Government // Open Government
News
4/15/2014
05:26 PM
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
Google+
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Google Maps Shows Crimea As Russian To Russians

Google makes Crimea part of Russia on the Russian version of Google Maps and draws protests and scrutiny.

Twitter Revamp: 10 Things To Know
Twitter Revamp: 10 Things To Know
(Click image for larger view and slideshow.)

Russia's ongoing dispute with Ukraine, which so far has led to the annexation of Crimea, has presented Google with a problem: how to draw national borders in Google Maps at a time when there's no consensus.

Google claims that it draws its maps fairly and adjusts local versions as required by local laws. "Google Maps makes every effort to depict disputed regions and features objectively," a Google spokesperson told us in an email. "Our Maps product reflects border disputes, where applicable. Where we have local versions, we follow local regulations for naming and borders."

But Äventyret founder Stefan Geens, who has followed Google's mapping services for years through his blog Ogle Earth, took issue Tuesday with the malleability of borders on Google Maps. He argues that Google has created a version of Google Maps that depicts Crimea as part of Russia to avoid conflict with authorities in Russia and to reflect what local populations want to see.

At the moment, the international version of Google Maps shows the border between Russia and the Crimean region of Ukraine as a dotted line, which means disputed territory. The Ukrainian version of Google Maps shows Crimea as part of Ukraine. And the Russian version of Google Maps shows Crimea as part of Russia.

Crimea.(Source: Wikipedia)
Crimea.
(Source: Wikipedia)

Geens says Google's explanation that it follows local laws to draw local map versions is "wholly disingenuous, because it does not apply to Russia, where there is no law that compels local map publishers to show Russia's borders in a certain way."

Google did not respond to a request to confirm that its Crimea map variations are required by law.

Geens says that, even though Google might have reason to fear legal action -- specifically from a Russian law passed this year that granted the Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection Service the right to shut down websites that support unsanctioned protest and from limits on propaganda in Russia's Article 29 -- the company appears to be trying to avoid a boycott from Google users in Russia who support the annexation and to protect employees in the country.

[Read how hackers reacted to Crimea events: DDoS Attacks Hit NATO, Ukrainian Media Outlets.]

To support his view that Google is acting on expediency, rather than legal coercion, Geens observes that Google Maps in Ukraine also differs from the international version in ways that reflect popular Ukrainian sentiment.

Yuriy Gorodnichenko, associate professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and a native of Ukraine, criticized Google's approach. "This policy is completely wrong," he said in a phone interview. "We should follow what the United Nations says. From any legal standpoint, Google should not do it. They should not identify Crimea as part of Russia."

Last month, the UN condemned Russia's annexation of Crimea and adopted a resolution supporting the territorial integrity of the region.

Gorodnichenko said that citing popular support as the justification for redrawing borders should be viewed with skepticism. In far eastern Russia, for example, there's a huge Chinese minority that would be happy to be part of China, and that sentiment is not reflected on Google Maps. He also said that the integrity of referendum held in Crimea to measure popular support for joining Russia was dubious.

Google says its mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Regarding disputed geographic data, the company's mission appears limited to making locally appealing versions of that information locally accessible.

Geens said in an email that he wanted to document how Google for the first time has created a local version of a map that deviates from its international map for nonlegal reasons.

"I can only guess at the motivation, but if it is to save the company's skin amid a sudden and rapid upsurge of jingoism, then I can certainly understand it," he said. "However, I would still expect Google to be transparent in its actions, not pretend it has legal cover for something it has been merely cowed into doing by threats of a boycott."

Geens expects that if the conflict drags on and Russia moves to annex the eastern third of Ukraine, "Google's situation will become increasingly untenable, and that it will eventually need to exit the Russian market much as it did China, on the grounds that the country is fundamentally incompatible with Google's vision of Internet freedom."

Far from fading away in the face of consumer-class competition from Google, Skype, LinkedIn, and others, unified communications is enjoying new relevance in enterprises -- there's even an SDN connector for UC. To reflect these updates, InformationWeek revamped its UC survey for 2014. Take part in the InformationWeek 2014 Unified Communications Survey and be eligible to win a great prize. Survey ends April 18.

Thomas Claburn has been writing about business and technology since 1996, for publications such as New Architect, PC Computing, InformationWeek, Salon, Wired, and Ziff Davis Smart Business. Before that, he worked in film and television, having earned a not particularly useful ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Alison_Diana
100%
0%
Alison_Diana,
User Rank: Author
4/18/2014 | 4:28:33 PM
Re: Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection?
If I ran Google, I wouldn't have been so quick to make this change if, indeed, a change was warranted yet. It seems to have been an act to appease Russia, a much bigger market than Ukraine (with or without Crimea). As we know, the winners write history -- and in this case the "winners" have successfully lobbied to change geography. 
cumulonimbus
50%
50%
cumulonimbus,
User Rank: Strategist
4/18/2014 | 3:39:52 PM
Re: Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection?

I intensely dislike what I see going on in the UK: Bedroom tax, suss laws, and an unrepresentative ruling class. I am curious though, why it should be Google that censors, and if we allow that to happen (we all oil the wheels of the machine), when do we wake up to a knock at the door or the black, antennaed van across the street?

I am not talking NRA or NSA here, just scope creep. If we want to be the ones to have military bases in 157(?) countries do we not need to to be beyond reproach, especially when it comes to such a core value as freedom of speech? I say let us be the ones to present the facts on a best efforts basis, and let the foreign governments do the censorship. People will always find a way to seek the truth, and the free world will ultimately prevail. Being censored (for political reasons) is not a doctrine I believe we should support.

I am sure the execs did have a discussion about many such topics, and that they are being cajoled by foreign "information" bureaus. I am just not on the same page (pun intended).

Alison_Diana
50%
50%
Alison_Diana,
User Rank: Author
4/18/2014 | 9:24:43 AM
Re: Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection?
It is a tricky area and Google (as well as other businesses) will be scrutinized and, as someone else said earlier, condemned no matter which path they choose. Really, I suppose it's up to Ukranians to decide, not us or an American tech company. But since Google is in the information business they need to include the most current data. No doubt Google execs spent a lot of time in making this decision, one they may have to revisit as the situation warrants. 
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
4/18/2014 | 8:35:10 AM
Re: Ethics of tech use can't be left to technology companies
I'm curious, what were Google's options in China?  As far as I now Google does not have a standing army and if they want to do any kind of business in China then they have to obey the Chinese government's rules.  Not everyone shares our view of what the internet should look like.  Even the UK is filtering traffic by default now.  I think we need to be careful when comparing Google's negotiating power to any country's government negotiating power.
cumulonimbus
50%
50%
cumulonimbus,
User Rank: Strategist
4/17/2014 | 2:39:58 PM
Re: Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection?
@Alison_Diana. I do not think it is just about Google, but they are a conduit for free speech, as are the other social medias outlets. The US is a relatively young country and got to learn from many of the mistakes the Old World made. In this respect Putin was wrong (at best he is contrdictary, or outright lying).

I understand that business ethics do not always align with the moral view, but I believe that if we do not collectively approach free speech responsibly, and without censorship, we jeapordize everything that the free world stands for.

I am obliged to speak for 100M souls on both sides, who lost their lives in two world wars. Were it not for their sacrifice I would probably not be here. History has shown what appeasement of a madman, who has a defamed populous rallying behiund him, can do.
Alison_Diana
100%
0%
Alison_Diana,
User Rank: Author
4/17/2014 | 9:28:09 AM
Re: Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection?
I totally agree with you, @cumulonimbus. The whole situation in Crimea -- all of Ukraine for that matter -- reminds me of the situation in Czechoslovakia when I was a little girl. My dad, a ham radio operator, was chatting via Morse code with a Czech as the Russian tanks rumbled into Prague. The Czech frantically transmitted news of the invasion, calling out to the world for help while Dad replied, helpless from our home in England. Suddenly, the Czech's radio broadcasts stopped, mid-transmission. It was one of the very few times I saw my father cry.
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
4/17/2014 | 9:01:03 AM
Re: Ethics of tech use can't be left to technology companies
I gotta agree with SaneIT here. Google isn't the UN. It's not in the business of making calls on national sovereignty. It seems to be handling the matter about as well as it can. 
SaneIT
50%
50%
SaneIT,
User Rank: Ninja
4/17/2014 | 7:35:20 AM
Re: Ethics of tech use can't be left to technology companies
I understand that these "votes" are not what we might expect them to be or that they are anywhere near the dictionary definition of a vote but my point was that Google is not the UN or any kind of world governing body.  They don't have the authority to decide either way if a region has changed hands or not.  The best they can do is give a best guess with regard to how the future is going to turn out in a situation like this.  If they move too slowly to recognize that Crimea has left Ukraine then you've got a lot of angry Russians who are going to be out to prove a point.  If they go ahead and mark it as an independent region you've got angry/scared Ukrainians who are ready to fight.  It's not an easy issue for Google and I think a bit too much responsibility for this issue is being placed on their shoulders.
Gary_EL
50%
50%
Gary_EL,
User Rank: Ninja
4/16/2014 | 10:30:28 PM
Re: Ethics of tech use can't be left to technology companies
Google caved in to China, so who would expect them to stand up to Russia?
Edelwulf
100%
0%
Edelwulf,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/16/2014 | 7:26:41 PM
Re: Ethics of tech use can't be left to technology companies
Thanks for mentioning voter fraud -- USA-- 2012 and 2008. Again, move on.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Government Oct. 20, 2014
Energy and weather agencies are busting long-held barriers to analyzing big data. Can the feds now get other government agencies into the movement?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
A roundup of the top stories and trends on InformationWeek.com
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.