Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Redirects Traffic To Avoid Kazakh Demands

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the watch-how-you-talk-to-the-google dept.

Google 169

pbahra writes "Google has rejected attempts by the Kazakh government 'to create borders on the web' and has refused a demand to house servers in the country after an official decree that all Internet domains ending with the domain suffix for Kazakhstan be domestically based. Bill Coughran, Google senior vice president said in his blog that from now on, Google will redirect users that visit google.kz to google.com in Kazakh: 'We find ourselves in a difficult situation: creating borders on the web raises important questions for us not only about network efficiency but also about user privacy and free expression. If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we would be helping to create a fractured Internet.' Mr. Coughran said that unfortunately, it would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as results would no longer be customized for the former Soviet republic."

cancel ×

169 comments

Isn't the internet (and google) already fractured? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381466)

When I'm in spain I can only get to google.es.

Even google.us redirects me to google.es, which is pretty annoying.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381490)

No, you're just a fucking moron who doesn't understand what's going on here.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381496)

Might be the service provider doing that. And Kazakhstan's ISPs can do the same thing if they want.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (2)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381500)

try this: www.google.com/ncr

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (2)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381502)

When I'm in spain I can only get to google.es.

Even google.us redirects me to google.es, which is pretty annoying.

Just click the Go to Google English link on front page. The automatic redirection makes sense for most users because they want local language content to come up higher in the search.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381504)

http://www.google.com/ncr

kz.google.com anybody? (1)

billstewart (78916) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382052)

That would be enough to let users in the Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan get Kazakh-tuned Google results without having to comply with the government restrictions on content hosting inside their country.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (5, Insightful)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382438)

Even worse is the growing trend to assume you want Spanish language pages because your IP address is geolocated in Spain, completely disregarding the Accept-Language HTTP header. Google and Facebook are both abusing their geolocation technology in this way, and probably others as well. Just because you have the technology to do something, doesn't make it a good idea, especially when there is an already existing method of dealing with language preference which is under control of the users. Google fanboys will pop up now and say that the unwashed masses don't know how to configure their browsers, so Google is doing them a favour, but the reality is that browsers on PCs sold to the unwashed masses in Spain will default to Spanish, so the existing standards based method is at least no worse than the geolocation assumption in predicting what language the user might want, and much easier to work around especially if you want to access those services anonymously.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (2)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382880)

Even worse is the growing trend to assume you want Spanish language pages because your IP address is geolocated in Spain, completely disregarding the Accept-Language HTTP header. Google and Facebook are both abusing their geolocation technology in this way, and probably others as well. Just because you have the technology to do something, doesn't make it a good idea, especially when there is an already existing method of dealing with language preference which is under control of the users. Google fanboys will pop up now and say that the unwashed masses don't know how to configure their browsers, so Google is doing them a favour, but the reality is that browsers on PCs sold to the unwashed masses in Spain will default to Spanish, so the existing standards based method is at least no worse than the geolocation assumption in predicting what language the user might want, and much easier to work around especially if you want to access those services anonymously.

Google provides automatic redirection to the unwashed masses based on geolocation and adds a very simple way to get around it for those who don't want it. Just Google it.

Re:Isn't the internet (and google) already fractur (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382974)

GP's point was that we already have a well-defined way for browsers to specify the desired language - Accept-Language HTTP request header. This is usually easily configured by the user - e.g. in IE it's in Options->Languages. Furthermore, most browsers (at least IE and Chrome here) are automatically using the OS locale to provide a meaningful default. If I'm in Spain, but I'm running Windows with US English locale, then chances are good that I want my searches to be in English, not Spanish.

Google = fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381488)

Google = fags.

CmdrTaco and kdawson have tinier penises than a japanese toddler.

Re:Google = fags (0, Offtopic)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381598)

AMBER ALERT! AMBER ALERT! this sicko has been checking out japanese toddler penises!!!!

Re:Google = fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381608)

So only about 10 times larger than yours.

Re:Google = fags (0)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382850)

You know, I don't know who this Anonymous Coward guy is, but he says some pretty fucked up shit. And he posts a lot too. I bet he's living in his mom's basement or something, and gets off on being called the fucktard that he is on the interwebs. Why does Slashdot let Anonymous Coward always say the shit that nobody else can get away with? Huh? Why's he so special? If I could meet Anonymous Coward, I would hit him in the balls and call him gay or something.

What? (4, Insightful)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381506)

unfortunately, it would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as results would no longer be customized for the former Soviet republic

What is wrong with simply using something along the lines of http://www.google.com/kz/ [google.com] to customize results?

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381790)

Or http://www.google.borat/

Re:What? (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382876)

Funny thing about the situation is that this is exactly the kind of stupidity that might just happen in a Borat movie.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382330)

What is wrong with simply using something along the lines of http://www.google.com/kz/ [google.com] to customize results?

This is:

404. That’s an error.

The requested URL /kz/ was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382358)

Mod parent up! Research done well.

Re:What? (2, Insightful)

cshark (673578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382900)

What I'm not understanding about the original statement is why Google needs the .kz domain when they can do a Geoip and figure out where in the world you are the minute you hit Google.com. It just seems kind of silly that the domain would be necessary in the first place, for a company that continually hires the best and brightest engineers in the world. You can't tell me that I'm smarter than the entire team at Google. Simply not possible. But if it is, I'll be happy to accept a job there, and show them how to do it.

Re:What? (1)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383678)

Because it wouldn't let them punish Kazakhian internet users for their governments foolish behaviour. As a result it wouldn't allow Google to implicitly threaten any other country (due to lack of economic clout and small internet using population) where a law like this might actually have a non-negligable effect with unhappy constituents as a means of preventing them from excercising their sovereign rights and obliging Google to abide the laws outside the US.

maybe not such a bad idea (0, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381550)

just think if every nation turned the internet in to a national LAN on their own, but it can communicate to other national LANs by some sort of relay server. it might solve the IP address shortage problem making IPv6 unnecessary.

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381576)

isn't that pretty much exactly what happens now? except that countries can be called ISPs?

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (2)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381590)

Rather like fixing a cut on your finger by cutting off your arm.

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381604)

How would it solve it? How would I address a packet to someone else's lan?

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381716)

You'd just use a wider address space...oh wait I see what you did there. ;)

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381772)

You could add another octet at the f- . Oh wait.

Re:maybe not such a bad idea (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382528)

oooohhh, knee jerk reaction is hot on this topic, like it or not if enough nations want to preserve their cyber borders from foreign influence it may become a standard thing just like national borders on maps...

China has already (somewhat)

anonymous coward (-1, Offtopic)

sgrover (1167171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381580)

Sorry for this post being unrelated to the article. But I've been seeing a drastic increase in the amount of trolling under the guise of anonymous coward. Being anonymous doesn't not automatically grant anyone the right to become a stupid dick. Stuff like "Google = fags" is just idiotic to post. Free speech grants one the right to say things like this, but standard respect and decency do not. Doing so only degrades the very place you obviously enjoy. If enough of this crap goes on the site and comments become meaningless. And Troll's so obviously want that, but most of us do not. Btw, posting as "anonymous coward" does not automagically make you anonymous. Server logs can be great tools in the right hands.

Posted OFF topic so as not to feed the troll.

As for Google's choice in the article, I think they made the right choice. Allowing a government the ability to shut down dissenting sites/services THAT easily is not a good thing. And we all know that putting the servers in country would lead to exactly that type of problem.

Re:anonymous coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381634)

Being anonymous doesn't not automatically grant anyone the right to become a stupid dick.

Sweet, thanks! Google is a bunch of shit-eaters.

sgrover = fags (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381646)

sgrover = fags

That make you feel better, faggot?

Re:anonymous coward (2)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381662)

Just cruise at +1 if it bothers you so much. That's why they have that option.

sgrover = fag (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381684)

I prefer the homophobic and racist rantings of ACs to your lame attempt at remaking slashdot.

There have been trolls for as long as I have been here. It's part of what keeps me coming back. Sometimes to troll as AC...

If you don't like it please go fuck yourself.

Re:anonymous coward (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381698)

If by "Free speech" you mean the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, "free speech" does not give anyone the right to make stupid comments in a private forum. The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing laws to restrict one's right of free speech. There is no government regulation of the Slashdot forums. If Taco wishes to shut down AC postings and shut down accounts for troll posts, he is free to do so. I'm sure he will refund the Slashdot access fee you paid as well.

And while we are on the subject, the Bill of Rights did not grant anyone a right. The Bill of Rights specifically limited government intrusion into our natural rights. It is an important distinction if you stop and think about it for a second.

Re:anonymous coward (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382098)

The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech. Those using free speech to go around calling people assholes should not be surprised if someone takes offense and punches them in the face. Sure there are laws about assault but that's little comfort when you end up on the floor collecting your teeth in a bag. These toothless people then complain you are restricting their free speech by punching them but in reality they are just experiencing the consequences of their speech.

Re:anonymous coward (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382332)

The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech.

Look, if you're opposed to free speech just come out and say it. Don't hedge around with stuff about "responsibility" and "consequences". Any petty dictator can say "My people all have free speech. I expect that they will use it responsibly. If they do not, the consequences will be a bullet to the head".

Re:anonymous coward (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382910)

The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech.

Look, if you're opposed to free speech just come out and say it. Don't hedge around with stuff about "responsibility" and "consequences". Any petty dictator can say "My people all have free speech. I expect that they will use it responsibly. If they do not, the consequences will be a bullet to the head".

The government cannot restrict your freedom to say whatever you want. If you wish to exercise your right to free speech by calling me an asshole for no reason, I will exercise my right to free speech by making a physical statement with a punch to the face.

("Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom to speak." It means "Freedom to make statements" and statements aren't necessarily speech.)

Re:anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382662)

One doesn't have to worry about you punching anyone with your limp wrists. Besides, your horrendous stench would down them before you could punch them anyway.

Re:anonymous coward (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382302)

Your first paragraph should tell your second paragraph not to undermine his arguments. Or vice versa.

sgrover loves the cock. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381960)

sgrover loves the cock.

Re:anonymous coward (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382322)

Haven't you heard of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] ? Railing against it is futile, I think -- better just to mod the fuckwad to oblivion and move on with your life.

Re:anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382476)

Free speech grants one the right to say things like this, but standard respect and decency do not.

If you were really concerned about "standard respect and decency" you wouldn't be on the internet. You'd better log off and go spend the rest of the afternoon having a polite chat with all the other 70 year old church ladies, you oversensitive ninny.

Re:anonymous coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382572)

Come back when your balls drop, dickless.

Re:anonymous coward (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36383202)

Come back when your breath doesn't reek of shit.

Re:anonymous coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36383226)

>Server logs can be great tools in the right hands.

>implying you're a Slashdot administrator

>implying the Slashdot administrators will be your personal army

>implying the Slashdot administrators aren't laughing at you when they read your inane drivel

Dumb joke (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381596)

In former soviet Kazakhstan, Google configures YOU!!!

Search engining of America (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381602)

No longer make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan?

Re:Search engining of America (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381666)

Now it take longer to find picture of my sister with boobies!

Re:Search engining of America (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381676)

Mr. Coughran said that unfortunately [the demand for local servers] would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as Google has no servers capable of operating on horse urine.

Here are the actual reasons... (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381620)

'We find ourselves in a difficult situation: "..." "If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we would be helping to create a fractured Internet.' "...".

The more plausible reason follows, thus: -

"We find ourselves in a difficult situation: If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we will be backing ourselves into a corner where we could find ourselves subject to the whims of governments good and bad. Not a good move under any measure at all. We could enable governments confiscate our equipment and be subject to more blackmail.

Further, our yielding to such [outrageous] demands could mark the beginning of a torrent of similar requests from governments around the globe, disrupting our current efficient setup, which we modify/tweak without asking for any government approval.

All in all, Google will not succumb to any action and will oppose any efforts from within or without that seek to undermine the value of our shareholders.

Re:Here are the actual reasons... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381690)

In quoting, you cut out the part about questions of efficiency, then replaced it with more verbose questions about efficiency. Good job.

wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0, Troll)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381636)

'We find ourselves in a difficult situation: creating borders on the web

Like the one Google cooperated with in China. Of course, kz isn't quite so lucrative a market so it's easier not to respect local law.

raises important questions for us not only about network efficiency

The elephant in the room being the cloud, where you transfer your data half way around the world where previously a few centimetres would have been sufficient.

but also about user privacy

This one's too easy.

and free expression.

See top.

If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we would be helping to create a fractured Internet.'

Sorry? Are your servers routers now? There's nothing I'd love more than a .notUS domain which guarantees that none of my endpoints are in that horribly snoopy country - perhaps kz could increase its visibility by making the only kz requirement that a kz server isn't in the US or one of the US de facto protectorates?

Mr. Coughran said that unfortunately, it would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as results would no longer be customized for the former Soviet republic.

And this coup de grace is as fallacious as, "She deserved it, she was wearing slutty clothing." No-one's forcing you to customise results according precisely as TLD - that's your choice. If one sovereign nation chooses to have particular rules for its TLD, that is its right. You might like to own the Internet and you sure do love poking your fingers in standards which have nothing to do with you... but it's not yours yet, so fuck off with your preachy bullshit.

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381674)

kazakh gov has no 'good aspirations' in mind trust me. they just want to get to it when they need to (shut it down or alter somehow) , that's it.

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381880)

This is more honest than the US approach to seizing domains. Of course, Google's too big for that to happen to Google - watch what'd happen to you or I if we were to provide some of the sorts of data in a neatly indexed and searchable format that Google does.

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381918)

You sure act all hard for someone with a 7-digit UID starting with a fucking two, forchrissake. Kids these days.

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382406)

Like the one Google cooperated with in China. Of course, kz isn't quite so lucrative a market so it's easier not to respect local law.

Since Google is saying, "We don't want to put servers in Kazakhstan" I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they have no physical presence there and therefore have no reason to respect local law.

As for the rest of that abortion of a post: Stop. Trolling. Kazakhstan is a de-facto dictatorship, ruled by the same man for almost 30 years. Political opposition is censored and overall it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. This is nothing about Kazakstan trying to protect its citizens, it's about Kazakhstan trying to control its citizens. All your petty bitching about Google, the cloud, free expression and privacy are ridiculous in the context of this situation. Grow up and travel.

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382818)

Why do you only bitch about the US? Did America kick your puppy when you were a child or something?

Pseudonym Authority's "GREATEST HITS" (not) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382946)

sage (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383236)

Written by APK: http://slashdot.org/journal/230729/I-prefer-2 [slashdot.org]

Re:wow, what a lot of bullshit by Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36383418)

probably from the us. how am I going to bitch about another country on the other side of the world that I have never been too when my own is so fucked up. eat shit and die you apologist

There is a good Borat joke to be made here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381724)

... but I'm drawing a blank. Help me out.

Re:There is a good Borat joke to be made here... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381820)

No, there is not. Borat was a terrible movie. After watching it my only thought was, "There's two hours of my life I'm never going to get back."

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch Dungeons & Dragons ...

Re:There is a good Borat joke to be made here... (1)

pnewhook (788591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382596)

I couldn't even finish watching the trailer, let alone the entire movie.

Re:There is a good Borat joke to be made here... (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382760)

"There's two hours of my life I'm never going to get back."

As opposed to the other hours of your life that you can get back... how?

Will Google lose its google.kz domain? (4, Insightful)

tomer (313505) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381740)

If they won't fill the government demand to host google.kz inside Kazakhstan, will they lose the their google.kz domain? Because it might worth few bucks to typically host the site in a server farm located in Kazakhstan and than redirect everyone to the international site. This way, they won't lose their domain and will fill the government demands.

Re:Will Google lose its google.kz domain? (2)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383304)

Because it might worth few bucks to typically host the site in a server farm located in Kazakhstan and than redirect everyone to the international site. This way, they won't lose their domain and will fill the government demands.

That might be exactly what they're doing... a cursory DNS examination of google.kz reveals the following:

google.kz has address 212.154.168.243

212.154.168.243 reverse resolves: 243.160.154.212.in-addr.arpa PTR 212.154.160.243.adsl.online.kz.

The '212.154.168.243' IP address is listed in RIPE WHOIS with country 'KZ'

inetnum: 212.154.168.224 - 212.154.168.255
netname: KOBACKBONE
descr: JSC Kazakhtelecom, Kazakhstan Online Backbone
descr: Project Google Inc

Isn't redirecting a domain still operating it? (1)

urbanheretic (1138845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381766)

I'm confused here. Isn't changing where www.google.kz points to (i.e. redirecting it back to www.google.com) the same as operating on www.google.kz? The domain is still active, and doesn't that mean to abide by their law they would need to have a server operating domestically?

Re:Isn't redirecting a domain still operating it? (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382094)

Having a server doing redirects and nothing else would still accomplish the same ends. Google doesn't want to put servers with content there. A redirection server would technically be operating www.google.kz within their borders AND it would avoid the unreasonable demands.

Although I'm not sure changing the DNS entry really qualifies as operating but governments will see it how they want.

Re:Isn't redirecting a domain still operating it? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383484)

Having a server doing redirects and nothing else would still accomplish the same ends. Google doesn't want to put servers with content there. A redirection server would technically be operating www.google.kz within their borders AND it would avoid the unreasonable demands.

Although I'm not sure changing the DNS entry really qualifies as operating but governments will see it how they want.

I suspect you've got it exactly backwards. It seems to me that Google above all does not want to host any infrastructure (even a redirection server) in the nation of Kazakhstan because of the potential for interference.

The redirects that they speak of would likely be from google.com to google.com (localised in Kazakh -or Russian, or whatever- language) when a GEOIP lookup determines that the query is originating from within Kazakhstan. This does complicate the issue because it means they can't use their normal mechanism to segregate search result data, but it makes it a trifling bit harder for the powers-that-be in Kazakhstan to censor^H^H^H^H^H^Hglorify the Motherland via Google's search service.

Re:Isn't redirecting a domain still operating it? (1)

Lifyre (960576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383512)

You're right except his question was regarding google.kz. If google.kz disappears then it is no longer being operated and you're right. If google.kz keeps being used then it might get interesting.

Re:Isn't redirecting a domain still operating it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382324)

So they have 1 or 2 servers doing redirects in Kazakhstan. Not a big deal.

Great Success (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381788)

Please to be ignorink demands of little countries. Much good of you. Maybe we tries the China next, yes?

Who are we fooling here? (1)

SirAstral (1349985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381832)

Google is a business, right now only a little country is asking for it,next it will US, Russia, China, UK, or somebody else. Hell someone (even google) probably already has done it but just hasn't told anyone.

Until a business is willing to put it's employees and profit on the line we all know that businesses are just going to dance. After all, they are only there to make money and bribe elected officials to create a bunch of back doors. Think of it like this... would you rather keep your job or would you rather stand up for what you believe in? Most people would rather keep their job.

Also, what Google is not telling everyone is that at a fundamental level they would prefer to slice it up just as Kazakh is wanting, they are just playing farce opposition to it to see what peeps think. Think of the opportunities and control that could be had even by Google with government sanctioned monitoring of everyone's traffic! All in the name of making sure that the right packet travels the right path!

Yea buddy!

Re:Who are we fooling here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382482)

You're completely clueless about Google and its employees, and it shows.

Re:Who are we fooling here? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382740)

It seems a reasonable and logical request. The country has a domain as a resource and is seeking to use that resource to benefit it's people. What do they lose if you refuse basically that nothing annual domain name payment.

Now what do they gain if you say yes. A office that provides employment a server farm that uses resources and provides expertise as well as further employment. Is that fair, well google is sucking income out of the country so it seems pretty reasonable.

Personally I think google is being rather petty but it really depends upon what demands are made by the Kazakhstan when it comes to running a server, search engine, email etc. Personally I don't see any problem with all countries demanding that country specific domains be server in their country, don't like it don't use the country specific domain, use the international one.

Re:Who are we fooling here? (1)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383726)

I actually agree with you on governments having the right to control their own TLD and leverage that towards employment but lets be honest that this is not why Kazakhstan has made this law. Nazarbayev the (first and only) president, commander of the armed forces, and head of the political party which controls the 'democratic' legislature is a dictator in all but name. The reasoning for this law is to place Google's data where it is physically vulnerable to being seized, blackmail, or some similar tactic. The government there is interested solely in suppressing opposition and increasing personal wealth and power rather than high minded concepts like ensuring their populace has jobs except insomuch as it impacts their real interests.

Double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36381868)

They give into China's demands on all of this but act this way to Borat's country. It's a fucking double standard and shows that they only listen to the powerful countries and shit on the shit hole countries.

Re:Double standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382298)

They did the exact same thing in China for a while.
"On March 23, 2010 at 3 am Hong Kong Time (UTC+8), Google started to redirect all search queries from Google.cn to Google.com.hk. (Google Hong Kong), thereby bypassing Chinese regulators and allowing uncensored Simplified Chinese search results."
"On June 30, 2010, Google ended the automatic redirect of Google China to Google Hong Kong, and instead placed a link to Google Hong Kong to avoid getting their Internet Content Provider (ICP) license revoked."
[source] [wikipedia.org]

Relevant to .mobi TLD also (4, Funny)

joshtimmons (241649) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381878)

I've been meaning to suggest that all websites with a .mobi TLD should be hosted on mobile devices.

Consistency is key.

Re:Relevant to .mobi TLD also (1)

anti-NAT (709310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382048)

+1. I think 2012 will be the year of the "mobile cloud", because everything's better when mobile.

Re:Relevant to .mobi TLD also (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382864)

This raises interesting questions about the .cat TLD.

Reason for the request (1)

RelliK (4466) | more than 3 years ago | (#36381902)

Glorious nation of Kazakhstan has the best internets.

All other countries have inferior internets.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned it yet... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382008)

goatse.kz!

Re:I can't believe nobody has mentioned it yet... (1)

petman (619526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382786)

Bring it on!

There's real precedent for Kazakhstan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382064)

The Netherlands Antilles ( .an TLD) required domain registrants to have a "local presence".

None of this makes any sense (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382194)

If the KZ government wants certain conditions for hosts whose names are in the .kz domain, this isn't somethiing Google can work around with redirects. It's KZ's namespace and if they don't like google.kz redirecting to get around their law's intent, then Google won't have google.kz to redirect from for very long.

OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a .kz domain.

Both sides simultaneously win and lose, to no effect. So: who cares?

Re:None of this makes any sense (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382778)

OTOH there isn't any reason at all, that Google should give a rat's ass. If they want to market to KZ citizens, they don't need a .kz domain.

I agree. I think it is well within a country's rights to demand that hosts carrying the country's TLD be within that country. In fact, I think it is a good thing to know where the server is. That does nothing to "fragment the net". You don't need a .kz domain name to be reachable from .kz land --

Until the KZ government decides to pull the connections to the outside world. But then, anyone with a .kz domain who ISN'T inside the borders won't be reachable from inside anyway. It won't matter what domain you are in if you aren't inside the country. That's the only time the net starts to fragment. Simply requiring a physical presence to get a .kz domain name, however, doesn't.

What would be significant and objectionable is if KZ decided you MUST have a .kz name for any server located inside the KZ routers. But I'm not even sure how significant that would be.

Re:None of this makes any sense (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383552)

Why is it that Google isn't happy with one domain name, google.com? why on earth do they have any reason to have a domain name with every single extension available anyway?
Most people, no matter what country they are in, type google.com anyway, they only end up on their local one because google re-directs them there.

Google refuses to host servers in that country stating that it will fracture the internet, but they themselves are already causing that fracture by forcing people all over the world in to their own country's TLD instead of the .com that they actually type in their browser. Google are being a bit hypocritical here I think.

Really? (1)

tom229 (1640685) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382318)

Really? Not a single Borat joke yet?

Fuck Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382656)

Fuck Google.

Not News (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382696)

This is not news. SO many countries require a domestic presence to user their TLD.

Re:Not News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382920)

Presence is not the same thing as having the DC there. Google's resources are spread all over the world. Their demands are ridiculous. It'd mean that Google would need to replicate all it's services and data inside the borders in case they decided to wall themselves off. What about redundancy? What about the cost of building a DC there, power costs, generator costs, laying down fiber...

What if each EU country required that every Nissan car purchased in that country was also produced in that country. Then see how Nissan likes being forced to build factories in locations that aren't optimal.

Re:Not News (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383766)

Perhaps you're joking...but the whole article sounds like it's April 1 come early (or late, depending on which way you age). Domain names are assigned by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). If you pay them your money, you get to use the domain name, and there's no laws I know of that say you can't set up your server wherever you want. The mucky muck of Kazakhstan might own Kazakhstan, but he doesn't own the "google.kz" domain name...presumably, Google does. Because, presumably, Google got to ICANN first with their $20 to pay for "google.kz". What's he going to do if Google refuses to put up a Kazakh server? Hold his breath until he explodes? Pound his shoe on the table?

Yeah, I agree it's not much of a news story...the only thing interesting about it is that it sounds as though Google runs the internet, and is responsible for dealing with the bruised egos of all the world's governments...oh wait...

Many other countries do this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36382724)

All .us domains have the legal restriction that not only the web servers, but the DNS servers too, have to be in the USA. I'm sure there are tons of countries with that same restriction, why is it bad when Kazakh does it?

Re:Many other countries do this (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#36382996)

Because it would take more mules than the country has to power a single Google search farm (and no other sources of power are available)? ~

Re:Many other countries do this (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383074)

All .us domains have the legal restriction that not only the web servers, but the DNS servers too, have to be in the USA.

The contract with NeuStar appears to specify such a requirement, when it says "In addition to the current policy set forth in RFC 1480 requiring that usTLD domain name registrations be hosted on computers located within the United States...".

However, unless I missed it, RFC 1480 contains no such requirement. It's not even normative. The closest it comes is "Any computer in the United States may be registered in the US Domain."

Neither NeuStar nor the registrars mention such a requirement.

Legal vs Technical Issues (4, Interesting)

codegen (103601) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383140)

Location of the server is becoming more and more of an issue, and most of us techies seem to consider the technical while downplaying the legal. One perfect example is outsourcing of email and other "cloud" services. Google, as well as other companies, will gladly take over you email domain and provide you with email service. Several Canadian Universities have considered this. However, student information in Canada is considered private information, and some provinces (i.e. states) such as Ontario have even stronger restrictions (We can't even admit that someone is a student without written permission). Moving email to a server that is outside of Canadian legal jurisdiction would be a legal accident waiting to happen, especially given the National Security Letters in the US PATRIOT Act. I know of professors that use services like DropBox without ever considering the legal ramifications.

Re:Legal vs Technical Issues (1)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383752)

Personally I really wish there was a way to ensure routing so that my traffic would never enter or be processed by a particular jurisdiction to avoid legal problems and illegal (but commonplace) monitoring.

I would happily accept the potential for greater latency to keep anything that does not have an end destination in the US from passing through that country. The madcap laws and privacy invasions don't even recognize the token acknowledgement of the constitution that citizens get for us foreigners and I'd feel much better not being hostage to the American governments descent into totalistarianism.

High Five! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36383292)

This Kazakh Technology Minister, Nursultan Tuleiakbay. He is pain in the Google assholes. They get a server with a .kz domain, he must get a server with a .kz domain. They get a redirect, he must get a redirect. They get search engine that works like young wife plow field - he cannot afford! Great success!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...