Having recently suggested that it was important for the founders of US Internet companies at the heart of the China/Censorship issue to address it themselves, I was interested to see that Segey Brin of Google has in fact done so. He didn't do it in direct discussion with media, but in response to a question posed by an analyst at the Google Analyst Day conference, held yesterday in the US. CNET has published a partial transcript of the session and an MP3 (3MB download) of the China question. Because the transcript was incomplete, I transcribed it myself (below), leaving out part of the question that was on attracting quality employees. A complete webcast of the session is available via Google's investor relations page here, but it's hard to find specific material in it.
Question: On government relations I'd really love to hear how you think governments like China and the US () you go to take over the world, did your accommodating posture in China really undermine your tough position that you're taking with the DOJ? And how do you think about the limits to growth created by the governments in the forty-six countries you operate in?

Sergey Brin: OK, so - DOJ; China; conquering the world; attracting employees. I'll start on the conquering the world part. We're currently not planning on conquering the world. [Laughter]

Eric Schmidt: (Joking) Be careful Sergey.

Sergey Brin: On the question of China, that was an issue that was dear to my heart because I was born in Moscow in the Soviet Union during the communist era, and, in fact, all of our intuition and our decision was to not curtail our searches, or not censor them in any way. In fact we did not do that. We didn't do that at Stanford at our founding. We didn't do that a few years ago when our search engine was completely cut off from China, not once but several times. But we gradually came to the realization --I myself did-- that in fact we were hurting not just ourselves but the Chinese people. And having spent time talking to students who were at Tian'anmen Square in '89 and human rights organizations and just the Chinese [as I was] visiting China, seeing students who could not access Google at all because they had to pay significant international bandwidth fees, we eventually came to the conclusion that we were doing greater disservice to the Chinese people by not offering Google at all. Now, we'll see how that evolves. Obviously that doesn't mean that we're just willing to do anything that is requested of us, and we've drawn some pretty tough, tight bounds.

In the DOJ case, we felt that the request was really overreaching on a variety of levels. One is privacy. As I pointed out it's large although not entire ameliorated by the fact that it's not with IP addresses and cookies. But also, it's a question of, you know, should we be doing the homework for the government? And I believe it is a slippery slope. I don't think it's a good path to go down. We're fighting that, and we'll see what the outcome is [cut off].
It doesn't say much new. Brin repeats Google's published position that they feel it is better for Chinese users that they are in China even in an abridged form than not in China at all. He also suggests that there is a line that they won't cross in terms of acceding to Chinese government requests, although he does not suggest where that might be. You can tell this is a financial analyst conference and not a press conference because no one asks the obvious follow-up question about that. There is something else I find interesting in Brin's reply, which is that he frames the decision to open an restricted, localized Chinese service in terms of the alternative being complete inaccessibility of Google to Chinese users. While that was true a few years ago, when Google was blocked, it hasn't been true for some time. In fact, the current decision is between a restricted, localized service and the unrestricted but government-filtered global service. This is a more nuanced question.

Brin also reminded the attendees that he himself was born in the Soviet Union. While he has spent most of his life in the US, that gives him some credibility on this issue from a PR standpoint. It is certainly more impactful to hear Google's explanations coming from Brin than from VP of Global Communication Elliot Schrage (who spoke at the recent congressional hearings) or from general press statements.

This was a pretty cursory touch on the controversy. Will there be more? I would be interested to see more openness from the founders, but I suspect it will not be forthcoming. Google is under pressure to be more open with analysts due to their recent stock woes. They may not feel the same way about journalists-at-large.

On a related point, Rebecca MacKinnon today comments on Rep. Chris Smith's Wall Street Journal editorial (subscription) calling for passage of the Global Online Freedom Act, which he sponsored. Although she agrees with some parts of the bill, she criticizes the bill in its current form, noting:
There are some other things in the bill as it currently stands that I disagree with and which I discussed in an article I wrote for The Nation. The act would require US Internet companies to hand over all lists of forbidden words provided to them by "any foreign official of an Internet-restricting country" (as defined by the US State Department) to a specially created US government office. It would also require companies to report all content deleted or blocked at the request of the host government to the same government office. This would put US companies in a tough position in foreign markets if they are perceived to be US government stooges - which this Act would in effect require them to be. The Act would also result in US companies handing over Chinese user information to the US government. Why would we ask companies to hand over Chinese user information to the US government, when many Americans don't trust our own government with our own personal data? Aren't we better off setting global standards to protect all users from all governments everywhere?
Interesting points. As for Smith, he is still on a tear:
By using a combination of technology and an estimated force of 30,000 cyber-police to monitor, filter, and block critical content the Chinese government prevents its people from having access to uncensored information on political and human-rights topics. They only see what Big Brother allows them to see. Women and men are going to the gulag and being tortured as a direct result of information handed over to Chinese officials. These are not victimless crimes. We must stand with the oppressed, not the oppressors.
If you have access, read the editorial and see what you think. If I find an open copy on the web, I'll put up a link.