Yahoo Helps Jail Chinese Writer

An anonymous reader writes "Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of journalist Shi Tao for "divulging state secrets". "

Comments

Reporters without borders!

[[ella]]

Was also poster earlier on Reporters sans Frontiere

Is this the new definition of

[ackthpt]

Is this the new definition of Yahooligans?

Tune in, turn in, drop out of sight...

Let's invade

[silasthehobbit]

Why not, the Chinese have more human rights violations than Iraq ever did. Less oil though...

Re:Let's invade

[ackthpt]

Why not, the Chinese have more human rights violations than Iraq ever did. Less oil though...

Yeah, but they have something else we all can't live without, eh? Most consumer electronics, computers, tools, clothing, etc. There's even a China Motors in Capitola, CA and though I haven't dropped in to see what they're selling, I bet it's a chinese brand of car.

Re:Let's invade

[OakDragon]

There's even a China Motors in Capitola, CA and though I haven't dropped in to see what they're selling, I bet it's a chinese brand of car.

Soon to be available at a WalMart near you!

Re:Let's invade

[Kainaw]

Why not, the Chinese have more human rights violations than Iraq ever did. Less oil though...

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao. So, by your reasoning, a government is responsible for any and all actions of the governments that ruled the land before them. So, our current government is at this time responsible to segregation. It is at this time responsible for refusing to allow blacks and women to vote. It is currently responsible for slavery. It is currently responsible for the mass genocide of the Native Americans. I don't think I really like your idea of judging current governments by the actions of previous ones.

Re:Let's invade

[silasthehobbit]

More reason to invade then. Seriously, if it weren't for the fact that the US seems oddly keen on pacifying them, wouldn't they be *exactly* the kind of country you'd expect them to invade? -- silas

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware how large the chinese army is?

Re:Let's invade

[silasthehobbit]

No, I'm referring to the human rights violations under the current regime: http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/nasia/china/ and you really shouldn't presume what I thought in the first place and then extrapolate from there and then decide you don't like what you come up with. You're an idiot

Re:Let's invade

[mrchaotica]

You wouldn't happen to be a member of the NAACP, would you?

Re:Let's invade

[someone1234]

Let me remind you, the USA didn't win the war in Iraq yet. China holds the 1/4 of population of Earth and got some nukes as well. So, it is slightly tougher to stomp down.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I think that the current plethora of human rights violations and suppressions are more than enough for China to bear (or, as it were, encourage ... actively participate in, you get the drift)

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

1) China has an army of around 200 million along with nukes.
2) It would trigger a world war.
3) It is safe to extrapolate you were talking about a US invasion (what the hell is wrong with non-US citizens? that is crazy!)

Re:Let's invade

[Jack9]

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao.

No you don't. Your point is misguided, as your lack of interest and/or knowledge regarding China's current human rights violations is grossly lacking.

Here is what the US State Department has to say about China's MODERN record:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m/

Oh and many ppl will be interested in a little ditty about the USA FROM CHINA:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html/

If you would like an independent assessment, well... independent human rights monitoring organizations did not exist in China in 2002, so all relevant information after 1989, should be considered questionable/incomplete, at best. Good luck getting anything impartial regarding the last couple years. The great firewall has been particularly effective; no thanks to Yahoo.

Re:Let's invade

[Kainaw]

No, I'm referring to the human rights violations under the current regime

I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did. The current Chinese regime doesn't force a single political party in all government positions, as the Iraqi regime did. The current Chinese regime does not murder anyone who questions government authority, as the Iraqi regime did. Of course, you can get your statistics from a website that considers censorship of a single website the same as the mass murder of an entire township. I personally feel that one is a little worse than the other.

Re:Let's invade

[TheRaven64]

Wow. Two links and neither work. Try these two:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m

http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html

Re:Let's invade

[Kainaw]

Here is what the US State Department has to say about China's MODERN record:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m/

Lemme see... Page Not Available. Ooooh - China is so evil that they've deleted the page!

Oh and many ppl will be interested in a little ditty about the USA FROM CHINA:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html/

Lemme see... Page Not Found. Damn Chinese! They're deleting the entire web!!!

Your point is misguided, as your lack of interest and/or knowledge regarding China's current human rights violations is grossly lacking.

My point is based on over 10 years of studying the Chinese government and society. I have never claimed that China has a great human rights record. I simply do not believe that Iraq was a hell of a lot better.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

The both worked fine, if you removed the slashes. Your addition to the discussion is criticism plus fixed links? You're quite the master debater.

Re:Let's invade

[Overly Critical Guy]

China didn't violate a UN treaty over ten times that specifically stated we could use force.

Re:Let's invade

[LizardKing]

I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did.

Depends on how narrowly you define murder, but the current Chinese regime has taken decisions that have killed hundreds of thousands. The flooding caused by ill advised dam projects, lack of even basic safety standards in major industries (particularily mining) and the low standard of healthcare despite a vast budget for military expenditure are examples of that.

As for not killing dissenters, they are sometimes killed, but the closed trials make it difficult to assess what they are charged with and how convincing the evidence is. Other dissenters are sent to labour camps, and some suffer the old Stalinist favourite of incarceration in mental hospitals - because you'd have to be mad to not want to live under a benevelent Communist party wouldn't you?

Re:Let's invade

[silasthehobbit]

Really? The Chinese government did none of those things? I must have missed the apologists meeting when that position was put forward. May I suggest you read this http://hrw.org/wr2k3/asia4.html ? This is what is coming out of the country, from the people on the ground the situation is far, far worse. People are being murdered for having views the government don't like, and voters who vote for anyone other than the official party representative for local positions are also facing similar attacks on their liberty.

Re:Let's invade

[MaskedSlacker]

You're an idiot. China has ICBMs. And would use them.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

To be a little more accurate, the US definitely won the first phase of the Iraq war. On the other hand, planning for an occupation of Iraq is completely different than winning an invasion.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

But another neocon war apologist told me the UN is a corrupt and irrelevant body!

Human rights violations are addressed by UN treaties and conventions to which China is a signatory. Conventions and treaties that they have routinely flouted privately while feigning appeasement in the diplomatic arena.

Nice try, though.

Re:Let's invade

[homebrewmike]

Bigger picture, they have cheap, exploitable labor. You can't treat people like that here, but we gladly do it by proxy to the citizens in China.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1207 349.stm

Bah, I'm getting too negative. I guess exploiting kids is a (evangelistic) Christian value, otherwise we would have invaded China.

Re:Let's invade

[ArghBlarg]

... low standard of healthcare despite a vast budget for military expenditure are examples of that.

Funny, sounds like the USA to me as well as China. :-p

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

It is currently responsible for the mass genocide of the Native Americans.

*cough* *cough*

First of all, mass genocide of Native American's never happened.

Aproximatly 70k Native American's have died in war in this countries past. Most of these were due to the wars between the british and french or the americans and european powers when the indians were allied with one side or the other.

Many other ones that died were as a result of the government retaliating against agressive tribes that attacked other indian tribes.

There is some ugly history in there too... the the trail of tears, but nothing at all even close to resembling "mass genocide".

You clearly sound like someone who has been mislead by the current chinese regime. You should do some research on the internet, but then again don't believe everything you read.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Also maybe because you owe the Chinese a ton of money?

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

They also have more reserve officers than the US has in both active and reserve military combined.

Re:Let's invade

[Stephen Samuel]

I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did.

I've got to assume that you're talking about the current US Military regime, since you're trying to focus this on current regimes, not old regimes -- it's also accurate. Thousands of innocent civilians have died as a result of military action in Iraq since the US took over. "For their protection".

This goes along with torture and murder in the prisons (with the government claiming irresponsibility), skirting (if not outright violation) of the Geneva convention, .... etc. etc. etc.

Re:Let's invade

[Skreems]

You, sir, are an idiot.

Columbus wiped out about 8 million Haitians on his second voyage alone, not to mention the millions of Natives that died in the 300 years following.

Re:Let's invade

[Fujisawa Sensei]

the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens

You mean like thay didn't in Tiananmen Square

Sure people have retired and died since Mao, a few policies have changed. But the Chinese govt. remains a totalitarian dictatorship, and you better believe that they're as willing to gun down their own people today as they were 16 years ago. Possibly even more so, what are we going to do? Cut our own throat by cutting of our supply of cheap good and separating companies from divisions they outsourced to China?

Re:Let's invade

[m50d]

Depends on how narrowly you define murder, but the current Chinese regime has taken decisions that have killed hundreds of thousands. The flooding caused by ill advised dam projects, lack of even basic safety standards in major industries (particularily mining) and the low standard of healthcare despite a vast budget for military expenditure are examples of that.

How does that compare to a country that diverted money away from flood defences to the military, leading to thousands of deaths, and doesn't have a national health service despite having the largest economy and greatest military spending in the world?

Re:Let's invade

[siriuskao]

less oil but real WMD.

Re:Let's invade

[Riddlefox]

The US spent approximately 15% of its GDP on healthcare in 2003, and about 3% on military spending in 2003.

Healthcare:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/costgrowth/

Military:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative- size.php

Re:Let's invade

[PreviouslySeen]

Wow, I didnt realize that he lived that long!!

Guess you would have to live a long time to kill that many people alone.

Re:Let's invade

[hey!]

How does that compare to a country that diverted money away from flood defences to the military, leading to thousands of deaths, and doesn't have a national health service despite having the largest economy and greatest military spending in the world?

Well, it compares to it in the same way malice compares to gross negligence.

Re:Let's invade

[orgelspieler]

The statistics in the Chinese article are questionable. According to the latest census, it appears that the mean income of whites is under $73,000 and of blacks just under $46k. That is far from a 15-fold difference as quoted in the article. I also noticed that it said there were 16.5 homocides in 2003. That is exactly what the FBI reported, and it's improtant to note that it's at its lowest value (per capita) in the last 20 years. So it's not like they're all bogus in that article, but just take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Let's invade

[Overly Critical Guy]

I'm not a "neocon war apologist." When someone starts insulting you instead of addressing your points, you've already won. I didn't vote for Bush.

You're just mad you can't argue around the fact that there was a specific treaty Iraq violated for over a decade that was worded to give us the right to use force.

Re:Let's invade

[rob.wolfe]

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao

You might want to look at their current practices a little closer.

Re:Let's invade

[bjheu]

What does oil have to do with this? Why were we paying an average of $2.60 per gallon and CLIMBING, BEFORE Katrina. Obviously we were stealing iraqi oil and still price gouging to cover up for it.

Re:Let's invade

[hey!]

I have to assume you are referring to human rights violations under Mao. So, by your reasoning, a government is responsible for any and all actions of the governments that ruled the land before them.

This stikes me as a sloppy comparison. First of all, in the case of US segregation, segregation laws were local, then subsequently overturned at the Federal level, so the Federal government has never been in any way responsible for segregation. Second, the government in China is the same government under Mao: so far as I know there haven't been any elections or revolutions. The senior officials of the regime, almost certainly started their careers serving under Mao.

With respect to where China communists and Iraq under the Baathist regimes stand with respect to each other on the scale of villainy, I've never seen to much point in such comparisons. Suffice to say they're both ruthless, corrupt regimes that exploit the people of the aggrandizement of a few party memebers. Circumstances of history and ethnology make it hard to be precise in such comparisons. In China, the Han ethnicity dominates both the country and the government. In Iraq, a Sunni Arab minority sat between hostile Shiites to the south and Kurds to the north. This means the Baathist hold on Iraq was always inherently unstable.

Where there is no accountability so long as you can manage to hang on to power, then atrocities are a natural response to losing power.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, I'm referring to the human rights violations under the current regime"

Sorry for the AC posting, my work computer is uncooperative.

When did this tendancy to call governments we don't like "regimes" start? It's starting to give the word connotations it doesn't actually have.

Re:Let's invade

[mhearne]

It's all very simple. The Chinese are using *capitalism* to fund *communism*.

In other words, the people of China don't enjoy the benefits of capitalism, but capitalism supplies the money in their pockets. Theoretically, no one is getting rich over there.

Does this mean that communism could not exist without being funded by capitalism? No, but without capitalism, the communist Chinese would probably be strictly agrarian.

As far as human rights are concerned, the Chinese just don't think like westerners, censorship is neccessary to preserve stability. I do think they would be better off if they became more progressive, like Japan and South Korea.

Michael

Re:Let's invade

[ichigo 2.0]

So which is which? :P

Re:Let's invade

[ichigo 2.0]

I guess you have never heard of WMD's or biological weapons? European diseases were quite effective at killing native americans. ;)
And to the GP, I guess you think Columbus was one of the founding fathers? :P

Re:Let's invade

[lionheart1327]

Wait are you talking about China or the US?

Re:Let's invade

[PreviouslySeen]

"I guess you have never heard of WMD's or biological weapons?"

darn, I forgot my sarcasm tags.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

But those murders were poor people, principally African American. They don't count...

Mod me down for flamebait

Mod me up for sarcasm

Re:Let's invade

[PhoenixPath]

"A sentinal^H^H^H^H^H^H^Holdier for every man, woman, and child in Zion^H^H^H^Hthe world. That sounds exactly like the thinking of a chinaman to me." Or something like that...

Re:Let's invade

[venril]

How does that compare to a country that diverted money away from flood defences to the military, leading to thousands of deaths, and doesn't have a national health service despite having the largest economy and greatest military spending in the world?

To answer your question; the US (I assume your uhm, clever, rejoinder was describing the US) compares quite favorably to the PRC, thanks very much.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

"I also noticed that it said there were 16.5 homocides in 2003." ...We killed sixteen and a half homos?

Re:Let's invade

[m50d]

To answer your question; the US (I assume your uhm, clever, rejoinder was describing the US) compares quite favorably to the PRC, thanks very much.

True. But his argument would seem to make them the same. You can't call making bad governing decisions, even when they lead to loss of life, the same as murdering your own people.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

and some suffer the old Stalinist favourite of incarceration in mental hospitals

Stalinist?

Stalin didn't bother with mental hospitals. In his time it was either a bullet to the head or a trip to Gulag. The One and the Only Real Gulag.

Re:Let's invade

[Jim_Callahan]

It's not that hard.

Murderer: "Let's kill this specific person."(does so)

Non-murderer: "This action might kill someone, but I think it's worth it." (does whatever, some people die)

Clear enough? All your examples, except for killing dissenters, are at worst manslaughter.

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

True. But his argument would seem to make them the same. You can't call making bad governing decisions, even when they lead to loss of life, the same as murdering your own people.

I agree but was I being a smart ass, so really didn't expand on my response. I started a multi paragraph deal and decided I didn't have the time to properly respond so just kept it short. And obviously was too vague.
-
(Venril, btw, at home - can't find my bloomin PW dammit)

Re:Let's invade

[superpulpsicle]

The 3% military spending is going to be rendered inaccurate once Bush's term is over. All the interesting numbers will be from 2004, 2005, 2006 and on.

Re:Let's invade

[Skreems]

Surprisingly, it's not that difficult when you bring lethal diseases to which the natives have no immunity (usually intentionally, by giving them infected blankets in trade), and work the survivors to death mining gold for you to send back to Europe. Not to mention the 60-odd other wars which the USA fought against Indian tribes up through the mid 1800s.

Re:Let's invade

[ichigo 2.0]

You should always remember your sarcasm tags, without them it's not correct HumanTML code.

Re:Let's invade

[PreviouslySeen]

WHOOOSHHH!

Re:Let's invade

[LifesABeach]

Of all the 'secrets' that china covets there is one that I would be intensly fascinated with knowing, "What percentage of energy does the middle kingdom use to keep all those old government types alive?" The cost of wires, and feeding tubes must be gigantic!

Re:Let's invade

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides the fact that you're a total and utter moron, let's play this little semantic game of yours. Guess who has more UN violations than Iraq? That's right, boys and girls, Israel!

!!! INVADE NOW !!!

and yes, you ARE a neocon war apologist. Nyah nyah nyah!

And it seems..

[LkDotCom]

it's not the only faul of You! Know! Who!

Re:And it seems..

[Mercano]

Well, yes, there's also that whole "kill all the Google-using muggles" thing. Or was that you know who else?

The motive

[L. VeGas]

Yahoo was probably just mad at him for creating too many Yahoo email accounts.

Re:The motive

[Hoi Polloi]

Judging from my inbox I'd say Yahoo never gets mad at anyone for opening too many accounts.

I don't believe it!

[gowen]

An enormous multinational corporation with no sense of morality?

Inconceivable.

Re:I don't believe it!

['nother poster]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. :)

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not thing that word means what you think it means!

There is a sense of morality, it's just warped. What is best for a larger group of people (Yahoo) is to gain the business and support of China. In Yahoo's perspective, they are cementing their business ties with China, and this connection will generate Yahoo revenue to grow and sustain their business model. This act alone will help EMPLOY people. It will feed people. Hell, turning over evidence on one man who will be picked up anyway? Not a problem!

Make no bones about it: NO company can afford to do things on principal.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Qzukk]

Make no bones about it: NO company can afford to do things on principal.

Bullshit. Tell that to all the people out there holding Green mutual funds. Sure, they aren't getting as rich as the people holding the vice funds, but the companies aren't drying up and dying off as you would have us believe.

Re:I don't believe it!

[hunterx11]

Make no bones about it: NO company can afford to do things on principal.

Plenty of companies can afford to do things on principal: it's only the rich ones that do afford to do things on the interest. Seriously though, a lot of companies would probably make more in the long run if they acted on principle, but shareholders all seem to want money NOW as though they are just waiting to flee to the Bahamas or something.

Re:I don't believe it!

[qwijibo]

If they are succeeding, it's likely because they are focusing on the bottom line as much as anyone else. Using profit as a motivation is neutral, it is neither good nor evil. I believe the GP is suggesting that principle cannot override profit.

With gas prices going way up, I suspect biodiesel is much more cost effective to produce and sell. It is possible to do things that are good for the environment and consumers while still being profit driven. It's just much easier to make a profit by stealing.

Re:I don't believe it!

[aminorex]

> No company can afford to do things on principal.

But it's the interest that gets you. Oh, you meant "principle"?

That's why we need assassination politics. A few well-placed deaths amongs the boards of the worst corporations would stop them from committing horrific crimes. The Shi case is not particularly bad, but things like United Fruit in Guatemala in the 50s, or Shell in Nigeria in the 90s, where companies hire government troops or mercenaries to kill off inconvenient peasants demand substantive action. Tobacco companies still kill a third of their customers, and they do it with impunity in most of the world. If the Reynold's family name were a death sentence, that would change quickly. Even the Shi case might merit the ultimate penalty, considering that it represents participation in the brutal campaign of mass-murder that is the Chinese government.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Noxx]

Ask Pat Robertson how easy it is to advocate that, and still retain the proverbial "moral high ground".

Re:I don't believe it!

[sgt_doom]

You're right, of course!

What exactly is so out of the ordinary about this type of behavior? Whether it's Boeing handing over secret technology - paid for by the citizenry - and forbidden to leave the US by federal law; or the Clinton Administration handing over missile technology to China, or the Bush Administration allowing them to buy that manufacturer in Ohio for smart bomb technology, or..... We all get the picture, at least those of us with functioning brains.

Re:I don't believe it!

[gowen]

NO company can afford to do things on principle

Of course they can. Thousands of companies do, every day. (Google "ethical investment" if you don't believe me). As long as they're up front with their stockholders, companies can behave as ethically as the board members decide.

There are clothes companies that won't sell stuff made in sweat shops (hell, even Nike pretend this is the case), just as there are company's that only buy from Christian suppliers. On a smaller scale, my local liquor store refuses to sell to people who the proprietor has been informed has a drink problem. It's easy to be a principled company. It's just not very fashionable.

The big problem is, there are millions of companies for whom the almighty dollar trumps everything. Now we can add Yahoo to that list.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Make no bones about it: NO company can afford to do things on principal

Not a tenth of us who are in business are doing as well as we could if we merely followed the principles that were known to our grandfathers. ~ William Feather (1908 - 1976)

I have always recognized that the object of business is to make money in an honorable manner. I have endeavored to remember that the object of life is to do good. ~ Peter Cooper

Make money your god and it will plague you like the devil. ~ Henry Fielding (1707 - 1754)

No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency. ~ Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)

Re:I don't believe it!

[gowen]

there are company's that only buy from

Company's?!?!?! God, I'm an idiot.

Re:I don't believe it!

[aminorex]

Where there is a democratic process of accountability, assassination is just murder. It's when there is no practicable system of holding people responsible for their actions that vigilantism is unfortunately required. Moreover, it is only warranted when its measures are commensurate with the crimes or social problems which are being addressed. What crime is Hugo Chavez guilty of? Is it infeasible for his accusers to avail themselves of a duly constituted court with the power to adequately redress their grievances?

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks more like you're the one who doesn't know what it means.

inconceivable (adj.)
1. Impossible to comprehend or grasp fully: inconceivable folly; an inconceivable disaster.
2. So unlikely or surprising as to have been thought impossible; unbelievable: an inconceivable victory against all odds.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

You

1. Didn't get the joke.
2. Really didn't get the joke.
3. Are simply trying to kill the funny.

or

4. Really, really, didn't get the joke.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I didn't mean "principle," I wrote "principal" didn't I?

Re:I don't believe it!

[ericspinder]

That's why we need assassination politics. A few well-placed deaths among the boards of the worst corporations would stop them from committing horrific crimes.

More likely they just have to increase their security budgets.

The trouble is that revenge killings tend to beget more revenge killings. In the end only the most ruthless heartless thugs tend to be the only ones left standing. Good honest people need solid 'rule of law' to support their moral character. Assassination breaks down the rule of law.

Furthermore, the power vacuum after a violent and sudden transition of power is more likely to bring a 'bad actor' to the title than someone more 'palatable'.

Using the classic example of assassinating Hitler, does anyone believe that any of his likely successors would have been less evil?

Re:I don't believe it!

[drsquare]

It's funny how people criticise Microsoft for breaking the law, and now criticise Yahoo for helping enforce the law. Seems if you're a big corporation (outside of Google and Apple), you just can't win on this site!

Of course this is the same site which preaches that you can ignore laws you don't agree with, so I don't konw what the hell anyone here actually thinks.

Re:I don't believe it!

[drsquare]

Let me see if I can work out the Slashdot lefty hivemind:

Laws against drugs or porn or violent computer games are bad, people should be able to buy and sell whatever they want as it's none of the government's business.

Tobacco companies are evil as people shouldn't be allowed to buy and consume what they want.

You couldn't make it up.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need assassination politics. A few well-placed deaths amongs the boards of the worst corporations would stop them from committing horrific crimes.

You make an excellent point. Here's the problem. Nobody knows who these people are. That's not an accident.

Bear in mind that the name on the marquee isn't necessarily the same as the real decision maker in some companies. If you wanted to use assassination politics against Disney at one point in time, sure, Michael Eisner would be a natural candidate, but do you know who is making the policy decisions in question at Yahoo China?

Killing random people is simply murder, and would provoke sympathy rather than reflection. Does anybody keep track of who the bad guys in the corporate world are?

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why we need assassination politics

See this news item - "Chinese banker sentenced to death for corruption". Now that's how to deal with board members :-)

Re:I don't believe it!

[coolGuyZak]

Why would an AC ever do that? Inconcievable!!

Re:I don't believe it!

[alnjmshntr]

The problem with assasination politics is that extreme measures are almost always the exclusive domain of extremists. So, for an abitrary example, David Duke would be quite safe, while Bill Clinton would probably be taken out.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Dun Malg]

Shell in Nigeria in the 90s, where companies hire government troops or mercenaries to kill off inconvenient peasants demand substantive action. Tobacco companies still kill a third of their customers, and they do it with impunity in most of the world. If the Reynold's family name were a death sentence, that would change quickly.

Please. Selling cigarettes is hardly the same as hiring death squads. Last I checked, smoking was entirely voluntary.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Pantero Blanco]

Your post criticizing the people attacking the tobacco industry made sense. This one doesn't. The laws aren't what really matters, it's what's right (if the person is moral), or what's most profitable (if the person is greedy). Criticisms of corporations are generated by moral outrage or envy, not litigiousness. Of course, someone who criticizes a corporation out of envy may pretend to be doing so for moral reasons, but I digress. Google and Apple get raked over the coals all the time, just generally by different people than those who attack Microsoft. It's not all groupthink, there are factions, as well as people who think outside or between the factions. This isn't a schizophrenic's blog, many people post here.

Re:I don't believe it!

[asscroft]

I agree. Nothing else will make them think twice. They hide behind the corporation knowing that even if they do get caught, they'll get the golden parachute and the corporation will take the fall - and most likely be bailed out. See WorldCom. Fuck em. If they thought, evev if only for a second, gee, someone might shoot me for being an evil prick. Maybe things would be a little more tempered.

Re:I don't believe it!

[slashdotnickname]

Tobacco companies still kill a third of their customers, and they do it with impunity in most of the world

What a pile of shit.

For decades tobacco products have carried warning labels, and for just as long (if not longer) the health hazards of smoking have been known. Nowadays, anyone dying from smoking-related complications do so at your own choice and/or stupidity. As an ex-smoker myself, I was fully aware of what I was getting into when I first started and I knew I would eventually kill myself if I didn't stop. Fortunately I have the backbone to hold myself responsible for my own problems rather than blame nebulous entities like "evil tobacco companies".

Re:I don't believe it!

[HiThere]

Probably because you are selecting comments written by different people.

I can see arguing that "if there were no law against drugs, then tobacco companies were just competing normalls". Mind you, even this falls short, as they have been demonstrated to be intentionally lying to their customers|victims about the effects of smoking, so you would also need to repeal the laws against false advertising.

It's possible to defend the tobacco companies from a libertarian perspective. But it's certainly not necessare from EVERY libertarian perspective.

Personally, my main beef with the tobacco companies, and the "crime" for which I feel they should be disbanded, and their corporate charters revoked, is corrupting the legislature. That may not technically be a crime, but I consider it one, and it's one that many companies are guilty of, and I feel that they should all, each and every one, have their charters revoked. They are not acting in the public interest, which is the only justification for allowing a corporation to exist. (Given that this hasn't been in force I could see allowing minor violators to continue in business...perhaps with a few years of decades of extra public service committments. But the main violators should have their charters revoked, and their assets sold off with the proceeds distributed to their victims (not necessarily customers), or, in many cases, the survivors of their victims.

Re:I don't believe it!

[1Oman]

I personally would rather end up in a gutter penniless than make money at anothers expense.

But this is also why I will probably never be the head of a multinational.
 

Re:I don't believe it!

[HiThere]

You don't need to pick random people. Even if you can't get the person you made the actual decision, you can find out who allows him to keep working. The CEO, the entire upper management layer, and the board of directors are reasonable candidates. And none of them would garner much sympathy, or deserve it.

There are relatively decent corporations...but their number is not large, as it's quite difficult given the current legal system and economic climate. (So you might also consider legislators, choosen by the committes's that they are on, and by their known votes.)

Unfortunately, this just keeps expanding. Think long and hard before you start down this path. And reflect that these people already have an immense security system attempting to protect them, and that you don't know it's ins and outs.

Re:I don't believe it!

[jcr]

I'd boycott them, but the only time I've even thought about Yahoo since Google came out was to block mail from Yahoo in my procmail script a few years back...

What line of business are they in again?

-jcr

Re:I don't believe it!

[grassy_knoll]

Good honest people need solid 'rule of law' to support their moral character. Assassination breaks down the rule of law.

That only works so long as the rule of law is just. Once the criminals have corrupted the law, then the rule of law fails because it is seen as just another tool of the oppressor.

Re:I don't believe it!

[sgt_doom]

From the latest news I would surmise Yahoo is in the business of turning in freedom-loving people to a dictatorial government. 'nuff said...

Re:I don't believe it!

[bhiestand]

Using the classic example of assassinating Hitler, does anyone believe that any of his likely successors would have been less evil?

That all depends on who assassinates Hitler, and whether that person can use it to take power. If it was someone from the military, they would have been likely to get a good leader, such as Rommel.

If it was someone from the SS, well, it would've been a lot worse than Hitler. The only two things that saved europe were the blood of the allies and the insanity of Hitler. An intelligent, charismatic leader (who knew to listen to his generals) replacing Hitler could well have sealed the fate of much of Europe.

That being said, I feel even democracy over time leads to a kakistocracy. Eventually things become corrupt enough that the vast majority of those in power are corrupt/evil.

Re:I don't believe it!

[E8086]

"Hell, turning over evidence on one man who will be picked up anyway?"

Makes sense, emails are very tracable. Right now there are too many unknowns. All they have to do is get a hold of the email and find the IP it was sent from then since I think the Chinese gov't controls the ISPs they find out who had it, if it's an internet cafe they just enforce their DMCA-like laws and force them into turning over the records of who was logged into that computer at that time under pain of death or at least loss of business license or imprisonment or torture. The owner is not going to risk any of that over the actions of a patron. The real question/issue is how "the man" knew to go to yahoo. Did the int'l sites say this internal memo is from revolutionary@yahoo.china? If they revealed the email address, by posting the email with full headers, of a source who wanted to remain anonymous then it's their screw up. Or it could have been a limited distribution memo and they tortured someone else(s) who got it until they named names.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Qzukk]

it's likely because they are focusing on the bottom line as much as anyone else.

Yes, but that focus is tempered by their principles. They could say "gee, it's so much easier to make a profit by setting fire to the amazon rainforest and then selling the resulting land to resorts which will go out of business a few years down the road once people decide they don't want to go and see dead jungles." but they don't, instead they work harder to find ways to make money that minimizes their destructiveness.

They may not do things "on principle" but given choices, they would take into consideration both profit and their guiding principles. This way they can justify (to themselves and the rest of us) the choices they make given "option A" (destroy the world and make billions) and "option B" (don't destroy the world and make millions).

Re:I don't believe it!

[nEJC76]

Wrong!

There is nothing wrong with tobacco companies being evil and people consuming that s**t...
The problem is with companies getting away with not telling _known_ sideffects of consumption (watch "The Insider" with mr. Crowe;), pushing for consumer education in kindergarden even (**AA), thru lobying buying laws that will simply give them the market, ...

The problem is that state capitalism has evolved into this global market where corporations own everything and in short time everyone.

I think that doing two "simple" things would take care of this:
1. Outlaw lobying - any polititian cought "raising founds" from a company should be jalied
2. Outlaw corporation - this will return the power over the market back to the consumer ... just my 2c

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

two "simple" things would take care of this:
1. Outlaw lobying - any polititian cought "raising founds" from a company should be jalied
2. Outlaw corporation - this will return the power over the market back to the consumer ...

1. ... then only those with enough money to begin with will afford to get elected. a cap on political donation is better, IMHO, and has to be strictly enforced. That will mitigate the problem somewhat, giving more popular candidate more money, but doesn't fix 'donation by proxy'.
2. ... then you need to find a way to finance big private undertakings, like building supply chains the size of Walmart or Dell, or anything bigger than community playground for children... i see your 2c and raise you 1c.

Re:I don't believe it!

[laughingcoyote]

Yeah. It couldn't maybe be because we're talking about different laws here. Breaking an antitrust law is an entirely different animal then supporting state-sponsored censorship and murder because "it's the law over there", despite the fact that these "laws" are in clear contravention of several human rights treaties to which the US is a signatory.

It is also shameful that the US government allows these governments, in the name of an almighty buck or million, allows these corporations to continue this practice, instead of putting in place clear policies that corporations complicit in human rights violations overseas will be held accountable for them if they operate here.

Of course this is the same site which preaches that you can ignore laws you don't agree with, so I don't konw what the hell anyone here actually thinks.

I submit that if you believe a law is thouroughly, absolutely wrong to the core, you more than have the right to oppose it-you have the duty. If civil disobedience will be an effective tactic toward this end (and it isn't always) you absolutely have the duty to engage in that behavior and, if necessary, suffer the consequences. Standing by and doing nothing or actively assisting evil acts under color that "the law says I have to" smacks way too much of "We were only following orders."

Teddy Roosevelt said it the best I've found: "No man is justified in doing evil on the grounds of expediency."

Re:I don't believe it!

[ericspinder]

That all depends on who assassinates Hitler, and whether that person can use it to take power. If it was someone from the military, they would have been likely to get a good leader, such as Rommel.

That's the differece between an assassination and a coup.

An intelligent, charismatic leader (who knew to listen to his generals) replacing Hitler could well have sealed the fate of much of Europe.

assuming that that person was manicial enough to want to. Besides even if Germany was able to produce an advanced jet in enough quantities to make a difference, its unlikely that they would have held off against the A-bomb for more than a couple of weeks.

I feel even democracy over time leads to a kakistocracy. Eventually things become corrupt enough that the vast majority of those in power are corrupt/evil.

from wikipeadia

It should be noted that kakistocracy refers to rule by incompetents, rather than outright evil or larcenous people, as is the case with a kleptocracy

Actually, I see kakistocracy as a real problem, becuase of the charater assassination of (well at least) modern politics, tends keep otherwise well meaning/qualified persons out of the system.

Re:I don't believe it!

[drsquare]

Breaking an antitrust law is an entirely different animal then supporting state-sponsored censorship and murder because "it's the law over there", despite the fact that these "laws" are in clear contravention of several human rights treaties to which the US is a signatory.

What human rights treaties make it illegal to arrest someone for giving away state secrets? I think that antitrust laws are immoral, whilst anyone giving away state secrets gets what he deserves.

Re:I don't believe it!

[laughingcoyote]

It depends on what type of "state secret" you're talking about. If the "state secrets" you're giving away are secret military plans that put thousands of lives at risk, you're right. If, on the other hand, said "state secret" is a dirty little secret of the government who is engaged in conduct they don't want exposed, you are a hero, not a criminal.

Besides that, it is not a secret whatsoever that China issues the death penalty for nonviolent crimes, gathers and sells organs from executed prisoners without their or their families' consent, and utilizes torture. All of these are explicitly, universally, and without exception, forbidden as violations of human rights. Assisting -even- a good law's enforcement is unacceptable and immoral if you know that the accused will not be provided due process, and punished if convicted in accordance with human rights regulations.

You seem to have missed my meaning-there is no double standard here. Microsoft is condemned (rightly) for breaking a good, justifiable law, while Yahoo is condemned (rightly) for helping to enforce a bad, immoral law, and turning a man over to what they full well know will be torture, a "sham" trial if they even bother with that, and execution for a nonviolent crime.

Re:I don't believe it!

[drsquare]

It depends on what type of "state secret" you're talking about. If the "state secrets" you're giving away are secret military plans that put thousands of lives at risk, you're right. If, on the other hand, said "state secret" is a dirty little secret of the government who is engaged in conduct they don't want exposed, you are a hero, not a criminal

How is it Yahoo's business to decide the morality of crimes which have been committed? It's nothing to do with them. If the police come to you with the legal authority to search your records, you cannot deny them that. If you don't like it, live somewhere else.

Re:I don't believe it!

[bhiestand]

its unlikely that they would have held off against the A-bomb for more than a couple of weeks.

I doubt we would've used the a-bomb against them. Firebombing killed a lot more people in Japan than The Bomb did. The allies never got into mass firebombing in Germany the way they did in Japan. I think it's because there's no way the citizens in America would've allowed it. They had too many family members in the country, and to be honest, germans are still white. Obviously that wasn't a big issue with "those damned japs", what with pearl harbor syndrome, a lot of casualties, and a bit of racism.

Then again, I could be wrong. The rest of this is all just semantics really.

It should be noted that kakistocracy refers to rule by incompetents, rather than outright evil or larcenous people, as is the case with a kleptocracy

I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough in my last post. I do know what kakistocracy means, I mean, look at my website...

and I agree, I think it's a huge problem. Hopefully we'll fix it someday.

I do see "well meaning" as pretty much the primary qualification for politics. It's been proven over and over that you don't need a background in politics to be successful at it; all you need is a little bit of intelligence, decent advisors, and the desire to fix shit. Oh, and some black magic to get you elected.

Re:I don't believe it!

[laughingcoyote]

How is it Yahoo's business to decide the morality of crimes which have been committed? It's nothing to do with them.

I guess on that we simply disagree. I believe, as I already stated above, that there is indeed a moral obligation to oppose with whatever means you possess a law which you find morally wrong. I believe also, that if you know that someone will be punished in a reprehensible manner, including torture, summary execution, or subjection to a sham trial, you have the duty not to turn them over to the authorities who will commit such atrocities if this is known to you at the time you do so. If Yahoo does indeed believe that suppression of dissent through torture and violence is acceptable, that's their belief, but I certainly do not wish to do business with them. If they do not, they should not further it.

If the police come to you with the legal authority to search your records, you cannot deny them that.

If you're using the example that I myself live in the United States, no, I cannot, because the Constitution provides certain protections, in keeping with human rights. If the police in question have a search warrant, they have followed appropriate procedure. I can still, however, challenge that warrant later. On the other hand, if the police were given the power to search private property at whim, I would absolutely oppose that. I do, in fact, oppose the "National Security Letters" and other such provisions of the unPATRIOTic Act that give such authority to conduct searches outside of proper procedure (probable cause, judicial approval, ability to challenge).

If you don't like it, live somewhere else.

I'm not quite clear on how you meant that. If you intend to indicate that the Chinese dissenter in question should've simply "lived somewhere else", you're implying that he would have had that option. I can easily prove that this is not so. If you're implying that you are required simply to move, rather than to oppose government actions you disagree with, I strongly disagree-free countries are founded specifically on the ability to challenge such acts.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that Yahoo should find somewhere else to do business, I fully agree. If they do not (or cannot) do business in China in a means consistent with human rights, or are required by doing business there to comply with unconscionable laws, they indeed should get out. If they do not, no "just following the law" justification should save them from responsibility. If there is any person under US jurisdiction who is responsible for this decision, that person should be prosecuted for their human rights violations. However, absent that they will likely be held legally responsible for their complicity in crime, I do hold the company responsible and will refrain from using their site or products. I will also be letting them know why. I encourage anyone else who feels that their action was in the wrong to do the same. This type of action is only possible so far as YOU tolerate it-if you purchase from a company who engages in this type of behavior, and you know that they do, YOU are condoning it as well.

Re:I don't believe it!

[pointguy]

Using the classic example of assassinating Hitler, does anyone believe that any of his likely successors would have been less evil?

Uh... yes. Talk about a weird question.

Re:I don't believe it!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Shi case is not particularly bad

What a terribly lame thing to say.

Try putting yourself in his shoes and see how particularly bad you feel.

Try imagining yourself living in those conditions and now sent to prison to rot for ten years.

Try to imagine it, you pompous ass.

Mmmm... accusations!

[rbanzai]

Nothing like a good accusation to get people stirred up.

Anything is possible, but an accusation is ceratinly easy to cook up.

Re:Mmmm... accusations!

[OhHellWithIt]

Nothing like a good accusation to get people stirred up.

Anything is possible, but an accusation is ceratinly easy to cook up.

Yes, I agree. Especially with sources like this, this, and this. The first one I turned up in a Google search, and the other two came up in a Yahoo search for "shi tao" and "yahoo". Kind of ironic, eh?

The FAs I read on the Yahoo sites said the "state secret" he was convicted of disseminating was a notice sent by the Chinese gov't to Chinese newspapers. Duh!

But the last one brings to mind a stupid question: How is it that one repressive, corrupt government that jails its citizens for speaking out is a favored trade nation of the U.S., while another (to pick from a long list) is not?

Other questions:

• Isn't this the logical conclusion of the Patriot Act?
• Doesn't /. have a section, "Your Ethics Online"? All of us may face choices like these someday.

Re:Mmmm... accusations!

[dslbrian]

But the last one brings to mind a stupid question: How is it that one repressive, corrupt government that jails its citizens for speaking out is a favored trade nation of the U.S., while another (to pick from a long list) is not?

Because the US govt, a large percentage of the population, and pretty much all US coporations are completely blinded by the prospect of chinese money (note, thats not actual money, just the future prospect of money). China has money, Cuba does not, there is your answer.

Its truly sad that a corporation here will trade 10 years of someone's life for some future unrealized profit potential. And for what? For passing along a note that could hardly be considered "state secrets". Yahoo's employees enjoy a basic set of human rights that the guy they helped jail was denied. Perhaps Yahoo should be exported to China where they can enjoy the full benefits of their Chinese counterparts (including censorship, lack of basic human rights - but hey at least they will have their profit).

Isn't this the logical conclusion of the Patriot Act?

On the road the US is on now, almost certainly so. In the founding days when the US had just acquired its freedoms from an oppressive monarchy I'm sure the constitution was held in a much higher regard than it is today. These days you have increasing restrictions on free speech, and corporations who have the ability to take land away from you that you own (backed by the supreme court of all insults!). I wonder how watered down the constitution will get before people take notice of their diminished rights. Eventually I imagine the logical conclusion would be that corporations (or govt) will be able to jail anyone they want for any infraction no matter how trivial (even perhaps ranting about it on slashdot).

The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Anonymous Coward]

Well?

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[garcia]

Google omits controversial news stories in China
17:36 21 September 2004
NewScientist.com news service
Will Knight

I realize that the Slashdot editors have recently posted duplicate content and even posted stories with linked articles from months ago but do any of us really care about an article posted nearly 1 year ago?

I don't.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[morgan_greywolf]

To be fair, Google omits certain sites for Chinese IP addresses because ordinary Internet users in China can't access them without going through some sort of anonymous proxy. They aren't reinforcing China's restrictions, they are just trying to make their own site useable by ordinary people in China. Not everyone in China is smart enough to use anonymous proxies and the like to get around the Great Firewall of China.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be curious to see what articles get axed from the Google China News versions.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[I confirm I'm not a]

It's a fair point (Slashdot's love in with Google vs. rest-of-world), but I'd argue there's a world of difference between assisting a totalitarian regime to jail a dissident (Yahoo) and omiting search results that the intended audience can't see anyway (Google).

Disclaimer: I think both are disgusting and, sadly, totally to be expected. Both Google and Yahoo "owe" it to their shareholders to operate in a way that maximises profits. Not pissing off the largest potential market in the World falls into this category. I don't like it, I'm sure there are others here who don't like it, but that's the way it goes).

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[sustik]

I hope google makes this clear to its users in China by displaying something like:
"Some search results were censored by your government."

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Anonymous Coward]

Well what? The article you linked to is about how Google searches within China exclude sites that cannot be accessed from within China. It is the Chinese government that is censoring these sites. Google is merely making sure that Chinese searchers are not presented with page after page of links that they click on and nothing happens.

Imagine it with the headline "Google removes dead links from search results". Still sound so evil? I thought not.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[mattyrobinson69]

im guessing google also didn't allow the chineese to use the google cache of 'questionable' websites too

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Fred Ferrigno]

They aren't reinforcing China's restrictions, they are just trying to make their own site useable by ordinary people in China. Not everyone in China is smart enough to use anonymous proxies and the like to get around the Great Firewall of China.

By silently censoring news reports that expose the flaws of the Chinese government, Google is contributing to the perception that such flaws don't exist. IMO, the firewall should be as obvious and annoying as possible, so that Chinese citizens can't ignore its impact on the information they receive. Perhaps then you would see more people using the proxies and more pressure on the government to lift the firewall.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Anonymous Coward]

If they did this, China would just block the IP of Google's cache. I'm sorry, I would do the same thing if I were in Google's shoes.

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[Zak3056]

If they did this, China would just block the IP of Google's cache. I'm sorry, I would do the same thing if I were in Google's shoes.

Whether or not it makes good business sense (I agree that it does) is immaterial to this argument. Aiding a dictatorial government in oppressing its people (by denying them access to information critical of that government) most certainly does NOT fit my understanding of the phrase "don't be evil."

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[jcr]

Aiding a dictatorial government in oppressing its people

Oh, come on now... Why, there must be half a dozen senile Mandarins in the politburo who are personally responsible for the political prisoners that they murder by deliberately infecting them with tuberculosis! That's a murderous oligarchy, not a dictatorship. China hasn't had a dictator since Mao kicked the bucket.

-jcr

Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

[ndogg]

It's one thing to censor news media in accord with national policy, and quite another to expedite the arrest and imprisonment of political dissidents.

China...

[sdirrim]

State secrets? Then how did Yahoo get to them? HOW?!?! Either Yahoo writers are hackers (possible), or those aren't really "secrets" just things that the government would like to be secrets.

Re:China...

[ackthpt]

State secrets? Then how did Yahoo get to them? HOW?!?! Either Yahoo writers are hackers (possible), or those aren't really "secrets" just things that the government would like to be secrets.

State Secrets is pretty much a generic umbrella for many charges. Effectively there's no real appeal process so it could be for malicious lingering, offside, or not having the right friends in the right places. You could in theory be accused of spreading state secrets by openly speculating.

PRC is a country which practices the death penalty for theft.

Re:China...

[yfarren]

Not so mush that Yahoo HAD them, as much as Yahoo gave the chinese Government access to the Email accounts that Had them.

I guess reading the first paragraph of the article is too much work, before launching bold YELLING comment.

Re:China...

[yfarren]

Not to reply to myself, but, well, what sort of moderator, goes and moderates, without having read the first paragraph, and then mods the above parent up? I mean, he asks a question which is answered in the first paragraph of the article. How is that in any way "insightful"?

Re:China...

[Doc Ri]

PRC is a country which practices the death penalty for theft.

True. And bad enough. What is even worse, is that every country practicing death penalty at all has good chance of practicing death penalty for innocence.

Re:China...

[sdirrim]

Sorry. I misread, and mistakenly saw that Yahoo gave the guy "state secrets". Overposting has made me sloppy :P

Yahoo could get sued...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for violating Amazon's One-Click Snitch patent.

English lesson

[op12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Quotat ions_and_speech

Note the portion that begins: "For speech within speech" :)

Re:English lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the heck does the firefox "Find" feature (Ctrl-F) not work on wikipedia?

Re:English lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are incompetent, perhaps!? Works for those of use who know how to operate a keyboard properly.

Don't be evil

[Anonymous Coward]

With PR like this maybe yahoo will become a China only search company.

Just a business decision.

['nother poster]

What do people expect? They are a company that wants a piece of the largest population pool in the world. If they didn't help, the Chineese government would simly have blocked all access to Yahoo! and worked with someone else. That doesn't make it right or moral, just business.

Re:Just a business decision.

[ThePilgrim]

Thats the problem with buisnes decesions. You get into the same atitude as the God Father.

'Nothing personal, it's just business'

Re:Just a business decision.

[Cigarra]

"...That doesn't make it right or moral, just business."

Morality is present in all human activities.
Business is a human activity.
So, i don't get your point...

Re:Just a business decision.

[|/|/|||]

No, a business is like a machine, with rules written on paper. It tries to maximize profits within the rules of the game. The humans that run the business have morals, but it's easy for them to overlook them since they're just doing what the business tells them to.

Thank you Yahoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

..for keeping scum like this locked up in jail, where it belongs. It makes our streets (and the internet) that much safer. Kudos!

I knew it...

[Karaman]

Yahoo is evil!

Re:I knew it...

[Karaman]

LOL, I was modded flamebait :P. Cool!

show me the money

[bigwavejas]

This all boils down to money, and China is an enormous market. It is not a case of ethics (although I agree it is personally reprehensible), but this was a sensible business decision by Yahoo!.

Re:show me the money

[revscat]

Which justifies or excuses nothing. Saying "it's just business" is not, nor has it ever been, a valid excuse. Yahoo is undermining free speech and the liberties given to all men everywhere.

Re:show me the money

[Red Flayer]

"It is not a case of ethics (although I agree it is personally reprehensible), but this was a sensible business decision by Yahoo!."

Just because something is a business decision, does not mean that it has no ethical implications.

If you believe it to be reprehensible, then it violates YOUR ethics. But the Chinese ethic (as the government defines it) is not violated here.

And since Yahoo, in China, needs to obey Chinese law, I must say that they did nothing improper. The media watchdog group that is reporting this, Media Without Borders, should be criticizing the Chinese government, not a company that abides by their directives.

Re:show me the money

[Professional Slacker]

Just because it's in line with what the powers that be in China demanded doesn't absolve Yahoo of it's ethical duties. "We were just doing what we were told to do" is not a viable excuse. And this whole relative ethics thing is a crock of shit, give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer. That's the whole point of ethics and morality to prevent suffering and promote the welfare of the species.

Re:show me the money

[Cigarra]

"...give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer..."

Ehm... because the law obliges you to? (The very same law that is intended to seek the common good, the welfare of the species)

Re:show me the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech is NEVER just given to anyone. It is earned/won/acquired from those in power, and remains in effect until those in power deem it time to set it aside.
Not to mention that "free speech" was never (as far as I know) "given" to anyone in China, how can they be undermining it?

What people don't seem to realize is that Yahoo was simply obeying the LAW of the country they are doing business in. ASsurely as they would be if they turned over all of your email when the FBI comes knocking (even without a warrant).

Re:show me the money

[Professional Slacker]

As I posted in another comment, Laws are tools who's purpose is the promotion of welfare. Any tool that is flawed and does not accomplish its purpose should be discarded. I'm baffled as to why people think laws are important, they're just tools. Are hammers something to be revered too? I don't refrain from murdering people because it's illegal, I don't kill people because it's unethical; the fact the two happen to over lap is purely coincidental.

Re:show me the money

[Red Flayer]

"give me one good reason it is ethical under any circumstances to profit from causing others to suffer"

Yahoo is not causing the suffering, the Chinese government is. That is the fallacy in your argument. Is Yahoo profiting by obeying the local authority? Does it lessen their responsibility, according to my ethics? Yes.

If you want to try to force your moral code on others, go ahead and try. But your values are not my values, please do not assume that your code of ethics applies to everyone.

Before you call relative ethics a crock of shit, maybe you should think about it some. Were ethics handed down by God, or some absolute power? What defines them?

What if suffering is good for a person? What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run?

But, at any rate, spare me your egotistical BS that assumes your interpretation of some universal ethics code is the correct one.

Re:show me the money

[Professional Slacker]

Yahoo is not causing the suffering
BS, if there is an option that reduces suffering failing to take that course of action is causing suffering. Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm.

But your values are not my values
Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?

What if suffering is good for a person?
By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.

What if by causing one person to suffer, you can prevent thousands of others from suffering? What if Yahoo allowing this, then allowing it to be publicized, will prevent more suffering in the long run?
Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on with out it being bloody obvious.

Re:show me the money

[Red Flayer]

"Allowing harm that you can reasonably prevent is the same as causing harm."
Reasonably is the key -- refusal on Yahoo's part could theoretically prevent them from doing ANY good in China. Furthermore, reasonably is a relative term -- and your definition in this case may be different from mine.

"Pardon my stupidity here, but what's so objectionable about the idea that people have a right to freedom, a decent standard of living, and a duty to uphold the same for all other?"
Nothing, according to me. But possibly plenty, according to others. I was refuting your denial of relative ethics.

By the very definition of suffering that's not possible.
Not so. I suffer when I have a fever, but the fever helps kill off infection. My children suffer when I don't give them everything on a platter, but they learn to depend upon themselves. According to Bushido, you gain great honor by suffering in silence due to circumstances beyond your control. This honor may outweigh the suffering. According to many disciplines of Christianity, suffering is good for the soul.

"Both good points, but I don't have enough faith in corporations to assume that that is what's going on without it being bloody obvious. "
Neither do I -- but we have to allow for the possibility, no? And even if that is not the intention, it may be the end effect. So, do you judge intentions or results?

Re:show me the money

[m50d]

As a corporation, Yahoo's sole responsibility is to make as much money as possible. In many countries, if a director is not maximising profit by any means necessary he can face criminal charges. If you live in a country with corporations and accept their existence you can't blame Yahoo or its employees for doing what they're legally obliged to.

Re:show me the money

[revscat]

Bollocks. The executives are responsible for maximizing profits while staying within the bounds of the law and any corporate bylaws and charters. If Yahoo is incorporated in such a way as to allow their subsidiaries to undermine individual liberties, then those bylaws should be changed and/or amended with the utmost expediency.

Re:show me the money

[m50d]

By all means, change US law, but at the moment they're doing nothing more or less than what they legally have to.

Re:First reply?

[Anonymous Coward]

you must be a newbie. its called a first post or a FR1ST PS0T, not a first reply.

Eh cant really blame them

[falcon5768]

They work in China, China is the largest internet market in the world. China could just have easily blocked them from not being able to be used in China by not giving the information. Yahoo states that they will divulge your info to police.

Seems like a lot of chest beating over nothing.

Just cause we in the west dont like it doesnt mean Yahoo could get away with NOT providing info. Reporters should know they are treading dangerously, after all they ARE in a communist country.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Aim Here]

So it's okay to have innocent people put in jail by a totalitarian police state, as long as you're able to keep running your business and make a bit of a profit at the end of it?

That's one scary, fucked-up values system you've got yourself.

Yahoo doesn't HAVE to to business in China. Nor does google or MSN. None of them are based there, after all. They can all tell the Chinese government to fuck off, if they're willing to lose a bit of marketshare. A shareholder's right to profit doesn't trump a human being's right to not be tortured or jailed for speaking his or her mind.

In a sane world, a corporation would have any profits they make from violating someone's human rights (in this case all the money Yahoo is making for not being expelled from China) confiscated, as some sort of ill-gotten gain (the same way you don't get to keep a stolen car, even if you bought it in good faith). That'd fix this sort of bullshit, quite easily (all the corporations would be urging China to stop it's abuses, not turning a blind eye, or aiding them)
IMO, of course.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[MasterOfUniverse]

Reporters should know they are treading dangerously, after all they ARE in a communist country.

Here we go again. Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Brian Stretch]

Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

Name one that didn't turn into the other.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Anonymous Coward]

What communist governments are there that have not become (or even started out as) authoritarian? I really cannot think of one right now. As far as I know all of the communist states use authoritarian controls to remain communist.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Anonymous Coward]

Rome. Germany, Italy and Spain during WW2. Europe during Middle Ages. Most of Middle East today. Most of Latin America ever since US interventions.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[dapyx]

There was none because the Soviets allowed none to evolve into a democracy. As soon as a Communist government showed a bit of liberalization, the Soviet union invaded that country and put a puppet government instead.

See the Prague Spring for a typical example.

A non-authoritarian communist state was a very dangerous precedent, because all other Communist countries could follow, including the USSR. Starting with the 1930s, the whole purpose of USSR was keeping the power into the hands of their elite, so a democratic USSR would deny its purpose.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[dfenstrate]

You can have authoritarianism without communism, but you cannot have communism without authoritarianism.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[babyrat]

Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

Couldn't agree more, however according to the CIA World factbook, China is a Communist state

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[m50d]

Might be forbidden by Godwin, but the Nazis were an authoritarian government that never turned into communism.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Potor]

yes, yahoo has to obey local law.

but, no, they need not be in China.

nevertheless, yahoo decided to go there.

hence, yahoo chose to obey oppressive laws.

that is as complicated as this gets.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

Exactly right. China transitioned from authoritarian Communism to Fascism as soon as it started replacing state ownership of everything with private ownership of capital and corporations, most of which went to loyal and high ranking member of the Communist party. Nazi Germany had the same system, a big oppressive government which constantly intervened in a sham free market economy, where most of the corporations, capital and wealth landed in the hands of ranking party members. The same description could be applied to the U.S. under the increasing dominance of the Republican party though the authoritarian aspect is in its infancy.

None of the politicians or the businessmen in the West will admit this to themselves or to the public. They kid themselves that China is slowly going to transition to democracy just because it is transitioning to sham private ownership of capital. They leave out the fact that private ownership of capital and authoritarian government are quite compatible, and is normally referred to as Fascism. For some reason no one uses that word anymore since it became a dirty word in World War II. There would be an uproar if the CIA fact book someone quoted below referred to China as Communist instead of Fascist so it doesn't, but referring to it as Communist is completely inaccurate and has been for years.

Zhang Ruimin is referred to as the "Jack Welch of China" and is CEO of Haier one of China's larger corporations, manufacturer of appliances and recently made a failed bid for Maytag. He is also a member of the Central committee and was previously a party bureaucrat in charge of state owned factories. Most big Chinese companies are same-same. There is a large number of companies where a top party member or their family are in the top position of the company.

This transition worked great for the elite in the communist party since they've been able to propel themselves to vast wealth simply by using their position in the party. They are also accumulating wealth to an extent which would have resulted in execution under Mao. Its also resulted in Western business transferring vast quantities of IP, market access, capital and jobs in to China that wouldn't have gone there unless they had made the transition to Fascism.

At this point China is the worlds fastest growing market and every Western business with no scruples would sell their mother in to slavery if it meant they got a piece of the action.

I read yesterday in the news on Kai Fu Lee, the Chinese Microsoft VP hired by Google that a key reason he quit was after Bill Gates launched a verbal tirade at him about how the Chinese people and government were f***ing him and Microsoft. Whatever you think about Bill Gates he is a very smart and astute businessman. China is f***ing every company that wants to do business in China and doing it VERY WELL.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[ejito]

Communism must be run by a proletariat dictatorship. Although not the same as authoritarian (restrictions over personal life), authoritarian states and dictatorships are very close.

You might be confusing socialism (economics) with communism (economics+politics). Socialism can be run by any type of politcal system (democracy, republic, parliamentary, monarchy, etc.). Once a socialist state is combined with a dictatorship, it becomes a communist state.

That's an oversimplification of what entails communism, but good enough to let people know the difference between communist and socialist control. China is hardly a communist state anymore (most red states were never true communist states), but that's an argument for a different time.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Dun Malg]

Might be forbidden by Godwin, but the Nazis were an authoritarian government that never turned into communism.

Nah, you're OK under Godwin. Godwin's Law is actually just a curb on the unwarranted use of Nazis in an argument. In this case, it is the ideal counterpoint, as Nazis were definitelyauthoritarian, and definitely anti-communist. A violation of Godwin is more along the lines of:

Argument:
"keeping some people alive on in a vegetative state is probably not warranted"
Godwin-violating counter argument:
"Yeah, well there was another group that wanted all the less healthy to die-- THE NAZIS!"

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[HiThere]

I don't think that there ever has been a communist state, but I'm not certain, as I don't have a clear definition. Pray tell, then, what's a communist?

Your definition will need to include several 19th century religious communes, who the term was originated to describe (i.e., commune-ist).

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

As soon as a Communist government showed a bit of liberalization

Then it ceased to be a communist state.

A non-authoritarian communist state was a very dangerous precedent

A non-authoritarian communist state is a contradiction in terms.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

They kid themselves that China is slowly going to transition to democracy just because it is transitioning to sham private ownership of capital.

Well, there's a little more to it than that. Mao, like Hitler before him, gained power by telling the masses that he could alleviate their misery and squalor. Not seeing much in the way of alternatives, the masses got behind the dictator. Take away the squalor and the misery, let people actually have something to lose, and the appeal of totalitarianism is drastically undermined.

The Red Dynasty will fall, and it will fall when it loses the ability to control the flow of information within the country. That time ia rapidly approaching. I just hope they go down with as little bloodshed as possible. In an idea world, the casualties would be pretty much limited to the Politburo and high-ranking apparatchiks.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Skuld-Chan]

Here we go again. Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

Good thing China is both :).

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

"The Red Dynasty will fall, and it will fall when it loses the ability to control the flow of information within the country."

That is very unlikely though Westerners keep deluding themselves on that score, especially right wingers. They keep letting China dominate the world economically under the delusion that someday the wheels will fall of which it wont.

The quality of life in China isn't the greatest, especially if you get out in to the rural areas, but it is improving dramatically thanks to the massive influx of Western capital and Western trade deficit dollars. As long the Communist party gives people better housing, better jobs, cars, and appliances the Chinese will be about as docile as Americans are. For successful rebellion you need to have people whose standard of living is plunging and who are starving. China is not that, things are better for them they have been in a really long time. Many expats are going home to try to cash in on the booming economy.

The Chinese also saw how the U.S.S.R. collapsed. As soon as Gorbachev started relaxing the iron grip the situation got out of hand. I am very confident that the Chinese aren't going to relax that iron grip at all. The top party members have multimillion and multibillion dollar fortunes riding on maintaining the status quo now.

About the worst problem the Chinese are openly protesting lately is the devastation their rapid growth is doing to the environment, mostly unbreathable air and rivers that are black sludge.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[sgt_doom]

Whatever you think about Bill Gates he is a very smart and astute businessman. China is f***ing every company that wants to do business in China and doing it VERY WELL.

I'm not sure I quite agree with that smart and astute part - anyone who was gifted with DOS licensing would likewise have ended up with billions - he can't be too smart to be constantly getting screwed by the Chicoms - the history of non-copyrights, etc, in that region should be obvious to anyone. The Economist ran an article some months back about how China was effectively "nationalizing" foreign companies over there - only The Economist magazine didn't have the balls to actually use that appropriate term. They are brilliantly taking over American tool manufacturers who relocate their factories there; and English and German utility companies who operated there; and they totally screwed Volvo when they had a factory there.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

That is very unlikely though Westerners keep deluding themselves on that score, especially right wingers.

I think you underestimate the growth of communcations capabilities in China. Take a look at the anti-Japanese riots they had a couple of months ago. People found out where to rally via SMS, e-mail, etc, etc.

The Red Dynasty believes that all they need to do is build the Great Firewall of China, and keep people like me from filling their people in on the news the Party doesn't want them to hear. What they fail to realize is that it's internal communcation that will bring them down. The days when they could truck in completely uninformed soldiers from way out in the sticks to put down an uprising in Beijing are coming to an end.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[Entropy]

Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

Please show that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!

I've yet to hear of any instance where this did not prove true, provided that it was not a small (few people who pretty much all know each other) commune. On the state level, it always devolves into authoritarianism. After all, the state/party owns everything, and ownership is control. Control is authority ... you do the math.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[GospelHead821]

This is simply untrue. Communistic government can work, for a time, under a system of direct democracy. If every member of a locale agrees that the community should function under communistic principles, then communism will work just fine. No authoritarianism involved. The "specific time" involved, by the way, is the period during which the members of the community willingly participate. New persons entering the community (children, for example) must be given the choice of whether or not to participate. Likewise, established members must be free to depart. None of these ideas is inconsistent with communism.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[zippthorne]

hence, a communist government cannot exist without authoritarian control.

In fact, I would venture to say that your example fails with the introduction of strangers: Game theory indicates that without the group being emotionally invested in each other's welfare, the members will take advantage of the others' labors, since if they don't, the other members will.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[GospelHead821]

If the commune is operated by direct democracy, the community can act to eject persons taking advantage of the labor of others. Furthermore, although the assumptions of capitalism economics and game theory -- that people are greedy and lazy -- are reasonably accurate, they are not universal. There are people who aren't greedy and lazy; some people are industrious and generous. A group of such people would not require an emotional bond with one another to function as a small, communistic society. If the group is sufficiently productive that the sharing of resources provides for every member in excess, then the commune will prosper and its members will be happier for the close association with other hard-working people. (I can speak from experience in saying that it's very frustrating to be an industrious employee among many lazy employees.)

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[dfenstrate]

I don't dissagree that a self-selected communist society can viable for quite some time- i.e. communes- but that doesn't change the fact that any whole nation that goes down the path of communism must necessarily be authoritarian as well.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

" What they fail to realize is that it's internal communcation that will bring them down."

Unless they let peer to peer flourish, like 802.11 meshes, they can monitor and suppress SMS, and faxes, just like anything else. Its trivial to monitor and censor SMS and they no doubt do.

What made you think the party wasn't encouraging or at least allowing the anti Japanese riots.

"The days when they could truck in completely uninformed soldiers from way out in the sticks to put down an uprising in Beijing are coming to an end."

You ignored my point that people with a rising standard of living and affluence are unlikely to risk their new found possessions through insurrection.

Like I said it totally amazes me how Westerners are underestimating the people running China now. They have created a potentially unstoppable system:

- Oppressive and regimented
- Very successful economically
- Westerners are turning over their wealth to them with complete abandon

The only thing likely to bring them down such a power is war. Franco's Spain survived World War II by maintaining neutrality and lasted until his death decades later.

It boggles the mind how Western politicians and businessman can be so stupid to have anything to do with China at all .... oh I remember now, greed and short term profits while they completely screw themselves in the long run. Communist had empty rhetoric about burying the West, Fascist China is really going to do it.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[zippthorne]

if 51% are taking advantage, they will never vote away the leeches.

The assumption re: game theory made in this case is not that everyone will be greedy. It is that eventually, ONE person might be greedy. As a result, self interest requires the others to hoard. An example you might look to was the recent gas scare in FL and several other states following Katrina. If people didn't believe others would hoard gas, leading to shortage, they wouldn't be rushing to the pumps for the same reason. Although irrational on a mass-basis, each indivual decision was in fact justified by the events: there WAS a gas scare and there WAS a shortage.

One solution is that everyone must be personally invested in the well-being of the others. I don't think this can happen in a group that is too big for everyone to know everyone else indivually. The other solution is to force everyone to comply. I'm not convinced this can work either, but at least two world powers have tried it already.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

You ignored my point that people with a rising standard of living and affluence are unlikely to risk their new found possessions through insurrection.

People with more to lose are less willing to allow an arbitrary government that can part them from their posessions at will. Socialism is always more appealing to destitute peasants than to a prosperous middle class.

The only thing likely to bring them down such a power is war.

No, what will bring them down is the loss of popular support, just like the Soviets. The effect of internal communication on this, is that the party will lose the ability lie effectively, which is crucial for maintaining a tyranny.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

"Socialism is always more appealing to destitute peasants than to a prosperous middle class."

China isn't Socialist unless you use the broad definition that defines Fascism as Socialism.
Chine is a peasant state anymore either. Its a state devoted to rapid economic development devoted to urban Chinese and especially to enriching party members.

Fascism is entirely pallatable to the middle and upper class, as long as they stay in the good graces of the party, which they do by keeping their mouths shut, and are reaping economic benefits.

You seem to be talking about China of 10 or 20 years ago, not the one of today, they are two completely different animals, which is something Westerners completely don't grasp. You need to be equating China to Nazi Germany because the economic and political systems are very similar now. Westerners fell all over themselves to invest in Nazi Germany in the 30's too because it was a booming, capitalism friendly, growing economy, with a ruthlessly oppresive government that kept order and kept profits flowing (until it started ill advised wars).

"No, what will bring them down is the loss of popular support"

Dream on. The Soviet economy was in a shambles economically, China's isn't. The Soviet Union impaled its self on a war in Afghanistan while China is studiously avoiding war and imperial delusions. The Soviet Union relaxed its iron grip allowing its opponents to sense weakness and to seize the opportunity. China isn't going to relax its grip especially after seeing what happened in the Soviet Union.

"The effect of internal communication on this, is that the party will lose the ability lie effectively, which is crucial for maintaining a tyranny."

That is silly, what makes you think the Chinese aren't monitoring and censoring internal communication just as much as external communication. Computerization allows for monitoring and censorship that was impossible a few decades ago.

It boggles the mind that right wingers want to delude themselves that either:

A. China is going to fall like the Soviet Union because its system is inherently "inferior" to the west. If anything Western nations are going to become more repressive and more like China.

B. Its sham free market reforms are going to lead to a sudden rush to Democracy.

I'll eat my keyboard if either happen in the next two decades.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

China isn't Socialist unless you use the broad definition that defines Fascism as Socialism.

There are few practical differences between the various franchises of collectivist tyranny. Socialist, Fascist, call it what you like.

China is going to fall like the Soviet Union because its system is inherently "inferior" to the west.

No, the ChiCom regime is going to fall in its own way, and this has nothing to do with comparisons to the west. There are similarities to the Soviets of course, since the Red Dynasty tried to follow the Soviet model.

I'll eat my keyboard if either happen in the next two decades.

I guess I have more faith in the Chinese people than you do.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

"Socialist, Fascist, call it what you like." ...excepting one allows and promotes private ownership of capital which is a vast difference. ...excepting Western businessmen are welcomed in to and will pour investment in to a Fascist country and wont touch or be able to touch most Socialist countries with a 10 foot pool.

Other than everything about their economic model, yea they are exactly the same thing.

"No, the ChiCom regime is going to fall in its own way, and this has nothing to do with comparisons to the west. There are similarities to the Soviets of course, since the Red Dynasty tried to follow the Soviet model."

Dude get it through the thick, dwelling in the past, skull it isn't ChiCom any more its ChiFascist, yea they tried to follow the Soviet model from 1950 to 1990 something. They completely abandoned it and adopted Fascism instead. They went from bein boycotted and isolated by the West which led to economic devestation in both places to one now where the West is giving them everything for nothing but short term profits and promises...machine tools, intellectual property, whole factories, jobs, R&D funding etc. If the Soviet Union had all the infusion of capital and IP from the West the Chinese are getting it NEVER would have fallen.

"I guess I have more faith in the Chinese people than you do."

I have some faith there are a lot of brave dissidents who might have had a shot at forcing change....were it not for the supposedly freedom loving west selling them down the river in the name of a beloved buck, just like Yahoo did here.

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[jcr]

Dude get it through the thick, dwelling in the past, skull it isn't ChiCom any more its ChiFascist

Like it matters? A thug is a thug. Oh, and fuck you too for the ad-hominem.

-jcr

Re:Eh cant really blame them

[demachina]

"A thug is a thug."

Why yes they are, the Republicans look more and more like thugs every day. Thats why they get along with the Chinese so well.

"Oh, and fuck you too for the ad-hominem."

Dude you better get a thicker skin if you are going to post around here, "thick, dwelling in the past, skull" is pretty mild for ad hominem attacks around here.

Failing that maybe you should just stop regurgitated 30 year old anticommunist rhetoric when it no longer fits.

Wrong department

[nubnub]

"from the submitted-over-and-over-again dept." Shouldn't this be "from the stolen from the drudge report dept."?

Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes)

[fishdan]

...Yahoo's Hong Kong arm helped China link Shi Tao's e-mail account and computer to a message containing the information....

Here's the thing -- the Hong Kong arm of yahoo lives in HONG KONG! They live in a communist country! How could anyone think that threatened with life in prison by a repressive government, a Chinese "Citizen" would possibly choose to not immediately capitulate to ANY request by the police? Just because an employee in China decided to NOT be Patrick Henry doesn't mean Yahoo's in bed with the Reds.

Vague Article

[Thunderstruck]

I RTFA, and I can't tell:

1. Did yahoo violate any of their terms of service with the victim?
2. Did yahoo violate it's privacy policy?

If neither of the above is true, is the journalist not to blame for doing buisness with a service that would not protect him? In the alternative, are we now requiring that all major corporations take up the fight against oppression and censorship? I thought we had already decided that all corporations are evil, profit minded monsters. Why should Yahoo! be different?

Re:Vague Article

[dr_dank]

1. Did yahoo violate any of their terms of service with the victim?
2. Did yahoo violate it's privacy policy?

I'm sure there is a clause buried in that TOS that Yahoo! will turn over information to aid law enforcement investigations. Its no crime here, but he did break Chinese law. By virtue of Chinese law, anything the government doesn't want known is considered a "state secret" by default of course.

They either play ball with the Reds or get locked out of a fast growing market.

Re:Vague Article

[conJunk]

Well, for Yahoo!'s HONG KONG offie, the TOS probably reads along the lines of "we'll do whatever the government tells us to do."

Re:Vague Article

[Flakeloaf]

he did break Chinese law

And that's the crux of it, folks. He broke a law in their country, their law enforcement agency requested/required Yahoo's cooperation, and Yahoo cooperated. The substance of the law is not relevant because Shi knew that he was doing something illegal. If you don't want to go to jail in China, don't be in China and do something that's against the law.

Re:Vague Article

[Professional Slacker]

LAWS MEAN NOTHING! nada, zip, zilch, absolutely meaningless. Laws are a tool to promote the welfare of people; nothing more, nothing less. Any law that does not promote the welfare of the people, such as China's laws on "State Secrets", is fundamentally flaw and should be discarded. The only thing of any value is the standard of living of the people.

Re:Vague Article

[mfrank]

Well, that's nice. The problem is the last time the Chinese tried to discard those laws, a bunch of them got run over by tanks.

It's safe to go faster than the posted speed limit on most US interstate highways. Go ahead and blow off any speeding ticket you get.

Feel free to join the rest of us here in the real world when you're ready.

Re:Vague Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no-one in Tiananmen square that week got run over by a tank. In the famous picture of the student facing down a tank there was a standoff for a few minutes, then the tank drove off. All the killing that day was done in the streets surrounding the square, and it was done with ordinary bullets.

A lack of corporate conscience

[merc]

This isn't the first time a corporation has been accused of trading the rights of individuals for the almighty dollar, or, at least accused of having a lack of social conscience if you will. It's happened before and it'll probably happen again.

Re:First reply?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, dude. Reply #6.

Yet another blatent object of proof

[guildsolutions]

against comunisum.

People in the US a lot of times dont realize what these people in china have for rights. Most of the time, nothing.

Then again, you have the absurd in china too.

A CHINESE CITIZEN TRIES TO SMUGGLE 54 PENISES OF REINDEERS

The fact if smuggling subjects of animal origin has been registered by customs officials of the city of Blagoveschansk. According to spokesman of Far-Eastern Custom Office, during the luggage inspection of tourists departing to China, 54 penises of reindeer weighting 9,49 kg were found in bag of a Chinese woman.
Exporting parts of reindeer is permitted, though if there are special documents confirming they have been bought legally and certificates of vet services. But the Chinese citizen did not have such documents. Another Chinese citizen tried to smuggle 3,38 kg of pink radiola roots. The plant is included in the Red Book, so to export it is forbidden.
Statements of the cases about violating Custom Code have been drawn up.

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[Professional Slacker]

Repeat after me class:
This is an ill of totalitarianism,
it has nothing to do with communism.

Communism is a economic model that seeks equality.
Totalitarianism is a form of government which really sucks.

Totalitarianism is Communism in the same sense that roll cages are vehicles.

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[glesga_kiss]

Communism is an economic model, NOTHING to do with totalitarianism and dictatorships, which is the problem here. There are several communist/socialist states where the residents have MORE rights than us.

Besides NOTHING in this article hasn't already happened in the west. Or have you been living under a rock for the last five years? Show me an ISP/webservice that hasn't bent over backwards for a government information request. Most will do it for a commercial request (e.g. RIAA), no need for the info to be related to national security.

You also mention stiff penalites for smuggling. Did the War on Drugs pass you by or something? Try to take any manner of chemicals through customs here without the right permits and you'll soon know about our penalites. Jeez, we can't even get a nail file through customs. Oh, my rights, gimmie back my rights. China has banned many of these traditional medical remedies due to dwindling resources; for example trading in tiger derived products is banned because they are an endangered species. Why not try to smuggle freshly "extracted" bald-eagle claws within the USA and see how far you get.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your blind hatred for those that are different from you.

Here's a hint; Capitalism and Communism have one thing in common: They are both systems where the elite tell the poor that things are best under their system.

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[guildsolutions]

To a point you are correct, Thankfully the USA doesnt execute people for posting blogs tho :)

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[Stonehand]

Tolitarianism is an inevitable consequence of communism in any large-scale implementation. With enough people, you /will/ have people with substantially different intentions and abilities -- which will lead to economic distributions vastly different from what is desired.

At that point, you will have to compel transactions in order to "correct" the imbalances, and you will have to maintain the compulsion for as long as people are different. This compulsion will naturally be accompanied by prohibitions on transactions outside the system... You will in addition need to compel people to perform at all, once it is clear that you are divorcing output from rewards. And you will need a manageably small group of people doing the deciding about what to compel, of course, if you want a remotely coherent policy...

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[MightyMartian]

Let's be perfectly honest here, China ceased to be a Communist state with Mao's death. It is not an autocratic state which is attempting to absorb the Western free market idea while trying to hold back the free market of ideas. It is returning to what it was for centuries; a nation dominated by civil servants. The Maoist revolution is long dead, and the sooner people realize that the People's Republic is simply an anachronism retained by the technocrats in the hopes that it may keep at least a segment that isn't too poor or too mired in commercialism to worry about politics loyal to the non-existent Communist ideas of a generation all but gone.

Re:Yet another blatent object of proof

[synthespian]

Communism is an economic model, NOTHING to do with totalitarianism and dictatorships, which is the problem here. There are several communist/socialist states where the residents have MORE rights than us.

Wrong. If you believe in historical determinism, than, as a corollary of the end of history, you can accelerate the process by crushing the opposition, eliminating the burgoise, assasinating people, as Lenin and Stalin have done. They matter not, as they will disappear in the end ("Communism"). Read Karl Popper for more.
Marx himself voiced the opinion that there should exist, temporarily, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (in a letter by Marx to Weydemeyer, published in Neue Zeit magazine, see Lenin's State and Revolution):

(...) 2) That class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; 3) that this dictatorship is itself only a trasition (...)

And than Lenin goes on, in his analysis, to say: Only in Communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists has been completely broken, (...) when there are no classes (i.e., there is no difference netween the members of society in their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom." Only then a really full democracy, a democracy without any exceptions, will be possible and will be realised. And only then will deomcracy begin to wither away due to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, exploitation, absurdities and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will become accustomed to the observation of the elementary rules of social life that have been known for centuries (...) they will become accustomed to observing them without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus fo compulsion which is called state."

Of course, we know where such experimentation lead to with Mao's Cultural Revolution. The worst possible example is Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. The state did not disappear. In today's China, workers have the same rights as 18th century workers in England.
OTOH, you're right on the spot when you comment about rights. As I've mentioned in another post, the Human Rights Charter is more than about just political rights (e.g. economic rights). People tell me there are outdoors, when you leave Havana (Cuba) on the way to the airport that says smth like: Tonight, in Latin America, 100,000 children will sleep on the streets, None of the are Cubans. That, to me, explains a lot as to why so many people in Latin America view Cuba with some simpathy. I, for one, am not sure the people of Cuba were better off when it was America's favorite little whorehouse/cassino. Of course, than the powerful US had to impose an embargo in that puny island...So, there are always 2 sides to a story...
As we can see from the Katrina disaster, class boundaries exist in the US in a perverse manner. Living in the richest country in the world does not, for instance, garantee you economic rights that have been attained by social-democrats in Europe.
And with reduction and violation of Human Rights (e.g., Guantanamo, handing prisioners to torture in Egypt, etc.) we can see that there's a whole lot the US falls short of.

Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Augusto]

I'm sick of the excuses:

- We're just following Chinese law
- If we don't comply, are the Chinese people better off without Yahoo/Google/Cisco/MS?

Haven't we learnt a thing?

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

I don't expect US corporations to impose US laws on foreign soil, but perhaps we can at least expect them to respect a basic set of human rights standards.

It's not acceptable that these US based coporations become collaborators in the persecution of dissidents in another country. It's not acceptable for them to concede to ridiculous demands of filtering workds like "Freedom" or "Taiwan". It's not acceptable at all.

If these corporations want to ignore these basic human rights standards, let them go and base their HQ in China instead. They're not doing anybody any favors by helping repress the Chinese people.

We were told that more trade and more interaction with China would bring greater freedom. We were lied to.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwinned!

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Otter]

As a practical matter, the Chinese police don't come to Yahoo and say "Give us information so we can persecute a dissident and violate his human rights!" They say "We're investigating a criminal, and we need log data." The options for Yahoo are:

1) Don't operate in China

2) Refuse to cooperate with the police

3) Demand veto rights on cooperation with the police

4) Cooperate

In practice, 2 and 3 are identical to 1. And maybe 1 is what they should be doing. But it's not like they actively made a decision to violate X's human rights. (The censorship issues, on the other hand, really are overt decisions.)

We were told that more trade and more interaction with China would bring greater freedom. We were lied to.

Actually, I'm not sure that trade and interaction haven't contributed to what's certainly greater freedom since Mao's time. But, at any rate, it's useful to realize that not everything people predict that doesn't work out is LIES!!! There is a such a thing as difference of opinion in good faith.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jeff Hornby]

I don't expect US corporations to impose US laws on foreign soil

So if that's the case, what did Yahoo do wrong? They handed over the name of a person who had committed a crime to the proper authorities.

The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Have Blue]

Why are you posting on Slashdot instead of planning and executing a guerilla/terrorism campaign against the Chinese government? You obviously have no morals or sense of human decency.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[qwijibo]

Corporations don't exist to make the world a better place. They do not exist to enforce human rights standards. They do not exist to stand up against repressive governments who do not want their people to know of "freedom" or "Taiwan". They do not exist to help people. They exist to make money. There is no money in respecting human rights. On the other hand, there is a lot of money in China. All of the products we buy that are made in China make sure of that.

Do you really believe that corporations or governments exist to help people? What are you doing to help improve human rights in China? Expecting someone else to take care of the problem isn't going to change anything.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[pla]

The options for Yahoo are

You forgot:

5) When operating in freedom-hostile countries, maintain a STRICT log rotation policy with a very short retention period. Or, for those countries that have minimum mandatory retention periods, store the logs on servers in a more sane country - China might have no problem quietly crushing a dissident, but would they even dare to ask when it would require formally requesting "extradition" of the relevant data?

And if the country in question has laws that would prevent even that... Well, #1 looks like a pretty good option. At some point, a company bears responsibility for its complicity in dealing with oppressive regimes.



Now, in this particular situation, I would say we don't have enough enformation to judge Yahoo's choice to cooperate. If they fail to correct whatever circumstances led to this cooperation in an atrocity on their part, then we can all shake our fingers and go "shame, shame, shame!". But for now, no.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Thondermonst]

The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system

Yep, and the French Revolution never happened...

It still amazes me how egocentric Americans are. They really think they invented hot water.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jeff Hornby]

You're right, of course. I should have used the term: Western European, American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand as well as a few other Pacific islands, some South American countries, and probably a few others I missed.

In my own defense, I used the term American three times in my post and didn't want to type that unwieldy phrase even once.

And just for the record, I'm Canadian.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't expect him to understand...

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[poot_rootbeer]

The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

-- Article 19, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[MirthScout]

>The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system

Basic human rights are inherent to every human being; we all have them. The governments and laws of some countries such as the US and EU respect our rights and mostly don't infringe upon them. The governments and laws of other countries such as China actively infringe and abuse our rights.

In other words the laws of a country and the actions of its government do not in any way affect the fact that we have basic rights as humans; they just determine how good or bad the laws and governments are.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jeff Hornby]

And how exactly did freedom of speech become basic human rights? Because the American Bill of Rights (or a document from some other country) said so?

The fact is that these "basic human rights" are actually cultural values. Specifically our cultural values.

Remember that every "basic human right" runs up against another "basic human right". In this case, the Chinese seem to believe that the right of everybody to live in a safe, secure and stable society is more important that the right to freedom of speech. That is a choice to be made by the Chinese depending on their cultural values; not by the West based on ours.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming "rights" a priori is about as irrational and unrealistic as it gets. Maybe you should leave such thought to more superstitious times and people, such as Locke.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[soft_guy]

They handed over the name of a person who had committed a crime to the proper authorities.

No matter what country you live in, that's a dastardly dead.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[anaesthetica]

Perhaps we are ego-centric, but our revolution didn't end up in the Paris Commune, the Jacobins, and The Terror.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize the French Revolution occurred after the American Revolution, right?

It still amazes me how egocentric Frenchmen are. They really think they invented the popular revolution.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[rob.wolfe]

They exist to make money. There is no money in respecting human rights.

To which I offer the following quote

"Profit is not the proper end and aim of management - it is what makes all of the proper ends and aims possible." --- David Packard

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Mr. McGibby]

Yep, and the French Revolution never happened...

It still amazes me how egocentric Americans are. They really think they invented hot water.

Well, we may not have invented hot water, I think we invented cold water. Look, I lived in France, and finding a cold drink on a hot day was nigh unto impossible.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[synthespian]

1) Don't operate in China
2) Refuse to cooperate with the police
3) Demand veto rights on cooperation with the police
4) Cooperate


You miss the point of the story. The point is not that Yahoo! has to cooperate. The point is that Yahoo! has to cooperate. The story is how China is ruthless and backwards in human rights.
Is that the best environment to trade in? Maybe. Until the State decides, out of the blue, that they might just seize your factory.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[synthespian]

I don't think the word is "ego-centric", I think it's "ignorant." The school system is definetely a disaster when it comes to History and Geography, it shows up on surveys all the time.
In History, they're kind of brainwashed. For instance, I don't think they learn much about the Eastern block. I don't think they won't read the Communist Manifesto in High School, because it's "Evil" and "forbidden." Simple facts like the rise of the USA in economic strenght and the relation to that to WWII is utterly missed (it's just Gawd's Work, ya know.)
It just suits the Powers That Be that the general population be so ignorant and smug in Consumerism. That way, they don't have to think about why they wage pre-emptive wars and everybody considers them warmongers, or why they consume 45% of the world's natural resource, or why their vice-president has ties to oil corporations. If you raise those issues, they just call you "terrorist" (it used to be "communist", but they can't use that one anymore), and that's that.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[demachina]

"5) When operating in freedom-hostile countries"

Well that would include the U.S., U.K and most countries on the planet. The U.S. and U.K. will come demanding the same information in a "terrorism" investigation which is pretty synonymous with what the Chinese would call a dissident they are investigating. The U.S. has now established precedent for arresting people, holding them indefinitely without trial, and without access to lawyer or family. You might notice this is exactly the same the Chinese do and Americans get so indignant over (when the Chinese do it, not the Bush administration).

With the reach of the U.S. military, FBI and intelligence agencies in to something like 120 countries now I'm not really sure there are many countries left where you could keep logs that would be safe from local authorities packing a warrant under pressure from the U.S., U.K. or China. You could maybe argue an offshore oil rig in international waters ala Sea Haven but I think its been made clear in the past that if you hid anything there a country with commandos wanted bad enough that wouldn't be safe either.

I think we really are approaching the point you should realize there really aren't any "freedom-friendly" countries any more, if there ever was even such a thing. The fact is you are "free" to do anything until the government where you live, or some other government with influence on the government where you live, takes exception to what you are doing.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[MirthScout]

Human rights are individual, not societal or cultural. They are inherent, not granted. Anything granted to you is merely a priveledge. Documents such as the US Bill of Rights and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights can only acknowledge them, not grant them (not that I necessarily agree that either of those documents does so perfectly).

A basic human right is just that, a basic concept. It relates to what an individual has the right to do. Freedom of Speach is one phrase used to describe the basic human right of the individual to express what he believes to be true. Such expression doesn't affect any other individual and does not imply that any other individual owes him anything.

Contrast that with that made up "right of everybody to live in a safe, secure and stable society". The closest thing to a basic human right in there is "right ... to live". The rest expresses a rather complex relationship of responsibilities among many people (a society) obligating them to keep that individual safe and secure. Ouch. I'm really not seeing the "basic" here. Nor the human (individual). Nor the "right".

A basic human right is inherent. That a given culture has become conditioned to tolerate or even agree with some degree of infringement does not mean the right no longer exists or that infringement of it isn't occurring.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jim_Callahan]

It doesn't matter if they're french law, argentinian law, or martian law. The two countries involved here are the US and China. When did staying on-topic become egocentrism?

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jeff Hornby]

How arrogant you are!!!

Do you really believe that if these rights were truly inherent, the Chinese would be too stupid to figure that out? Or are they too morally bankrupt to care?

The fact is, every society finds a way to strike a balance between individual freedom and collective welfare.

Freedom of speech allows us to explore ideas and possibly improve society; but contrast that with the possibility that speech will incite riots, screw up the economy, cause untold suffering. Which side do you fall on? Do you gamble on free speech and take the possible benefits with the risks? Or do you disallow free speech forgoing both the benefits and the risks?

Age-old traditions in the West have taken us in one direction. Age-old traditions in China have promoted the other path. Neither is right or wrong. Each is just different.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[coaxial]

In practice, 2 and 3 are identical to 1. And maybe 1 is what they should be doing. But it's not like they actively made a decision to violate X's human rights. (The censorship issues, on the other hand, really are overt decisions.)

They may not have known what type of investigation was being done, but by enforcing and enabling censorship is violating human rights. They are at the very least collaborators. I would have expected more from Jerry Yang.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[MirthScout]

"The Chinese"? Do you really think they all think the same? Do you really think all of the people in their current government believe the party line? All of the citizens too? "The Chinese"? How arrogant to speak for all of them. (That name calling judgmental crap can be fired both way you know. :)

Some are too morally bankrupt to care, as you put it. Also true everywhere else in the world. Some do care and are working to change it. Some have fled the country. Some are in jail. Some meekly accept what they don't think they can change. And like everywhere else in the world, many have never given it serious thought.

The balance, to put it in the terms of this discussion, is between basic human rights and how much a society infringes upon them (for the collective welfare, merely in the name of collective welfare, the forecfull subjugation of some portion of the population, or whatever other reason, good or bad).

The basic human right to express what you believe to be true (often poorly rephrased as freedom of speach) does allow us to explore ideas and possibly improve society. The truth doesn't cause riots. If people rioted because someone did a bad thing and tried to cover it up, the one who spoke of it didn't cause the riot, the person that did the bad thing caused it. Speaking the truth screw up the economy? The things spoken about screwed it up not the speaking of it. Untold suffering? Hurt feeling at worst, I say. No gamble, simple choice, respect my fellow man.

The hard part for a society in respecting a person's right to speak what he believes to be true (freedom of speach?) is determining if what he speaks is really what he thinks is true. Is it factually false and he not aware of the facts? Is it an opinion and, hence, neither true nor false? Is it factually true but society (or maybe just a few people in power within a society) doesn't like it being said? What is to be done about it in each situation? How a society/government structures its mechanisms for handling these questions determines how right or wrong it is with respect to this issue.

I really don't think the governments of China or the "West" can be referred to as age-old traditions. They are always changing; as it should be. As for changing terminology to "traditions", that term is both too all-encompassing and to wishy-washy to even have a meaningful duscussion. Good rhetoric though!

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[Jeff Hornby]

We seem to have a fundamental disagreement: you believe that human rights are inherent, I believe that they are cultural. So let me ask you this: how do you know that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right? (for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to stick to that one right)

My position is that it isn't because very few societies throughout history have recognized it as such. To assume that all of these societies were somehow wrong in not recognizing that assumes:
1. we are morally superior
2. we are more intelligent
3. there has been some vast conspiracy throughout history by "the man" to put people down

What exactly is your position? How do you know that freedom of expression is an absolute right?

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[MirthScout]

> We seem to have a fundamental disagreement: you believe that human rights are inherent, I believe that they are cultural.

So we'll just have to disagree since it isn't something that can be proven one way or the other.

> My position is that it isn't

Understood.

> because very few societies throughout history have recognized it as such.

Whoa! In what "society" has everyone in it thought and believed the same? How do you decide which subset of the "society" has the beliefs that represent that "society"? The rulers perhaps? What about those with dissenting opinions (which might even be in the majority)?

As for the trolling assumptions... that's never going anywhere productive. Time to go.

Nice chatting with ya.

Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable.

[pointguy]

Yep, and the French Revolution never happened... It still amazes me how egocentric Americans are. They really think they invented hot water.

You make a good point, but you make it poorly. France, to this day, has no freedom of speech laws -- one can be arrested/fined for saying things. It still amazes me how many inaccuracies appear on /. every day.

Boycott Yahoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

This stuff must not continue.

I fail to see ...

[TruthSeeker]

... how the fact that some corporation considering its complecency towards the local law, however unethical the said law is, without care about personal consequences, qualifies as news.

Bottom line

[synthespian]

"We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement. I think it's up to people living in the Free World (defined as: your country has a Constitution that grants you political rights and freedoms) to pressure such companies so that, they, in turn, help pressure non-democratic governments for more freedom. Can't stockholders help ?
We remember the rebels of Tiananmen square!

Re:Bottom line

[Anonymous Coward]

What rebels of Tiananmen.

Google this: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:d3BWlmOlvfMJ: www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_51/b37620 58.htm+rebels,+tiananmen,+us&hl=en

Why do you think the rebel leaders fled to US ? Some even becoming the CEO of a US company and denying their responsibility in the deaths of their "fellow" dissidents.

Re:Bottom line

[TheRaven64]

Free World (defined as: your country has a Constitution that grants you political rights and freedoms)

Interesting. Assuming that by Constitution, you mean `codified constitution' then you consider the UK not to be part of the Free World.

Re:Bottom line

[synthespian]

Ok, you got me there! Let's make room for England an her consuetudinary laws.

What about the "Patriot Act"

[marlinSpike]

If anyone took the time to figure out how much and how often the FBI and other US agencies have compelled Yahoo, MSN, AOL and other providers to dish out info on Americans... then we wouldn't be making a huge deal about foreign countries. Just because it happens in China does not mean it's especially egregious, or that what's happening State-side isn't of equal or greater concern.

The real problem is the GLOBAL erosion of privacy, which our misguided government has provided great momemtum to. The fact that we invade and infrige upon previously protected privacy rights precludes us from preaching to other governments, and from faulting them.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[SlayerofGods]

Well there's a big difference between invading someone's privacy and jailing them.
What the US may be doing is wrong, but China is still in a whole 'nother league.

And technically the FBI doesn't need the Patriot Act to get subscriber info; your standard warrant is more then enough to compel that info. It just makes it easier to justify the warrant. Regardless though, there is still a judge signing off that the FBI has cause to get that info protecting our rights.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[marlinSpike]

Pray, tell me what the difference between Guantanamo Bay and a Chinese Jail is -- both are filled with people who have no rights, have not been given a fair hearing, and as such, have no sentence.

The prison in Guantanamo (and Abu Garib, and the various other similar incidents) have made the US just another country with all sorts of blemishes on our Human Rights records. No longer can we speak from higher ground to any other country. Heck, we've even kidnapped detainees from other countries, and then sent them to places like Egypt to be tortured!!!

Yet another thing this administration can claim credit for!

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[SlayerofGods]

Guantanamo Bay is filled with foreigners (to the U.S.)
A Chinese Jail is filled with Chinese citizens
A government looks after it's own first.

But anyway; people in China have rights, have a sentence, and have a trail (fair or not... is debatable)
Did you even read the article?
sentenced in April to 10 years in prison.
The real problem is you don't agree with what the Chinese are doing. Maybe we should send our military over to liberate the Chinese people from their evil government.
If the Chinese government is really so terrible to it's people then it's up to the Chinese people to do something about it.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[Stonehand]

You have a short memory, if you believe that the US did not have blemishes on its human rights record before. Furthermore, extraordinary rendition as a national policy -- that you not unreasonably criticize -- predates the current administration. You may also be unaware that there are hearings at Gitmo, which have caused prisoners to be released...

Wounded Knee? My Lai? The internment of the issei and nissei? Slavery? Segregation? The support for anti-Communist death squads in Latin America? The support for assorted anti-Communist strongmen throughout the world? The Chinese Exclusion Act? The Civil War prison camps? The tactics of the Philippine-American war?

And if you looked at other countries -- the ones active on the global stage, anyway, you'd see similar incidents throughout. Don't pretend that the US was some moral paragon that the current President threw down, or that history isn't filled with abuses worldwide.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[synthespian]

You're absoultely right. The USA has a long history of supporting dictators, thugs, assassins and human rights violators - of which I think Bin Laden is probably the best example.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[/dev/trash]

The patriot Act is to catch terrorists.

Re:What about the "Patriot Act"

[syousef]

No longer can we speak from higher ground to any other country.

Ah to be young and naive. When could you ever? Ever heard of the civil rights and women's rights movements? A lifetime ago in the US, women couldn't vote and blacks couldn't share the same resturants.

Blaming the victim

[Augusto]

> Just cause we in the west dont like it doesnt mean Yahoo could get away with NOT providing info. Reporters should know they are treading dangerously, after all they ARE in a communist country.

What a great attitude, the journalist should have known better! In other words, we need less independent journalism in China and the world, so these pesky journalist don't get in the way of the "state"!

OK Pinochet, great points there!

Re:Blaming the victim

[falcon5768]

No, moron, I mean the Journalist should have know better before he went off using yahoo without hiding his identity.

Just because Yahoo is a western company in no way means they dont have to abide by the laws in China in working there. Even here if a person where to violate the law, yahoo would be forced to release info. Why is this any different in china where free press is (wait for it) AGAINST THE LAW.

Does it make it right no not at all. But at the same time the reporter was dumb enough to not hide his information or identity in using the web, a very easy and fast thing to do that would have helped in keeping his identity a secret.

Re:Blaming the victim

[Professional Slacker]

I don't understand this odd fascination with laws, the legality of something has NOTHING to do with it's morality. What Yahoo did was unjust and immoral, period. They should have done the ethical thing and withheld the information. Sure it would have been illegal, but that doesn't make it less right. Laws be damned, is it so much to ask the people act in a manner that promotes the greatest freedom, happiness, and benefit to there fellow man?

Re:Blaming the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's my mod points? This guy may (or may not) be right, but he should be posting at "-1: Asshole."

Re:Blaming the victim

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Careful there, what you are describing could be twisted into a bizzare utilitarianism, which might state that the most moral/greater good to Yahoo's shareholders(a large group of people) would be to turn over the information regardless of what happens to this reporter(single person). The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Re:Blaming the victim

[Professional Slacker]

Your assessment is spot on, under the utility principle the yahoo share holders certainly do trump this one poor dude, but there are over a billion people in China, and 6 billion on the whole Earth (I'll even subtract the Yahoo share holders out of that group if you want) and they certainly hold trump over the Yahoo share holders. What the share holders want (profit) is inconsequential compared to the welfare of humanity (freedom, etc). So yeah you're right, but just didn't take if far enough.

Re:Blaming the victim

[Anonymous Coward]

falcon5678,

One thing that you should also bear in mind that Yahoo HK, does NOT have to answer to the Chinese government.

Handing out information collected under HK data privacy laws and then handing them over the border is a total no-no. Yahoo China will have been bullied into getting their HK office to release the information.

Yahoo HK doesn't have legal requirement to hand that information over and they did. If the case was valid, the information would have been collected by HK policy or Interpol and handed it over to china...

Anyway Yahoo is obviously a company that can't be trusted out here... if there was only a simple way of letting people know.

No end to dirty games

[TarryTops]

and it will suck up a lot of energy. Not good!

Blame the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, you have to remember the current meme.

The US is always to blame.
China may be a represive communist country, but ... they are not the US. So, anytime we have a choice of who to blame, we blame the US.

Yahoo is a US company. Therefore, we can blame the US by blaming them.

China is blameles sin this and most instances. After all they are repressed by those evil white men.

You have to understand, right & wrong are no longer based upon WHAT you DO, but instead on WHO (or what demographic) you below to.

Yahoo.gov

[PacketScan]

Well it looks like Yahoo is now in the law enforcement business and with that I've canceled my yahoo account, and will never use their services again. I can not believe they would do something to Strife. I Love my Google.. but I wonder if they are not inclined to take the same road as yahoo has.

Re:Yahoo.gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the other posts here. Google has been doing this longer than Yahoo.

When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[LexNaturalis]

I read this article before it was even posted on Slashdot (BBC RSS feeds are nice) and I can't really see why there's a big uproar about this, unless there's more to the story than the article mentions. Since when did complying with a government order amount to explicit consent and approval of government actions? Yahoo didn't convict/jail this guy, the Chinese government did.

Yahoo didn't actively seek to jail this Chinese writer. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Yahoo CONTACTED the police and said, "here is a guy you should arrest." While I come to expect this from slashdot, I'm somewhat disturbed that BBC is doing the same thing.

Maybe Yahoo did contact the police and tell them everything, but according to the article all they did was

"[provide] Chinese investigating organs with information that helped link Shi Tao's personal e-mail account and the text of the message to his computer."

Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.

Re:When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[hotdiggitydawg]

Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.

You must be new here...

Re:When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[SlayerofGods]

Since when did complying with a government order amount to explicit consent and approval of government actions?
Because....
a)We don't like what Yahoo is doing in the first place (the censorship thing)
b)It involves the big bad China

You are right though, this is a nothing story.

Re:When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[Anonymous Coward]

What did Yahoo do wrong?

That's easy to answer, they didn't respond to the Chinese Police's request with a nicely typed and very formal letter explaining to the where exactly they could go and what sex acts they could preform upon themselves.

Re:When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[Anonymous Coward]

The litmus test of Yahoo on this question is very simple. All they have to do now is condemn the Chinese government for its abuse of powers.

Will Yahoo?

Re:When did Yahoo become China's judiciary?

[Anonymous Coward]

ARrrgh! I wished someone wrote it. The uproar is not about Yahoo, the issue is that Yahoo HK has handed the information over to the Chinese government and it does not really have to.

China is a different legal jurisdiction from HK

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[slavemowgli]

Well, they *could* have said "we don't know anything about him, sorry", and left it at that. The government might not have liked that, but there would've been little they could do - after all, when you ask someone for information, then it just *happens* sometimes that he doesn't have any, and it's one of the few things you can't be bullied into, either - if you don't have it, you don't, so Yahoo could conceivably have claimed that they don't and left it at that.

This is especially true in Hong Kong, which is, for Chinese standards at least, rather liberal - despite the fact that China took over, Hong Kong is essentially still administering itself. It's certainly not the Soviet Union or the Third Reich where you had to fear the secret police at all times.

What Yahoo really showed is that they have no spine - and no ethics. Not a surprise, of course (which big company does?), but it's still disappointing.

No-reg link to IHT of Yahoo Help article

[WillAffleckUW]

An easier link is thru the International Herald Tribune article of the same story (registration not required for this one).

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[Qzukk]

Non-communism of China aside, it is important to consider other possibilities. For all we know, Yahoo wasn't told what they were actually doing. Hell, they might have just been given the email headers and told to find out where they came from. Maybe they were told it was a child porn investigation. Would you demand to see the proof?

Of course, in a situation like this, we'll probably never know if Yahoo's employees knew what they were doing, whether this guy actually stole any "State Secrets" or if they just needed a phony charge to shut the guy up, or what the real truth is.

Keep on boycotting!

[Hitto]

This internet thing is great. Yesterday, I closed my paypal account. Today, I vow never to use yahoo again! Oh, wait. Never used it before... Seriously, who the hell uses yahoo nowadays? Your grandma?

Re:Keep on boycotting!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who the hell uses yahoo nowadays? Your grandma?

Yes... but only when she's in Korea.

Schmidt on the Topic

[putko]

I read Schmidt (of Google) talking about this in China, and filtering.

He made it very clear: they must follow local law wherever they do business. Otherwise they get squashed -- naturally.

That being said, perhaps they should choose not to do business in someplaces -- like Burma.

Re:Schmidt on the Topic

[base3]

What, and leave money on the table? They don't care if they help an oppressive dictatorship kill a few people, as long as there's money in it. The executives of Yahoo who authorized this should be arrested, clapped in irons, taken to the Hague, tried for crimes against humanity, and hanged.

Re:Schmidt on the Topic

[tommers]

While I agree the act of turning this information over is quite bad (especially if those who turned it over knew what the accusation was), but I'd be interested to know who actually authorized this decision. My guess is it didn't make it very far up the chain. More likely, the execs probably should have pushed down more strict policy so that what ever individuals in the Hong Kong office gave this information over, would have to know a lot more before providing this information and refuse the information for certain "crimes" like this one.

Why is this moderated 4 , Interesting?

[Augusto]

It's not funny, and has nothing to do with the article. Basically the AC is saying, I don't care about Chinese journalist being jailed and US corporations helping to jail them.

How's that "interesting"?

A New Low

[donnacha]

This is a new low in corporate rimming of dictatorships, as morally reprehensible as IBM providing the Nazis with punch card computers to help make the holocaust more efficient.

Yahoo must be insane to have allowed this to happen, especially when their main competitor has a published philosophy including the statement: "You can make money without doing evil".

BTW, just to highlight the difference between this and the usual /. chatter, a brave journalist is going to spend 10 years in brutal, frightening conditions, at the mercy of a system that would prefer him to be dead. He would not be in Jail if Yahoo had not crossed the line and given the authorities access to his email account.

Sure, Yahoo has to protect it's $1bn investment in Chinese Ecommerce firm Alibaba.com but other companies manage to keep the Chinese authorities happy by censoring bloggers etc (Yahoo already has a strong record of collaborating in censorship) but, so far, other companies have drawn the line at becoming police informants.

And, yes, I understand that companies must obey the laws of the countries they operate in but, you know what, sometimes you have to recognize the difference between pragmatism and evil.

Re:A New Low

[Jerry Rivers]

"...so far, other companies have drawn the line at becoming police informants."

Oh? How is it that you know this?

Re:A New Low

[donnacha]

Oh? How is it that you know this?

Because I read the article.

You should try it sometime.

Re:A New Low

[gregorio]

Yahoo must be insane to have allowed this to happen, especially when their main competitor has a published philosophy including the statement: "You can make money without doing evil".

I'm sorry, but Google is one of the biggest contributors of the Chinese Censorship System.

This: http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2005/04/15/ch ina_censorship_working_google_workers_happy/

and

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdewk/is _200409/ai_n7184506

...are just small examples of this. Google can say "Do no evil" whenever they want, but it'll not change reality: the real world is about what you really do, not about what you say you would do.

Re:A New Low

[drsquare]

I'm fascinated. Please tell me how an article on the Internet can prove beyond all doubt that Yahoo are the only country in the history of communist China to ever cooperate with the police, as required by law.

SO? Journalists still have to obey the law!

[redelm]

Once again, there's a cry for special journalistic privilige. He was breaking a Chinese law, and some think he should get away with it because the law is bad. Or that Yahoo, an information provider, shouldn't provide information to people you don't like.

You'd do better to rail against similar US laws, including the PATRIOT Act. Journalism borders on espionage, especially when done for a foreign organization. Moreso when it is done for no legitimate purpose.

Lamentably, China makes no pretense at democracy. So gathering political information cannot use the excuse of "informing the voters". Just what what would be done with the information? Used it to titillate and embarrass?

Journalists are not above the law. They are to observe and record, not spy and foment change. When they cross over, they imperil their colleagues everywhere.

well, d'uh!

[Quixote]

If you do business in or live in a country, you follow the laws of that country.

Tomorrow if the FBI comes to Google or Yahoo or MSN with a warrant, guess what? They will comply with that too.

Expecting a corporation to not follow the laws of the country where they do business is asinine.

How would you like it if the Brits who come to the US started driving on the left side of the road? Hey, they don't like to drive on the right; let them drive on the left!

It is not as if Yahoo volunteered the information. They complied with a lawful request of the current regime in PRC. There's nothing wrong with that. It is not upto the corporation to judge what's lawful or not (or, at least, not yet ;) ).

Re:well, d'uh!

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you like it if the Brits who come to the US started driving on the left side of the road? Hey, they don't like to drive on the right; let them drive on the left!

Driving on the wrong side of the road could cause injury of death for the person on the wrong side AND and oncoming, innocent people. Posting about your government abuses will only cause you to be injured or killed. Big difference.

Sanity check time...

[Dracolytch]

How is it that we believe that it is acceptable for our consititution to apply in other countries?

Yahoo is complying with local law enforcement, and is HELPING local law enforcement. In the eyes of their government, Yahoo is being a good citizen.

Yahoo, as a corporation, is not in a position to challenge the government about what is right and not right (especially considering what the Chinese government does in this case), but what is legal and illegal.

You know what? If I ran a services company, and the big-bad-gorilla govt. came down on me and asked me for records (or else), I'd comply too!

~D

Let's ask ourselves a quick question...

[Vthornheart]

This is for those readers who are in the U.S., of which I am one.

If there was a news report today that Yahoo helped use the information on its network to bring someone that the U.S. Government considered to be, say, a terrorist, to justice, would people be complaining?

Let's be consistent here. It sounds like China considered this guy to be a terrorist of sorts. Doesn't that mean, according to popular fear-driven definitions of justice, that it was right to do whatever was necessary to find him?

I should note, for those who didn't pick it up before now, that I don't mean at all that Yahoo should've actually helped in this effort. On the contrary, I think this should be considered to be a good example of how relative the definition of Terrorist is, and how if we are going to be so indignant about other countries abusing privacy issues to find their so-called "terrorists", perhaps we in the U.S. should not be so complacent as to accept and support when our own country goes on a witch hunt in violation of ethical law.

Re:Let's ask ourselves a quick question...

[FreshFunk510]

Taking everything to be relative is a very dangerous path. I think many of us here oppose both China's action and US's actions when it has been cavalier in detaining "terrorists."

Re:Let's ask ourselves a quick question...

[synthespian]

I have read all sorts of Weirdo Logic on the justification for the removal of civil liberties and the so-called War-for-Oil, sorry, I meant the War-On-Terrorism, but justifying Chinese Human Rights violations with the WOT, I had never read that. Very original Bizarro World View.

Profit Motive

[tji]

From TFA: The companies say they have to abide by local regulations, and point out that since China is set to be the world's biggest internet market, they cannot ignore it.

Ahh.. so that's what it boils down to. "There is money to be made there. We have to bend over for their government and/or police, it's our fiduciary responsibility".

Fuck Yahoo. Helping send a person to jail for 10 years for a petty "crime"? I'm sure this will not be lost on the Chinese market, and there goes your "world's biggest Internet market".

Re:Profit Motive

[PhysicsPhil]

Ahh.. so that's what it boils down to. "There is money to be made there. We have to bend over for their government and/or police, it's our fiduciary responsibility".

Fuck Yahoo. Helping send a person to jail for 10 years for a petty "crime"? I'm sure this will not be lost on the Chinese market, and there goes your "world's biggest Internet market".

With Google helping to censor news articles, the Chinese market may never hear about this. Or perhaps they'll hear about patriotic Yahoo helping to capture a dangerous terrorist. Depressing, but I think this will not make waves in China.

Re:Sad

[Gondola]

As much as I like to criticize Slashdot, that mech was posted months ago. Please mod "wrong".

What about "filtering"

[Augusto]

So what's your excuse for Yahoo, MSN and google filtering words that suppress basic political freedoms? Do they also say : "We need to restrict the word 'freedom' because it's being used for criminal intent'?

Let's not have a narrow vision here, this is just another step in a series of circumstances were these corporations are helping China supress their citizens.

Cisco has been accussed of providing even more filtering and monitoring technology, and in that case, it's very hard to see your "we're just searching for criminals" loophole.

However, that's a great excuse, I'm sure the Nazis used that one with IBM. Oh yeah, we just need tabulating equipment to er ... keep tabs on all our criminals in our jails ... yes that's it.

C'mon.

Re:What about "filtering"

[Otter]

I specifically said that the censorship issues are completely different from today's story. And also that it may well be that there simply is no way to ethically run a Yahoo operation in China. I'm just trying to get across that it's not like Yahoo signed an order reading "OPPRESS DISSIDENT!".

Incidentally, if you would Godwin around less frantically, it'd be easier to have a lucid discussion of how to treat China.

Post what????

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people still believe that China is 'post communist'?

• Support a free and democratic Taiwan
  
• Support investigation of atrocities in Tibet
  
• Support the investigation of rampant human rights violations
  
• Boycott the 2008 Olympics
  

Help Me Abort Yahoo! from My Life

[Rude Turnip]

This news has pretty much turned me against Yahoo!. I've been using Yahoo since the beginning when it was just someone's personal web site hosted at Stanford. My homepage in my browser is a "My Yahoo" page that I've customized and used since they offered customized pages. I've got a Yahoo email account going back to 1998.

And now I want out.

Can anyone provide some guidance on an easy way to export about 7 years worth of email out of Yahoo's system? I'm sticking with Google's customized homepage and my Gmail account from now on.

Re:Help Me Abort Yahoo! from My Life

[jbensley]

Here is a page listing a few programs that can export Yahoo! mail and make it POP accessable or forward to another email address. I personally run the fetchyahoo script as a cron job to forward my Yahoo mail to GMail every so often.

http://fetchyahoo.twizzler.org/

The biggest problem I see is not the one-time mail move, it's going through all of the websites that you've registered your Yahoo mail address with and transitioning it over, and it has been the main limiting factor in my dropping Y! for a while now.

Re:Help Me Abort Yahoo! from My Life

[m50d]

Maybe look at a more impartial news site than googledot before doing that? Google's record is hardly any better.

Companies that enable opression.

[Nijika]

I always find it funny that there are all these sanctions on countries that oppress, we wring our hands about evil dictators and oppressive regimes. How we're so much better...

But very few are ever particularly outraged when companies, based in the US, or Canada, or the UK, or some other country that pretend to love freedom and democracy enable these regiems, these dictatorships. That's called business nowadays, and I guess it's acceptable.

Is this the new deal? When do we stand up and boycott these companies in an effective way? Is it even possible anymore? Do enough people care?

Re:Companies that enable opression.

[greg_barton]

That's called business nowadays, and I guess it's acceptable.

It's also just business for the governments of the US, Canada, and the UK. They just can't say so in public, and at least marginally have to answer to the public.

Is it even possible anymore? Do enough people care?

1) Yes and 2) No. But keep fighting the good fight. Otherwise it'll never be won.

Re:Companies that enable opression.

[cbciv]

Is this the new deal? When do we stand up and boycott these companies in an effective way? Is it even possible anymore? Do enough people care?

Boycotting worked with companies doing business in South Africa in the 80s. If it hits a critical mass, it should work again. They key is public awareness. If you want to raise awareness you can either volunteer for an activist group or just make it a point to discuss the topic with people you know.

Difference here is, we jail them for NOT telling

[Anonymous Coward]

Difference here is, we jail them for NOT telling who their source is. I wonder which really is worse? The commie way, or the capitalist-pig way? Hm?

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Augusto]

I'm arguing that we should IMPOSE on them a basic set of human rights, and I don't see what's wrong with that, specially when China is making absurd demands on our corporations in the first place.

Here's a starting place, and it's not unreasonable by any measure:
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[SlayerofGods]

I don't see
'The right to leak state scerts'
listed.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

^secrets
Not sure how my spell check missed that horrible typo

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Mad Marlin]

That one sucks, it isn't worth the paper it is written on. Why? Article 29 section 3 of it reads: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." which basically says the UN can violate them at will. It is also full of a lot of non-rights such as "Everyone has the right to ... protection against unemployment." (23.1) which are basically along the lines of "and everybody gets a free pony!" These rights are better for governments to follow, applied to everyone.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Professional Slacker]

There's 3 reasons for that:
1)"Leaking State Secretes" is a blanket charge used to shut up whoever the goverment feels like silencing.
2)It falls under Freedom of Opinion (speech), see article 19
3)You're: an idiot, an asshole, a troll, an immoral reprehensible stain on humanity, or some combination of the above

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[SlayerofGods]

Not it's not, it's a very real crime, it's called treason and I'd bet almost every country has some form of it on the books.
Freedom of Opinion is not freedom of speech. And in this particular case neither apply. He gave a document to reporters that the government didn't want released. That isn't even protected speech in America.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[roman_mir]

I'm arguing that we should IMPOSE - we all can see how well this IMPOSING is working in Iraq. [sarcasm]The war on terror is going great, there are no more terrorists in Iraq now even though there were all kinds of terrorists there before Bush, after all Iraq was clearly implicated in 9/11, and yeah, USA has the power to do anything of significance to China in retaliation for human rights violations.[/sarcasm] You are either stupid or crazy, or both.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't see 'The right to leak state scerts' listed.

They likely weren't state secrets as you know them. In China, crime stats can be a state secret, as can yesterday's newspaper.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[SlayerofGods]

And your point is?
In china the Age of Consent is 14 and here it's 16.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
Does that mean we're evil for locking someone up for sleeping with a 15 year old?
Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're wrong and your right.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

My point is that China has redefined 'state secret' to mean 'anything that might embarrass us'. In light of this modified definition, yes, you do have a right to publish state secrets.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[SlayerofGods]

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't I don't know.
But in this case we're talking about 'internal Communist Party message'
Publishing this type of information is hardly a basic human right regardless of what information was in the memo.
We may not agree with this fact but it's China's decision.

Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

[synthespian]

I suggest a book called Logic and its Limit, by Patrick Shaw. It's logic for the layman. You need it bad, no offense.

Google and China

[putko]

Here is one guy's opinion on Google and China and "local law". His point is they have a lot of choices -- not just to bend over for the dictators.

I really wonder what local law means in Burma and Somalia -- is it "do what the local mafia running stuff says?"

Free Trade will make you free.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

-Lenin

(This is why "free" trade and "guest" workers are good for America)

In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese Law

[bitslinger_42]

What a steaming pile of bullcrap! If the story had been that Yahoo! had complied with an investigation into a child molester in the US, then there would have been no story. Yahoo! was simply complying with the laws of a country that Yahoo! has operations in. Big deal.

Yahoo! is a publicly-traded company. Its shareholders want one thing: more money. For Yahoo! to pull out of the biggest growing economy in the world wold be suicide. If they want to operate in China, guess what? They have to abide by Chinese laws. Their only options if they don't are to follow the political process in China to change the laws or to pull out of China entirely. There is no special Most Favored Corporation status that magically protects Yahoo! and makes it so they don't have to follow the laws just because they're popular with a bunch of pimple-faced, 40 year old virgins.

You think China's bad, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't just sit here bitching about how someone else didn't.

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[tksh]

Here's the thing -- the Hong Kong arm of yahoo lives in HONG KONG! They live in a communist country! How could anyone think that threatened with life in prison by a repressive government, a Chinese "Citizen" would possibly choose to not immediately capitulate to ANY request by the police? Just because an employee in China decided to NOT be Patrick Henry doesn't mean Yahoo's in bed with the Reds.

Here's the thing -- the Hong Kong arm of Yahoo operates out of HONG KONG! Hong Kong, operating on the one country, two systems principle, has its own legal system! For example, it actually follows the British common law system! It's not a communist country!

Snark aside, the point is that it's one thing to comply with court orders and it's another to become a police informant. The article makes no mention of a court order at all and from the tone of it, it sounds like Yahoo HK volunteered the information to China state officials to please the CCP.

No morals! Welcome to slashbizarrodot.com

[Augusto]

> You obviously have no morals or sense of human decency.

I just woke up in Bizarro world, were hoping corporations don't help supress political dissenters is seeing as amoral and indecent!

Yahoo News

[waynegoode]

I think it is more interesting to read it on Yahoo News.

Would Slashdot submit to the PRC too?

[Nymz]

I wouldn't want to post something here, only to have my information handed over to Yahoo/PRC. Oh, and just in case, Tiananmen Square never happened, in fact I've never ever heard of it.

Re:Would Slashdot submit to the PRC too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and just in case, Tiananmen Square never happened, in fact I've never ever heard of it.

The scary thing is, many younger people in China have never heard of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It seems that the Chinese government would rather censor history as if it never happended.

You confuse ethics and morals

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not the same. What Yahoo! did may have been within their code of ethics, but it was certainly immoral.

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[hqm]

Putting companies out of business that help imprison Chinese dissidents is 'doing something about it'.

Yahoo being a "publicly traded company" doesn't absolve them of being complicit with dictatorships.

I don't mind buying Chinese manufactured goods, unless they are made by, for example, prisoners who are being used as slave labor.

It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law!

[synthespian]

What China did is violate the UN Charter of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Here's a little excerpt from the Stanford Encylopedia of the ideas behind the Charter:

1. The General Idea of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR; United Nations 1948b) sets out a list of over two dozen specific human rights that countries should respect and protect. We may group these specific rights into six or more families: security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder, massacre, torture, and rape; liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief, expression, association, assembly, and movement; political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics through actions such as communicating, assembling, protesting, voting, and serving in public office; due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials, and excessive punishments; equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law, and nondiscrimination; and welfare rights (or "economic and social rights") that require provision of education to all children and protections against severe poverty and starvation. Another family that might be included is group rights. The UDHR does not include group rights, but subsequent treaties do. Group rights include protections of ethnic groups against genocide and the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.

(From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/)

Reducing everything to local Chinese law is absurd. As we know, economic freedom goes better with political freedoms. Deng Xiaoping did nothing for the political rights of the Chinese. In fact, he sent 200,000 troops to crush the rebels of Tiananmen.

Freedom of expression is a fundametal human right

[Augusto]

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

I'm not talking about US law, but yes, Yahoo is a US based company and can't directly violate certain laws.

Please read a bit more, if a country decides that they don't believe in copyright, you think the US is going to do nothing about it?

What if a corporation goes to a country were they can employ slave labor or have sweatshops with subhuman conditions. Is this allowed? Aren't these US based companies liable back here in the states?

It's the same thing here.

So let's even it up.

[Mr. Underbridge]

The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue

Did you know Larry Page eats babies? It's true, I read it on Yahoo.

Corporations have no national loyality.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think Yahoo is an "American" corporation, or is IBM or Cisco? Hell no.

Yahoo has no allegience to any government and is following the laws of the country they are operating in. That is why no one understands the outsourcing argument. People seem to think that "American" corporation Levis sold out the US by moving all of its production to 3rd world sweatshops. Levis in fact sold out no one. Levis has no loyality to any government. Ford could easily build tanks for the US and then sell the same tanks to one of the US's enemies if it wishes.

Yahoo goal is to make money.
IBM's goal is to make money.
Cisco's goal is to make money.

They will gladly help law enforcement; regardless of country; to jail its citizens to achieve a higher bottom line.

No corporation is of any citizenship.

No, but ...

[Augusto]

> Do you really believe that corporations or governments exist to help people?

Not really, but I do expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard and not collaborate in human right violations.

If I take your view to the extreme, then there was no problem with IBM and the Nazis collaborating in the gas chambers, or the US wouldn't care if it's corporations employ child or slave labor. After all "Corporations don't exist to make the world a better place".

Re:No, but ...

[qwijibo]

Why would you expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard when we have seen that not to be true time and time again? I would like your expectation to be true, but I base my expectations on experience, not on wishes.

IBM is paying in PR for that particular decision each time their history is cited. However, IBM does not likely care about your feelings on the matter. If you have any influence in a large company, you can refuse to do business with them based on that incident. However, that seems short sighted as well. There are not likely any of the people who made those decisions still working for IBM. How does a company pay pennance for past sins? It also ignores the fact that there are a lot of companies today that would help design, build and run mass execution facilities for a bit of Nazi gold. They are given a pass because they weren't around back then.

Many US based companies employ child labor in other countries. It would be nice if they would stop doing that. There will always be companies that will use child labor to make their products. All individuals can do is refuse to buy $200 shoes from a company that produced them for $0.16 by using child labor and let others know what is happening as well.

Re:No, but ...

[TheRaven64]

Many US based companies employ child labor in other countries. It would be nice if they would stop doing that. There will always be companies that will use child labor to make their products. All individuals can do is refuse to buy $200 shoes from a company that produced them for $0.16 by using child labor and let others know what is happening as well.

The fairtrade label exists to prevent that in the UK. Any product with the fairtrade logo on it has been produced by people working in conditions and for wages that meet a certain set of conditions. Sometimes they are a bit more expensive, but many people choose to buy them anyway. One of the largest coffee chains in the UK, Costa, provides fairtrade coffee and tea, and seems to be doing better than StarBucks around here.

Perhaps a logical extension of this idea would be to have an `ethical behaviour' mark awarded to companies who meet a certain set of minimal conditions, such as not assisting any regime violate a documented set of human rights.

Re:No, but ...

[rlp]

Augusto wrote:

but I do expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard and not collaborate in human right violations

I was going to write something snarky, but fact is, I wish that was true. Fact is that C level executives have a fudiciary obligation to their stockholders to pursue policies in the financial interest of the company. All too many pursue courses that are primarily in their own financial interest. It's a rare exec (usually a company founder) that will give primacy to doing the right thing.

Re:Freedom of expression is a fundametal human rig

[falcon5768]

Yahoo has offices in china, thus they have to abide by Chinese law.

Weak answer

[Augusto]

That's your reply?

Yahoo is a US based corporation, thus they need to avoide by our law. A case can be made against them if they're found helping violate human rights in another country, and I really hope someone makes that case.

Also we can start imposing new laws on these corporations of our own whenever they do this, after all they have to "abide by our laws".

And look, it's great that you're making the argument for more US corporations being able to freely and with no worry help suppress other populations. That's real progress!!!

Re:Weak answer

[falcon5768]

"A case can be made against them if they're found helping violate human rights in another country, and I really hope someone makes that case."

Nope, they where aiding in a police investigation. They are required to by UN trade law to do this (since your so fond of bringing the biggest criminals of them all, the UN into this). What china was investigating this person for might be considered a violation of his rights, but to yahoo they where only aiding a investigation.

Dont like it? Tough. You have a lot more problems in your own country than to be butting into others.

Re:Weak answer

[soft_guy]

Would it be any different if it were the US government wanting to arrest someone for the same reason (divulging state secrets)? I doubt it.

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[Threni]

> Just because an employee in China decided to NOT be Patrick Henry doesn't mean
> Yahoo's in bed with the Reds.

Yahoo as a company may accurately be described as being `in bed with the Reds` because of their actions, regardless of whether the people being compelled to act are doing so against their own wishes. I want to know which companies are involved in immoral acts, period - why the company is acting the way it is is very much a side issue.

Huh?

[msormune]

Well, of course they must follow always local laws. They can't choose which laws, if they're not up to USA standards. Oh yeah, and if you think China is a bad place for putting people in prison, you might wanna check the percentage of people in prison in USA first. To put it short, China prisons people for "being wrong", and USA prisons people for "being too poor". But of course it is always easy to play jesus about it on Slashdot. It's also perfectly legal to sell booze to people of age 18 here in Finland. Now can I also come to sell it in USA to people of that age? Now where's my troll status?

False

[Augusto]

> Ford could easily build tanks for the US and then sell the same tanks to one of the US's enemies if it wishes.

No, not really. As a US based corporation, there's a list of countries they're not allowed to trade with. So your point is not valid in that sense, they can't do whatever they please, they still have to abide by our laws, specially our *TRADE* laws

Re:False

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your wrong. What yahoo is doing is effective supporting a ruthless, oppressive regime. Look at where the oil companies drill and don't get me started on Halliburton.

I know for a fact that Halliburton sets up operating companies, as well as Schlumberger, so they can drill and trade with countries on the US terrorist list. At last check, 7% of US oil imports are Iranian.

I use yahoo all the time

[Anonymous Coward]

I read their newspaper, send my mail through them, and look for new cookie recipes with their searcgh engine.

-your grandma

(OT but "menarche?" Come on, guys, some of these capchas are harder for an old lady to read than for a bot. Give us old grandmas a break!)

Law violation is punished all over the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Each country has its own rules and if you violate them you are punished. The rules may differ from country to country but their violation is ALWAYS punished. From this point of view all countries and governments are the same, communist, capitalist or feudal, democracies or dictatorships, theocracies or atheist governments they all have rules which have to be respected.

Conclusion. Wherever you are respect the local laws and NOTHING WILL HAPPEN to you.

What these local laws ask from you is irrelevant, The main point is to follow them, period. Otherwise there would be no law but chaos.

Can't win either way.

[RexRhino]

If Yahoo decides to help China enforce it's laws, people will be outraged that Yahoo is cooperating with am oppressive regime. However, if Yahoo didn't cooperate with Chinese laws, the very same people would be outraged about "outlaw companies subverting soveriegn governments", and it would be seen as "Western Imperialism" or "American Arrogance".

Notice how there is absolutly no anger whatsoever at the Chinese government, only at Yahoo for simply RESPECTING THE LAWS of that government!

The same people who thing Yahoo is evil for turning over information to China, collected IN China, as required by law, are the same people who demand that the EU start selling advanced offensive weapons systems to China. I guess it is totally evil for people to obey China's laws when they are in China, but totally OK to help China to bomb other countries.

When in Rome...

[Mr_Icon]

When you enter a country, or are granted a license to conduct business there, you agree to abide and uphold that country's laws and regulations. When you enter the US, you are agreeing to follow all the laws the US has for foreigners. Among others, they include:

- Getting fingerprinted at the point of entry.
- Carrying identification papers with you all the time.
- Notifying the proper authorities of any address changes during your stay in the country.

While in US, a foreigner is also:
- Not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
- Can be detained for about a month without any reason given.
- Does not get a lawyer if they can't afford one.

If you don't like this, well, then don't enter the country. If you are a foreigner, and you DO enter the country, then you agree to abide by the above rules. If you violate them, then you will be persecuted and/or deported.

So, getting back to China. If you are a foreign company working in China, and the authorities come to you and demand that you disclose information about a Chinese citizen, you are hard-pressed to refuse, since, well, you'd be in violation of the laws of the country. Since all corporations are interested in only one thing -- turning profit, -- it is not in their interest to go against direct orders issued by the local authorities, since otherwise they will be persecuted and/or their business license will be withdrawn.

It seems Yahoo did a logical thing. Don't like how the US witholds certain "unalienable rights" from non-citizens? Don't come to the US. Don't like how China witholds certain "unalienable rights" from both citizens and non-citizens? Don't do business with China.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't speak to all you points, but at least these are wrong:

Not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
At least in PA, you can hunt with a firearm and get a "concealed carry" permit

Does not get a lawyer if they can't afford one
I have seen both legal and illegal immigrants use the services of a public defender

Carrying identification papers with you all the time.
While not carrying ID can cause you problems (you may be detained until you prove your identity), there's no requirement to actually do so.

Re:When in Rome...

[synthespian]

Have you ever heard of people voicing their concerns regarding the path that has been taken by the current administration with regards to Human Rights in the USA?
There are quite a few people concerned that freedom is giving way to a police state in the US.

Re:When in Rome...

[justins]

It seems Yahoo did a logical thing.

You hopefully realize that what you have said has nothing to do with the question of whether they did an ethical thing.

Re:When in Rome...

[FreshFunk510]

Yes, they did the "logical" thing. What bothers me, however, is that they are a company founded in the US with the majority of its company being here. Shit man.. even Jerry Yang is a Chinese-American who owes at least some of his success to an American education system (Stanford).

This bothers me because of the cross between politics and business. I understand "obeying the laws of the land" but there's a problem when it fundamentally conflicts with your own beliefs. For instance, in some cases it's illegal to kill your wife if she "dishonors" you/her/the family according to religious laws. If you were there, would you simply say, "hey, it's logical"?

I'm sure these are the risks of doing business in China, but it still bothers me. We shouldn't be bolstering governments that fundamentally go against values we built this country on, like freedom of the press. To simply say, "hey. it's a huge market, we can't avoid it" is pure negligence.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. As what I was trying to say earlier, corporations have no national citizenship. Yahoo is not an American corporation and will do anything for the almight dollar, yuan, pound, etc.

Yahoo has no loyality to the Chinese and is only doing what is takes to stay in business.

Re:When in Rome...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are thinking from a fiscal perspective...don't forget that actual, real, live human beings are somewhere in the picture. Shame on you.

In other news...

[hsuwh]

... Chinese president Hu Jintao threw a chair at a PRC ambassador who announced his decision to emigrate to the United States, shouting that "America has screwed us" and vowing to "*#&$(&@ kill America".

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he dance around "devewopers, devewopers, devewopers!" too?

That does it.

[Anonymous Coward]

From now on I vow never to seach using Yahoo again. This includes all their partners as well (yes including Overture users).

If capitalism is to work, we consumers have to take a stand for our rights every now and then. From what I know about how they treat prisoners in China, Yahoo just killed a person in the name of greed. Unless the corporations understand that the bottom-line mentality they use to appease their stock owners simply doesn't coincide with what's acceptable in a civilized society.

Who else is with me? (it's not such a big undertaking, we all know Google is better anyway)

Unacceptable? Try scary

[swb]

What bothers me about this is what China appears to be becoming -- this weird, totalitarian-corporate hybrid which Western businesses appear all too willing to support.

I can't help but think that corporations, which are almost always defined as anti-democratic entities, prefer a totalitarian government, since a totalitarian government allows for easy limitations on the things that drive corporations nutty -- labor rights, environmental regulations, consumer protections, and freedom of speech.

Guantanamo vs. China Prison

[jgardn]

In Guantanamo Bay, you get a prayer rug and warm, filling meals compliant with your religion. You get clean, running water and state-of-the-art plumbing. You can spit, pee, and throw feces at the guards and not get punished. You are also allowed to read your choice of religious literature. You are never tortured, and have access to ACLU Lawyers. You get all this even though you fought against American troops and you didn't wear a uniform and you didn't fight in the name of any country that exists today.

In a chinese prison, your body parts get sold for profit by the government when you get executed. In fact, they'll speed up the execution if they have an urgent need for your body parts. You don't have any rights. There is no due process. You don't get a square meal. You don't get your favorite religious book. You don't get a prayer rug. If you backtalk to a guard, you get physically abused, perhaps even killed. You are regularly tortured and even brainwashed. You don't have access to any lawyers, and you don't even get access to your embassy.

Yeah, I can see how people might morally equivocate the two. I certainly have a hard time distinguishing communist China from the US of A!

Re:Guantanamo vs. China Prison

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging from what you have written I am guessing you have never been to Guantanamo Bay. Or for that matter even read up on it.

If its such a lovely place why are most of the prisoners on hunger strike?

Oh and just because one evil is worse then another doesn't make yours any better.

Re:Guantanamo vs. China Prison

[pinkocommie]

Read up on both ends of what you're saying and dont limit yourself to any single source (everybody lies)...
Also by asserting something that means bad news for our country without actually having at least gone through it first you're doing a disservice to the US of A
I just Googled for guantanamo bay prisoners, first few hits (feel free to check them out) Europe Criticizes Treatment of Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay ... Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Complain of A Year Long Torture by US ... New revelations about Guantanamo Bay prisoners A recent story in the Los Angeles Times reports that at least 10 percent of the 625 war prisoners captured in Afghanistan and now held at the notorious US naval base prison in Guantanamo Bay have no meaningful connection with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Re:Guantanamo vs. China Prison

[cbciv]

I can see how people might morally equivocate the two.

definition of "equivocate"

That's an interesting use of the word. Was it intentional or did you mean "equate"?

Re:Guantanamo vs. China Prison

[synthespian]

In Guantanamo Bay, you get a prayer rug and warm, filling meals compliant with your religion. You get clean, running water and state-of-the-art plumbing. You can spit, pee, and throw feces at the guards and not get punished. You are also allowed to read your choice of religious literature. You are never tortured, and have access to ACLU Lawyers. You get all this even though you fought against American troops and you didn't wear a uniform and you didn't fight in the name of any country that exists today.

Yes, isn't Guantanamo great ? I wonder when Disney will have a them park there, with "let's all wear orange and walk in chains" fun !
In Guantanamo, you also get: to be incarcerated without due process, they get to throw the Holy Koran in the toilet for your amusement, or, if you get really lucky or you're a tough guy, they fly you to Egypt or somewhere else, where you can finally get tortured without ACLU lawyers!!

Yes, what a great freedom-lovin' country the USA is!

Fair exchange?

[rinkjustice]

Yes, that Chinese writer will be seperated from his wife and children for 10 years, tortured and forced into hard labour, but let's take a moment and think about Yahoo and how big the Chinese market is! All that money's at stake...

Yahoo owners are in danger of "gaining the whole world, but losing their own souls" (Mark 8:36)

Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

I am an american and I love my free speach, however, is it a human right? Some countries dont like to be divided, and would rather all speak with one voice with national unity.

I dont really think that is a bad thing if you are a people/culture who is into that sort of thing.

As far as yahoo providing information, we all know that email is NOT secure, and I dont really know the yahoo fine print atm, but im sure there is something in there about, these are our servers, and if you use them then you abide by our rules. Yahoo isnt going to let something illegal go on via there services on the american side, and laws vary by country.

  And Im sure there is money involved with china's growing econ, lots of companies want to play nice with them, so of course they will respect their culture.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[Stonehand]

I am an american and I love my free speach, however, is it a human right? Some countries dont like to be divided, and would rather all speak with one voice with national unity.


If dissenters aren't allowed to dissent openly, how can you say anything about how the country likes to behave?

For ages, China liberally executed not only offenders but also their relatives to the third degree. Does this mean that their culture supported this, or only that those in charge had enough power to enforce this?

If I'm in a room with ten unarmed people, and I have a machine pistol and the clear willingness and ability to use it, who has the most say? I don't think it's the unarmed people, and it'd be silly to claim that they're necessarily supportive of my actions if they're only complying at gunpoint.


I dont really think that is a bad thing if you are a people/culture who is into that sort of thing.


Some cultures have historically denied education to approximately 50% of their population -- women. Is this not bad -- in both moral and practical ways? Others have wholly endorsed extreme nationalism and theories of supremacy, leading to the attempted enslavement or even extermination of other societies. Cultural approbation does not imply morality.


As far as yahoo providing information, we all know that email is NOT secure, and I dont really know the yahoo fine print atm, but im sure there is something in there about, these are our servers, and if you use them then you abide by our rules. Yahoo isnt going to let something illegal go on via there services on the american side, and laws vary by country.


Quite. That said, any business that sets up operations in a known-totalitarian state and which needs that government's favor to continue operating there cannot claim ignorance of the possibility of the state leveraging its power. Nor can it be said that Yahoo! is voluntarily chasing dollars while involuntarily or ignorantly cooperating; the actions are joined. They made their decisions when they chose to invest there.

That is, while there is a clear profit motive to invest there -- assuming a reasonably fair playing field and lack of catastrophe such as nationalization of foreign assets -- this profit motive does not make the moral issues vanish.


And Im sure there is money involved with china's growing econ, lots of companies want to play nice with them, so of course they will respect their culture.


There's that "culture" word again. This has nought to do with culture, and everything to do with the government's desire to maintain information control and political stability.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[bombadier_beetle]

I am an american

No, you are most definitely not.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

By makeing a Eurocentric judgement on "morality", you are maknig out your culture to be superior!

Is american/Eurpean culture superior? Now you gave the example that some cultures dont educate their women. From a Eurocetric perspective I Would say that is wrong. But if you had some sort of understanding of their culture, you may find that a good chunk of that 50% of women would agree that a woman shouldnt be off running around in college with boys(thats immorral), but should learn how to be a woman at home, and bear children(moral). how chauvanist! You would say (from your point of view), but the rest of the world doesnt run on american values.

"Quite. That said, any business that sets up operations in a known-totalitarian state and which needs that government's favor to continue operating there cannot claim ignorance of the possibility of the state leveraging its power. Nor can it be said that Yahoo! is voluntarily chasing dollars while involuntarily or ignorantly cooperating; the actions are joined. They made their decisions when they chose to invest there."

I would say that China is a hypocritical exception on our part. (Communist cuba, no cigar) There are many totalitarian countries that we do NOT do business with, but China is too large( and too lucritive ) to ignore.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

"If I'm in a room with ten unarmed people, and I have a machine pistol and the clear willingness and ability to use it, who has the most say? I don't think it's the unarmed people, and it'd be silly to claim that they're necessarily supportive of my actions if they're only complying at gunpoint."

You would obviously have the most say, however.... most people in the room would rather have the one dissadent die, than that dissadent cause a rebellion that could get many in the room (even innocents who were not dissenting) killed.

What happened in the chinese revolution with nationallists, vs communists got alot of people killed on both sides with many innocents stuck in the middle. What may be more important to the average chinese person is that there is stability in the nation. (not that I speak for the chinese or anything) And a dissident might be viewed as a person who with words cause a revolt that could hurt innocents.

Maybe Im playing devils advocate, dont get mad :)

Re:Free speach a human right?

[otis wildflower]

By makeing a Eurocentric judgement on "morality", you are maknig out your culture to be superior!

It is.

But if you had some sort of understanding of their culture, you may find that a good chunk of that 50% of women would agree that a woman shouldnt be off running around in college with boys(thats immorral), but should learn how to be a woman at home, and bear children(moral). how chauvanist!

That's a choice. Lots of Americans like the idea of keepin' the little lady home cooking and cleaning. However, in America, this is a (to quote Cartman) "life choice". Not being able to choose? That is the mark of an inferior culture.

An inferior culture shoots people in the back when they try to flee to a superior culture.

I would say that China is a hypocritical exception on our part. (Communist cuba, no cigar) There are many totalitarian countries that we do NOT do business with, but China is too large( and too lucritive ) to ignore.

It is hypocritical, but one goes to diplomacy with the world one has, not with the world one wants.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

"That's a choice. Lots of Americans like the idea of keepin' the little lady home cooking and cleaning. However, in America, this is a (to quote Cartman) "life choice". Not being able to choose? That is the mark of an inferior culture." Most americans?!?!? Where did you get that from? Im in an office full of ladies, and I live in South CA, where a woman working is a requirment unless you got a rich family. Stay-at home moms are snickered at, and there are always jokes around the office about the "barefoot and pregnant woman". Get with the times, woman in the US have been in the work force for quite a while. My point was that in other cultures this may be looked down on, and there are a number of disadvatages to both sexes working... Also, like I said, "requirement". In most areas of the US, since woman can work, now they MUST work. Many familys are multiple income, and (At least here in CA) most singles must take on multiple roommates just to pay rent. Is that a choice? If I were a girl could I choose to be barefoot and pregent? To do that my "man" would have to be in a high paying, UNION, rich or our fam would have to be in "sacrifice mode". Thats not much of a choice either. Neither was it a choice pre-child -labor laws for ALL the girls to have to go work in the textile mills so the family could have food on the table.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

I dissent with the threat and I am imediatly exiled. score one for free speach :-p.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[CaptainTux]

Some countries dont like to be divided, and would rather all speak with one voice with national unity.

I agree with you. But I don't think that's what's happening in China. The people haven't decided to speak with one voice in unity or with a nationalist spirit. The government has mandated that they do so and that is where we run into problems. In addition to that, should the people of China decide to speak with one voice it would still be a government controlled voice since they would be basing their speech on what they see, hear, and experience through the media - which is controlled by the government.

I've always been of the opinion that American technology providers need to provide unlogged services within China. That way, if the government comes asking for records, there are none to give. Yes, I also realize that China may mandate that they log and that is the time to just pull out of the market. Some things are more important than money. Morals and ethics for example. So I don't buy Yahoo's statement about "we just can't ignore the market". Sure you can. You just...well...ignore it. Yahoo was a huge company before they entered China and would continue to be successful if they ignored the market completely. In fact, they might actually gain some customers because they are taking a stand against an oppressive government.

So, while I agree with your statement I also can see where Yahoo needs to get a backbone.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[Big_Al_B]

Er, no one exiled you.

The GP merely points out that your values are clearly out of whack with, actually diametricly opposing, the founding principles of the nation you were born to.

Oh, and it's free "speech", and for now it's still ahead on points. That will change if the profoundly ignorant and myopic keep letting it erode. Which one of those are you?

Re:Free speach a human right?

[Requiem Aristos]

Countries can't "like" something; they aren't sentient. The people in many countries will get together and select someone to speak for them; this provides the appearance of national unity.

It's very hard to tell if a country is "into that sort of thing", as you put it, when there is an active program to suppress people who aren't "into it". In fact, it's very likely that such countries aren't "into it", but just happen to be effectively enslaved by the leadership.

Yes, I believe free speech is a human right. So does the UN, as well as most countries that permit their citizens to freely voice their opinions. Using "what's legal" and "local laws" is just a dodge to avoid the ethical issues at hand.

Except at the most basic level there is little connection between what's legal and what's moral. In some of the more famous cases, it was noted that "just following orders" was not a valid excuse. Yes, there's money involved. There's money involved in killing people, if that's your thing. (Though, many jurisdictions do have some laws against it.)

Now, I am white, and can't claim to know the Chinese culture. What I do know is that people cannot make informed decisions without good information, and that the PRC for some reason considers free access to information a threat to their rule. The most obvious conclusion is that this "culture" has been artificially imposed (for however many generations) in order to benefit the current leadership.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[otis wildflower]

Most americans?!?!? Where did you get that from?

$ test `echo Lots` == `echo Most`
$ echo $?
1

Im in an office full of ladies, and I live in South CA, where a woman working is a requirment unless you got a rich family. Stay-at home moms are snickered at, and there are always jokes around the office about the "barefoot and pregnant woman".

America is not South CA, or NYC, or Berserkely. Or rather, they fall within the scope of America, but they are not definitive. There's plenty of places in the US where a single income will cover a family. It may not be a glamorous, gadget-filled or particular noteworthy lifestyle, but it's doable, and to many, it's preferable.

Again, it comes down to a 'life choice'. I _choose_ to live in a high-tax state with such a high cost-of-living that it takes 2 incomes to raise a family. Someone else _chooses_ to live in Alaska, or Texas, or New Hampshire, where there's lower taxes and a single-worker family can survive. Someone else _chooses_ to live in MA so they can marry their same-sex partner. These are individuals doing what they want with their lives, or choosing to pursue a lifestyle and being responsible for everything else that goes with it.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[xmorg]

Hmm what are those values again?

Oh yeah, Life liberty and pursuit of happiness?

All three are open to interpretation including life :)

"All men are created equal" - a little sexist no? You could mean "mankind" by saying men, yet, some may claim that its still being "gender specific".

Interpretation of Free speech (liberty) - I am free to make specific, threats against you, like I am coming to your house and killing you and your children. Or if I said "Bomb" in a crowded theatre or airport. Or how about if I called you a child molester, causing you to loose your job at the school? Even the most zealous of speech advocates might say that, that is NOT what liberty means. Therefore, "liberty" is open entirely to interpretation. In China it may mean that dissenting against the party could cause unnecessary violence or civil unrest. Again back to the history lesson when China had nationalists fighting communists, while the Japanese were carving up Asia. With such a history, a culture's core values may have emerged as "lets hang together, or we will hang separately".

Life....? Abortion, Executions even after millions spent in due process, assisted suicide, euthanasia , all are very controversial. Again, open to interpretation.

Re:Free speach a human right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, "liberty" is open entirely to interpretation... it may mean that dissenting against the party could cause unnecessary violence or civil unrest.

Ja wohl!

Re:Free speach a human right?

[Big_Al_B]

Hmm what are those values again?

I know you're being rhetorical, but the US Constitution and other documents of the time do not lack clarity on this issue. Within the context of this discussion, those values can be summarized to, "A just government requires citizen input and *oversight*, and that requires individual liberty for citizens. Thus individual liberty is a core value."

Oh yeah, Life liberty and pursuit of happiness? All three are open to interpretation including life :)

Deconstructing your own interpretation of these values was a pointless excersize. Your interpretation and mine are apparently quite different, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you that mine is more accurate. Likewise, you wasted much time and effort just to frame this simple question, "Since our implementation of our core values is not absolutely pure, how can we judge other folks' core values?"

And that's got an easy answer. We can judge the Chinese Government's values because regardless of any flawed present or past implementation, our founding values honor and support every human being's inalienable right to create their own destiny, and the Chinese government simply doesn't.

Finally, though others have already tried and apparently failed to educate you on one simple, fatal flaw in your argument, I must also try.

If citizen's are, by force, not allowed to voice their will, how can you be at all sure that a government is truly representing those citizens' will or their "culture values"? Explain please, and be specific about how you would know the government is not engaging purely in self-preservation at the cost of its citizens' welfare, culture, and humanity.

Specifically, explain to us how Tibetan culture is represented by the current Chinese government. I'm sure the Dalai Lama will be very interested to hear your explanation indeed.

Individuals AND the government

[Augusto]

> Many US based companies employ child labor in other countries. It would be nice if they would stop doing that. There will always be companies that will use child labor to make their products. All individuals can do is refuse to buy $200 shoes from a company that produced them for $0.16 by using child labor and let others know what is happening as well.

It "would be nice"? How about we fine them! Companies have been sued in the US for abominable labor practices in other countries, there is not "it would be nice if ...", the government's job is to enforce the laws and the laws don't allow you to do whatever you want because your in foobar country.

Citizens not buying certain products would be great, but that doesn't eliminate the responsibility of our own government.

famous criminals who broke bad laws

[inmate]

I don't buy their "we were just cooperating with the authorities" crap!
and neither would:

• Mahatma Gandhi
• Nelson Mandela
• Martin Luther King, jr.
• Rosa Parks

It is better to break the law, than to enact a bad one.

Re:famous criminals who broke bad laws

[Jim_Callahan]

The essence of civil disobedience is being willing to pay the penalty for breaking the bad law, and to do it in such large numbers that authority figures realize the problems in the law. So if this journalist's arrest is supposed to be a case of such, then waht are you complaining about? It's going exactly as it's supposed to.

Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[jgardn]

I take it you've never read the Patriot Act. You've probably taken all the second- or third-hand information and believed it.

The Patriot Act grants only a few "new" powers, all still within the constitution. These "new" powers aren't new at all. They are the same power the feds and local police have when investigated trusts and the mafia and drug violations. In a nutshell, the law enforcement still has to get a warrant to do search and seizure. Now they can get a warrant against a suspected terrorist and have that warrant hidden from the public so as not to alert the terrorists being investigated. That's common sense, is it not?

Technically, if you are suspected of fighting against the United States, whether on foreign or domestice soil, you have fallen out of the regular judicial system. All of a sudden, you find yourself under the judicial system of the military. Read the constitution and you'll see how the military justice system is allowed to differ from the domestic one.

And furthermore, foreign nationals, here illegally or legally, are not entitled to the same rights citizens have. My wife, although she is loyal to the US, is still a South Korean citizen. She has no right to petition government, she has no right to due process, and she has no right to be here at all. The feds could walk in tomorrow and put her in prison without any justification. But we just don't do that, because we don't think it is very kind.

Now, let's compare Amerikkka under the PatRIOT act to Communist China.

In China, even citizens have no rights. Even when government is at its most benevolent, her own citizens are treated more poorly than foriegn combatants. China is a corrupt country, with powerful men dictating the way things should be. Elections are a sham. Even if you elected representatives that opposed the government, they would be useless and replaced.

There is no court system that even approaches what we have in the US. I hear stories of farmers and homeowners having their property taken away without due process and without compensation. I hear stories of people in their homes being carted away by the police when there was no reason for the police to invade the home and the police certainly didn't have a warrant to do so.

You think Hurrican Katrina is bad, and it is. One of the worst effects it had (aside from the death and mayhem) is that families were torn apart. In Communist China, families are torn apart constantly. People don't know what happens to their loved ones. Are they in prison? Are they executed? No one knows. They just disappear.

In Communist China, one of the worst effects is that if you actually have some money, enough to get by well enough, you have to pretend you are a beggar. You can't walk around with modern clothing and a nice wristwatch. You certainly can't use your wealth to help your fellow people. One person who built a road to his village to connect them with Beijing found himself in prison because the people grew to actually like him and not the government.

I'm sorry, but the two don't even compare. I'm sick of all the wacko Bush bigotry and I wish people would open up their own eyes and see for themselves what is really happening rather than discarding opposing viewpoints because they think the other side is "dumb like W".

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Anonymous Coward]

And furthermore, foreign nationals, here illegally or legally, are not entitled to the same rights citizens have. My wife, although she is loyal to the US, is still a South Korean citizen. She has no right to petition government, she has no right to due process, and she has no right to be here at all. The feds could walk in tomorrow and put her in prison without any justification. But we just don't do that, because we don't think it is very kind.

Actually, since she is (presumably) a green card holder, your wife does have most of the rights of a US citizen including the rights that you listed. She even has Second Amendment rights (yes, she can go to a local gun store and buy a gun)!

The significant right of citizens, that legal resident aliens do not have, is the right to vote.

Agreed completely about being sick of wacko anti-Bush bigotry. However, look at the bright side; as long as they remain wackos, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that they'll ever again be entrusted with a burnt-out match, much less political power. moveon.org is the best thing that ever happened, and we should support that fine organization in its noble activity of rendering the Left utterly powerless.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Moofie]

"They are the same power the feds and local police have when investigated trusts and the mafia and drug violations."

Oh, so just because it's the same as the current breaches of our civil liberties, we should just relax and enjoy it?

RICO is wrong. The seizure laws are wrong. Expanding those powers to cover "terrorists" (which is a buzzword that means "anybody We deem suspicious") is even worse.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Anonymous Coward]

"In Communist China, one of the worst effects is that if you actually have some money, enough to get by well enough, you have to pretend you are a beggar. You can't walk around with modern clothing and a nice wristwatch."

When was the last time you were in China? 1800s? I've been to Beijing, Xian and Chengde (which is a typical country town). While the last certainly looked like a poor city I found everyone I met very friendly and socialble.

Can't wear a nice wristwatch? What hell are you talking about? China has issues no where close to what your coming out with.

I suggest you go visit the country. Btw to enter the US I have to give fingerprints, eye scan and detail where I am going in your country as well as having to queue for hours to get a visa (interview required). To visit china just applied for a visa by post.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[jgardn]

She has those rights but only because we, the people, grant them to her. They are not inherent and inviolate rights like the right to bear arms and the right to free speech that citizens enjoy.

Her green card can be revoked at any time for any reason as well. It says so on the document. She doesn't even own it.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[jgardn]

You have a point; I don't like the fact that the feds have much power at all. Frankly, I don't trust them, even when "my guy" sits in the seat.

I expect you are going to work in politics and locally to eliminate the need for local police and FBI powers? I suggest you start by making a few arrests. You have the power to do so. Unlike the federal government, you can get away with a lot of things like wiretapping and surveillance.

But you don't like vigilantism either. Well, what are we left to do? Shall we just leave our borders open and put up a sign, "Please don't hurt us. We are unarmed wussies unwilling to protect our own lives and unwilling to allow our own government to protect us."

If you had a choice between the three: Strong government, vigilantes, or nothing, which would you have? Or do you believe that we can maintain a sane society and permit people to hook people on drugs and conspire to overthrow governments and conspire to terrorize the populace?

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Moofie]

You have me confused with an anarchist. I simply want the police to be required to not do things that are unconstitutional. I also want the courts to stop allowing police to get away with doing unconstitutional things.

"I expect you are going to work in politics"

I'm not wealthy enough to do so.

If by "vigilantism", you mean taking responsibility for my own personal safety, I am fully in favor. I don't think that's what you mean, though, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I don't want "nothing", but I certainly want far less law enforcement than we currently have. I don't care about what drugs people like to take, and I don't think law enforcement should either. I fail to see what that has to do with overthrowing governments...

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Dirtside]

Your sig:

Two ways to end the war: (1) Kill all terrorists. (2) Convert to Islam. Unfortunately, diplomacy is not a part of either

(0) Which war? The "war on terror" isn't a war, it's just an excuse to expand government powers. The war in Iraq? The one where major combat operations ended two years ago, according to the head of the U.S. military?

(1) You can't kill all terrorists. Terrorists are not a species or an ethnicity, they are regular people who have joined a political cause. Kill all the existing terrorists and more will arise from the populace, until the end of time, or until you stop doing whatever it is that's making them want to commit terror acts.

(2) Converting to Islam won't help. You may have noticed that there are plenty of Muslims being killed by terrorists in Iraq.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Blitzenn]

Interesting, but wrong. Perhaps someone forgot to tell the Federal Courts and the ACLU it is all constitutional. Several parts of the Patriot Act have been struck down now. The first challenge to make it through the court system that was successful and can be found here. There are several more challenges in the works and there have been at least two (counting the one I linked to) that have been successful. It takes a long time for these things to be fettered out. Just because the law was passed, doesn't make it right or constitutional, such as was the case in the Sedition Act of 1798. That made it illegal to even 'utter' a word that could be construed as dissident against the United states or it's representatives. Thankfully that too was later found as unconstitutional and repealed.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[Anonymous Coward]

This is totally untrue; I write this from ChengDu, I've been in Beijing also, visiting company offices (boss, don't read this, I'm not on /.). Certainly, I am impressed not only with the cities (some parts of Beijing would put NY to shame) but also the hightech facilities they have, for so little money (the office like one in Chengdu would been afforded by very few companies in NY).

All of the major cities I saw seem very western-like, and feel the same. It's actually a very nice/clean/civilised country to live in, if you don't mind to have state-only television you can't understand if you don't speak Chinese - but they have cover of all big sport events for example - and you don't mind to have a communist governement to rule you - which you can't speak against. Also the only problem with "Great Firewall of China" I got is that I can't see cached Google pages - solved by using a public free HTTP proxy :)

China is certainly not the way I thought it to be.

Re:Patriot Act vs. Communist China

[tiggles]

You're being to generous to the grandparent, I can assure him/her that China has a lot of problems but:

  "In Communist China ... you have to pretend you are a beggar. You can't walk around with modern clothing and a nice wristwatch."

WTF??? I was just in one of the dozens of cell phone stores by the KFC downtown and they have over 100 models -- because you just can't be caught dead with the same model as someone else. And I live in a dirty mid-sized Chinese city that the west hasn't heard of (Tai'an).

And "modern clothing" starts at 50 cents a piece here, where do you think it comes from anyway?

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Thunderstruck]

Has China agreed to the terms of the Human Rights Charter? It seems to me the whole declaration is not a binding law, but a set of goals. Even the preamble to the Declaration suggests this:

THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

If this (like many UN publications, is nothing but a set of ideals,) we can't go making a legal argument against China or Yahoo! for violating it, can we?

Yahoo never said that it would

[vicaya]

"do no evil".

US Hypocrisy

[Hoi Polloi]

It is interesting how we attack Iraq for being totalitarian (official excuse) and we embargo Cuba decade after decade for the same reason. China however is totalitarian and we not only encourage investment there we allow our companies to aid and abet their oppression. Nice set of double standards we have.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[mfrank]

1) China has nukes and ICBMs. But you knew that.

2) It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see China becoming a capitalist democracy. Harder to see Cuba or Iraq (pre-war) doing that. How many decades did South Korea have an authoritarian government? I'm pretty sure their current president at one time was a political prisoner. Engagement vs. isolation, carrot vs. the stick. Use the right tool for the job.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[Hoi Polloi]

"1) China has nukes and ICBMs. But you knew that."

So did the USSR and we weren't doing billions of dollars of business with them.

"How many decades did South Korea have an authoritarian government?"

Many dictatorships we supported didn't come down until the cold war ended and we didn't need them anymore (i.e Chile, Indonesia). Sometimes it is the carrot that keeps them alive.

"It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see China becoming a capitalist democracy"

Actually it does take a lot of imagination. China has thousands of years of authoritarian government and weak support for democracy. The strongest push in China is against corruption and class divisions. Being able to write letters to the editor isn't a priority there.

"Engagement vs. isolation, carrot vs. the stick. Use the right tool for the job."

And isolation is better for Cuba but not for China why?

Re:US Hypocrisy

[mfrank]

Engagement for authoritarian countries with capitalist economies. Isolation for authoritarian countries with communist economies. Give people the ability to vote with their money, eventually they'll demand to vote at a ballot box. As a middle class forms, there's more pressure for democracy. China will likely be a democracy in a generation.

Most places on this planet have had thousands of years of authoritarian government. Not really an excuse for not thinking they can be democracies. If the Chinese people believe democracy will make their lives better, they'll do it (that and a free press *are* the best way to deal with corruption and class divisions, you know).

BTW, Russia is an authoritarian *capitalist* country now, so engagement is the way to go with them.

It's likely that without trade with China, North Korea would collapse and it would be possible to start fixing their country. How much of Cuba's economy is propped up by European tourism? You don't seriously think Castro wants the US embargo to end because he's concerned about the welfare of his people, do you? He wants it to end so he can get money to prop up his regime.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[jcr]

So did the USSR and we weren't doing billions of dollars of business with them.

Umm... Ever hear of Nixon's wheat deal? The USA was doing business with the commies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars by the mid 1970's.

-jcr

Re:US Hypocrisy

[PsiPsiStar]

Give people the ability to vote with their money, eventually they'll demand to vote at a ballot box.

The US was fine with Batista in Cuba, not because they thought he'd eventually become a democracy, but because we could do business with him. Hell, look at the shit that they did in El Salvador.

Assauge your conscience however you want, but American corporations have never met a buyer they didn't like, and they have a lot of say with the US gov.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[PsiPsiStar]

"It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see China becoming a capitalist democracy"

Actually it does take a lot of imagination. China has thousands of years of authoritarian government and weak support for democracy. The strongest push in China is against corruption and class divisions. Being able to write letters to the editor isn't a priority there.

China is a dictatorship on the national level, however it allows elections on a local level, so China does have a democratic tradition. Of course, I don't know how legitimate the elections are in all cases, but I think that at least some are legit. But the US downplays elections by any nation that it doesn't like. Iranians have a broader choice of leaders for their national leadership than Americans do.

The strongest push in China is against corruption and class divisions. Agreed on corruption. Why do you say 'class divisions.' Are you sure that's up to date? Heck, China's agricultural policies actively discriminate against farmers a la the American Morril Tarrif before the civil war. They squeeze the agricultural sectors to grow Chinese cities and Chinese industry.

Face it, America has a two party dictatorship at the national level. Look at how difficult it is to get on the ballot in each state if you're not the favorite of the Republican or Democratic party. Despite widespread support, even Perot had trouble.

Candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties should be forced to get their name on the ballot in each individual state in the same way that third party candidates do. Party candidates should not be given any special favors in the electoral process by the government that would give them an advantage.

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[synthespian]

IN FAITH WHEREOF the representatives of the Governments of the United Nations have signed the present Charter. DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.

http://www.arabhumanrights.org/charter/un-charter4 5e.html#ch19

Besides, even if a country does not sign it, we must accuse such country of beign a violator of Human Rights. Or so the argument goes...

Welcome to the modern day

[wealthychef]

It's a new kind of tension developing in the modern world: nationless corporations (not multinational) vs. geographical interest groups known as nation-states. Corporations and companies have no loyalty to any state, and you could argue they should not., and states have interests contrary to the good of the globe as a whole at times. Nobody is blameless; it's just an issue we have to sort out.

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Stonehand]

"Ink on a page".

Laws and treaties, if separated from any reasonable chance of consequences of material interest to those who might violate them, are at best meaningless.

If the UN does not firmly enforce its treaties within Chinese territory, and China enforces its local laws -- which do you think will hold sway over there?

Re:SO? Journalists still have to obey the law!

[Anonymous Coward]

Law does not trump everything. There are very sane and helpful laws but there are also stupid irrational laws.

"He was breaking a Chinese law"

Have you got proof? How do you know? He could be innocent of any charges but still locked up because the government doesn't like him.

If he *did* break a law what was it? Was it a silly law or a sane law? Did he do something terrible? Would a less "difficult" chinese citizen be locked up for doing the same sort of thing?

The Law is not always correct and right. It's sometimes stupid and sometimes used as an excuse to get rid of somebody. Take a look at Al Capone. Not a nice man and don't get me wrong, I think he needed to be locked up, but they got him for tax evasion.

The Fundemental Morality

[MightyMartian]

None of that matters. What counts is the almighty dollar. The excuses used by Western companies that bend under pressure from the Chinese government are the moral brethren of generations of collaborators whose excuse was "I was just following orders".

More important question

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the Chinese government even know what he was writing? ASCII doesn't have Chinese characters, and as far as I know, the Chinese characters or whatever don't even mean anything. It just looks like a bunch of scribble-scrabble. I've showed that stuff to all my friends and they can't read it either! I bet they just pretend that they're writing stuff down when we're watching, but use the Roman alphabet when they're actually trying to communicate. Seriously, who can actually read that jibberish? It looks like jflkdfibgoaie

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Omega]

In Guantanamo Bay, you get a prayer rug and warm, filling meals compliant with your religion. You get clean, running water and state-of-the-art plumbing. You can spit, pee, and throw feces at the guards and not get punished. You are also allowed to read your choice of religious literature. You are never tortured, and have access to ACLU Lawyers. You get all this even though you fought against American troops and you didn't wear a uniform and you didn't fight in the name of any country that exists today.

That was the funniest thing I've read on /. lately.

Obviously you know all this about the Gitmo because unlike every other human-rights, legal, political and humanitarian organization in the world, you have free, unrestricted access to roam around the grounds any time you choose. Not even congressmen get this level of access, but you have special omniscient and omnipresent powers.

You also must have unlimited access to interview detainees (that is, the detainees who didn't tell you about the torture, waterboarding, noise-assault and forced-nudity). Also you must've overlooked the medical staff who (in violation of medical ethics) were providing confidential patient information about detainees to interrogators.

Nice one, Mr. President. You're a very funny man.

Wasn't one of the founders of Chinese descent?

[Stonent1]

Jerry Yang. The last name sounds Chinese to me.

greedy business

[Maxhrk]

A US-based multinational, Yahoo ! Appears to be willing to go to any lengths to gain shares of the Chinese market and it is investing heavily in local companies. so... Shares and Money > Journalist I guess.

Are you related to Bush???

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never claimed that China has a great human rights record. I simply do not believe that Iraq was a hell of a lot better.

Someone else already posted the fixed links. Are you too stupid to figure them out, or are you just disngenuous?

That kind of talk is what got us into Iraq in the first place, Mr. President... or is that Mr. Chinese president? What you actually postulated (and damn, dude, it's all up there for any moron to read) was that the Chinese had a far better human rights record than Iraq "based on over 10 years of studying the Chinese government and society". So, you're an academic? Are you in China? Or are you just full of shit?

I worked at Disney World in the early 1980s, and I didn't like Reagan (despite the fact that I voted against Carter). I was talking with a Chinese fellow at the Chinese pavillion at Epcot, and he was extoling the virtues of our government, and I set him straight.

Hearing me go off on Reagan, he looked around nervously as if he expected the Secret Service to pop out and arrest me. He was genuinely astonished that I would be allowed to speak that way about the government.

I seriously doubt they've gone to an open, free society in those short twenty years. What I di NOT doubt is that you're a sixteen year old kid who's full of bovine excrement. Dumbass.

Paranoia

[Varba]

because you'd have to be mad to not want to live under a benevelent Communist party wouldn't you?

You play paranoia, don't you?

Re:Paranoia

[LizardKing]

Are you stalking me?

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What China did is violate the UN Charter of Human Rights.

Well duh, this is China! They aren't a shining beacon of democracy; instead, they're a thuggish oligarchy with a billion low-priced laborers (the only reason anybody plays ball with them).

can I have whatever it is you're smoking?

[RelliK]

never , tortured eh?

Re:can I have whatever it is you're smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to defend their actions....
But if you think that's torture, you should read about some of the things that happen in North Korea.
There's a good reason it was called prisoner abuse.

10 years in jail

[Augusto]

That's what he's going to get, just because China makes "no pretense at democracy" doesn't mean this is acceptable.

I'm really amazed at the apologetics coming from some in the slashdot crowd. You don't have to be a radical to at least say "Geez, that's a harsh sentence!" ... but it would seem some people here see no problem with that. Isn't that great, most of you have never lived under an oppressive regime. So that's really nice that you support them! Just what the world needs, right?

Re:10 years in jail

[redelm]

I do not claim that any of this is acceptable, only that is was foreseeable and logical given the premises of debateable humanity.

As far as I'm concerned...

[Aslan72]

Yes, I'm an American...

But, the world has pissed on repressive regiemes before. The only thing that seperates China from Iraq is a Billion people, money and no monetary interest in invading/converting the system to democracy.

It seems like America, the corporatations and the like only find ethical behavior and lack free speech useful or worth defending so long as their is a dollar in it for them at the end of the day.

Spin it however you like...boo yahoo :(.

--pete

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[babyrat]

Yahoo being a "publicly traded company" doesn't absolve them of being complicit with dictatorships.

I don't mind buying Chinese manufactured goods, unless they are made by, for example, prisoners who are being used as slave labor.

So Yahoo complies with local chinese laws in order to business there and make money and you support the chinese government by purchasing items made in China. What's the difference again?

BTW, do you check to make sure each item you buy is not being made by prisoners being used as slave labour, or children being forced to work in sweathops?

Sounds rather hypocritical to me.

WARNING!!!!! LIBERALS, WARNING!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is not anti-Bush! Cover your eyes and mod down accordingly!!! Must maintain the groupthink hegemony where anti-Bush trolls get modded up and anything in opposition is modded down as troll!!!! Must disregard simple facts and appeal to emotion, as all liberals do!!!!

REPEAT, PARENT POST IS NOT ANTI-BUSH!!! MOD DOWN ACCORDINGLY!!! BAA!!!

How can some of you defend Yahoo?

[Morinaga]

Ok, I just don't buy this take that because it's China's laws Yahoo doesn't have any choice. I think they do have a choice they simply decide to pander to China's desires. It's a very interesting case of corporate morals and if or when they play any role in their decision making. The fact that it's a US company IS important because it's listed as a public owned company in the US. Fair or not, Yahoo and other corporations do represent our morals as a whole because they are owned by Amercian stakeholders (by and large).

More detail for you: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2005/09/ 06/warning-yahoo-wont-protect-you/

Officials from the Changsha security bureau detained Shi near his home in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, on November 24, 2004, several months after he e-mailed notes detailing the propaganda ministry's instructions to the media about coverage of the anniversary of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square. Authorities confiscated his computer and other documents and warned his family to stay quiet about the matter.

On December 14, authorities issued a formal arrest order, charging Shi with "leaking state secrets." On April 27, 2005, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court found Shi guilty and sentenced him to a 10-year prison term.

I'm sorry, but what a shocker. China tosses a journalist in jail for 10 years for a mislabled "crime". Here is a picture of this Chinese James Bond http://www.cpj.org/news/2005/China25aug05na.html

It should be of no suprise to anyone that Tao's appeal was rejected without reason nor public hearing. As is correctly pointed out at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884 does Yahoo! simply state they are just following a countries law? When do they have ANY ethical considerations? Can the law in China stipulate that child labor is lawfull and Yahoo could practice this under the same defense?

Yahoo is the ONLY American search engine that has agreed to self sensor it's search results. They have invested heavily in China and as a result bow to their every request. "Just follwing the law" is not a defense for Yahoo in my opinion. Self censoring your search results is one thing, cooperating with Chinese security officials to track down an IP address is another.

Here is Mr. Tao's verdict http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Verdict_Shi_Tao.pdf

Can't ignore market?

[sochdot]

"The companies say they have to abide by local regulations, and point out that since China is set to be the world's biggest internet market, they cannot ignore it."

Sure they can. They just won't. Because human rights vs. profit is no contest to them.

Missed market opportunity

[arakis]

It all boils down to profit. Yahoo can be sued by a minority of their shareholders for not pursuing profit toward to utmost benefit of wealth for the shareholders. Here (www.lapres.net) is a link of the precedent that makes this happen.

So it all boils down to no profit in protecting dissidents compared against the torrent of profit from serving Chinese Internet users. This is a travesty, but I suggest a market opportunity...

We need to establish a speculative futures market for human rights violations, perhaps by geopolitical region. Things like genocide, curable disease infections and suppression of thought under totalitarian regimes can be assigned fair market values and traded amongst participants.

Maybe this (www.capitalistpig.com/) can help set it up. I dunno, just an idea. It seems imagination is the only thing that will save us. Sure has worked out for the greedy people!

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[FurryFeet]

For someone who is as well read, you apparently didn't RTFA.

They're accusing him of "divulging state secrets". Everything you say simply does not apply in this case, as he apparently DID divulge an internal memo.

Now, you may think (as I do) that that's just a front. But the fact of the matter is, he's not exactly a political prisoner.

Oh, and big bad China is not the only one to prosecute those who divulge state secrets. In other countries (guess where) they actually execute them

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[thuh Freak]

The story is that a corporation, wittingly or not, took part in a series of events that led to a questionable moral quandary. the reporter suspected that free citizens might be interested in this quandary.

Yahoo as a corporation is within their legal right (probably even legal obligation) to have given the Chinese the information requested. We, free citizens of the world, are within our rights to be disgusted with the evilness that was brought about, in part, due to Yahoo's actions.

I personally don't want to deal with Yahoo anymore; unless they fix their policy more to my liking. But they don't have to. I'm one guy who doesn't even use their services; but I'll consider them less now, than prior. Maybe they'll choose to side with a billion person country over me. Maybe the reporter was so offended by the situation, that they hoped many like-minded people would boycott or avoid yahoo. maybe some of these people are/were customers of yahoo. maybe they'll be right. maybe a billion people will avoid yahoo, until they make concerted, explicit efforts to encourage human rights, rather than passively stomping on human rights and destroying a human life.

maybe the world sucks. maybe yahoo will go on working with China, and most people will ignore the story. maybe people will hear the story and not even care enough, or be bothered, or remember, or whatever. maybe tomorrow everything will be exactly as it is today.

but, maybe it won't.

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[NubKnacker]

What China did is violate the UN Charter of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

I don't know if you're aware of this but China has been violating UN charters regarding human rights for as long as they have been in place. This is no news. A lot of other countries do it but they try to cover it up, China doesn't.

And why should they? UN is pretty much a defunct body. It has no real powers other than those of its constituents who, most of the time, can't agree amongst themselves.

I'm in a way peeved at Yahoo!. Just because your business is threatened you don't go around violating human rights. This kind of bad media doesn't hurt China but it sure will hurt Yahoo.

Infact, I'm going to go punish them now. Removing all my porn from Yahoo mail because porn is illegal in India!

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[MCraigW]

they're popular with a bunch of pimple-faced, 40 year old virgins.

Hey!!! I'm 47...

You missed the point

[Augusto]

If we want to trade, then we can impose our corporations respect a set of rights, ergo the Chinese govt. would have to.

What this has to do with Iraq nobody but you knows!

You then make the argument that the US can do nothing to influence in a positive way the human rights violations in China, so with your thinking we shouldn't even try. In the meantime, we should just sit back and let our corporations help supress the local populations of these countries.

Does that summarize your nonsensical point?

Re:You missed the point

[roman_mir]

You think USA can impose anything onto China nowadays? Who is pushing nonsense here? USA couldn't impose anything onto Belorussia nowadays, forget China. China owns enough of the USA and provides cheap labour for enough of the US corporations for it to dictate how people are to be treated, not the other way around.

Re:You missed the point

[Aldric]

No, but as far as I'm aware the US can impose whatever it likes onto it own companies.

Re:You missed the point

[roman_mir]

No, but as far as I'm aware the US can impose whatever it likes onto it own companies. - wrong. US can impose very little onto its own companies. It's all about globalization.

Re:You missed the point

[Augusto]

Yes the US can, they just won't.

We already regulate trade, and companies are liable for their actions even in other countries (they can be sued here). So I don't know what you're talking about.

Yahoo! and Alibaba.com form strategic partnership

[speck]

...but I'm sure this is just a coincidence. (From a Yahoo! press release, mysteriously dated August 11th, 2005.)

Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - News), a leading global Internet company, and Alibaba.com, China's largest e-commerce company, today announced a definitive agreement to form a long-term strategic partnership in China. Under the terms of the agreement, Yahoo! will contribute its Yahoo! China business to Alibaba.com and the two companies will work together in an exclusive partnership to grow the Yahoo! brand in China. Additionally, Yahoo! is investing $1 billion in cash to purchase Alibaba.com shares from the company and other shareholders. The agreement gives Yahoo! an approximately 40 percent economic interest with 35 percent voting rights, making it the largest strategic investor in Alibaba.com.

The combination will create one of the largest Internet companies in China, and the only Internet company in China with a leading position in the key growth sectors of business-to-business e-commerce, consumer e-commerce, online payments, communications and search.

By the way, here is the original press release from Reporters Without Borders, since I didn't see it linked anywhere else.

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

How could anyone think that threatened with life in prison by a repressive government, a Chinese "Citizen" would possibly choose to not immediately capitulate to ANY request by the police?

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations! Here's another Chinese citizen.

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally a sane message in all of this.

From what I can tell in reading the various articles, all that happened was that they found the ip address in the email headers, then asked Yahoo to provide logs to show those same headers for the police/courts. That is hardly a world shattering event.

Everything sounds better in French

[captaincucumber]

J'Accuse!

These are not cultural, they're "universal"

[Augusto]

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm

If the Chinese government doesn't like these rights, I suggest they kick themselves out of the United Nations and the rest of the civilized world.

There is, and there should be, a basic set of human rights no matter what country you live in. These rights should be sensitive to all cultures, but at the end of the day, and in the 21st century, it's not acceptable to excuse opression in any form.

And you very well know that what the Chinese are engaging on is opression. Even if their own citizens voted to revoke these rights (their votes don't count btw), that doesn't mean all of it's citizens shouldn't enjoy them. We should define and enforce these rights in all countries, and at the very minimum expect that our corporations don't help and enable the supression of these rights.

That's the minimum I'm asking for, and I don't think it's unreasonable at all.

Re:These are not cultural, they're "universal"

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the U.S. should kick itself out of the UN, too, since it defines its own sets of human rights.

There aren't, and there's no reason for there to be, any fixed legal entitlements associated with being human. It is for all cultures to decide for themselves what are intrinsic freedoms and what are not. You can decide that China's system of government is contrary to your own system of ethics, you can flame Yahoo for engaging in business with a country that doesn't share your values, and you can be a hypocrite by passively living in a society that benefits from such business dealings with a country that doesn't share your idea of human rights. Don't, though, think that there exists any set of objectively correct legal values, because there aren't. That isn't how the universe works, and it's not even how human civilization works; in four thousand years, the norms of the future will not be yours.

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[cbciv]

I don't mind buying Chinese manufactured goods, unless they are made by, for example, prisoners who are being used as slave labor.

I'm curious - does "made by prisoners" appear on product labels where you shop? If not, how do you know whether a product manufactured in China was made by folks working in a factory for a decent wage vs. a prisoner?

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

The funny thing in all of this is that it was only a few months ago when people were railing on Yahoo for not providing access to an email account from a dead soldier. Always a losing situation.

Uh no...

[No Such Agency]

Notice how there is absolutly no anger whatsoever at the Chinese government, only at Yahoo for simply RESPECTING THE LAWS of that government!

The same people who thing Yahoo is evil for turning over information to China, collected IN China, as required by law, are the same people who demand that the EU start selling advanced offensive weapons systems to China.

I suspect most people here who find this case outrageous also would oppose the arms sales. As for anger at the Chinese government, it should be taken for granted among civilized people - they are after all oppressors, murderers, and hypocrites, and we have all known so for decades. I don't feel I have to reiterate my hatred of Nazis every day either.

Are you canceling your yahoo accounts?

[Script Cat]

I've canceled my yahoo accounts. I don't know if it helps them or hurts them though.

Following the slippery slope

[UnapprovedThought]

Dictator: Hi, I was wondering if you would tell me who was the clever person who stole the parts to the enigma machine from under my nose in my thoroughly monitored factory?

Company: I can't reveal that -- there is no knowing what you will do to that person.

Dictator: If you don't tell me, I will award a greater percentage of business contracts to some other company! You will be a minor player in our huge economy. *folds arms*

Company: Well, if you put it that way, then making a deal with you is the only ethical choice for me to make. Also, is there any torturing I can help arrange for you in exchange for the marketshare and jobs that would otherwise go to another company? To show how cooperative we are, we are willing to help you torture twice as many people as our competitors, and twice as painfully too. Also, if you invade another country this year or hit our competitors with missiles (but not us), we will give even steeper discounts. If not, perhaps we could interest you in our selection of stretchers, iron maidens, and sonic lasers?

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[synthespian]

Yes, I understand that, Mr. Genius. The whole point of my post is pointing out that, duh, it's a violation.

This doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though I have a login here, I'm posting anonymously for obvious reasons.

I have a female friend in, well, let's say a middle eastern country well known for outrageous restrictions, who I met in a yahoo classical music chatroom; a wonderful person. In the course of our, well, getting to know each other, we noticed that her mailbox was being hacked, addresses she's never heard of were blocked, (emails from me were in there, too) and that someone else was logging into both of our accounts.

I reported this to yahoo for both of us, got the usual form letter...a couple of days later I was sent an automated request to rate the level of service - a ticket number was given. I sent an email to yahoo asking what had been happening, they sent me a form letter, from "Eugene", telling me that they don't discuss others' accounts with 3rd parties. After repeated requests, and nothing but form letters, and sound evidence of continued hacking, she finally went offline, quite frightened about the entire affair. We're on another messenger service, quite anonymous now, but she is definitely not the same person as before.

Yahoo would never give out the identity or i.p. number of the perpetrator(s), so God knows what those people at yahoo are doing...

God forgive them, it's not humanly possible for me to...

Re:SO? Journalists still have to obey the law!

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalists are not above the law. They are to observe and record, not spy and foment change. When they cross over, they imperil their colleagues everywhere.

Hermann Goering called. He wants his defense back.

It is the normal definition of business.

[Anonymous Coward]

The character of a business reflects the owners and managers. In the case of Yahoo!, a sizeable portion of its managers and owners simply do not care about human rights. That indifference goes all the way up to the chief Yahoo!, Jerry Yang. Many Yahoo! managers hail from mainland China and the Taiwan province of China.

Regardless of whether you ascribe this attitude to cultural differences, the fact of the matter is that the Chinese attitude of indifference to human rights exists.

I will no longer use Yahoo! as my primary search engine or as my primary news source. Google now appears to be the lesser of 2 evils.

As a side note, we know that god does not exist. This fake, nonexistent god will do nothing to punish Yahoo! or its owners/managers for assisting the apes in Beijing to torture a reporter.

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is not evil.

God definitely does exist - the sooner you realize this the better.

Without God, why do you care about human rights?

Evolution and might makes right, China is over 1 billion strong, I'd expect atheists to celebrate the torture.

Except they don't, since deep down most aren't 100% God-less.

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[escher]

"God definitely does exist"

Really?? Wow! Where's this incredible undeniable proof of the existance of god?? It's going to change everything!!

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[Helvidius]

Go outside at night and look up in the clear night sky. Ponder at the miracle that is the human body. Further, consider the wonder that is the human brain (or even the brain of a gnat). Consider the miracle of Life. "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1a NIV

________________________________________________

"God definitely does exist" Really?? Wow! Where's this incredible undeniable proof of the existance of god?? It's going to change everything!!

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Uhh, well, ok. Who created God?

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God of God." Infinipsalm Aleph-7:Aleph-2 New Transfinite Version

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[Chowderbags]

Google is not evil.

Google isn't perfect. It's run by people who are no more or less capable of evil than anyone else. It's done some very questionable things in China as well.

God definitely does exist - the sooner you realize this the better.

There is no more proof of the existance of God than there is for the existance of Zues, Odin, or the little elf inside my head.

Without God, why do you care about human rights?

Because I have empathy for my fellow man Because I hope for a tomorrow where heaven actually exists, except on earth.

Evolution and might makes right, China is over 1 billion strong, I'd expect atheists to celebrate the torture.

Then obviously you haven't met many atheists. Perhaps an individual atheist might celebrate it, but an individual Christian might too. Obviously it makes sense to expect Christians to celebrate the torture too, right?

Perhaps you should actually read essays on humanist ideals instead of reading over and over in the Bible how bad atheists are.

Except they don't, since deep down most aren't 100% God-less.

Eh, the number is fewer than you think, although certainly some may exist. Nevertheless, not all theists are 100% with God/gods/whatever they believe.

Re:It is the normal definition of business.

[escher]

"Go outside at night and look up in the clear night sky. Ponder at the miracle that is the human body. Further, consider the wonder that is the human brain (or even the brain of a gnat). Consider the miracle of Life."

I do this all the time. I am astounding by the universe, life, and the mere fact that stuff exists in the first place.

But that's no proof of a god.

Could a god exist that created this? Yes.

Could it have come from an infinite number of other possibilities? Yes.

The truth of the matter is that not one single person on this earth knows where the universe came from. To claim otherwise is not just foolish, but horribly stupid.

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[synthespian]

Yes, I did RTFA and the fact that The Party can claim "divulging state secrets" is, in my view, nothing less than a symptom for the lack of transparency in their political ways. In other words, it's a totalitarian state.

Here's the a better version of the reasons behind Shi Tao's arrest (thanks to the poster who linked the Reporters Without Borders story):

Shi Tao Aged 37, Shi worked for the daily Dangdai Shang Bao (Contemporary Business News). He was convicted on 30 April of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal message which the authorities had sent to his newspaper warning journalists of the dangers of social destabilisation and risks resulting from the return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Chinese state security insisted during the trial that the message was "Jue Mi" (top secret). Shi admitted sending it out by e-mail but disputed that it was a secret document. He is still being held in a prison in Changsha to which he was sent after his arrest in the northeastern city of Taiyuan on 24 November 2004.

Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese

[SeaFox]

Yahoo! is a publicly-traded company. Its shareholders want one thing: more money.

The wishes of a corporation's shareholders does not give the corp a license to do whatever it wants. Also, even if the shareholders want money, that wish is not necessarily preclude them from having morals of their own.

Would Nike's shareholders agree to a plan to build a slave labor shoe manufacturing plant knowing it would translate into large devidends? Or to assassinate the entire board of Reebok?

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Clith]

Wow how many of those UN articles did the USA's "Patriot" act manage to break?

In the US, is it not true that anyone can be put in jail indefinitely by being accused of terrorism?

Email or logs?

[phorm]

Logs and email aren't the same thing... most mail servers will append the sender IP of an address to messages, so really all they would have to do is check his email, possibly some recipient emails (or the 'sent' box though I'm not sure it retains the info) and then snatch the IPs.

"Do no evil"

[Z-Knight]

Seems like Yahoo is buying into the awesome "Do No Evil" policy that Google has adopted.

Mind you I'm being sarcastic here ... Google's policy is a total smoke screen, and Yahoo is simply showing us exactly what Google will do to us eventually...scary thing is that Yahoo likely stores less info on us than Google, yet they are willing to bend over backwards to a murderous regime....hmm, I think I feel a little "regime change" is in order...hehe

Yay for our Right to Privacy!!! (again, sarcasm)

Yes they are.

[Chris Burke]

Yes, google is reinforcing China's restrictions by vanishing the news items themselves from the summary page.

If they just wanted to make the site more useable, they could present the exact same Google news page but replace the links to forbidden information with "This link rendered inoperable at the request of the PRC" or some other informative message.

By instead completely eliminating the offending article's entry, they prevent Chinese readers from knowing what information is being censored or even knowing that such information exists to be censored. In doing so, Google is entirely complicit in China's censorship and thus are censors themselves.

Stories...

[RedNovember]

I take it you've never read the Patriot Act. You've probably taken all the second- or third-hand information and believed it.

[...]

There is no court system that even approaches what we have in the US. I hear stories of farmers and homeowners having their property taken away without due process and without compensation. I hear stories of people in their homes being carted away by the police when there was no reason for the police to invade the home and the police certainly didn't have a warrant to do so.

So, you berate us for believing third hand information, and then dispense it yourself? Hmm...

Whats the difference

[Arimus]

Between Yahoo's actions with China and the RIAA demanding account info from ISPs etc...

The ISP's are complying with the law in the US and Yahoo are complying with Chinese law - if you do buisness in a country then you abide by their laws whether you agree with them or not.

What part of FUNDAMENTAL don't you get?

[Augusto]

There SHOULD BE fundamental human rights, specially in the 21st century. And we should all agree on what they are. That's what that UN document was/is trying to achive, and it's necessary.

It's not a matter of what my or other cultures accept, it's a matter of where humanity wants to be. Coming from a 3rd world country, I very well know what it is to have my rights restricted. The problem is people like you who don't know what that is, and chalk up abuses to "cultural differences".

Would you say that commiting genocide against your own citizens is a value judgment left to each society? What if a male dominated society determines that men should have the right to rape any woman?

What do we do? just sit back like you and say, "oh well, those are their cultural values?"

No, what we do is we complain, fight for the rights of the opress, and try to change governments to support these rights.

These are not radical ideas, unless you're an opressive entity, it shouldn't scandalize you.

Re:What part of FUNDAMENTAL don't you get?

[MirthScout]

Nicely put.

yahoo needs to do some soul seaching.

[lasermike026]

Yahoo needs to ask themselves whether they will support freedom and democracy or side with thugs. I wonder what kind of spying yahoo has been doing for the US gov?

Re:SO? Journalists still have to obey the law!

[redelm]

Godwins Law!

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[FurryFeet]

Nobody is disputing it is not a totalitarian state. The thing is, if you are Yahoo, you're not facing the government saying "this person made a disparaging comment on our Beloved Leader; tell us who he is so we can torture and kill him". It is "this person ilegally distributed a Top Secret document; tell us who he is so we can judge him".

The first case is clear cut; the second... well, not so much (see Julius and Ethel Rosenberg). Yahoo is not in the business of deciding whether the person in question broke any laws or not.

Say it happened in the US, and say the FBI approaches Yahoo and subpoenas (not asks, subpoenas)the information on, say, someone who broke a gag order on a Patriot Act arraignment. Do you also think Yahoo can refuse to comply?

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

US citizens are protected by the Constitution.

Illegal enemy combatants aren't even covered by the Geneva convention.

Big difference.

Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes

[poptones]

Actually, they are in bed with the reds. But they're in bed with the reds in the US, too - just look up keywords like "candyman" and "pedophile arrests" and see how many times Yahoo's name gets mentioned.

Corporations acting at the whims of the governments that host them is nothing new. Not even if you're Google. The obvious solution here is you never trust corporations. This is what proxy servers and anonymous remailers are for.

Re:It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law

[Jim_Callahan]

Wow, I didn't realize that the UN charter was designed so deliberately open-ended to allow them to impose sanctions on whoever the hell they want. Damn, I really hope they never gain any actual political influence, that could really suck.

Yahoo doesn't seem to be at fault here...

[Neelay Thaker]

MNCs have to adhere to country laws and policies when operating in that country. If it was illegal to leak the communist party agenda, then the journalist was an offender. Cell phone companies have been cooperating with governments of democratic countries too to track down offenders who use modern, hard to trace technology to their advantage. Yahoo can't be berated for helping the government, just because China is communist. If our dear Mr. Shi Tao wanted to send the text of an internal Communist Party message so badly and also not get caught, he shud've taken "precautions" such as spoofed email name and contact, spoofed IP and MAC addresses and the usual hacker stuff. Without these, he was a sitting duck :-)

You've never heard of the Pentagon Papers?

[Augusto]

> He gave a document to reporters that the government didn't want released. That isn't even protected speech in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Re:You've never heard of the Pentagon Papers?

[SlayerofGods]

Maybe you should have actualy read a little more into that dumb ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg
On June 28, Ellsberg publicly surrendered to the US Attorney's Office in Boston, Massachusetts. He was taken into custody believing he would spend the rest of his life in prison; he was charged with theft, conspiracy, and espionage.
Apprently the only reason he got off is because Nixon retilated aginst him by breaking into his psychiatrist's office and by having the CIA try to "totally incapacitate" him.

correction

[orgelspieler]

16.5k homicides

Did he spend 10 years in prision?

[Augusto]

No.

Homework, what did the Supreme Court say about the release of the documents?

Extra credit, under any realistic scenario, is China setup to have a branch of government rule against another one like the Sup. did against the executive?
(hint: No)

Class is over.

Re:Did he spend 10 years in prision?

[SlayerofGods]

Wow you seem to be getting dumber by the second.
The Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the injunctions were unconstitutional prior restraints and that the government had not met its burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
The supreme court was ruling on whether or not that newspapers could publish the documents, it made no ruling on the legality to steal the documents in the first place.
Homework for you; learn to read.

Re:Did he spend 10 years in prision?

[Augusto]

Hey, I know you love being an apologist for the Chinese government jailing journalist that publish things they don't like, but my point is that the results of the case were very different. The Supreme court decided the papers could be published, and that is comparable to what this journalist did.

Re:Did he spend 10 years in prision?

[SlayerofGods]

The supreme court said you were allowed to publish them, not steal them. If someone does both the former does not excuse the latter.
Just like publishing Valerie Plame's name that was ok. (although you can't just go around revealing names.... but in the context of the article it was in the public interest to publish it)
Leaking her name was not ok and someone could (though it's looking unlikely at this point) go to jail for it.
And I'm not apologizing for Chinese government I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people getting so mad at the Chinese government when they're hardly alone in the matter.
And lets not forget that we too are jailing journalist.
It's funny, most of the time Americans are considered to be too wrapped on local affairs to know what's going on in the rest of the world.
But you seem to be just the opposite, you have no idea what's going on in this country. You should learn about what's going on here before you start condemning others.

slashdot.org is censored in China.

[Anonymous Coward]

...if it wasn't before, it is now.

Can't even load other stories, like that about the SALT telescope, now.

Sickening

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it sickening how many people here on Slashdot are defending the actions of Yahoo, and is even getting modded up!

"Well, journalists have to respect the law same as everybody..." Respect the law of a dictatorship? A democracy fighter risks life to get information about the actions of the authoritarian rules of China out to the public, and people here are siding with the government?

Crazy.

...selective alliances and hypocrisy

[Psyqlone]

It is interesting how we attack Iraq for being totalitarian (official excuse) and we embargo Cuba decade after decade for the same reason. China however is totalitarian and we not only encourage investment there we allow our companies to aid and abet their oppression. Nice set of double standards we have.

60 years ago, the U.S. also sent tanks, planes, guns, and munitions out the wazzoo to Stalin, a dictator responsible for the slaughter of millions, yet not to other dictators in power at the time.

Come to think of it, neither Chiang kai-Shek or Charles DeGaulle were democratically elected either.

The U.S. attacked Iraq because they invaded Kuwait (the first time around), and then for something else no one can really prove the second time around, not because they were "totalitarian". Where do you get this "official excuse" stuff?

The Cubans were embargoed for hosting Soviet missiles, so it wasn't for the same incorrect reason.

By the way, both people and nations employ double standards because everyone plays favorites one way or another.

HI BONCH!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Overly Critical Guy, er, bonch, er, rd_syringe, er, bwy, er, As Seen On TV! Or whatever the hell you call yourself these days.

Re:SO? Journalists still have to obey the law!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you're completely wrong. No one "has to" or ought to obey unjust laws.

This isn't a special case for journalists: there is no ethical obligation for anyone to obey the laws of an authoritarian regime like the Chinese government. In fact, there is clearly an ethical obligation to defy the unjust laws of an unjust regime.

Simply because a bunch of violent thugs calls their orders "laws" does not give their orders any special ethical or moral status.

If there is anything to learn from the history of the 20th century it's that "following orders" or "obeying the law" results in the most atrocious crimes. The heroes of the 20th century are those who defied unjust laws.