel that the business they're doing in China
Speaker 1: is ultimately more harm than good. Uh. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to paint all of these these executives as
Speaker 1: being these cold hearted, calculating money grubbing kind of jerks. UM.
Speaker 1: I don't know any of them personally. Some of them
Speaker 1: may feel legitimately conflict did about doing business in China, UM,
Speaker 1: And maybe they are taking the time to really re
Speaker 1: evaluate their positions as well. I honestly don't know. UM.
Speaker 1: I operate under assumptions and stereotypes the way everyone else does,
Speaker 1: so I think of them as cold, calculating money grubbing jerks.
Speaker 1: But I'm I hope I'm wrong. It would be great
Speaker 1: if I were wrong. I don't Here's the real problem. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: I don't know even if they were to all pull
Speaker 1: up stakes and leave, I don't know that that would
Speaker 1: put any leverage on the Chinese government whatsoever to make
Speaker 1: any kind of changes it is. It is conceivable that
Speaker 1: their their argument that by doing work in China, they
Speaker 1: can gradually change the mind of the government to allow
Speaker 1: more free speech and allow more flexibility. And we've seen
Speaker 1: some evidence of that over the last few years. I
Speaker 1: mean that it's not like China hasn't allowed any kind
Speaker 1: of outside access, but they have been very very cautious
Speaker 1: of it. And some of that is cultural, where it's
Speaker 1: just that they want to protect the Chinese culture, and
Speaker 1: some of it is very political. Um. And so it'll
Speaker 1: be yeah. I mean, I think if even if all
Speaker 1: the American companies that have anything to do with intellectual
Speaker 1: property pulled out of China right now, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: that China would really care that much. Yet. Um, in
Speaker 1: some ways, China would Chinese government would want to react
Speaker 1: because it's all about saving face in the global environment.
Speaker 1: So but even in that case, it's more about saving face,
Speaker 1: it's not about necessarily doing what's right. So yeah, we
Speaker 1: know another situation, another political situation that involves technology that
Speaker 1: that revolves around protecting corporate interests was net neutrality. UM.
Speaker 1: And I was reading just just today that that Skype
Speaker 1: has weighed in there there's still no decision on official
Speaker 1: decision on net new reality. But Skype actually filed a
Speaker 1: brief with the FCC not too long ago, actually in
Speaker 1: January fourteenth, two thousand town UM basically saying sort of
Speaker 1: coming down somewhere in the middle, saying it would net
Speaker 1: neutrality would promote investment, jobs, and innovation. It's a quote, UM.
Speaker 1: But Skype also sees the need to protect UH network
Speaker 1: infrastructure and for UH companies UH Internet service providers to
Speaker 1: throttle bandwidth, block programs if necessary, or degrade performance UM
Speaker 1: in order to preserve the network and integrity and make
Speaker 1: sure that they're able to provide equitable service. Of course,
Speaker 1: they're also quick to point out that their application has
Speaker 1: been optimized to you know, make as minimal and impact
Speaker 1: on the network as possible, right, because it's all peer
Speaker 1: to peer, right, so uh, you know, it's it's all
Speaker 1: sort of relative. But that that battle has been hot
Speaker 1: and heated between the people who say I don't want
Speaker 1: I want to be able to act says everything equally
Speaker 1: UM here in the United States on my Internet service provider,
Speaker 1: I don't care, I don't want it censored, I don't
Speaker 1: want it throttled. I don't want it blocked. I don't
Speaker 1: want it. You know, you don't taper it off. I
Speaker 1: don't wannferential treatment for one versus the other. Meanwhile, some
Speaker 1: of the Internet service providers are saying, look, you know,
Speaker 1: if we can make a deal with a content provider, um,
Speaker 1: you know, to help provide better service for our customers
Speaker 1: as a whole, we're willing to give them a little
Speaker 1: bit extra bandwidth, you know, or we're gonna throttle your
Speaker 1: slit torrent connection because you know, you are one of
Speaker 1: the point zero five percent who uses most of our
Speaker 1: bandwidth because you download movies all the time. You maybe
Speaker 1: BitTorrent is not just used to download movies. No, it
Speaker 1: can be used to download anything but people. I was
Speaker 1: just making an example, but you're right, No bittorring could
Speaker 1: be used to download anything. Legal problem is that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who do use it for
Speaker 1: illegal purposes, and so that's bad for that. And you
Speaker 1: know what, I'm sure if I looked at the full
Speaker 1: list of all people who use bit torrent, it would
Speaker 1: probably be a sizeable percentage that uses it for illegal
Speaker 1: purposes at least occasionally, if not regularly. Um, it's a
Speaker 1: very effective method for delivering files, whether they're legal or
Speaker 1: But yeah, if you were to just automatically throttle all
Speaker 1: bit torrent activities exactly, that would faally hurt people who
Speaker 1: are using it for legitimate means to distribute very large files.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're using it for work purposes in
Speaker 1: your house and you needed to share files with other
Speaker 1: people in your office, Um, you know, in your your
Speaker 1: bandwidth is being throttled by somebody else who uses even
Speaker 1: more bandwidth than you, and you're being lumped in with them.
Speaker 1: You know you're gonna be a little outraged by that.
Speaker 1: So we're seeing a lot of web companies weigh in
Speaker 1: on this discussion. So this is another good, good example
Speaker 1: of web companies in politics. I mean, Google has been
Speaker 1: extremely vocal in the whole net neutrality argument and uh
Speaker 1: then of course we've also seen I s p s
Speaker 1: and UH like cell phone carriers in particular argue the
Speaker 1: opposite side, saying things like, hey, we just want to
Speaker 1: be able to give the best service and get lots
Speaker 1: of money in charge twice for the same content delivery system. Again,
Speaker 1: they are also trying vast they're also trying to provide
Speaker 1: value to their stockholders and stockholders are, as we have
Speaker 1: determined already the most evil people on the planet, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. I own stock By the way, I
Speaker 1: also have plans for a death star. That's a good point. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying no, no, no, no, I don't really
Speaker 1: mean that. I don't really mean that stockholder is necessarily evil.
Speaker 1: Stockholder is not necessarily evil. You're just mostly evil. Um No, no,
Speaker 1: I really, I really honestly don't believe that. But there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who hold a lot of
Speaker 1: shares who do sacrifice, uh don't make sacrifices on on
Speaker 1: principles in order to make more money. And there are
Speaker 1: people who abuse networks to right sure, and then of
Speaker 1: course there are plenty of sharehold result there who who
Speaker 1: argue for the other way. They argue that, no, we
Speaker 1: need to do the responsible thing. And yes, it may
Speaker 1: mean that we don't earn as much in the short term,
Speaker 1: but in the long term will make much larger returns
Speaker 1: on our investments. So it makes more sense for planning
Speaker 1: out for years in advance. So unless you're planning on
Speaker 1: cocking it in the next couple of years and you're
Speaker 1: just looking for some money to blow on all the
Speaker 1: big parties you're gonna have before you kick it in
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve. Really not a big deal, all right, then, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't really have any other political specifically. We know
Speaker 1: we talked a lot about Google and China in particular,
Speaker 1: but that's the that's a big one right now. And
Speaker 1: it's a very good example of how a web company
Speaker 1: can encounter some really sticky situations once they enter into
Speaker 1: a country that has a totally different culture and political
Speaker 1: system than the one that spawned that company. Well, actually
Speaker 1: I was I'm not to count not to get into
Speaker 1: this in depth, but um, the other big political uh
Speaker 1: battle being fought is you know, over intellectual property and
Speaker 1: copyright law. Um, and that's that's sort of what's going on.
Speaker 1: And it's not exactly the same thing, but it's sort
Speaker 1: of what's going on with the Chinese situation. Because these
Speaker 1: things are are new, they're the technologies are have only
Speaker 1: been around for a couple of decades, um, to the
Speaker 1: point where everyone has adopted them in in in large numbers. Um.
Speaker 1: They're proposing new issues for governments to have to deal with.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think there will be massive changes
Speaker 1: in government over time. But right now they're are producing
Speaker 1: some serious, thorny issues that have never had to beat
Speaker 1: addressed before. Yeah, and we're we can guarantee that we'll
Speaker 1: keep our eye on this situation. And uh, if you
Speaker 1: guys want to hear us have discussions on really timely
Speaker 1: issues like uh this this podcast in particular is more
Speaker 1: about the general issues of of web companies and and
Speaker 1: uh politics, and we use the China Google thing is
Speaker 1: an example. But if you want to hear us talk
Speaker 1: more about this sort of stuff and a timely fashion,
Speaker 1: I highly recommend you check out tech Stuff Live, which
Speaker 1: we do every week. It's on Tuesday's at one pm Eastern,
Speaker 1: and you can actually access the older episodes of Tech
Speaker 1: Stuff Live. There's a youth stream channel that archives all
Speaker 1: of them. You can also see our other live programs
Speaker 1: archived versions of our live programs, not just tech stuff
Speaker 1: but stuff you should know and there will be others
Speaker 1: to follow in the future. So um, plus, we we
Speaker 1: write about these things two on our blogs dot com
Speaker 1: and UM you know we're we're able to address those
Speaker 1: a little bit more timely fashion. Right, So if you
Speaker 1: find these kind of discussions interesting and if you want
Speaker 1: to participate in these discussions. We highly recommend you visit
Speaker 1: the blogs. There are areas to comment on the blogs,
Speaker 1: and uh, we definitely like to have that kind of
Speaker 1: involvement and that that deep conversation start because clearly, I mean,
Speaker 1: we have our own opinions, but but we know that
Speaker 1: all of you out there have your opinions. Of you
Speaker 1: may have lived in in countries like China and have
Speaker 1: a unique perspective on the issue, and you're probably screaming
Speaker 1: right now. I want to add my voice to the conversation.
Speaker 1: The blogs are a good place to do that, and
Speaker 1: of course you can always write us. You can email
Speaker 1: us at our wonderful email and just tech stuff at
Speaker 1: how stuff works dot com. And uh, we look forward
Speaker 1: to hearing from you. But this has been an interesting discussion.
Speaker 1: It's one of the heavier topics that we've tackled. But
Speaker 1: after talking about our favorite tech movies and Easter eggs,
Speaker 1: I felt that probably do yeah, we were do for
Speaker 1: some something that had a little more substance to it.
Speaker 1: So definitely email us, check out our blogs, and Chris
Speaker 1: and I will taught to you again really soon. For
Speaker 1: moral this and thousands of other topics is a how
Speaker 1: stuff works dot com and be sure to check out
Speaker 1: the new Tech stuff blog now on the house stuff
Speaker 1: Works homepage, brought to you by the reinvented two thousand
Speaker 1: twelve camera. It's ready, are you