https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9097-2246
1. The long tug of war between these two respective giants is finally coming to an end...and the end means the end of GOOGLING in china.The fact that any person can choose to access anything at any time, and usually at no cost is too uncomfortable an idea for the Chinese thinking tank and they have been busy implementing moves and measures to constrain people's access to the internet for about last two years that i have read across in various articles and snips.
2. I can see the smile on the Bing's face now....no Googling means more chance of a Binging and likely revival of few earlier search engines...remember AltaVista generation about 10 years back.
3. Now China's logic behind this!!!!!we all know when we google what happens...i had given on post at http://anupriti.blogspot.com/2009/12/google-binged-my-100th-post.html .This reason is valid though.Extract produced from Google's blog at http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html is reproduced below :
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
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.
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.
4. Who's is correct then? It is just a matter of perspective and convenience of the mind.
