Sky’s Blog

On March 10 (2009) Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying “something will happen soon” with respect to their presence in China. China today warned that Google must operate within their laws.

—the U.S. Internet company “will have to bear the consequences” if it follows through on its pledge to stop censoring its Chinese search site. [WSJ article]

Why is it that we in the “West” hear this statement so differently from the Chinese?

—You are free to say anything you want (in China) as long as it’s legal. [Sky paraphrases what they’ve said]

To give you a benchmark, in China it is illegal to have a photo of the Dalai Lama because he is called a subversive (splittist). In Costa Rica it has been illegal to propose changing the constitution. In the US (and many other countries) it is legal to propose changing the constitution, but illegal to attempt to change it by force or violence. In other words, in some countries it’s illegal to even talk about certain kinds of change…and therefore real and full free speech is impossible. There’s always a limit—it’s just quite variable and we have to work to make or keep it reasonable.

Tweet This Post

Throw away the image of an “army of Chinese hackers”  goose-stepping in  straight ranks and hell-bent on hacking anyone who stands in their way. Instead, substitute an image more like the wild, wild West with gunslingers taking the law into their own hands, bullying, competing, winning and defending their territories. And the Sheriff is nowhere in sight. This isn’t something that anybody’s going to get under control any time soon.

The loose end this article, China’s Hacker Army, in Foreign Policy (March 3, 2009) leaves open is that since the Chinese government isn’t really controlling and coordinating the hacking, there’s something else going on that we don’t understand yet. Is someone paying for the spoils the hackers bring back from their quests? Are they doing this for fame, not fortune? Is it perhaps free-enterprise with the goods being sold to the highest bidder?

”There are many actors, some directed by the government and others tolerated by it…”

“But the fact that these hackers’ interests overlap with Chinese policy does not mean they are working on behalf of Beijing, and indeed many of their activities suggest no government interference at all.” … “An unwritten rule holds that freelance hackers are left alone as long as they target foreign sites and companies. Once they go after information inside China, the government cracks down. For a hacker interested in self-preservation, the choice is clear.”

“Ultimately, a loose connection between Beijing intelligence operatives and patriotic hackers is more troubling than a strong one. Governments operate under constraints. Gangs of young men — as the United States has learned the hard way — don’t.”

Tweet This Post

My friend Emmanuel Ande Ivorgba was a high school principal in Jos, Nigeria, when I met him electronically, by email five years ago. He connected with us at The Dalai Lama Foundation and his energy and enthusiasm so appealed to us that we immediately began working with him to find ways his students could communicate with other students around the world.

One of those ways was Project Happiness. Emmanuel’s school became the third “leg” in the triumvirate of founding schools in that project. (continue reading…)

Tweet This Post

There’s a subtle user-interaction issue related to the iPad that I haven’t heard anyone talk about yet—I believe the “pad” blows away the “clamshell” in meeting environments because it changes the social dynamic. In fact, it returns us to a more “human” interactive framework.

How many times a day are you in a meeting where the group sits down at some small table, opens their laptop computers (on the tiny table) and suddenly you are looking across the tops of the displays (walls of displays!) at the other people around the table? (Um, just think coffeeshop for instance, with several people crowded around a small table and the table filled with laptop computers, not coffee cups.) What do you notice about how the eyes are fixated on screens, and the people aren’t looking at each other over the tops of the screens. Is there more time spent looking at screens, or more time spent looking at each other? (continue reading…)

Tweet This Post