In the Chinese case, Google senior policy counsel for Google, Andrew McLaughlin, said, "Google.cn will comply with local Chinese laws and regulations. In deciding how best to approach the Chinese--or any--market, we must balance our commitments to satisfy the interest of users, expand access to information, and respond to local conditions."

The decision was slammed by Reporters Without Borders which noted that "Google is making it easier for Chinese officials to filter the Internet themselves." Similar organizations have previously criticized Google for censoring its news aggregator, omitting stories contradictory to the party.

Across the Pacific, the search engine giant has rejected requests by the American government to hand over a week's worth of search enquiries, a number that could feasibly total over one billion searches. The US government seeks the information in an attempt to uphold the disputed Child Online Protection Act that would impose fines on websites that post material considered not suitable for those under 18 years of age.

Google claims that succumbing to such a subpoena would jeopardize it's trade secrets and provide the government personal information about its users.

But Forbes magazine suggests that Google may not want to arm the government with information that would lead to the constitutional acceptance of the Child Online Protection Act due to the huge amount of online pornography users. Nielsen/NetRatings has released figures that show that in December alone, 38 million unique visitors browsed porn sites, a quarter of all Internet users. Outlawing these sites would lead to huge revenue loss for Google and other search engines which earn money from search-based advertising.    

Still, other major companies with search engines, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online, have complied with the subpoena, possibly because they are not as dependent on search-based advertising as Google is.  

The case with the United States government has caused many Americans to think twice about what they search for, according to an article in the New York Times. They are concerned that the government could possibly use their search habits against them.   

Sources: CNet, International Herald Tribune, Forbes, New York Times