I suggest that Google are looking after their business. Google's U.S. userbase might react badly if they thought their identities and searching habits could be readily accessed by law enforcement agencies were they to use Google--instead of a competitor, So it would be bad for business to roll over on the subpoena.

In China, Google has been reportedly losing market share to Beijing-based web search business Baidu.com. Internet search users in China are predicted to increase from just over 100 million currently to 187 million in two years time. Google's site was slowed down by filters imposed by the Chinese authorities, so it is easy to see why searchers based in China might prefer to use a self-censored 'government-approved' offering.

Many people find the level of self-censorship required in order to undertake unimpeded business in China to be objectionable. However, as those responsible for the recent racially charged cartoons in Denmark have found, different standards of acceptable 'free speech' apply in different countries.

For example, if one of my articles were to irk the authorities of a country where my firm has an office, would they be required to risk jettisoning its business in that country by backing my right to 'free speech'? Would I need to resign rather than temper my rhetoric?

Leaving those questions unanswered, let me turn to some of the elements of the 'Great Firewall' and its regulatory equivalents. These realities would surely have appeared in the lengthy briefing papers that Google executives would have weighed in the balance before altering their China strategy.