US diplomatic note re Google China

New development re Google.cn decision today,

1. U.S. to send formal message to China on Google case [reuters]
2. US to formally ask China for explanation on cyber-attacks [AFP]
3. To grow rich is [redacted] (The Economist]
4. U.S. Will Protest to China Over Google Cyber Attack [Bloomberg]

Some cool 2009 creative advertising work

Here is an excerpt of what my blog friend Saatchi & Saatchi’s Kevin Roberts learned (emphasis added),

* Nine of the top 10 campaigns in the Won awards relied on direct consumer input and involvement. There is still a bit of life in “selling by yelling” – but the stretcher is on the field. Consumers won’t ever be passive recipients of broadcast messages ever again. Involvement and participation are vital. [...]

* The blur between TV, Digital, Direct, PR, Media etc is now absolute. Winning ideas can be driven from any quarter. Game on for the creative departments in every “advertising agency”.

Check out Saatchi & Saatchi campaign of the year – T-Mobile’s flashmob dance “Life’s for Sharing” from our S&S’s London agency.

And this Gymkhana Two INFOMERCIAL (watched over 10 million times since Jun 2009) is just so cool. If all infomercial is this cool, I don’t mind watching them instead of some lame TV shows.

For fun, you can check out some more popular viral videos, commercials, games or user-generated videos here.

[HT Kevin]

And the Pursuit of Happiness – Louis Malle

I wonder if citizens in each generation, in an inescapable and nostalgic moment, are bound to look back at previous generations with a sense of amazement and feeling of “wow, that was a much simpler time”?

I think it is interesting to compare and contrast the Americans in Louis Malle‘s 1986 “And the Pursuit of Happiness” and the Americans in 2010.

Amazing film, beautifully made, very sweet at some moments. Highly recommended.

Google.cn decision (part 2) and China’s Foreign Ministry & White House responses

For the record, I will list the China’s Foreign Ministry response to  David Drummond, Google Chief Legal Officer in Chinese and then English, both from Xinhua, the Chinese government officially approved, sanctioned, and mandated news source for all internal Chinese websites re the Google.cn decision (yes, it is illegal to quote or use any other news sources).

From 新华国际 “2010年01月14日 (外交部网站) 姜瑜就谷歌、海地地震、印度逮捕中国工程师等答问“,

问 [Question]：中国政府对谷歌公司宣布可能退出中国市场，不再和中国政府合作对网络内容进行审查有何回应？美国国务卿希拉里·克林顿要求中国对谷歌网络被攻击作出解释，中方对此有何回应？

答 [Answer]： 我想强调的是，中国的互联网是开放的，中国政府鼓励互联网的发展，努力为互联网的健康发展营造良好的环境。中国的法律禁止任何形式的黑客攻击行为。中国同其他国家一样，依法管理互联网，有关管理措施符合国际通行做法。我还想强调，中国欢迎国际互联网企业在中国依法开展业务。

关于第二个问题，如果美方联系中方，我们将向美方重申这一立场。

From Xinhua “China says its Web open, welcomes Int’l companies“,

China’s Internet is open and welcomes international companies, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Thursday, just two days after Google issued a statement saying it might quit China.

Spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular news briefing that China encouraged development of the Internet.

“China’s Internet is open,” said Jiang. “China has tried creating a favorable environment for Internet,” said Jiang while responding to a question on Google’s possible retreat.

“China welcomes international Internet companies to conduct business within the country according to law,” she said. “China’s law prohibits cyber crimes including hacker attacks.”

Here is the thing, China’s constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech too but that hasn’t exactly done Prof. Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) any good, has it? A sentence of 11 years imprisonment right on Christmas 2009 for signing Charter 08 along a few hundred other Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists.

So the bottom line is that we will need to see what the discussion between Google and the Chinese government comes down to.

Now Google has made a strong stand, I hope Google will make the right decision to be transparent and make the right choice between “good” and “profit”.

See my Google.cn decision – part 1.

P.S. What the Chinese based companies are saying now have little creditability in my eyes as the only way for them to survive is to obey the Chinese government.

In fact, I will go one step further and treat all Chinese companies’ spokespeople and senior executives as mouthpieces of the Chinese government. I will be very surprised if they suddenly decided to grow some political spine right at the time when spinelessness is the best way to stay profitable in China and be friends of the Chinese government.

P.P.S. For the record from NYT “Follow the Law, China Tells Internet Companies” (emphasis added),

After a day of silence, the Foreign Ministry said that China welcomed foreign Internet companies but that those offering online services must do so “in accordance with the law.” Speaking at a scheduled news conference, Jiang Yu, a ministry spokeswoman, did not address Google’s complaints about censorship and cyberattacks and simply stated that “China’s Internet is open.”

The remarks, and those of another high-ranking official who called for even tighter Internet restrictions, may speed Google’s departure and increase friction between Beijing and the Obama administration, which has made priorities of Internet freedom and online security.

More Google China photos

See more Google China photos in this post compiled by Elliott. I have deepest admiration of the Chinese paying their respect at Google China HQ. Knowing they are watched and monitored by the Chinese government at Google HQ takes lot of courage.

Yes, there are reports that you now need permission from Chinese government to bring flowers to Google China HQ!

100,000+ lives may have perished in Haiti earthquake

Absolutely heartbreaking photos of Haiti earthquake from CBC and news from CBC (with video),

Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive told CNN Wednesday the death toll from the earthquake that rocked his country could be “well over 100,000.”

The 7-magnitude quake struck Tuesday afternoon, and has left Port-au-Prince, the capital city, in ruins.

No official casualty numbers have been released yet.

My heart goes out to the people of Haiti and Canadians with families, friends and loved ones in Haiti.

Google Washington DC Talks by Jeff Jarvis, author of “What Would Google Do?”

In light of the Google.cn decision, I am watching the following Apr 2009 Google Talk by Jeff Jarvis, author of “What Would Google Do?” and self-proclaimed Google fanboy, to see if I can gain some additional insights.

Interesting ideas at time codes: 21:40 and in particular at 23:38 where there is a discussion censoring results at Google.cn & Google not operating in China.

Leno/O’Brien fiasco (teachable moments in this mess)

I wasn’t going to comment, for lack of time, on the Leno/O’Brien fiasco (latest: Leno may follow O’Brien and leave NBC). But after commenting on insideCBC’s “The Perils of Messing with Viewing Habits“, I might as well use my comments there as a post.

***

Unlike “New Coke”, which is sugar water + ad campaign, the NBC fiasco involves people’s reputations and careers. I think, sadly, Leno’s reputation is now damaged. His show at the old time slot was cool with good ratings, then he had awful ratings at 10pm and became “uncool”. And I doubt viewers can easily forget how uncool he became at 10pm (catering to the 10pm audiences).

If I were a betting man, I will be betting my dollar on Leno not able to regain his former audience ratings whatever time slot he is placed. And the rotten situation O’Brien has to deal with now is very painful and likely irreversible until it is too late to do anything. This train wrecks are awful to watch but contains many “teachable moments” at the same time for people who care to think deeper. (note: feel free to share any “teachable insights” you have in the comment)

You probably don’t know, The Jay Leno show at 10pm is quite different from his old 11:35 show. So it is not just a time change. I can’t say for others, the 10pm show is more “dumbed down” and more lame. So it is the content he was forced to put up at 10pm to fit the 10pm demographics.

Re: CBC The National

How come I am NOT surprise at CBC senior execs and Peter M.’s surprises? The execs and Peter’s total disregard of viewers’ feelings and concerns and the “we don’t give a shit” mentality are the things that antagonize us the viewers.

P.S. On a personal note. I am happy to say I am well on my path to recovery from my addiction to CBC The National.
For the last few weeks, I have been able to schedule time in the middle of The National broadcast to watch other shows and videos on the internet. There are, NOT surprisingly, many good things to watch out there.

I still watch the first few minutes of The National so I know what CBC is putting as headlines (to balance any CTV bias). If there are important or interesting news I want to know more, I will watch a few more minutes of The National. If not, I will just wait to watch the full half hour CTV News with Lloyd Robertson.

Having been addicted to The National for so many years, I am glad to say it isn’t that hard to kick the habit.

Google.cn decision (part 1)

I blogged yesterday “Google attacked and likely to exit China” and “Flowers for Google.cn“. I will try to write some more when I can find some quiet time to write. In the mean time, Jeff Jarvis has an insightful post “What Google should do” on this Google.cn decision. It is a great read. Here is one excerpt (with emphasis added),

“I know some will say that Google wasn’t doing that well in China anyway (it controls 31% of the market); they’ll ascribe cynical motives. But I say: Name one other company that finally said “enough!” and put ethic, morals, and company standards over its lust for the Chinese market. Not Yahoo. Not Cisco. Not Nokia. Not Siemens. Not The New York Times Company. Google has.“

Have a read of the Atlantic writer James Fallows’ article “The Google news: China enters its Bush-Cheney era” for some insightful analysis and discussions. After reading Jeff’s articles, I don’t know if The Economist’s “Google errs – Google’s plan to withdraw from China may be as much about poor business prospects as ethics” has much leg room to stand on. See also BBC “Chinese surprise at Google pull-out threat” (note: I am not surprised at Baidu’s responses which, in cases like this, I see as another mouthpiece for the Chinese government. Think, what can a Chinese company do? Even Google has to be clear that its Chinese employees are NOT involved in this decision!!!).

And I plan to watch Jeff’s Apr 2009 talk (YouTube) at Google’s offices in Washington later when I find some time.

Again, I will try to share more of my thoughts when I can find some quiet time to write.

One month of WIND Mobile: how is your experience?

Here is an excerpt from Kate O’Brien at Mobile Syrup “One month of WIND Mobile: how is your experience?” (emphasis added),

Today marks the 1-month (4-weeks) of having WIND Mobile active in the Canadian market. The new entrant had a number of challenges starting up and with all their enthusiasm bolted into the hearts of Canadians. When we sat down with Chairman Tony Lacavera last week he stated they have signed up over 5,000 subscribers… so by now they are probably over the 12,000 – 15,000 mark.

One of the best traits that new entrant Wind is doing well is standing by their tag line of “The Power of Conversation”.

[...] For those Wind customers who have signed up, how are you liking the everything and what is your experience like?

See my previous video interviews with WIND Mobile CEO Ken Campbell and CCO Chris Robbins at the Calgary launch on Dec 18th, 2009. Borrowing a page from Kate’s post, please share your WIND Mobile experience?

Note: I trust people are honest and only leave comments if you are a WIND customer. If you are a Bell, Telus, or Rogers employee trying to badmouth WIND, I remind what it does to your karma and the reason why your customer services are considered poor by Canadians.

Flowers for Google.cn (Goolge likely to exit China)

Jan 14: More from WSJ “Flowers for Google in China”.

***

As a result of Goolge’s decision and likely exit from China, some people decided to deliver flowers to Google.cn.

For the last few years, I have little respect for Google’s way of operating in China. Today, Google has regained a portion of my lost respect. It is probably to early to draw a conclusion. Lets see what happen in the next few days.

Google attacked and likely to exit China

Here is an excerpt from an entry posted by David Drummond, Google Chief Legal Officer on Google’s official blog (emphasis added),

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

[...] We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.“

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. [*****] We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China. [*****]

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China [k-note: I read this as a message to Chinese government, don't blame the Chinese employees] who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

An excerpt from WSJ “Google Warns of China Exit” (emphasis added),

“For Google to withdraw from China would be an extremely rare repudiation by a Western company of what is almost universally seen in business circles as one of the world’s most important markets. The country has 338 million Internet users as of June, more than any other country. Even the public suggestion that it is considering such a move is likely to infuriate Chinese authorities. Google’s statement could complicate matters for other tech companies sensitive to being seen as [****] accomplices of the Chinese government. [****]“

More reports in UK Guardian “Google sends a shockwave through Chinese internet”, TIME “Google Ends Policy of Self-Censorship in China”, Wired, CNet, ZDnet, Reuters “Chinese Internet activists applaud Google, see no backdown”, UK Guardian “Google strikes a blow to China’s Great Firewall”.

Congrats to Google for regaining its backbone in China! And I also agree with ZDnet in saying “Bravo! Google takes a stand for human rights in China”.

Dollarama is a billion dollar business

Andrew Willis has an interesting article “Bain puts on a clinic at Dollarama“,

Bain Capital is putting on a clinic in how to exit an investment, as the private equity fund begins to sell down its stake in retailer Dollarama.

Boston-based Bain and Dollarama’s management team took $250-million off the table on Monday by selling 11.65 million shares to investment banks at $21.50 each. The bought deal could be bumped up to $288-million if there is investor demand for this stock.

Companies to shape the decade: China Mobile

UK Guardian has a “Companies to shape the decade” series, the China Mobile article is an interesting one to read.

Anne Frank protector Miep Gies died at 100

From UPI,

Miep Gies, who helped shelter Anne Frank’s family from Nazis in the Netherlands during World War II, died Monday, the Anne Frank Museum said. She was 100.

[...] In a memoir published in 1987, Geis rejected the notion what she and the others did was heroic.

“I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did and more — much more — during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the heart of those of us who bear witness,” she wrote in “Anne Frank Remembered.”

See reports from BBC, CNN, and NPR.

Calgary Herald journalist Michelle Lang remembered in Vancouver

From Calgary Herald,

The father of Calgary Herald reporter Michelle Lang told over 400 mourners at her funeral service in Vancouver today that he hopes peace will returns to Afghanistan so that the death of his daughter and Canadian soldiers will not have been in vain.

Art Lang, who lives in Vancouver, said that his daughter — “our baby, our shining star” — had long been fascinated by Afghanistan because of photographs he had brought back from that country during a trip there in 1972 when the country was relatively peaceful. Art Lang said that Michelle Lang wanted to tell Canadians what was happening to the Canadian soldiers and the civilians in that country.

The grieving father added that he hoped that stability would eventually return to Afghanistan so that Canada’s mission there is “not a futile effort.”

Calgary Herald Video: Michelle Lang Funeral

CBC report with video.

*******

Goodbye Michelle.

The Professors’ Letter Against the Prorogation of Parliament

Have a read of the original letter by University of Montreal Prof. Daniel Weinstock “Against the Prorogation of Parliament” (site contains full list of 175+ cosigners (political scientists, legal scholars, and university philosophers) and the French version).

For the record, I have copied and pasted the professors’ letter and added some emphasis and comments not in the original letter.

[HT Maclean's for linking to the original full letter]

More reports from Ottawa Citizen (with full letter), CBC (with video interview with Prof. Weinstock), Maclean’s, Canada.com (include phone interview with Weinstock).

***

Against the Prorogation of Parliament

As Canadian university professors dedicated to educating students about democratic institutions, we are deeply concerned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to use his power to prorogue Parliament for a second year in a row in circumstances that allow him to evade democratic accountability. The Prime Minister is not only making cavalier use of the discretionary powers entrusted to him in our Parliamentary system, but in so doing he is undermining our system of democratic government. [k-note: "evade democratic accountability" and "undermining our system of democratic government"]

It has been noted by many observers that the Prime Minister did nothing technically wrong by requesting that Parliament be prorogued and in fixing the date for a Throne Speech after the Vancouver Olympics.

The Prime Minister does have the sole responsibility to request prorogation from the Governor-General (although the custom is to request it in person, out of respect for the office of the Queen’s representative, and that was not done in this case). But it is highly unusual – and improper – to request it in circumstances like these.

What, precisely, did the Prime Minister do wrong in proroguing Parliament?

Our parliamentary and constitutional institutions are grounded not just in explicit rules but also in the spirit of those rules.

Think of the idea of a “loyal opposition” so central to our practice of responsible government. The role of the opposition parties is to hold the government to a high standard of justification. The opposition parties can neglect their responsibilities by being servile and pliant. They can also misuse their powers for narrowly partisan purposes.

We expect them to avoid both these pitfalls. We expect them to be vigorous. And, while an element of partisanship is inevitable in democratic systems of government, we expect that it will be moderated by public-spiritedness and a shared concern for the country’s common good. If it isn’t, then the opposition has failed to do its job.

What is true of opposition parties is true in spades of the office of the Prime Minister, given the very great powers that are concentrated there in our system of responsible government. We expect that the Prime Minister will do his part to ensure that this system works, and that MPs can fulfill the role we elect them to do. Part of what that means is to exercise self-restraint, and not use the powers that he possesses to shut down the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament and the Canadian people.

The use of the ability to prorogue by the present Prime Minister clearly displays no such self-restraint. It was nakedly partisan when it was invoked to save his government from defeat in a confidence motion in December 2008, and it is nakedly partisan now, when it is being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary Committee looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament’s request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that question.

The normal way in which a government secures a break in a parliamentary session is through adjournment. That permits the institutions of government to continue. Committees can do their work. Legislation that is in the system can be picked up and advanced once the adjournment is over. In prorogation, all the business of Parliament ceases. Any laws that are in process, with the exception of private members’ bills, have to be introduced again, at the very first step of the process.

The government’s post-election legislative agenda is nowhere near having been fulfilled. The Prime Minister cannot, therefore, credibly invoke the purpose that the power to prorogue properly serves, which is to provide the government with space outside the cut and thrust of Parliamentary sessions in which to submit a new legislative agenda to Parliament.

Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the Prime Minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people. We emphasize moreover that the violation of this trust strikes at the heart of our system of government, which relies upon the use of discretionary powers for the public good rather than merely for partisan purposes. How do we make sure it serves the public good? By requiring our governments to face Parliament and justify their actions, in the face of vigorous questioning.

[*****] The Prime Minister’s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an important condition of democratic government – the ability of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the government accountable for its actions. [*****]

*****

Postscript:

Quoting Canada.com,

“Weinstock, in a telephone interview Monday, said that he had intended to simply submit the letter under his own name. But before doing that, he asked two friends to review it and they asked if they could attach their names to it. Eventually it began to circulate among academics involved in politics, philosophy and the law and now has 175 signatories.“

I want to personally thank Prof. Weinstock taking time to write the letter and other cosigners for supporting it. When Canadian democracy is under attack, it is nice to see people willing to speak up for Canada and be counted.

Harper underestimates Facebook at his own peril (by David Eaves for G&M)

David Eaves has an insightful piece entitled “Harper underestimates Facebook at his own peril” in the G&M today. I am posting it here for the record with emphasis and notes to be added when I can find some free time.

***

Harper underestimates Facebook at his own peril

“As the Prime Minister knows from last year’s anti-coalition campaign, online activism can be a powerful political tool”

by David Eaves
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published on Monday, Jan. 11, 2010 10:46AM EST

Over at the National Post, Matt Gurney recently stated that “Facebook groups are just about the dumbest way to advocate a political cause.” His comments echo those of a number of pundits and politicians who give online activism – and Facebook groups in particular – short shrift.

For a variety of reasons online activism is discounted as not being “real” politics. Well, Facebook isn’t going to remake politics, but it does matter – something the explosive growth of the 150,000 person (and rising) group Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament and the first anniversary of the anti-coalition Facebook campaign offers us a chance to reflect on. So here are three lessons on online activism for the Prime Minister, the news media and the rest of us.

1. Taking out the trash is no more

Back on Dec. 30, when Stephen Harper decided to shut down Parliament, John Ibbitson called it a record “take out the trash day .” Journalists use this expression to describe government’s nasty habit of burying stories by releasing them on Friday afternoons, ideally before a long weekend.

Such tactics worked because traditional media believed the public wouldn’t read a story that by Monday would be considered “old” (old being three days ago).

Nadia Boulanger

Found something about Nadia Boulanger (wikipedia). This is a followup to my entry on Philip Glass.

Note that Nadia taught the likes of Quincy Jones, Philip Glass, Elliott Carter, and Aaron Copland.

Michelle Lang’s funeral to be held today 2pm in Vancouver

From Calgary Herald,

VANCOUVER — A funeral service for Calgary Herald reporter Michelle Lang, killed late last year while on assignment in Afghanistan, will be held at 2 p.m. Monday in Vancouver.

Lang, 34, was killed on Dec. 30 along with four Canadian soldiers when the vehicle they were in struck a makeshift bomb buried under a muddy road south of Kandahar City. A reporter with the Calgary Herald, Lang was in Afghanistan working for Canwest News Service, and was on her first patrol with Provincial Reconstruction Team “outside the wire” when she died.

Lang was born and raised in Vancouver and her immediate family still lives in the city.

Funeral services are also being held Monday in Yarmouth, N.S., for Sgt. Kirk Taylor, 28, who died in the attack.

Cpl. Zachery McCormack, 21, Sgt. George Miok, 28 and Pte. Garret William Chidley, 21, also died in the incident.