I know this is a departure from my usual subject matter, but it's been bothering me all day...

I don't know...maybe it's me. I have to admit I have mixed feelings about the whole "Internet search" story last week. On the one hand, stopping child pornography is a good thing. On the other, I'm not sure I agree with obtaining info on who's searching for what.

However, despite some of the comparisons being tossed around, one thing I do believe is that there's a VAST difference between getting generic info on what search terms are yielding what results, with no data on who is searching, and paying attention to phone calls involving known terrorists. Some people are trying to make the two things similar, and I don't believe they are.

Google late last week refused to provide the data, taking the moral high ground. They were not going to compromise their standards.

Unless, of course, it involved making a lot of money.

This week comes the news that Google agreed to censor the search results that would be returned to users in China, thereby ensuring a larger share in the fastest growing Internet market.

Now, if you don't believe in compromising your standards when it comes to addressing the issues of child pornography on the internet, but it's ok when it's going to make a lot of money, I start to doubt the ferocity of your dedication. And if it's wrong to release generic data to your own government in order to curb child pornography, but it's OK to assist an oppressive Communist regime in monitoring and controlling its people, I really start to get queasy. Sound business decision, maybe. Moral high ground, not so sure.

The whole thing's just left me a bit dubious about the wisdom of putting Google on the "defender of rights" pedestal. I'm not saying that they were wrong to refuse to provide data, or wrong to try and make a profit. I'm just saying that I find the combination of the two acts leaves me wondering.