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

Russia’s ongoing dispute with Ukraine, which to this point has brought about the annexation of Crimea, has presented Google with a controversy: a way to draw national borders in Google Maps at a time when there isn’t any 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 contours objectively,” a Google spokesperson told us in an email. “Our Maps product reflects border disputes, where applicable. Where we now 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 component of Russia to bypass conflict with authorities in Russia and to mirror what local populations need to see.

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

Geens says Google’s explanation that it follows local laws to attract local map versions is “wholly disingenuous, since it would not apply to Russia, where there isn’t a law that compels local map publishers to teach Russia’s borders in a definite way.”

Google failed to reply to a request to verify that its Crimea map variations are required by law.

Geens says that, although Google may need reason to fear legal action — specifically from a Russian law passed this year that granted the Russian Federal Mass Media Inspection Service the ideal to close down websites that support unsanctioned protest and from limits on propaganda in Russia’s Article 29 — the corporate seems to be attempting to avoid a boycott from Google users in Russia who support the annexation and to guard employees within the country.

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

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

Yuriy Gorodnichenko, associate professor of economics on the University of California at Berkeley and a local of Ukraine, criticized Google’s approach. “This policy is totally wrong,” he said in a phone interview. “We should always follow what the United Nations says. From any legal standpoint, Google is not going to do it. They ought to not identify Crimea as a 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 because the justification for redrawing borders must be viewed with skepticism. In far eastern Russia, as an example, there is a huge Chinese minority that may be at liberty to be a part of China, and that sentiment is absolutely 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 prepare the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Regarding disputed geographic data, the company’s mission appears limited to creating locally appealing versions of that information locally accessible.

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

“i will only guess on the motivation, but when it’s to avoid wasting the company’s skin amid a sudden and rapid upsurge of jingoism, then i will be able to certainly realize it,” he said. “However, i’d still expect Google to be transparent in its actions, not pretend it has legal cover for something it’s 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 becomes increasingly untenable, and that it’ll eventually must exit the Russian market much because it did China, seeing that the rustic is fundamentally incompatible with Google’s vision of Internet freedom.”

Far from fading away inside 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 mirror these updates, InformationWeek revamped its UC survey for 2014. Participate in the InformationWeek 2014 Unified Communications Survey and be eligible to win an awesome prize. Survey ends April 18.

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

More Insights