如果不是一次矫情的心理战，互联网的大门基本上连一条缝隙都不剩了。
原文：
http://stock.sohu.com/20100113/n269544636.shtml
经济观察网 记者 韦承武 据国外媒体报道，谷歌在其官方博客上宣布，鉴于谷歌中国业务数年来遭受了诸多未经报道的攻击和监视，以及过去几年来政府试图进一步限制互联网上的言论自由，谷歌考虑关闭中国运营及网站Google.cn。
谷歌高级副总裁、公司发展和首席法律官David Drummond在谷歌官方博客上发表文章“A new approach to China”，谈及谷歌目前对于中国运营的看法及考虑。
美国谷歌周二表示，不再愿意继续对谷歌中国的搜索结果进行审查，这可能将不得不关闭google.cn站点和在中国的办公室。
早年谷歌在同意审查其搜索结果的情况下于2006年推出了中文搜索引擎Google.cn。但是其在中国的运营一直顺利，先后经历了牌照门，偷税门，搜狗门，涉黄门等一系列波折。谷歌大中华区总裁李开复也于去年宣布离职。
谷歌在当天的盘后交易中股价挫跌1.3%，报583.05美元，周二收盘报590.48美元。
以下为谷歌官方博客翻译全文：
标题：中国新路径
内文：
与其他很多著名组织一样，我们经常会碰到各种各样的网络攻击。去年12月中旬，我们检测到一次来自中国的，对我们集团网络设备高度精密和有针对性的网络攻击，在此次攻击中，谷歌公司的知识产权遭到窃取。我们很快就查清这并非只是一场单纯的安全事件。
首先，此次攻击并非仅仅针对谷歌。我们在调查中发现，至少有其他20家大型公司也成为了类似的攻击目标，这些公司所在的行业分布广泛---包括互联网、金融、科技、媒体和化工行业。我们目前正在通知这些公司，并与美国有关部门携手展开调查。
第二，我们有证据表明攻击者的主要目标是入侵中国人权活动者的Gmail邮箱账户。根据我们掌握的调查数据，我们确信他们的攻击还未能达此目的。只有两个Gmail账户有被侵入过的迹象，而入侵者的活动范围也仅限于账户信息（如账户创建时的数据）和邮件主题，而不是邮件内容。
第三，我们在对谷歌案件的调查中发现，有很多拥护人权活动，注册地在美国、中国和欧洲的Gmail邮箱账户似乎经常受到第三方侵入。入侵者并非是通过Google的安全漏洞进行攻击，而极有可能是通过在用户的电脑内植入钓鱼网页或是恶意软件来达到目的。
我们已经利用从这次攻击中所获取的资料，改善基础设施及架构，提高谷歌及我们用户的安全。从个人用户来说，我们我们建议他们在自己的电脑上安装信誉好的反病毒和反间谍软件程序，给他们的操作系统安装补丁，并更新所使用的网络浏览器。在点击即时信息和电子邮件的链接时，或要求在线提供个人密码等个人资料时，要保持警惕。在这里，你能够阅读到更多我们所提出的关于电子安全方面的建议。如果希望获得更多关于这种类型攻击情况，请阅读美国政府的这份报告（PDF）。
2006年1月，虽然我们对一些搜索结果将受到审查而感到不适，但为了加强与中国用户的联系以及建立一个更为开放的互联网环境，我们还是发布了Google.cn。从发布之日起我们就有着明确的运营思路---我们将仔细审视中国的运营环境，包括新法律的发布以及对我们所服务领域的其他规定。如果我们认为我们无法取得既定目标，我们将毫不犹豫的重新考虑我们在中国的发展策略。
这些未经报道的攻击和监视，以及过去几年来政府试图进一步限制互联网上的言论自由已使我们得出结论，我们应重新审视我们在中国的业务运营。我们已决定我们将不再继续审查Google.cn上的搜索结果，且如有可能的话，未来几周内我们将与中国政府就我们是否可以依法运营一个未经过滤的搜索引擎展开讨论。我们认识到这可能意味着我们不得不关闭Google.cn，并有可能关闭我们设在中国的办公部门。
原文：
A new approach to China
1/12/2010 03:00:00 PM
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks ofvarying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected ahighly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporateinfrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft ofintellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear thatwhat at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit asignificant one--was something quite different.
First,this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation wehave discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a widerange of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, mediaand chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently inthe process of notifying those companies, and we are also working withthe relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence tosuggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmailaccounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigationto date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Onlytwo Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity waslimited to account information (such as the date the account wascreated) 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- andEurope-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in Chinaappear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accountshave not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but mostlikely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.
Wehave already used information gained from this attack to makeinfrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security forGoogle and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advisepeople to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs ontheir computers, to install patches for their operating systems and toupdate their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on linksappearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to sharepersonal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations. People wanting to learn moreabout these kinds of attacks can read this U.S. government report (PDF), Nart Villeneuve's blog and this presentation on the GhostNet spying incident.
Wehave taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attackswith a broad audience not just because of the security and human rightsimplications of what we have unearthed, but also because thisinformation goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate aboutfreedom of speech. In the last two decades, China's economic reformprograms and its citizens' entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundredsof millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nationis at the heart of much economic progress and development in the worldtoday.
We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief thatthe benefits of increased access to information for people in China anda more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censorsome results. At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new lawsand other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we areunable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate toreconsider our approach to China."
These attacks and thesurveillance they have uncovered--combined with the attempts over thepast year to further limit free speech on the web--have led us toconclude that we should review the feasibility of our businessoperations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing tocontinue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next fewweeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis onwhich we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, ifat all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut downGoogle.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
The decision toreview our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, andwe know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. Wewant to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in theUnited States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees inChina who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success itis today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the verydifficult issues raised.
Posted by David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer
