Slashdot Mirror
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". "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Why not, the Chinese have more human rights violations than Iraq ever did. Less oil though...
Nothing like a good accusation to get people stirred up.
Anything is possible, but an accusation is ceratinly easy to cook up.
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.
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
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.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
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?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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.
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.
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
Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
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.
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.
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.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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.
-Vendal Thornheart
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
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
(From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/)Here's a little excerpt from the Stanford Encylopedia of the ideas behind the Charter:
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.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Incidentally, if you would Godwin around less frantically, it'd be easier to have a lucid discussion of how to treat China.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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?
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
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.
Yep, and the French Revolution never happened...
It still amazes me how egocentric Americans are. They really think they invented hot water.
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!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
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".
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
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.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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.
Currently hooked on AMP
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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.
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?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
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.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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
"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.
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
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.
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?
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
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.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
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?
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.
A Human Right
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.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling