Slashdot Mirror


Business At The Price Of Freedom

An anonymous reader writes "The TechZone has an article on how much technology companies setting up shops in China have to kowtow to the Chinese government. All the major search engines have given in to Chinese demands to throttle liberty in exchange for access to the Chinese market and Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms 'freedom,' 'democracy' and other concepts China has designated as dangerous. From the article: 'Most disconcerting are recent reports that Yahoo!'s Hong Kong operation is turning over emails which helped convict a reporter. Journalist Shi Tao was jailed and sentenced to 10 years in prison for "illegally sending state secrets abroad." The secrets that he revealed were information his newspaper received from the state propaganda department about how they could cover the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was identified because he had used Yahoo!'s free email service for which Yahoo! turned over log files to authorities that were later tracked back to his computer.'"

254 comments

  1. Yahoo does this crap. by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    1. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As does Google, as does Microsoft, as does Cisco. Our "freedom loving" plutocracy allows American companies to assist in this crap scot free, while hypocritically decrying the illegitimate Communist government of Red China for things like persecution of Christians and violent repression of free speech such as that in the Tiananmen Square massacre. There are no choices--the plutocracy cares for money, no matter whose rights it tramples or whom it kills.

    2. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah use Google...they are "Not Evil". Oh wait, they caved to the Chi-Coms too. Let's use MSN. Oh wait, they caved as well.

      Well what do you expect when the US Govt is in bed with the Chinese eh? At least the EU stands firm! Oh wait, the EU desparately wanted to sell the Chi-Coms weapons last year. Crap.

      Everyone has caved to the almighty dollar (or yen, or Euro, or name_your_currency).

      How much choice is there really?

    3. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know."

      Sure, we have that choice... for now. But what happens when all available choices are doing the same thing? The only reason a large company would not submit to China's demands is if doing so would make them lose more business elsewhere. The size of the Chinese market and the relative indifference of consumers preclude this.

      Assuming that Chinese policy is wrong, wouldn't it be best for China to change their policy? As more and more companies give in to China's demands, their restrictions on free speech on the internet are becoming a foregone conclusion. Simply not using Yahoo isn't going to change Yahoo's policy, nor China's.

      If you want change in China, be proactive. Don't just not use Yahoo -- pass the word to people who are unaware. Let Yahoo know how much business they are losing. Investigate who else bends to the Chinese government, boycott and spread the word.

      You may feel like you're doing something by not using Yahoo, and you are. But it's not enough. Have you forwarded the article to your non-Slashdot reading friends who might be concerned about speech limitations in China, asking them to boycott Yahoo?

      Have you contacted your legislators about this, to make them aware that you are concerned? Whether or not government can or will do anything about it, public officials need to know.

      Here's contact info for US Congresspeople:
      http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

      You should also contact your state legislators -- I could see Massachusetts (for example) disallowing Yahoo use in government offices if enough residents do so.

      Have you written a letter to Yahoo demanding change, explaining why you are boycotting them and organizing others to do so?

      Here's a link to Yahoo's management team bios:
      http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/index.htm l

      Here's a link to Yahoo's board of directors:
      http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/board.htm l

      Yahoo's address is:
      701 First Ave Sunnyvale CA 97809

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about getting yahoo to change, it's about initiating change in China itself. What you and I do are irrelevant in the end, because it will be the Chinese people who will have to demand freedom from their government... It's a call that can not be made by anyone else.

      Moreso, we cannot really fault companies who give in to China's demands. Companies operating within China's shores, or otherwise targetting the Chinese people will have to submit to Chinese law. If Yahoo or MSN did otherwise, then it is their company that would be in violation of the law.

    5. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      It's not about getting yahoo to change, it's about initiating change in China itself. What you and I do are irrelevant in the end, because it will be the Chinese people who will have to demand freedom from their government... It's a call that can not be made by anyone else.

      This isn't exactly true. If we show that we accept their actions then we can't get any official pressure put on China. If we don't show interest then we can't get the government actively involved in trying to support said dissidents. It is their call, but we can be doing things to pressure the Chinese government officially while we also introduce the propaganda to get people to become dissidents. Corporations aren't exactly the ones we should rely on to bring about the change so to me this is a non-issue in that point. However I fully support expressing your opinion to your representatives (this applies worldwide). Covert radio broadcasts, internet attacks on Chinese publishing sites (planting material) and funding covert networks are all good ideas that I only want the government involved in (CIA, NSA, etc) - I don't want Yahoo! being the defender of freedom. At the same time however, I wonder how many people don't actually mind the "oppression". For the system to work as well as it has until today a lot of people must be working in the system very well.

      I sure hate oppression and violence but I don't know the truth about China. I can't really decide how I feel about this or any other issue of human rights abuse. Really, I wonder about others that we just as actively trade with.

      Moreso, we cannot really fault companies who give in to China's demands. Companies operating within China's shores, or otherwise targetting the Chinese people will have to submit to Chinese law. If Yahoo or MSN did otherwise, then it is their company that would be in violation of the law.

      Exactly right. To do business in China you must abide by their rules. Pretty much the same thing here in America. I assume that Yahoo holds a corporate charter (or some such statement that says they can do business within the nation of P.R.C.) and said charter binds them to operate within the laws of the land and says that they are more of a "peoples" company than anything else. Really, American corporate charters phrase the legal paperwork as the corporation doing a service for the people of their state (and beyond) and grants them the right to incorporate.

      It's a small barrier to entry but it does exist. Obtaining and keeping a corporate charter was once a hard task in America. For American companies in China today - they are doing the same thing they did just 70 years ago to get into business. I suspect however that Yahoo! (et.al.) existing in China is a GoodThing. American companies are a great cover for covert operations and it is possible to "brain drain" China and maybe steal a few intellectual property secrets like they've been doing to us all these years. Eventually, no matter how covert we get, we will have exported something that people use daily and that helps influence the culture.

      Let China bring in all the American companies they want. At some point someone like KFC will not stand for the law that is a thorn in their side and revolt. One brick at a time they will eat that Great Wall down from the inside.

    6. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Exactly right. To do business in China you must abide by their rules. Pretty much the same thing here in America. I assume that Yahoo holds a corporate charter (or some such statement that says they can do business within the nation of P.R.C.) and said charter binds them to operate within the laws of the land and says that they are more of a "peoples" company than anything else. Really, American corporate charters phrase the legal paperwork as the corporation doing a service for the people of their state (and beyond) and grants them the right to incorporate"

      Except that a lot of the multi-national coporations wield sufficient clout to get governments to change their laws. This is the laughable truth in the US, since politicians are dependent upon corporations to get elected.

      From the parent of your post:
      "Moreso, we cannot really fault companies who give in to China's demands. Companies operating within China's shores, or otherwise targetting the Chinese people will have to submit to Chinese law. If Yahoo or MSN did otherwise, then it is their company that would be in violation of the law."

      But we can fault the people who have the power to affect the actions of Yahoo or MSN, who chose profits over ideals. These people are the customers of those companies, the shareholders in those companies, and the decision-makers in those companies.

      We, as conscientious members of society, cannot apologize for corporate actions by just saying, "Well, profit is their only motive, so it's OK." We don't do that for polluters (even US companies who pollute outside the US), we don't do that for companies that utilize underage labor in miserable conditions, we don't do that for companies that perpetuate other human rights violations -- even if the governments of the countries where it is being done allow it.

      You can draw a distinction between the company itself choosing to "do the deed," and the company being forced to as terms of doing business within a country. And yes, this distinction is important -- but it does not exonerate company X, who are providing the tools of enforcement to China.

      Finally, I think it is naive to assume that eventually American companies will affect change from within China, because some of China's laws will hurt their profits. Chinese government bannination of those companies will hurt their profits even more. There is something to be said for cultural rub-off, but China's measures against free speech severely limit that rub-off.

      Not taking action to affect positive change, when it is within your power, just because you think eventually the change will happen anyway? Isn't this the kind of apathy that has led the US into a lot of the problems we face today?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by ImaLamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We, as conscientious members of society, cannot apologize for corporate actions by just saying, "Well, profit is their only motive, so it's OK."

      Not that I agree with it, but that is exactly what a corporation is legally bound to in the United States.

      Corporations, to me, are just as threatening to my freedom as the Chinese government. In fact, a lot more threatening.

    8. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      I *already* don't use Yahoo ... does that mean I have no recourse to criticise their unethical behaviour?

      I think consumer boycotts must be almost the most useless protest method ever devised. But they are always advocated because consumers are, in fact, virtually powerless, and thus desperate for *some* sort of recourse.

    9. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might want to get some facts first. It's not like Yahoo! had a choice here. They didn't know why the government wanted the information. They could have been chasing a spammer, a pedophile or a terrorist for all Yahoo! knew. All they got was the equivalent of a US subpoena forcing them to hand over the information. Every other company operating in China would have been forced to do the same thing. And yes, even your beloved Google, who can do no wrong, have already stated that they would also not deny a similar request from the Chinese government. So this isn't a Yahoo! thing, or a Google thing. If you want to write to somebody I guess you need to write to your government and to all the companies that do business in China and urge them to boycott that market.

    10. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Nuclear_Option · · Score: 1

      Yes indeed, Perhaps that is the best thing. We should sit on our hands, afterall this isn't really a problem is it? I mean, we do have the right to say what we want to say, whether we have the means to say it, isn't really their problem is it... I mean, just because they enjoy a freedom, doesn't mean they are required to embrace it or defend it. I currently have a collection of Spam I'm logging which contains advertisements for drugs, "escort" services, porn, and worse; one advertising a child porn site... Each of which I have tracked back to facilities owned by or under the control of Yahoo. It is there facility, and this is America, perhaps they feel this is the way they mean themselves to be represented... Who am I to object? As for the common... We really have nothing to say about it, or nothing that might temper their decision. On the other hand, this America, I was born here, and 7 generations of my family spilled our blood on battlefields and the decks of ships of war, domestic and abroad to keep this country safe for one more day, and as long as my lungs draw air, I will speak... and I will fight. ...and they have nothing really much to say about it. I just pulled my bookmarks for Yahoo. Tomorrow, I will be pulling a Yahoo ON yahoo. Tomorrow I will be putting router filters in place, for which I will use my collection of spam hosted by them as cause celebre to install edge router blocking. Yahoo is not welcome here. MSN hasn't been now for almost a year. If they choose to outsouce their allegence, then I will choose to deny them access... The ground upon which they built their business is slick with the blood of my ancestors, who fought for their right to do this. They also fought for MY right, not to welcome the morally banckrupt into my home or business. ...and they have nothing really much to say about it. After all, this is America and in America they have the right to say what they please, and I have the right... NOT to listen.

    11. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You are right, but this is exactly why, as members of society, need to act to mitigate the "profit only" actions that corporations take. We need to make it unprofitable for them to take actions we don't agree with.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    12. Re:Yahoo does this crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is fortunate that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia didn't survive into the information age. "We must follow the laws and customs of the host country." including informing the Gestapo about illegal Jews and their protectors or informing the KGB regarding the activities of the Solidarity Party. "March the guilty bastard in", says the judge. Wouldn't that be an interesting change to history? Communist China isn't all that different.

  2. And nothing will change . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . unless and until the executives of these companies, and the American techs on the ground who were "only following orders" are brought back in chains and tried. If I had my druthers, they'd all be hauled to The Hague in chains, tried for crimes against humanity, and hanged.

    1. Re:And nothing will change . . . by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is so interesting is these businesses are operating in direct opposition to the position of the Presidend of the United States. His position is to forward democracy and democratic values. These businesses are supporting just the opposite. I wonder what the president will do about this.

      This is the same ole shit. Just like when all these companies supported Apartheid in South Africa. And China supports oppresive regimes in Africa now.

      Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of barganing power does this give them over us while our economy is so fragile?

    2. Re:And nothing will change . . . by mark_hill97 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yes, we should KILL PEOPLE for following local laws. It's people like you that make me sick

    3. Re:And nothing will change . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Local laws? They're American companies. U.S. law should prohibit them from helping the ChiComs oppress their people. Absent that, the U.N. must step in to prosecute. People like you, who value money over freedom, make me want to puke.

    4. Re:And nothing will change . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we should KILL PEOPLE for following local laws.

      Oh yeah cause we all know that "Local Laws" are much more important than humand rights, freedom and ethics.

    5. Re:And nothing will change . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is so interesting is these businesses are operating in direct opposition to the position of the Presidend of the United States. His position is to forward democracy and democratic values. These businesses are supporting just the opposite. I wonder what the president will do about this.

      Well, considering that the president says he supports democracy and freedom and then acts to curb both within the US, I don't think there will be any conflict between the government and big-business on this issue.

    6. Re:And nothing will change . . . by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you that naive? Do you honestly believe that the Prez of the US of A has any more important mission than to progress the wealth of the corporations of that same US of A? Do they actually teach history where you come from? For the last century or so, the USA foreign policy has been primarily focussed on making sure that US corporations can make money. Why do you think that has changed?

      To spell it out: democracy in prez-speak means freedom for corporations to make money. Democratic values is the value of being able to make money without being hampered too much. You see, those damn Arabs don't buy much of our stuff, so we need to bring democracy to them.

      Okay, a bit over the top this, but the point is that from the US point of view, business comes first, democratic values come second. This has always been the case, and I don't see a change under the current administration. You don't think that the American benevolence towards Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is important for business? Unlike, say Sudan?

    7. Re:And nothing will change . . . by Martz · · Score: 1

      You see, those damn Arabs don't buy much of our stuff, so we need to bring democracy to them. Actually, I believe that it was the US who was buying oil from Iraq, and now gets it free (or at a more democratic price to the US oil giants and investors.) An import turned into an export, for a couple of $trillion of the tax payers money. It's still highly interesting, and obviously the entire situation gives China more control and weight when it comes to international negotiations.

    8. Re:And nothing will change . . . by Alsee · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wonder what the president will do about this.

      (A) Declare a National Day Of Prayer.
      (B) Go on vacation.
      (C) Find the person most at fault and award them the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
      (D) Employ his buddy, former head of the International Arabian Horse Association, and put him in charge.
      (E) Find some unrelated country to invade.
      (F) Misunderestimate the problem.
      (G) Launch a nucular stike.
      (H) Award Halliburton a no-bid contract.
      (I) Give the richest 1% of the country a massive tax cut for trickle-down effects.
      (J) Point out that You Forgot Poland!
      (K) Lie to the country.
      (L) Send a cabinet official to lie to the UN.
      (M) Dismiss you as a member of the Reality-based community.
      (N) Sit on his ass reading "My Pet Goat" to some kids at a classroom photo-op.
      (O) Promise to deliver Texas's 34 electorial vites to his brother Jeb in 2008 and 2012.
      (P) Give Big Industry billions of dollars in subsidies.
      (Q) Get drunk and arrested for DWI.
      (R) Fall back on his old cocaine habit.
      (S) Pull out a chainsaw and clear some brush.
      (T) Fail to even notice the issue in his daily briefing notes because he's "not a reader".
      (U) Go on a hand-holding stroll with the president of China.
      (V) Waste several million dollars of taxpayer money to pose for a photo-op on a nuclear Aircraft Carrier.
      (W) Appoint the Whitehouse's first female chef... and have a photo-op for the big occasion.
      (X) Declare another National Day Of Prayer.
      (Y) Go on vacation some more.
      (Z) Declare a National Day Of Prayer while on vaction.

      (Note: The National Weather and Crisis Administration has stated that we will need to use the the greek alphabet if Bush continues to caus^H^H^H^Hface any additional crises during the current term)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  3. Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Americans are dying everyday to bring democracy to the world, and Yahoo sells freedom down the river for a few Yen.

    Dissidents of repressive regimes should be supported.

    Students died for freedom in Tianamin but I guess Yahoo has no Do No Evil Policy

    Yahoo should be deeply ashamed.

    Boycott these Bastards.

    1. Re:Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yen is Japanese currency. You're looking for Yuan.

      Your argument would be more effective if you displayed at least some knowledge about the region, rather than the hyperbole that keeps getting fed to you over the boob tube.

    2. Re:Boycott Yahoo by bartok · · Score: 1

      So are Google, MSN and all other search engines that have a presence in China.

    3. Re:Boycott Yahoo by hashfunction · · Score: 1
      "Americans are dying everyday to bring democracy to the world"

      Sure... whatever makes you sleep better at night

    4. Re:Boycott Yahoo by liangzai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, Americans are dying everyday, but no one asked them to come. It is the same in China. Believe it or not, but most Chinese stand behind the government in principle.

      There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.

      Today, our goal is to tie China as tightly as we can to the rest of the world, so as to make it inevitable that democracy is on the roadmap. That is why we want to see Beijing host the olympics. That is why we want China in the WTO. That is why we want Amurcan and other Western companies having a strong presence in China.

    5. Re:Boycott Yahoo by zephc · · Score: 1

      I think that's a good idea. Revolution is impossibly anymore in the quick, violent style - you'd get crushed. Education and information and putting China in the global spotlight are better ways. But don't think for a minute that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) won't immediately bend over backwards to accommodate an authoritarian regime - the IOC is just as quick to muffle independent reporting, etc. (though at least no one gets sentenced to death).

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    6. Re:Boycott Yahoo by blair1q · · Score: 1

      China is "ready for democracy" now. With communism, things can only get worse, because you can never remove your despots.

    7. Re:Boycott Yahoo by superyanthrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Parent is not insightful at all. It's flamebait that the Slashdot audience agrees with, just like random anti-Microsoft bashing.

      Not everyone wants the "freedom" that the American military is exporting. Look at Iraq now for example. The constitution that they came up with is certainly not at all what the Americans wanted. Pure and simple, Iraqis don't want the "freedom" the Americans have. They want to live by their Islamic law. So let them. If you force "freedom" on Iraq, it is becomes something far more sinister; imperialism. Saying that the Americans need to export "freedom," where freedom is their particular implementation of it that the rest of the world may not agree with, is equivalent to saying that the Americans are better than everyone else and needs to take care of them. Wait, we've heard this line of reasoning before; it's the classic "White Man's Burden" argument for Europeans to justify conquering Africa, and it's been discredited already. The situation in China is similar; American media reports on the matter are heavily skewed and are not to be relied upon.

      Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments. Quite simply, the Western governments wished to topple the Chinese government, just like they did to the USSR. Look at what has happened to Russia. Obviously it's better for Americans that the USSR is not there anymore, but Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it. Put another way, those students were traitors. And do your research; we gave them plenty of opportunities to stand down, and they refused. They weren't even unarmed; they had taken over a munitions truck that was supposed to protect the people inside Zhong Nan Hai (the government complex). The western coverage of the incident was so biased that it is totally unreliable.

      It's been repeated over and over that one doesn't need to be clean to make money. There's no need to even make the opposite argument.

    8. Re:Boycott Yahoo by TheGavster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.

      The point about companies like Yahoo restricting content and reporting dissent is that at some point, the Internet *won't* be able to assist in facilitating a regime shift. The American revolution was brought about, among other things, by people distributing inflamitory pamphlets. Guess what? Despotic regimes now tightly control printed media. The newspapers won't be bringing China to revolution any time soon, and if you don't watch out, the Internet will lose that capability as well.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    9. Re:Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, hold your horses, Cowboy.

      We didn't ask the americans to bring your democracy.

      Your truly,
      The World

    10. Re:Boycott Yahoo by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry to break this to you, but Americans aren't the ones bringing freedom to the world. Oppressed peoples earn their own freedom through grassroot movements and popular revolutions. In many cases, the American military are the ones who are subverting the voice/will of the people.

      Many young American men from lower-class families are lured into the armed services and sent overseas under the pretense of being benevolent liberators bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. But they are merely pawns in a game of deception and ruthless amassment of wealth, manipulated to carry out the exploitation of developing nations by corporate America.

      And it's this ignorant conceit, that Americans are the selfless and unappreciated vanguards of democracy and freedom, that allows these neo-colonialistic policies to be put into action. Open your eyes, the foreign policy of the U.S. has always been self-interested. The only thing Americans are dying(or killing) to bring to the rest of the world is free markets for American corporations to expand into. Capitalism != freedom and democracy.

      If we were interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, we would not try to overthrow, assassinate, or otherwise depose democratically elected foreign leaders and popular governments in order to lift their protectionist national policies that are in the way of American corporations exploiting these foreign economies. All we're interested in is political and economic posturing to set-up one-way trade relationships with these developing nations.

    11. Re:Boycott Yahoo by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Why aren't the Chinese ready now? Do you think the Chinese people are too stupid and they need the autocrats in Bejing to tell them how to live?

    12. Re:Boycott Yahoo by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. If all that is true and will bring china into democracy why aren't we doing the same thing with Cuba?

      We are doing all those things because we want the money. It has nothing to do with democracy. If Cuba has a large market we would have done it with cuba they don't so we boycott them.

      It's all about the money, iraq is about the money, china is about the money democracy has nothing to do with it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    13. Re:Boycott Yahoo by the+gnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments.

      I see we have a Maoist in the audience. Is any movement against authoritarian government simply a tool of Western imperialists? Is wanting other people to enjoy the same rights under a liberal democracy that we in the USA have cultural chauvinism? Do you not believe in the concept of universal human rights? While we're on this subject, what's your opinion on the case discussed in the article?

      I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing this moral relativism applied to human rights. Islamic law as currently practiced in, say, Iran, allows the government to execute you for consensual adult sex. China just threw someone in jail for exposing government propaganda and routinely tortures religious minorities. I don't think it's bigoted or imperialist of me to say that these actions are awful and immoral. I don't think we should invade them, but I will do everything I can to promote alternatives, and that includes boycotting any company that supports such totalitarianism.

      Look at what has happened to Russia. Obviously it's better for Americans that the USSR is not there anymore, but Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it.

      Seventy years of communism followed by fifteen years of rampant corruption will do that to a nation. If the US hadn't won the Cold War the way it did Russia would have collapsed on its own anyway thanks to their ridiculous economic system and intellectually bankrupt leadership. (Of course, Bush may do the same for us.)

      Put another way, those students were traitors. And do your research; we gave them plenty of opportunities to stand down, and they refused.

      Since we have freedom of assembly and speech in our country, the idea that a mass demonstration against the government constitutes treason is a little hard to swallow. In fact, our constitution states that the government is responsible to the people, not the other way around. I know there are plenty of people here who'd like to see antiwar demonstrators rounded up and shot, but we have laws against that, unlike China. What's your excuse for the persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China? Are they traitors too?

    14. Re:Boycott Yahoo by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it
      Russia ended 2004 with its sixth straight year of growth, averaging 6.5% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Russia has a GDP of 1.4 Trillion (2004) and is ranked 12th in the world. Russia is growing well.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    15. Re:Boycott Yahoo by doubledoh · · Score: 1
      Well said. We are humans on planet earth. Any other distinctions are divisive and ultimately doomed. If we aren't encouraging the less informed on planet earth to demand and enjoy freedom, we wouldn't be human, we'd be tyrants acquiescing to slavery.

      That said, I don't think swinging our weight around (like the US has done for the last century) is any way to ensure peace or freedom is propogated and perpetuated. The United States' meddling has caused more problems than it has solved. The only revolutions that have ever worked are those inspired by the hearts and minds of the people culling the revolutions...and that can only be encouraged peacefully by indulging populations with truth and shedding more light on ideologies they already know they deserve merely by being alive. Starting wars doesn't work anymore than hitting your girlfriend makes her love you.

      --
      I think, therefore I doh.
    16. Re:Boycott Yahoo by liangzai · · Score: 1

      The coastal and major cities are indeed ready for democracy. But the vast part of China is comprised of 800 millions peasants, whose income is a far cry from those in the city. This is why China is still referred to as a third world country, despite the fact that Shanghai, Beijing, Honggong etc. are all developed.

      Introducing democracy at this stage would lead to destabilazation, and quite possibly civil war.

      However, there IS democracy in China on the local level; this was introduced with the help of Jimmy Carter. People in towns and villages DO elect their mayors, and these are then in turn represented in county, province and state governments.

    17. Re:Boycott Yahoo by liangzai · · Score: 1

      Well, the fact that I take part in these "anti-revolutionary" Slashdot discussions about China FROM China is proof that the control over the Internet in China is nothing more than an attempt and a wisg from the government to control it.

      Most Chinese DO know how to get out of this control (which is rather light), and most Chinese DO know how to get news that is not supposed to be. There IS spread of such inflamatory pamphlets also in China; I have seen it myself.

    18. Re:Boycott Yahoo by liangzai · · Score: 1

      Wnat you mean is that we do everything we do for the sake of our self-interest. Correct. But it's not all about the money. Above all, we want China to be the stabilizing factor of Asia, in order to avoid war.

      Why else would the US care about North Korea having nukes?

    19. Re:Boycott Yahoo by randyest · · Score: 1

      The only revolutions that have ever worked are those inspired by the hearts and minds of the people culling the revolutions...and that can only be encouraged peacefully by indulging populations with truth and shedding more light on ideologies they already know they deserve merely by being alive.

      How does one help such a totally-controlled and opressed populace do that? If the totalitarian regime leaders supress external influences including truth and alternate ideologies, then what? Sit back and watch?

      Starting wars doesn't work anymore than hitting your girlfriend makes her love you.


      How about watching someone hit his girlfriend or, worse, watching someone hit yours. Do you do nothing then?

      --
      everything in moderation
    20. Re:Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pure and simple, Iraqis don't want the "freedom" the Americans have. They want to live by their Islamic law. So let them.

      There is no such thing as "Iraqi desires" or "American desires". There are just individuals and individual desires. Some people want to live by Islamic law, and some don't. Just because the majority of Iraqis want to live under certain religious principles, that doesn't give the majority the right to force the rest of the population to live under those same principles.

      I'm not saying that American isn't guilty of certain forms of authoritarianism as well. But America did get at least one thing right: We don't have a theocracy. The only way you can consider a theocracy to be "free" is if you define freedom as "the right to force my values on other people." But if you do that, you've really just butchered the word.

      It's true that you can't use guns to instill the spirit of freedom in others; that must come from within. And so, America failed, in many ways, to bring freedom to Iraq. But there is nothing good about that...there is nothing good about the fact that some Iraqis have chosen to create a constitution that oppresses their fellow citizens. So, we should encourage them to change their political situation from within, in a peaceful manner, if possible. But we should never stop trying.

    21. Re:Boycott Yahoo by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Huh? We want to avoid war? The country that can't go more then five years without dropping bombs on some poor fucker or another? What the fuck are you talking about? We LOVE war, it gives us meaning, it defines us as a nation. If we didn't kick somebodies ass every few years we would get an inferiority complex.

      When was the last time China went to war with somebody? When was the last time they threatened to?

      War has nothing to do with it. Our interest is money, money is our interest. There is no other US interest then making money. None, zippo, nada, zilch, nothing.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    22. Re:Boycott Yahoo by liangzai · · Score: 1

      Money is best made in peace time, using trade and export of high quality American iPods, computers and other consumer gadgets. Need I remind you of the social unrest in the US during the Vietnam war, and the following economic stagnation? Of coursem you could always SELL your weapons to make money, letting others fight it off.

      Besides, China is the third largest military force in the world; you wouldn't want to go to war with China, because there is nothing to win. Many have conquered China, but none have been able to sustain a permanent rule over the country. There is nothing to win in such a situation.

      China has recently threatened Taiwan with war on several occasions, and in actuality, there is a war between the Mainland and the Guomindang island; there never was a peace treaty, since both sides see themselves as the legitimate rulers of all of China.

      China has invaded Tibet, although this is more justified from a historical perspective.

      China has throughout history maintained tight control over Yuenan (Vietnam), Korea and other neighbors, sometimes escalating to war when tributes weren't paid.

      Ever wondered why China has become such a vast nation?

    23. Re:Boycott Yahoo by killjoe · · Score: 1

      " Money is best made in peace time,". That's a nice platitude too bad there is not one iota of evidence supporting it. Wars have gotten us out of depression and has made billions of dollars for a slew of industries. War is good for the economy.

      "China has recently threatened Taiwan with war on several occasions"

      Err nope, not really. They consider taiwan to be a part of their own country. The US agrees with them. How is it a threat to say that taiwan should not seceede especially since that's the official US policy?

      "there is a war between the Mainland and the Guomindang island; there never was a peace treaty, since both sides see themselves as the legitimate rulers of all of China."

      Ah well that does it the. I think we all remember the images of that horrible war burned into our memory cells right?

      That's all you got? That's why you think china will wage war unless yahoo turns over their logs? That's your reason for trading with chine so that future wars like china vs goumindang island could be averted?

      "Korea and other neighbors, sometimes escalating to war when tributes weren't paid."

      When?

      "Ever wondered why China has become such a vast nation?"

      It's been a vast nation for longer then US has existed. China is not a warlike society and hasn't been so for decades. The US on the other can't go more then a five or six years without bombing the shit out of some brown people or another.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    24. Re:Boycott Yahoo by macshit · · Score: 1

      Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments.

      Sigh, there's nothing like a Tiananmen square thread to attract craven apologists for the PRC.

      The western coverage of the incident was so biased that it is totally unreliable.

      Bullshit. I've lived with students who participated in the Tiananmen protests (several of whom spent years in jail for their part), and according to them (and they were there, unlike you), the western news reports of the time were pretty accurate.

      [The bizarre thing about chinese PRC apologists (and this extends to official PRC propaganda too) is their crudeness and lack of subtlety. Obviously the U.S. is no sweet angel in many ways, they've done plenty of nasty things -- but your silly exaggerated claims simply reduce your credibility, and to be honest make you look quite childish.]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    25. Re:Boycott Yahoo by lahvak · · Score: 1

      Not everyone wants the "freedom" that the American military is exporting. Look at Iraq now for example. The constitution that they came up with is certainly not at all what the Americans wanted. Pure and simple, Iraqis don't want the "freedom" the Americans have. They want to live by their Islamic law. So let them. If you force "freedom" on Iraq, it is becomes something far more sinister; imperialism. Saying that the Americans need to export "freedom," where freedom is their particular implementation of it that the rest of the world may not agree with, is equivalent to saying that the Americans are better than everyone else and needs to take care of them. Wait, we've heard this line of reasoning before; it's the classic "White Man's Burden" argument for Europeans to justify conquering Africa, and it's been discredited already.

      I mostly agree with you there. You cannot force freedom onto a society, the change has to come from within. You can influence it by helping to change their culture, but you cannot just storm in, shoot all the party officials, military and cops, and say to the people "now you be free!" (even though I must admit that shooting party officials sound like great fun, no matter which party). On the other hand, the problems in Iraq (and elsewhere) are caused not only by sudden American invasion, but are mostly inherited from centuries of European colonialism, and have a lot to do with the stupid way countries were created and borders were drawn when Europeans "pulled out".

      Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments

      At this moment I lost all respect for you. I have heard a *lot* of communist propaganda in my life (actually, at one point, I hade it my hobby to collect examples of that crap), and these three sentences are a prime shining example of it. They could be (and probably are, I bet) taken straight from a mouth of any communist ideologist, any official government speaker, any speech at a party conference.

      I have been there too. I have heard my friends, my parents, my former teachers, many people I hold in very high regard, as well as myself, called puppets of western governments, criminals and who knows what. I did experience a large student protest against a communist rule. Luckily, in our case, the army refused to go against what they called "their own people", most of the population eventually joined the protest, the government resigned, and free elections followed. I personally don't know anybody, with the exception of few former communist bosses, who would regret it.

      Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it.

      Believe me, Russia has been a shithole for much longer than 15 years.
      The main reason: decades of communist rule. If you think about it, Russia went from rather strict Tsarist rule, with wonderful and extremely rich culture, but with industry and economy in serious need of reforms, through brief period of attempted democracy, seriously hampered by an ongoing civil war, to nearly a century of communist dictatorship, its economy devastated by one 5-year plan after another. The World War 2 did not exactly help, either. The last time Russia has not been a shithole, at least as far as economy goes, was probably in the NEP years. But at least now, as you yourself said, they have a chance to climb out of it. And it's not because of some western intervention, that's because the people just got tired of living in a shithole, and decided to do something about it. And it was about time, because, IMHO, one of the greatest nations of the world, nation that gave us Pushkin, Turgenev, Dostoyevski, Tschechov, Gorkij, Andreyev, Bulgakov, Zoshtsenko, and I could go for a long time, not even mentioning some of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in the history, should not live in a shithole!

      Put another way, those studen

      --
      AccountKiller
    26. Re:Boycott Yahoo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Russia ended 2004 with its sixth straight year of growth, averaging 6.5% annually since the financial crisis of 1998.
      Have you seen the place for yourself, or just citing the official numbers?

      Oh, and Russian economy largely depends on oil prices these days. They are high, it's growing. They drop, it will crumble. There's nothing good about it, it's still a shithole.

      It's also pretty bad on political side lately. All independent TV channels closed, protestors beaten up by police and pro-government paramilitaries, and given ridiculous sentences in the courts. A remarkable gem lately, which shows just how bad things are: an opposition rally in Moscow was forbidden because law experts have found the slogan on one of their banners, "Constitution - yes! Putin - no!" extemist (which is pretty much another word for "terrorist" these days).

    27. Re:Boycott Yahoo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The only way you can consider a theocracy to be "free" is if you define freedom as "the right to force my values on other people."
      You might be surprised, but this is the standing definition of freedom in any modern democracy. 18 years as age of consent is a good example of majority values enforced on everyone. In fact, pretty much any law is.

      Also, it's somewhat ironic that by putting personal freedom above anything else, you're effectively enforcing this subjective value (which I happen to share, by the way - but that doesn't stop me from seeing the contradiction) on others which might not agree with it. Go figure...

    28. Re:Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was trying to avoid getting too deep into philosophy, but we need to make a distinction between defending yourself and forcing your values on others. Laws against murder, rape, etc. are not society forcing its values on a minority of citizens. Rather, those laws are just stating that if a criminal tries to force his will on a victim, society will respond. This is in contrast to a victimless crime (i.e. an adult choosing to watch porn). Of course, America sometimes has bad laws like that (i.e. you can't smoke marijuana), and I don't condone laws like that in America either.

      Also, we must make a distinction between a child and an adult. Children are not always mature/intelligent enough to look out for themselves, so society is justified in "looking out" for the child. But society can never say it is "looking out" for an adult. That is just society forcing the values of the majority on a minority of citizens.

      Also, it's somewhat ironic that by putting personal freedom above anything else

      When you say I'm "putting personal freedom above anything else", you make it sound as though I'm forcing my values on others. But that's not how it works. It's kind of like the difference between brightness and darkness. One involves light, and the other is the absence of it. Darkness is not simply "another kind of light." Likewise, "personal" freedom is the absence of values being forced on an individual. It is not just another kind of value that you are forcing on someone else.

    29. Re:Boycott Yahoo by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      It's also pretty bad on political side lately.
      That has nothing to do with the USA/Cold War/The Western World. Before Russia, it was the U.S.S.R. One big communistic sh!thole. People had no freedom, the "government" controlled everything. Today, Russia is leaning again toward an authoritarian regime. Either Communism or an authoritarian regime will pretty much make any place a sh!thole.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    30. Re:Boycott Yahoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, we must make a distinction between a child and an adult. Children are not always mature/intelligent enough to look out for themselves, so society is justified in "looking out" for the child. But society can never say it is "looking out" for an adult."

      Adults are not always mature/intelligent enough to look out for themselves, either. A smart 12 year-old is more able than a dull-normal 18 year old, so how can we say that one has rights and the other doesn't? The reason for the concept of a definite age of majority as opposed to more objective criteria for determining competence is not to protect "children" but to protect adults from competition in the job market, to protect women from competition from teenage girls, and to employ more NEA-member personel to staff the internment camps we call schools.

    31. Re:Boycott Yahoo by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments. Quite simply, the Western governments wished to topple the Chinese government, just like they did to the USSR.

      You were taught that by the same ones who sent tanks in, and killed the unarmed civilians right? Yeah. A very believable group no doubt.

      Nationalism is a very dangerous thing.

    32. Re:Boycott Yahoo by kakyo · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, the problems in Iraq (and elsewhere) are caused not only by sudden American invasion, but are mostly inherited from centuries of European colonialism, and have a lot to do with the stupid way countries were created and borders were drawn when Europeans "pulled out". This must be the biggest truth that I hadn't expected to see in this thread. In fact, you can't talk without referring to this fact about other related topics like PRC and stuff. So sad that almost no one realized that when they provides their own collected information from various history books...

  4. The scope.. by knightinshiningarmor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The companies that are already in China know how to work with the government. They're not going to do anything stupid.

    This seems like a warning message to companies like Google and Microsoft, who in recent events expressed interest in targeting China (in a marketing, not tactical, sense). Will these large corporations fall flat on their face when they move into China?

    1. Re:The scope.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA They are alreay in China and have already compromised 'their values' (I hesitate to write that becasue their only 'value' is to make a profit for their shareholders)

  5. Totally different here in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In America we don't kowtow to the government, we bend over and grab our ankles.

    1. Re:Totally different here in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up

    2. Re:Totally different here in America by snilloc · · Score: 1
      (Mods, "Insightful"?)

      Cindy Sheehan, darling of the left, staged a prolonged protest of GWB and the war.

      What happened? She got made fun of a little bit in the right-wing press and blogs because she's an idiot. Now she's making decent cash as a lefty keynote speaker.

      So, if by you mean "bend over...", you mean become a political starlet and make money, then yes, we must bend over.

    3. Re:Totally different here in America by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Free speach zones" at political events far removed from the actual event, the PATRIOT act, Gitmo, and assorted and sundry other examples of political fun that impact a great deal of us.

      I'd say it sounds like bending over and grabbing our ankles to me.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    4. Re:Totally different here in America by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      What the hell is the point of expressing leftist views at the biggest conservative event of the year? It's like Jehovah's Witnesses targetting a synagogue or a mosque. Gatherings at opposition events only serve to piss people off.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    5. Re:Totally different here in America by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      The view doesn't have to be leftist. Just against the "popular" party line (where popular is determined by the people in charge who want to remain in charge and not have any dissent from anyone including their own people).

      Believe it or not, there are conservatives out there that *really* don't agree with many of the things going on.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Totally different here in America by snilloc · · Score: 1

      Without getting into a prolonged political flame-war (which would be very easy to do), I'd just like to apologize for feeding the original troll, who seems to think that political freedoms in Communist China and the USA are comparable. If this was the truth, Michael Moore would have been shot in the head long ago.

    7. Re:Totally different here in America by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's all good. I'm just too used to hearing ra-ra (both here and in meatspace).

      I don't care what party a leader is from as long as they do a good job and take care of their people. I tend to be a moderate on most things and "the world is all rosy" people who only focus on the positives and ignore the problems that are out there get to me.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    8. Re:Totally different here in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you stupid? Why wouldn't they protest there? To use your anology, it wouldn't make much sense for Jehovah's Witnesses to hold a protest at their own church would it? Same applies here. People that don't like Conservative views aren't going to protest someplace the Conservatives aren't, it just wouldn't make any sense, kind of like your post.

    9. Re:Totally different here in America by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      It's far more productive to demonstrate at an event where there are people who might be inclined to change their views. When the point of the convention is "we don't agree with group X", group X isn't going to gain a whole heck of a lot of ground.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    10. Re:Totally different here in America by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      You mean against the party line of the people holding the event. The purpose of the conventions is to parade the various candidates in front of cameras to make empty speaches. No one is there who will be changed in their support in the least. People making a mess outside the building are simply a nuisance. If you're so big to protest, hold your own damn convention, instead of borrowing someone else's.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    11. Re:Totally different here in America by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      No, here we kowtow to the media.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    12. Re:Totally different here in America by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      People making a mess outside the building are simply a nuisance. If you're so big to protest, hold your own damn convention, instead of borrowing someone else's.

      There's far too much 'speaking to the converted' already. Oh, you're a conservative Republican? Here's your radio station. Oh, you're a social and economic liberal? Here's your radio station.

      The candidates weren't even allowed to directly address each other in the debates, for the love of God.
      So if we don't have the debate during the formal debate, then when will we have it?

      I say the more honest engagement of opposing views, the better.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    13. Re:Totally different here in America by brettper · · Score: 1

      And I say your two cent titanium tax doesnt' go too far enough

  6. Looks like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Looks like by sabre307 · · Score: 1

      I guess you really didn't read the article that you were directing people to, and don't seem to understand exactly what fascism and communism are. I would say it looks alot like communism. If they aren't careful they will become a communist country... Oh wait, that's right, they are! Thanks alot there Captain Obvious! You really saved the day!!!

      --
      My software never has bugs.
      It just develops random features.
  7. money buys everything by bvdbos · · Score: 1

    Though, like often, I would like to fall into some serious US-bashing I'm afraid the whole world sees China as THE market for the future with huge profits. The fact that there's oppression doesn't withold big company's from making money. OTOH, Chinese people get to learn more and more about freedom dealing with the internet and dealing with other countries. The US-navy actively sponsores TOR to help the freedom of speech in China...

  8. Freedom comes from business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom comes from business. If I do not have a job how can I feed my family? If I do not have a job how can I keep my family healthy? If I do not have a job how can I afford to donate money to political campaigns? If I have no job how can I afford to protect my intellectual property from thieves?

    Freedom only exists because of the free market, so if you denigrate businesses and the free market then you are denigrating freedom and the sacrifices made by heros past in protecting your freedom to live. Think about that next time you want to speak out against business.

    1. Re:Freedom comes from business by wrf3 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, once you have those things security can become more important than freedom. Freedom is messy, fraught with uncertainty, and demands great personal responsibility (irresponsible people require more government, thereby restricting freedom). Those qualities don't come from business, although they can be found in many people who start businesses.

    2. Re:Freedom comes from business by mlgunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Freedom does NOT come from business. Business comes from freedom. At our countries founding, Big Business as we know it did not exist. The only big businesses there were at that time, were government sponsered oppressive colinization sceams like the East India Company which forced Indian's to do business with the English. Our country (the USA) was filled with small independant business people who grew their businesses by being able to freely and openly do business with anyone else that was able, without restrictions. You cannot do this without basic freedoms of speech, movement, and control of the government BY the people. NONE of which is availible to the Chinese people at this time. The only thing our businesses will do is help the Chinese government to oppress its own people, and force them to do business only with the companies that support their "evil empire". Its a sad state of affairs, but our Corporations seem to have reverted back to the old East India Company mode.

  9. Just goes to show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Americans and their modern "gangs" (corporates) will do anything for a buck
    i guess it shows how desperate they (and the so-called-civilized western world) are

  10. Greed is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you.

    -Gordon Gekko

  11. Merely a matter of degree by fuzzy12345 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Not to underplay the concessions that China forces out of businesses operating there, but...

    How about US corporations cooperating with CALEA (all wiretaps, all the time), broadcasters knuckling down on popular entertainment figures for fear of reprisals from the FCC, and ISPs who almost always say "we are cooperating fully with authorities," code for "we're not going to challenge the dodgy search warrant (or the fact that there's none at all), but will turn over subscriber records at the drop of a hat to avoid abusive regulators getting tough on us over other issues if we don't play ball. Other examples, anyone?

    --

    Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
    1. Re:Merely a matter of degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there is a lot about US government and society that is intolerably broken and absolutely needs fixing. But to compare human rights violations of the US to those of China is just ridiculous.

      I mean, China is a place where the remains of executed political prisoners are turned into cosmetic products and sold overseas. That is seriously fucked up.

  12. Propaganda piece, nothing more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the so-called civil rights atrocities cited in the article, are now common practise in both Europe and America, no differently than in Asia.

    Nothing to see here, move along sheep.

  13. Boycott Yahoo! by brian0918 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is ridiculous. Surely the stockholders can't think highly of this incident.

    1. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by billcopc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually the stock holders are probably pleased with this behavior. Business is not about people, it's about money. Playing nice with the Chinese government, no matter how ridiculous it is to the rest of the world, means tapping into a rich, delicate market. It means more money. More money = happy stock holders.

      The only "real" way to protest against China's disregard for honest society, would be to go to war with them and eliminate those responsible for this disgusting mistreatment of human beings. Now, are we really going to start a war to solve someone else's problems ? No. The revolution has to start from within. If the chinese population wants to see change, they'll have to do it themselves.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    2. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From the comments I've heard people make in the last month, it doesn't matter what a company does in another country - (even if the company is American) - as long as it's legal or is required, demanded, condoned by the government of the country they are doing it in.

      In other words, if it's legal to have seven year old kids sewing shoes for your company to sell, locked in a basement with no ventilation or breaks - that's fine. If it's required that you turn over documents and inform on every employee you have and report the gay employees and non-(insert religion here) employees for government extermination - fine. If it means keeping tabs on office romances so that adulterers (women only of course) can be stoned to death, then so be it! It's just the cost of doing business and who are we to judge whether stoning a woman to death for cheating or executing non-believers or putting toddlers to work in a sweatshop is wrong?! It's called moral and ethical relativism and it rules the day now. Right or wrong only applies in the context of what others say is right or wrong in your specific part of the world and that's that.

      But don't take my word for it. Just search for past comments from people on slashdot related to the Yahoo! incident in China.

    3. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What is funny here is that why we are all pissed off about this, it is exactly the same sort of thing that would be required by the US gov't. Should reasonable companies in the US be expected to disobey the gov't when Bush's brownshirts demand them to (and the same sorts of thing happened under Clinton's administration -- they just weren't as overt about it).

      The thing is, the reporter knew he was breaking the law. Why should a private company have to play underground railroad for someone they didn't even know? The law sucks in China. And the laws on the same subjects are slowly being changed in the US to be the same (i.e., YRO commented a few years back about the fact that it is now law that any public library has to hand over not just computer logs but any books checked out by specific individuals -- without a warrent -- to law enforcement agencies with no reason other than they requested it).

      So -- why should Yahoo be held up to a higher standard in China than they would be held to in the US? Quite a bit of hand wringing going on about this in both the liberal media as well as the conservative media both with their own take on it as why their side should be more justified in villifying Yahoo in the process.

    4. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, what I don't understand is this:

      It's okay to do business in communist China where they have plenty of nukes and seem quite willing to go nuts on us at any moment and we decry their terrible human rights record. But it's not alright to do business in communist Cuba where they couldn't realistically harm a fly without foreign help.

      And yeah, the same thing is often done in the states that happened in China (which doesn't justify what happened in China as Yahoo! should have some base set of ethics and morals for their company to run by and those shouldn't be given up just because it's the way things are in a certain region) - but the difference is that the Chinese are godless communists. It's okay of an (all but officially) Christian Republic democracy does so.

      Remember, only a country that pledges their allegiance to a flag and god can be trusted with safely ignoring your freedom!

    5. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the comments I've heard people make in the last month, it doesn't matter what a company does in another country - (even if the company is American) - as long as it's legal or is required, demanded, condoned by the government of the country they are doing it in.

      Actually in some cases it's corporations that pay or aid and abet military actions against civilians. For instance the group the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) sued Exxon using the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 for abetting the Indonesian Army when Exxon provided equipment to the army unit involved in murder, torture and sexual abuse of the local population. In another case, Coke sued over death squad claims in Colombia. There are other cases of US businesses being sued for aiding and abetting for their conduct.

      Falcon
    6. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see... so what makes this different from Iraq?

    7. Re:Boycott Yahoo! by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Actually, what I don't understand is this:

      It's okay to do business in communist China where they have plenty of nukes and seem quite willing to go nuts on us at any moment and we decry their terrible human rights record. But it's not alright to do business in communist Cuba where they couldn't realistically harm a fly without foreign help.


      That's because the expatriot Chinese dissidents aren't concentrated enough to actually effect elections, unlike the the expatriot Cubans in Miami. At least that's the conventional wisdom.

      And yeah, the same thing is often done in the states that happened in China (which doesn't justify what happened in China as Yahoo! should have some base set of ethics and morals for their company to run by and those shouldn't be given up just because it's the way things are in a certain region) -

      There's alot of "the same thing happens in the US" going around here, but that's a disingenous statement. There's a huge difference between the Chinese and American governments. This man, Shi Tao, is being imprisoned for 10 years for telling how Bejing wanted the Tiananmen aniversary reported. HIs crime was politcal speech. That doesn't happen in the US. To conflate the two governments and their tactics is to do an incredible disservice to dissients that are risking their lives in truly totalitarian regimes.

      but the difference is that the Chinese are godless communists. It's okay of an (all but officially) Christian Republic democracy does so.

      That's right! And that's why the US must be tough on communism by having the embargo on Cuba! :P

  14. This is terrible!! by blue_adept · · Score: 1

    How are the Chinese supposed to know what's going on in the world if they can't listen to Voice of America??

    --

    "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
  15. The name of the rose by mikaelhg · · Score: 1

    They should just name their re-education camps Guantanamo Bay 1-2500 and suddenly all this would become a-okay and a commendable act in the war against terrorism.

  16. No different in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you leak this kind of information in the US you probably won't get away with only 10 years...

  17. There's Freenet and GPG on Free Operating Systems by c0l0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and virtually a million ways to cloak sensitive data from You Personal Government's eyes. It's sad those who could have saved their liberty by using those, often did not do so, obviously :(

    --
    :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

    YTARY!
  18. The fine line by brajesh · · Score: 2, Insightful


    There was a recent article on the same topic in SF chronicle.

    One of the compelling argument was "If the Chinese custom is to make children work or to kill women, you wouldn't do it," said Julien Pain, head of the Internet Freedom Desk at Reporters Without Borders.

    I wonder where should the line be drawn.

    --
    95% of all sigs are made up.
    1. Re:The fine line by jmkrtyuio · · Score: 1

      Instead they make women work and kill children

    2. Re:The fine line by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      If US corporations could increase profits by making children work and killing women, they would do it. They only don't do it because the PR backlash would hurt their profits.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  19. The proverbial canary. by dominion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If ever the US government took a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, we can assume that no large US corporation would take a stand against it. In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line, like the spineless Iraqi politicians who, while dissidents were being led out and shot by Hussein, responded by standing up and declaring their allegience.

    IBM's role in the holocaust had nothing to do with a shared ideal with Nazism, and everything to do with the fact that dirty money spends just as well as anything.

    And there's usually more of it.

    1. Re:The proverbial canary. by hashfunction · · Score: 1

      or how, while innocent iraqi's are being slaughtered by the americans every day, tortured and abused by the racist attitude every single day, people like you are the first to 'support the troops'!

    2. Re:The proverbial canary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you would rather see our troops die? You make me sick. Hope you get drafted, sent to Iraq and have your legs blown off.

    3. Re:The proverbial canary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful when you wish that people get drafted, especially if you have family "serving."

      The day I get drafted and issued a weapon over my objections to being in the military is the day that I turn that weapon on every ranking officer in line of sight and hopefully manage to decimate an entire unit before they kill me.

      I hate this country, you can bet I'm a traitor and given half a chance I'll tear it to the ground someday. No, I won't leave it if I don't like it, I have a responsibility to humanity to stay and try to end it.

    4. Re:The proverbial canary. by dominion · · Score: 1

      I'm anti-war, I've been against this war since before it was started, and will be for the next, oh, ten, fifteen years? Just because I'm against Saddam Hussein, doesn't mean I support the US invasion.

      God do you look like an idiot now.

    5. Re:The proverbial canary. by technoid_ · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Look at the ties the Bush family has to that dirty Nazi money also. Maybe the corporations are just following the lead set by the Presidential family.
      http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.h tm
      http://www.rense.com/general26/dutch.htm
      http://www.john-loftus.com/bush_nazi_scandal.asp
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32 55.htm


      technoid_

      --
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
    6. Re:The proverbial canary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is tired old bullshit.

      No, YOU are the one who would rather see our troops die. Everyone against the war would rather our troops come home today, alive.

      So go ahead and "support our troops". I suggest investing in some body-bag companies, they'll be needing all the support you can give them.

    7. Re:The proverbial canary. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You make a very good point, and I agree with you completely.

      I just wanted to point out:

      "In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line "

      To "toe the line" is to obey; to "tow the line" is how one takes down an AT-AT.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:The proverbial canary. by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that they are being tortured and abused out of mere economical interest, no racism needed there. Are you happier now?

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    9. Re:The proverbial canary. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      And today, those same Spineless Politicians are out there pouring billions and billions of tax dollars into a war we can't win.

    10. Re:The proverbial canary. by dominion · · Score: 1

      No, those are different spineless politicians than the ones I was referring to.

      And I'm anti-war. Don't be so damn knee-jerk.

    11. Re:The proverbial canary. by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you are. I was making a point. Actually, I believe I misread your post. My apologies.

  20. I wonder what happens if... by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    I wonder what happens if all those Chinese Yahoo users start getting emails from all over the world detailing the things they would like to know about their own government. How much can Yahoo actually filter? If it was as plentiful as spam, surely the message would start getting through. What message? Pick one. I'm sure that international headlines about the Chinese government would be a good start. Chinese ex-pats should be able to tell people. Can't we get spammers to do something good once? The power of millions of sources of sensored material should be a challenge that the Chinese government cannot overcome with today's technology without shutting themselves off from the world again. It seems a simple thing to do, just spam the entire Chinese TLD space with news articles and information that has been previously sensored. After all, information wants to be free.... Well, its a thought.

    1. Re:I wonder what happens if... by ohjethuth · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a job for Team America!

      --
      Oh s**t!
  21. Surely the stock holders can't think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't ya think?

  22. Ethics by Undaar · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, since Yahoo isn't a government-run business they're not bound by any kind of code of ethics. The company is only bound by the ethical decisions that the owners and/or board of directors decide when making large business decisions.

    As long as they're not doing anything illegal, then in a free-market system we, as consumers, have no option but to not buy their product. That is, if we object to their policies.

    It's up to us.

    --
    ~ "When I'm of that age I'm just going to live up a tree."
    1. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yahoo has a product you can buy?

    2. Re:Ethics by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 1
      As I see it, the Chinese branch of Yahoo is clearly bound by Chinese laws (including the 'whatever the Chinese government decides to wish this week' law) As in China privacy from government eyes does not seem to be a right, the government may, at its leisure, require information about its own citizens - and it would be legal to acquire it following any means necessary. Anyone living under a communist regime would be aware of that. Following this point of view, if the Chinese government wanted the info badly enough, they might just have seized Yahoo's local servers and searched the logs themselves.

      Now, Yahoo TOS clearly states that they would disclose information if bound so by law - and as such, this action does not breach the TOS. So what is all the noise about? Would any other webmail provider have done the same thing? most probably. This is business, Yahoo is interested in itself and not in babysitting users[*]. Yeah, it's heartless, but companies never had hearts.

      It's sad that a guy wanting to fight oppression got caught and imprisonned, but these things happen all the time in this type of war - and it could have been worse, internal 'enemies' of communist states are known to have disappeared completely. The good part is that it will make others more careful. As to the /. crowd crying bloody murder, you guys should stop assuming that the Chinese government is afraid to use an iron fist just because they are showing you a velvet glove. This kind of naivity landed Shi Tao in jail.

      [*] cue Clippy dancing image:
      Welcome to La-La-Land. It looks like you're about to send an email that might have contents deemed sensitive by your local government. Would you like to:
      • encrypt the contents using PGP
      • use an anonymizing proxy
      • all of the above
      • change the contents
      • send the email as it is
    3. Re:Ethics by Coniptor · · Score: 1

      Should have known better is that it? Ass
      What is all the noise about?
      A TOS does NOT make it ok to hand ANYONE over to "authorities" which are known for killing, torture, disapearing there citizens(slaves) etc....
      You are a pompous self centered egotistical ass.
      Your ok with what they're doing obviously since your so indifferent to the chinese peoples plight and people talking about it is taking up SO much of your precious time.
      I mean obviously we should be discussing what your interested in because as we know the whole fucking world revovles around you.

    4. Re:Ethics by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 1

      I will refrain from making you an idiot and will merely question your reading ability. And I'll assume you never had to fear your own government and do not know any better, which would excuse your rudeness as misguided.

      If you want to fault Yahoo, fault them for doing business in a country known for trampling on its citizens' rights. Wait, everyone else is doing it, so Yahoo is neither better nor worse than the rest.

      I assume you expected Yahoo to have selflessly broken the local law and defied an official request from the government. Here's a bit of news for you - the real world does not work this way. Good intentions are no excuse for stupid means. I doubt Yahoo failed to realize the bad publicity all this was bound to generate, yet they did it anyway. Did you ask yourself why? or why the likes of Microsoft and Google prefer to comply with Chinese government's requests for their Chinese business?

      Or, at the risk of repeating myself, would you have reacterd the same if Yahoo handed over access logs of a terrorist to the US government and thus landed him in ... uh, say the hands of the friendly Israeli interrogation units that the US outsources torture to? As far as the Chinese government is concerned, dissidents are enemies of the State - and the same goes for those who hide and/or help them[*]. So the guy was playing with fire - not being aware of that is naivity. Just because armchair humanitarians do not perceive it as such, it does not mean that this is not a war - and in a war the unwary may even die. It's a fact of life, sad as it may be.

      [*] foreigners such as you ot myself might question the ways of the Chinese government, but our opinion carries less weight than a fistful of air. The only ones who might be able to do something about it are the Chinese themselves. After all, what would you think if the Great China decided to tell your government how to run your country? Like it or not, sovereignity cuts both was. And if you think a large business is safe to defy the political powers in a totalitarian regime, all you have to do is look at what happened to Yukos when Kremlin decided it twitched the wrong way.

  23. Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by Schwarzy · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case.

    I am very curious about this.

    1. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case."

      (1) Communism != totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a method of administering government, not economy. Here's a question for you: is it possible to have a communist economy with a democratic government?

      (2) China does not have a purely communist economy; many reforms have occurred to foster (somewhat) free markets.

      By accepted definition, capitalism cannot exist within communism -- they are two faces of a coin. Perhaps the subject of your post should have been, "Can capitalism exist under a totalitarian government?"

      Or perhaps, "Can capitalism and communism co-exist in one political system?"

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by linguae · · Score: 1

      Yes. You might want to check out the history of Pinochet's rule in Chile. Pinochet was a totalitarian ruler who brought free-market economics to Chile. Laissez-faire capitalism can exist in a totalitarian government, just like socialism can exist in a democracy or a republic.

    3. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by liangzai · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. Not at all. You can very well have a market economy in a totalitarian state. Chile had one. China has one.

      In fact, market economy precedes democracy, and before there is market economy, there can't be democracy.

      Furthermore, China IS totalitarian, but it is NOT communist, other than in the name. It has in fact never been communist; there was never a proletarian revolution in China, since there wasn't an industrial proletariat, There has never been any social welfare in China of the kind seen in Eastern Europe, which had free education, free medicaid and so on. In China, you have always paid for you schooling and medical treatment, and if you didnät have money, you were basically fucked. This is still so.

      China was Maoist between 1949 to 1976, not Communist.

    4. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wish I had mod points (which i obviously cannot have)

      First, it's good to see someone who knows their basic political theory. In answer to (1) yes, it is of course possible to have a communist economy with a democratic govrnment just like it is possible to have a capitalist economy and a not have a democratic government. It is refreshing to see someone realise that Communism does not automatically equal bad or undemocratic. Spread the word.

      I should also point out that China is not a communist country despite what they call themselves. They have what can best be described as a statist sysem with a mixed economy (some totalitarian and market based).

    5. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by quickbasicguru · · Score: 0

      Laissez-faire capitalism is made for a totalitarian government (or the other way around) Socialism is made for democracy/republic (because the basis of Socialism is democracy/republic, you could also say Socialism is a extension of democracy/republic)

    6. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
      there was never a proletarian revolution in China, since there wasn't an industrial proletariat

      What I gather from the news these days, there sure is an industrial proletariat in China right now! It's the real thing, probably worse than the one that prompted Marx to write Das Kapital. Maybe they'll actually go communist at some stage.

    7. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by obarthelemy · · Score: 1

      Chile was for a time the closest example of a working market economy in an authoritarian state, but now they are a democracy, too. There are NOT a lot of other examples.

      I think the issue is that one of the most important prerequisites for a successful market economy is strong property rights, and the men in power in authoritarian countries tend to grab most eveything regardless of the law, when they bother to create / really enforce laws.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    8. Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      They're far from mutually exclusive, but you could have a society that's simultaneously Communist, Democratic, AND Totalitarian... you just need a voting public that's really evil and/or really stupid. In fact, some would argue that a democratic system by its nature tends toward both Communism in the economy and totalitarianism in the other aspects of the state.

  24. Time was, US Gov't would've pulled the plug by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Back in The Cold War, the US Government would've prohibited companies from assisting totalitarian regimes when it comes to things like this.

    Assuming of course those regimes were Communist. Sadly, anti-communist dictatorships were another matter altogether.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. was he looking for it? by giorgiofr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    if "Journalist" Shi Tao is as stupid as to allow something like this to happen, then he deserves it. it's not like pgp, freenet/tor/what have you, anon remailers etc do not exist. what's that you say, there's the death penalty for possessing such software in china? surprise, surprise: freedom is not free.
    hello and welcome to the real world.

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:was he looking for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's not like pgp, freenet/tor/what have you, anon remailers etc do not exist.

      those things exist outside China; inside, however, you're not even allowed to talk about them. it could well be that he never heard of secure communication.

    2. Re:was he looking for it? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      those things exist outside China;

      It's amazing how many open proxies (even socks, connect, ...) exist in China. Just check your usual sources , proxy-list.net, publicproxyservers, or the all-time favorite rosinstrument (check several times a day, list cycles).

      And contrarily to popular belief you can search for words such as Tibet, Falun Gong or Tienanmen even using those proxies... (as well as use those proxies to put such words on a suitable unsecure ASP IIS server...).

      Also, the very fact that the Chinese authorities needed to contact Yahoo to get the info seems to be proof that the Great Firewall of China is not as great as it is made out to be (or else the Chinese authorities could have gleaned the info much more discreetly from their firewall logs...)

    3. Re:was he looking for it? by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      Possibly he just assumed that the Chinese government operated by any standards of logic or justice. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't have to be an experienced computer geek to avoid being locked up for quoting the government. I certainly wouldn't class such behaviour as "looking for it", especially given that China is, afaict, fairly inconsistent about stuff like this.

      Also, I'm slightly confused. He was stupid for not using stuff that would be death-sentence-worthy? Wouldn't you be claiming he was stupid to have it on his computer if he was caught with it?

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    4. Re:was he looking for it? by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      Possibly he just assumed that the Chinese government operated by any standards of logic or justice. My personal opinion is that you shouldn't have to be an experienced computer geek to avoid being locked up for quoting the government.

      The Chinese gov't is certainly unjust but it's not illogical in its behaviour - you try ruling 1+ Gpeople without any logic and see what happens. That said, don't you think such a honourable freedom frighter like him should restrict himself to evaluating as opposed to supposing what his giv't will do? The bottom line being, that you have to know who you're fighting against. Besides, you don't need to be an experienced computer geek to use the things I referred to; you just need 10 minutes to RTFM and a brain larger than a mosquito's.

      I certainly wouldn't class such behaviour as "looking for it", especially given that China is, afaict, fairly inconsistent about stuff like this.
      Also, I'm slightly confused. He was stupid for not using stuff that would be death-sentence-worthy? Wouldn't you be claiming he was stupid to have it on his computer if he was caught with it?


      Wouldn't you be claiming he was stupid not to have it on his computer so he was caught in the first place?
      An anyway as I stressed before, freedom is not free. If you want to play freedom fighter, please read the rules of the game before. Otherwise, you'll just be put in the same cauldron together with war reporters, people who demonstrate in the streets etc.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    5. Re:was he looking for it? by Lifewish · · Score: 1
      After reading the verdict, it looks like you're probably right - he apparently did know what he was getting into. I still think it's understandable for him to make this mistake, especially since there was no expectation that the Chinese government would have any clue who leaked the info, so wouldn't know whose email address to subpoena.

      Which raises a much more interesting question. I've been reading and rereading the above testimony and I can't for the life of me figure out how the Chinese govt managed to link a post made in a forum on Shi Tao's behalf with Shi Tao's email address. The only three possibilities I can see are:
      • That his co-workers alerted the authorities so he was considered worth checking out. Possible, but seems unlikely to me given that the co-workers presumably wouldn't even know about the posting of the summary. And surely they'd have mentioned it in the verdict if this were the case
      • That the Asia Democracy Foundation got r00ted by the Chinese govt. This would suck. Plausibility depends on the Chinese government's hacking capabilities and how willing it is to use them.
      • That the Asia Democracy Foundation has a mole. To me this seems the most plausible explanation, in which case I sure as hell hope they catch the bugger and kick him out.
      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  26. This is new? by Crixus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when in this modern production age hasn't this been the case? China had almost always had "Most Favored Nation" trading status with us, even when their tank treads were rolling over protesting college students.

    And while American corporations MAY want access to their markets now that they are growing as consumers, were that market not growing, corporations would be perfectly happy to only exploit the Chinese labor force to make cheaper widgets.

    Once again showing that the US could give a RATS ASS about democracy. All ourt leaders care about is serving their corporate masters and opening foreign markets to exploitation.

    --
    Ignore Alien Orders
    1. Re:This is new? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the US Government Test for seeing if a nation is our friend or not:

      Is the nation's leader anti-communist?
      If yes, the nation is probably our friend.
      If no, go to next question.

      Does the nation allow US Corporations to help them exploit their citizens?
      If yes, it is definitely our friend.
      If no, then they are our evil commie terrorist enemy, and must be destroyed in the name of FREEDOM(of US corporations to make as much money as possible) and DEMOCRACY(of US corporations to decide on what the government should do).

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:This is new? by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Excellent summary. This has been true for the past 50 years at least.
      Mod++

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    3. Re:This is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democracy may be inappropriate for the masses of Chinese. Do not forget that warlordism and the pre-1948 internal collapse of China are still in living memory.
      Survival is necessary. Freedom is a luxury, and the managed entry into capitalism is working amazingly well for China. China has time to transition, and disorder is unhelpful. Democracy can lead to schism, empower toxic groups like Chinese Muslims, and cause all manner of difficulty that isn't necessary.

  27. Re:There's Freenet and GPG on Free Operating Syste by planetoid · · Score: 1

    While I don't have a source offhand, I wouldn't hesitate in guessing that encryption technology and the use thereof probably has questionable legal status in China just as much as political speech itself.

    --
    Slashdot requires you to wait longer between hitting 'reply' and submitting a comment.
  28. Re:Why people go into business... by Coniptor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And spend eternity burning in hell.
    Have fun idiot.

    I know some one that will pay me $500 if I naplam your ass.
    Profit!

  29. Not really a surprise... by camusflage · · Score: 1

    Should it be really surprising that they do this? They're going to turn their back on a country that is 20% of the world's population?

    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
  30. Re:It's more than the cheap labor by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    And while American corporations MAY want access to their markets now that they are growing as consumers, were that market not growing, corporations would be perfectly happy to only exploit the Chinese labor force to make cheaper widgets
    There is more to it than cheap labor. My teacher said it also has to do with environmental regulations also.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  31. It's better in America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare we tolerate regimes that oppress their citizens fundamental freedoms, like speech and private behaviour. China is so evil, America would never do anything like that.
    Face it neocon bush worshippers, America is just as bad. But I'm sure you'd never detain innocent people indefinitely or shoot protestors like those nasty foreigners!

  32. China isn't a free country. by ImaLamer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would be worried if China even acted like a "free country", but they don't. They are pretty open with the idea that they are restricting speech on the Internet, they aren't hiding it.

    Now, OTOH, my country claims to be free - and it isn't. Your examples show this fact. So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America

    1. Re:China isn't a free country. by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      Mod points to you.

      At least China is being honest.

      It seems that the only real difference between China and the US in terms of freedom of speech is that over there you know what will get you thrown in jail whereas here you just can't tell.

      "Why am I on the no-fly list?"

      "Sorry sir, I couldn't tell you even if I knew."

    2. Re:China isn't a free country. by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America.

      Who says you can't do both? Boycott the ISPs who turn over data at the slightest provocation, don't listen to censorious broadcasters, and find alternatives to companies that enable authoritarian regimes to remain standing. Oh, and figure out ways to evade surveillance that both Americans and Chinese can use to fool the assholes who want to run our lives.

      I'm more worried that China is up-front about government tyrrany and people here think that's just fine and we shouldn't judge. China is currently trying to export its model of government and economy to the rest of the world, same as we do, and some nations are paying attention. This isn't good for their citizens or, in the long term, for us.

    3. Re:China isn't a free country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u know why?cuz the government isn't afraid that its people know about it's restricting the information.it got power, so anyone who don't wnna live in prison for some years have to connive to it.the most important point is that no one is able to make them fall from power, so why should it hide it?

    4. Re:China isn't a free country. by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America"

      I've got a better idea, let's try to avoid dragging the US/Bush/Guantanamo/Iraq/WMD into every political discussion of every kind ever.

      It's hard enough to discuss politics without some asshat forcing the discussion off course. Discuss America? Let's not.

  33. Did they really have to comply - maybe not by ctwxman · · Score: 2, Informative
    There was an editorial piece in the New York Times which pointed out Yahoo's Hong Kong subsidiary responded to the Chinese government's request. Under the current law, Hong Kong is still autonomous in this regard. That subsidiary was under no more legal control of the Chinese than Yahoo's home office in the United States.

    Here's another similar take from Guo Guoting, an attorney

    Lawyer Guo has practiced law in China for over 20 years. He believes that, "Yahoo! Inc. is not under any legal obligation to 'conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate,' as was claimed by Jerry Yang." As a law expert, Guo explained that, "Yahoo! Inc. is obligated to first obey International Law. If the International Law happens to be in conflict with the laws in China or with the CCP's strategies, then the International Law should take precedence, which is an internationally acknowledged principle. China is a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and of the International Covenant on Human Rights. Shi Tao simply exercised his right to the freedom of expression by sending mail. In addition, he was legitimately practicing his profession, not committing a crime. Consequently, Yahoo! Inc. has no legal obligation to cooperate with the government. The legal entity of Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) is not in China, so it is not obligated to operate within the laws of China or to cooperate with the Chinese police."
  34. There is a saying about doing business in China by pHatidic · · Score: 1

    It's only safe to do business in China if they need you more than you need them.

  35. And don't forget Cisco by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

    And don't forget Cisco - they're the ones who provided the hardware etc. for China's nation-wide firewall, after all. I'm sure they made a pretty penny with helping curtail Chinese internet users' freedom that way...

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  36. Herd mentality by FishandChips · · Score: 1

    Herd mentality to a large degree. The received wisdom is that China is the next boom time, so every thinks it will be. Everyone then thinks they can't afford not to be in the Chinese market because all their competitors will be. It's surprising that it's taken so long for dirty deeds among IT companies to float into view. Press barons like Rupert Murdoch were bending over before the Chinese government a decade ago.

    So adopt a contrarian view. The Chinese banking system is known to be flakey as hell. Corruption is rampant. The Chinese have not, so far, shown themselves adept at setting up on a large scale in other countries. And the more wealthy parts of China become, so the more they will start to contempate secession into a state of their own. This next big thing could easily implode and become the next big nightmare.

    So keep away from the Yahoos of this world. No one has to use them. I wonder where Saint Google fits into this.

    --
    Las qué passoun
    tournoun pas maï
  37. What did Yahoo do wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    When it comes to seeking information on our users, we have a very clear-cut set of rules that any government has to engage with us through court documents, legal documents and legal procedures.

    We get a lot of those every day around the world. We get hundreds of those in the US, we get hundreds in Europe, we get a lot of them in China. We do not know what they want that information for. We're not told what they look for. If they give us the proper documentation and a court order, we give them things that satisfy both our privacy policy and the local rules.


    Sounds like what Yahoo did was very reasonable. The proper procedure was followed, with court orders and all that. The problem is with the PRC's laws and legal system, not with Yahoo.

    Also, I wonder if there's any ulterior motives behind all the sensationalistic reporting by Yahoo's media competitors. Many of these companies would have a lot to gain if significant numbers of Yahoo's readers/viewers joined a boycott.

  38. So what? by gelfling · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes let's all weep for the poor poor Chinese.

  39. screw yahoo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first they put a lawsuit to take over xfire, now this shit?

  40. "Freedom" is more than political freedom by syndicate0198 · · Score: 1

    All this talk about freedom really makes me wonder if the people here care about quality of life or are they just interested in freedom because it's a buzzword that's been pushed onto us by the media and our government. Fact is, China's quality of life has been improving steadily over the years, even over those of democratic governments. Freedom is not only political freedom - it's socioeconomic freedom as well, which is more important, as evidenced by the voter participation rate here. Democratic governments are easy to manipulate by other powerful countries, such as the United States. This is one of the reasons why the American government has such a vested interest in promoting democracy, rather than quality of life. If they truly cared about quality of life, they would donate technological expertise, educate the population, and create industries that the population actually owns, instead of sending multinational corporations to "invest" and work their population dry.

    1. Re:"Freedom" is more than political freedom by avajadi · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? Or is your definition for quality of life reciprocial to economic proliferation? Everyone I've heard that have any real insight into everyday life of the Chinese people agree that poverty has constantly deepend during the last 10-15 years in China. There's a lot of money flowing into the country, but the majority of the people never gets to benefit from it.

  41. It's worse than you think! by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Informative
    I wonder what the president will do about this.

    Nothing, of course. Just like no one did anything when U.S. corporations set up shop in the newly formed Soviet Union. You don't challenge corporations - it doesn't work.

    Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of barganing power does this give them over us while our economy is so fragile?

    Our debt financed by China? It's worse than that. Did you know that during that housing boom we just had that the Chinese central banks sunk a lot of the national treasury into the American mortgage market? They sure don't believe in property rights in China, but over here it's another story.

    http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm? story_id=4221685

    Not only has China played a role in holding down short-term interest rates, but the People's Bank of China has also supported America's mortgage market by buying vast amounts of mortgage-backed securities.

    What does the breaking of the yuan's peg to the dollar mean for bond yields? American Treasury yields rose by 12 basis points after Beijing made its announcement last week. Having played a hand in inflating America's housing bubble, could China now prick it by pushing up mortgage rates, which are closely tied to long-term bond yields?

    If abandoning its dollar peg causes China to reduce its purchases of T-bonds, then yields will rise. But this depends on several uncertainties. For instance, will last week's revaluation reduce inflows of speculative capital into China, and hence its need to intervene in the foreign-exchange market by buying dollars? A large chunk of China's foreign-exchange intervention over the past year has been to offset not its current-account surplus but inflows of hot money. Some economists believe that, in the short term, the small revaluation will intensify speculation of further revaluations and so attract even more capital inflows, forcing the People's Bank of China to buy more Treasury bonds to stabilise its currency. If so, bond yields will remain low.

    On the other hand, the switch from a dollar peg to a currency basket may cause China to diversify its reserves away from dollars. It is unlikely to dump its dollars, but it could well reduce its new purchases of Treasury bonds in favour of other currencies. And, if China really has broken the yuan's link with the dollar, then this could be the trigger for another general slide in the greenback against the euro, the yen and other currencies, prompting investors to demand higher yields. The fate of American house prices could thus be determined by unelected bureaucrats in Beijing rather than the unelected central bankers of the West.
    1. Re:It's worse than you think! by haluness · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Thats a pretty interesting excerpt. It always amazes me how financial systems are so interconnected and how seemingly non-related parties can have serious effects (and even control) over some part of an economy

  42. All-American Microsoft by node357 · · Score: 1

    M$ Against freedom? How un-american! Is that the kind of feather they really want in their cap? I hope the mass media gets all over this sickening censorship campaign. There has been no finer of example of M$ selling our souls for $$$.

  43. Capitalism... by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

    "If we were to announce today that we intend to hang all capitalists tomorrow, they would trip over each other trying to sell us the rope."

    Vladimir Lenin (or so they say...)

    Capitalism just suck, in the name of economic freedom personnal freedom need to be set asside because they are bad for the economy. Although I believe communism also suck for many other reasons (there is more to life than capitalism OR communism, a huge grey area in between and quite a lot of space before reaching boundaries, heck we could even think of something new...) I still quote a communist leader who said something about capitalism that trully resume what's happening here, like it or not, Vladimir Lenin was right this time.

    1. Re:Capitalism... by FigWig · · Score: 1

      Because those Commies sure valued freedom. Capitalism == freedom, sometimes free people do things you don't like or agree with. It's not the Capitalists in this case that are doing the wrong thing, it's the Communist government that is prosecuting the journalists.

      --
      Scuttlemonkey is a troll
    2. Re:Capitalism... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those Commies sure valued freedom.

      You mean "because those socialists sure valued freedom," right? You know that the commies in the USSR were actually socialists, don't you? USSR == Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

      Capitalism == freedom, sometimes free people do things you don't like or agree with.

      Since capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government, wouldn't you agree that your statement is flawed?

      It's not the Capitalists in this case that are doing the wrong thing, it's the Communist government that is prosecuting the journalists.

      Aaah yes, I believe that's a variation the Nuremburg Defense.

  44. Even more disturbing... by KeithH · · Score: 1

    is the fact that this article is coming from TechZone and not NYTimes or the Washington Post.

    1. Re:Even more disturbing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because left-leaning papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post are pretty close to being in agreement with the Communists. Remember, communism is a leftist ideal.

    2. Re:Even more disturbing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has more to do with /. than either of those two papers. They have reported on it, those articles just were just not linked to. Unless you are writing from China where these results may have been censored, a quick Google search reveals:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/09/10/AR2005091001222.html

      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18sun3.h tml

  45. China-bashing hypocrites? by syndicate0198 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many people here have actually been to China for more than 2 weeks? Not many I reckon. In fact most of the (mis)information has been propagated by our media, most of whom have an agenda (hey they can't set up business there, so they bash the system).

    I wonder how many people here make fun of Chinese or Asian stereotypes and yet bash China because they are "oppressing" the Chinese population.

    I wonder how many people here are worried about immigration of people here and yet decry the low living standards in rural China.

    How many people here complain about jobs going to Chinese and yet claim they are worried about the Chinese population being oppressed?

    How many people here complain about Tibet and yet turn a blind eye toward Native Americans, Hawaii, and other American colonies?

    My guess is many, and it all stems from ignoarance or being hypocritical.

    1. Re:China-bashing hypocrites? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      I wonder how many people here have actually been to China for more than 2 weeks?

      I have. More than once.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    2. Re:China-bashing hypocrites? by ecumenical_40oz · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people on this board have no valid arguement other than making completely baseless assumptions about the motives of others? Think I found at least one. Since you are so much more enlightened than the rest of us, why don't you tell us about this "misinformation"?

    3. Re:China-bashing hypocrites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made a completely baseless assumption by assuming he's made a "completely baseless assumption".

  46. red by Legodude522 · · Score: 0

    Yahoo! was always Red. Didn't you ever look at the logo?

    --
    Because I have low karma, I need pills.
  47. What About Google? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how Google are operating in China. I think they'll have to change their slogan to, "Don't be Evil (may not apply in some jurisdictions)".

    Who are we kidding. Private companies will gladly sell out and kowtow to anyone as long as it helps them rake in the cash. Companies don't care if China never becomes a democracy, in fact they probably prefer it the way things are.

    Personally, I feel the Chinese model is so attractive to business that pretty soon people in western nations will begin to lose their rights as companies demand more and more harmonisation with the superior Chinese model.

    It seems capitalism can achieve what the soviets could not.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:What About Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you misspelled "pretty soon people in western nations will begin to lose their rights", it should've been "people in western nations will continue to lose their rights".

  48. Just Get Hip by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2, Funny
    Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms 'freedom,' 'democracy'

    Chinese users just have to learn how to start searching for fr33dom and dem0cr@cy. After all, that's only one step beyond searching for p0rn.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Just Get Hip by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      You know, when MSN blocked "freedom" and "democracy" on their Spaces or whatever it's called, it reminded me in an event in a game called NationStates. Although a full discussion of the events is beyond the scope of the post(Here is a discussion on what happened, in a NationStates-related wiki), the basic gist of the situation is that the dictator used Invision's word replacement to replace, for example, "democracy" with "subversive oligarchy". To get around this, things like "d e m o c r a c y" or "demokracy"(I remember an earlier post on /. about some set of Chinese characters that look almost exactly like their word for "democracy" and could probably be used similarly to the slightly-more-phonetic "demokracy") were used in the forum with those wordfilters on(although, I had detected but never used a way to get around the word filters by sticking a URL tag in there--something similar could probably be done for the Spaces site). Although a search for "d e m o c r a c y" might not be very useful, "demokracy"(or its Chinese equivelant) would. Do you get what I'm saying?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Just Get Hip by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      And the guys at google (those who don't read slashdot) are all wondering why "Fr33dom" and "dem0cr@cy" searches just spiked. Pr0n, however, didn't change.

  49. Sounds better in German by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geiz is Geil! (litterally: greed is horny)

  50. Well, duh by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    A Guardian opinion piece on the subject: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1568479 ,00.html The whole idea of coorporations spreading freedom is simple sillyness - Corporations have evolved to make themselves rich, and any freedom they spread is a coincidental side effect. Market organisms have a life of their own, and their morality is based on dollar values, not virtuous conduct. The ultimate optimum state for a company isn't a democracy, but a tyrannical dictatorship where all wealth is directed straight to the few.

  51. Corporations and Morality by hattig · · Score: 1

    Where should the line be drawn regarding morality, freedoms, liberty, etc?

    For example, I can understand an American company doing business in America, and a Chinese company doing business in China, and so on - that is within your own borders.

    However if you are a corporation looking to do business abroad, you have to abide by that country's laws. That stands to reason.

    However, that company can choose not to do business in that country if those laws stand against decent moral issues that your average American would have regarding freedom and liberty.

    The fact is, Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft have chosen to do business in China, and abide by laws that really go against what your average Westerner believes in. Why? Because of the shareholders.

    Money. They can't afford to neglect these emerging markets, because if they do, their competitors (also American companies for the most part) will gain an advantage over them.

    If you as a person go abroad and commit a crime UNDER AMERICAN LAW, you can be arrested upon your return to America. As far as I can see it, these companies, which are American, are committing crimes under American law, and thus the same treatment should be extended. It is the only way to keep capitalism in check, otherwise our kids would be working in mines, there would be no minimum wage and so on. There must be a balance against the extremes of capitalism, and the law provides that - until the Government is pro-corporatism anyway.

  52. Calling Yahoo to account for this by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    The people to call Yahoo to account for this...

    ...are their shareholders. If you are a shareholder in Yahoo, this is your time to do your moral duty.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  53. Have you ever tried using Freenet? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

    Let's be honest. Anyone who has actually tried using Freenet knows rather quickly that it's just not that usable. Perhaps it is more secure than the WWW, but it is nowhere near as useful. I mean, waiting literally half a day to obtain a few KB of content isn't worth it. Chances are if you're in a despotic situation then you won't be able to wait the long times necessary with Freenet.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  54. alternative to Yahoo groups? by dumllama · · Score: 1

    I only use Yahoo for "groups", but I don't manage any groups. Can anyone suggest another service that is as useful as Yahoo, but doesn't have these ethical problems?

    Also, can you suggest an easy way to transfer membership from one group to another? I bet that many group managers would be afraid of loosing subscribers if they shifted to a new service provider.

    --
    "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" Wendell
    1. Re:alternative to Yahoo groups? by acceleriter · · Score: 1

      Usenet.

      --

      CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.

  55. Re: does SLAVERY ring a bell? by s388 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    freedom comes from business?

    slavery was a business. did you know that? have you heard of it? it was a major cashcow, too.

    i don't think you've noticed this either: many, or even most, people who have jobs still can't afford to donate to political campaigns.

    have you ever heard of child-labor? the so-called free market necessitates such things, from the perspective of THE BOTTOM LINE, the profit/greed motive.

    maybe you're about to say "Everyone is Free to be Rich." unfortunately, "being rich" by definition means a CONCENTRATION of wealth, which by definition means other people aren't rich.

    have you ever heard of colonialism? mercantilism? the subjugation of entire countries had "business", money, and resources as its goal.

    have you heard of christopher columbus? his crews murdered many people for gold. they came to the so-called New World for money and resources. that's business.

    and i'm sure you also haven't realized this: some of the most tyrannical regimes in modern history had "free markets." they even hunted down and imprisoned or executed communists (communists are people who oppose capitalism and say a lot of nasty things about "free markets). hitler and mussolini both gave entirely free reign to big business. (in your view, the bigger the business, the freer the people, right?)

    you're telling me that when i denigrate those enterprises, i'm denigrating freedom?

    if freedom only comes from business, then what did the "heros" you're talking about sacrifice to protect my freedom to live? you make no sense.

    the idea that "freedom" only exists because of the free market is one of the most absurd things i've heard in recent times. maybe you were joking, maybe this doesn't need a response, but i can't say i'm very optimistic these days.

  56. "Why am I on the no-fly list?" by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Sorry sir, I couldn't tell you even if I knew."

    If Kennedy can't find out why he's on the list they won't tell you either.

    Faclon
  57. United States isn't a free country. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love how little media reporting there was when the NSA Key was found in Microsoft Windows. And that's from before the police powers "patriot" act passed without any elected representatives having read it.

  58. This makes perfect sense for U.S. companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A free workforce tends to be more efficient, and selling them the chains they want to hobble themselves will make it that much harder for them to be a threat to us.

  59. Yahoo top management: You are yahoos. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Journalist Shi Tao was jailed and sentenced to 10 years in prison for "illegally sending state secrets abroad." The secrets that he revealed were information his newspaper received from the state propaganda department about how they could cover the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was identified because he had used Yahoo!'s free email service for which Yahoo! turned over log files to authorities that were later tracked back to his computer.

    Message to Yahoo's top executives: Please turn in your badges and be out of the building in 10 minutes. You should not pretend to be able to lead a company. You are yahoos.

    Definition of yahoo: A crude or brutish person.

    PS: I hate your disgusting use of tricky, sneaky advertising.

  60. Nixon's legacy has failed by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I see a few Chinese apologists in this thread, and I invite anyone to have their own opinions, but I'm going to talk about reality here, and it is a cold and harsh reality:

    Nixon, facing down the Soviets, began a policy of economic entanglement with China. China was willing to move away from communism towards limited capitalism, but NOT towards democracy. Concerned by an arms race with China, wishing to put some ideological distance between the USSR and China, and in some part, driven by US corporate interests, Nixon launched us on a path which has lead to the consequences discussed in this article: when we do business with China, it is not unlike doing business with Nazi Germany. (Oh no, I invoked Godwin's law, but it is not out of order here.)

    By tangling our economic system with China's, America received incredibly cheap labor, and the totalitarian elite in China received great wealth. America conveniently outsourced a lot of blue collar jobs to a country which didn't treat the worker as lavishly as we had to, which kicked organized labor in this country in the gnads, and was basically a similar exodus of jobs to what techies have experienced with India. We got (unethically) cheap labor, and the Chinese elite got rich. Some of this wealth trickled down, but you can be sure that in a non-democratic society, there have not been the mechanisms by which the poor could force some change in wealth distribution.

    Nixon's, (and subsequent presidents'), not-so-secret policy towards China has been to hope that a wealthy middle-class would emerge and overthrow the wealthy elite. That has not happened. Look at the masacre in 1989 if you want an example of how easily totalitarian governments can keep control. Nothing has changed except the depth of corruption. In fact, China has actually GROWN in terms of the territory it administers, now able to command the lives of those in Hong Kong, for example. Nixon's policy has FAILED.

    The average Chinese worker is a wage slave to American corporations. America exploits them. There is no other way to look at it, in my opinion. Democratic reform has not occured. The only real change has been that we are now dangerously dependent on the Chinese.

    This dependency is very real, and very dangerous today. Look at our situation with North Korea. It is obvious the Chinese are not exerting the pressure they could wield there. Remember that train that blew up as it was going to make its way out of NK into China? What do you think that train was associated with carrying? How do you think nuke secrets made it to NK from Pakistan? By boat in international waters? No way! Through China. The Chinese have secretly been encouraging nuclear proliferation because they would rather we got into a nuke war with some minor player, like Pakistan, NK, or Iran. They would rather some other country, by proxy, took the punches and dished it out on us. If we are hurt by a nuke, China will be helped, ESPECIALLY in relation to Taiwan.

    The Chinese government is our true enemy, and the people of China need to be liberated.

    As an American, I want to see our government disinvest as quickly as it can from China. We should shift that investment into India and other countries with functioning democracies.

    We need to punish and isolate the Chinese now before it is too late.

    1. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I think a policy of greater economic interaction will slowly convert China into a more free society. Rich people are less willing to be shoved around by their government than poor people who depend on it.

    2. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by shaobohou · · Score: 1
      Remember that train that blew up as it was going to make its way out of NK into China? What do you think that train was associated with carrying? How do you think nuke secrets made it to NK from Pakistan? By boat in international waters? No way! Through China. The Chinese have secretly been encouraging nuclear proliferation because they would rather we got into a nuke war with some minor player, like Pakistan, NK, or Iran.
      This is rather speculative, do you have any evidence to back it up?
      --
      Just because it is not nice , doesn't mean it is not miraculous.
    3. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

      Rich people are more interested in maintaining the status quo than poor people, as they have the most to lose from change.

    4. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

      This is rather speculative, do you have any evidence to back it up?

      http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2005hearings/transcri pts/05_03_10.pdf

      I think it's pretty obvious to the US Government what situation it is in with regards to China.

      The Chinese government is playing a dangerous game, a game which they can play as recklessly as they want given a complete lack of democratic oversight in their political process. I hope the Chinese government realizes that if the United States is attacked by nuclear weapons from a regime we believe they have helped with proliferation, we may simply take out China during our retaliation while the blood of our citizenry is boiling. We will most likely have the missle defenses, submarines, and pissed off military to do it. I'm not part of our government, so I can only speculate.

      With that said, I pray for peace but expect war.

    5. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

      Won't work.

      Economic interdependence will help keep peace. Isolationism won't.

      Progress advances over time. You can't expect it to happen overnight.

      --

      eTrade SUCKS
    6. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you heard of the Untouchable class in India? They are not even allowed to look at another person in the eyes. They are reguarded as less than human.

      If this outrage at Yahoo for their action is really about human rights, passing our business from one country with cheap labor (and major human rights issues) to another isn't going to help anything. Maybe we should be less concerned with our profit margin, and more concerned with the lives of the people of the world. That's the only way anything is ever going to change for the better.

      Unfortunately, those kinds of changes won't be happening any time soon.

    7. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

      Economic interdependence will help keep peace. Isolationism won't.

      The peace is an illusion, in my opinion. Our own government has cited the collusion of the Chinese government with the proliferation of WMD between Iran, Pakistan, and NK. It's in a PDF I replied to a sibling reply of yours, if you'd care to read it. PM Chamberlain had guarantees of peace too, but peace is meaningless if it is only the calculated prelude to war. And with China, I believe they merely want "war by proxy." With NK, they may have it. Once we've seen an American city nuked, do you think we'll be so gung ho about defending Taiwan?

      Isolationism means that the United States can act freely, in OUR best interests. Economic interdependence has done little more than lower the prices at your local department store, as we export wealth and forced our blue collar workers out of jobs.

      Need I remind you that China is a totalitarian regime? Since when has it been cool to do business with a totalitarian regime? Show me some examples of when that has worked out good for the U.S.

      Progress advances over time. You can't expect it to happen overnight.

      Overnight??? It's been more than 30 years now. During those 30 years, China has assisted other countries in obtaining nuclear technology; countries that are TODAY causing us trouble. North Korea, Iran, etc. How much longer do we have to wait until your panacea of a free China comes true?

      Wake up; Taiwan will soon be the next victim of this failed policy. These are people's lives, being traded for "rollbacks" at Walmart.

    8. Re:Nixon's legacy has failed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, please. China and the Chinese government has their share of problems, serious problems. But your talk of liberation is only going to make things worse. Liberation, Ha! like you've liberated Iraq. I betcha Iraqis are your friends too. Hey, you've gotta kill a few in order for liberation. Please liberate other smaller countries first and maybe if US gets a hang of it without killing too many, we'll let you mess about with the lives of a billion people. Until then, please stay within your country.

      North Korea, are you trying to imply that the train explosion was a nuclear bomb? If so, I've got a few bridges to sell you. Nukes releases gamma rays which would be easily detected by the US government and are you telling me that the US government would want to hide something like that?

      The reason that there has been a dramatic increase in anti-Chinese (and Indian) sediments from the US over the past few years is that China (and India) might become a threat to US hegemony in 50 years. That's right, China isn't even a threat now, their average wage is like a tenth of US's and India even less. They have a huge rural population which is going to take forever to bring up to first-world standards of education and living. They have relatively minor amounts of natural resources (well they have a lot of dirty coal) and face very serious struggles as they move from an agricultural to an industrialised society. Their growth rate will also fall as they approach world's "best-practice".

      Look, China, its government and its people aren't perfect, but there's a middle ground between "evil evil commie bastards" and "sweet champions of the earth, saviour to all mankind". They have been improving their human rights records over the past 20 years and will improve more. Their middle class and expatiates will ensure that. Their court system has improved and they are now giving slightly more than lip service to their constitution. While the government is totalitarian, China isn't a dictatorship and their government is slightly representative of their people (and a lot more than if their country was liberated). They had their first peaceful leadership transition (in modern times) a few years ago. Opening up China too quickly will cause social discord and chaos. Progress will undoubtedly take longer than you have patience for (how's Iraq BTW), but liberation (ie war or CIA-sponsored subversion) will take China (and maybe the world) back decades if not a century. Look at Iran, they had a democracy (not a US-friendly one to be sure). If US didn't intervene that would have been the beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Please fix up all the other mess before embarking on more ambitious projects.

      Look at Soviet Union/Russia. They reformed their political system too quickly without corresponding changes to their economic system. It is now a hive of corruption in addition to human rights abuses. And those thousands of Russian nukes, are you sure they are all accounted for? I'd trust those nukes in the hands of Russian military (who have a interest in not killing themselves by setting one off accidentally) over terrorist suicide bombers anyday. BTW In any nuke war involving the US, China will be the first or second to be hit, regardless of whether there are any Chinese involvement. That's why some of us are opposed to usage of nuclear weapons, no matter how small because they increase the chance that MAD will occur.

      The anti-Chinese sediments in the media over the past few years don't all come from care about wellbeing of the Chinese people. It comes from competition and the threat that US with 4% of the world's population might not have an iron grip on power. That Europe, Russia, India, China, Indonesia, Brazil might one day be able to act completely independently without overt or covert US interference.

      Here, read this Wikipedia article on China's peaceful rise. Your war-mongering talk (eg one-true-enemy, punish, isol

  61. democracy to who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s/democracy to the world/profits to american oil corporations/

  62. You can buy the noose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the man you're going to hang with it.

    I just hope that the internet is strong enough in china to remove or damage the otherwise oppressive censorship.

  63. China is Barzini!!! by McBainLives · · Score: 1

    (Even in jest,) that's the wrong target, tovarich. I know it might be difficult, but we really ought to be directing our efforts against the shark, and not the remoras. The trickiest part will be finding alternative sources for textiles, cheap plastic goods, etc. But as far as finding another billion-person consumer market for our corporations to target- that's easy. I'm thinking of a five-letter word for "democracy" that starts with an "i"... (I know it should be capitalized, to show proper respect to a noble nation, but I don't want someone in Rio Linda thinking I mean "L"...)

    --
    I came, I saw, I left. It looked better in the brochure.
  64. The U.S. is not "capitalist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The U.S. IS corporatist. It is a merger of government and industry setting the rules of the governed... That's us. Fascism won WW2, even if Germany did not.

    1. Re:The U.S. is not "capitalist" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Never said the US is "capitalist," and US government and economic structure never entered the discussion.

      I was responding to the OP, go ahead and read it to figure out what the discussion was about.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  65. you don't find freedom by searching for freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although I don't think yahoo should do what the chineese government want, I doubt it will make any difference. We will beat the communists, not by people learning about "democracy", but by comparison. And western media has far more subtle tools for this showing how we are different. Harry potter for example is hugely popular in China, and promotes many of the things (such as personal rights) that the chinees government are so afraid of. The point is that the Chinees government are going to try and crush freedom of speech, but what do you expect from a communist dictatorship. The power of our way of living is that it can be promoted in ways that are far more basic, such as the media.

  66. So tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's exactly wrong with the companies following Chinese laws? If you come to a country to do business - you follow this country's laws. If this country's government tramples on the rights of its citizens - you have to do it to when necessary. Otherwise you're a criminal. At best, you business will be done for.
    And it's quite amazing to see the worldview of many americans here. Apparently, democracy=good, anything else=bad and communism=absolute evil. Land of the free, huh? More like Land of poor brainwashed hypocrites.

    That's not to say I would like something like that to happen to me, but it's this journalist's fault for not being subtle enough. His and only his. Business is for making money, not "bringing the light of freedom and democracy to the opressed people of [country]".

    And yes, I do sympathise with the students that died on Tiannamen (sp?) Square.

  67. I run a spam operation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I toss and turn every night, "Why, oh why, can't ppl pay me to send /good/ spam?!"

    1. Re:I run a spam operation. by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      "Good" spam??? Talk to Hormel (for sufficiently small values of "good")

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  68. Don't criticise Yahoo... by Seby123456 · · Score: 1

    At the risk of being well and truly flamed, why does this matter? A business is not, and never has been, an ethical concern. They make money for shareholders. Most shares end up being held by pension companies and other saving vehicles. We use said saving vehicles to get our % interest on our savings/pensions. That is all these companies do. That is there only function. There is no moral or ethical purpose to them, and as such condemning them for compromising 'freedom' is irrelevant. The use a trite saying, the business of business is business. Freedom and ethics are for the politicans and the voters to decide on. Don't criticise Yahoo for maing money - that is there sole purpose. Criticise the governments, they are the ethical controllers. It never has and never will be the scope of business to be some kind of moral barometer. So Yahoo sold a guy out who used their email systems? Just doing what they have to do to make money and fulfill their purpose. Blame rests on the country that forces companies to do this, not the companies that do it.

  69. There are ways to play it safe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    When dealing with oppressive governments there are ways to play it safe. Even if you *THINK* you are playing by the rules why take a chance.

    There was a very good concept someone came up with several years ago to build an encrypted network on top of the internet. Myself and a few others decided to put forth the time and resources needed to bring it to fruition. What we ended up with is anoNet.

    Most of the info about the layout of the network is available at that link, but here is the "quick and dirty".

    We took OpenVPN combined it with Quagga then used IANA reserved address space to build a fault tolerant, encrypted, anonymous network. The basic premis is that you only know the ips of your peers. On top of that you make sure that the people that you peer with are in countries that are not on the best of terms when it comes to cooperating with law enforcement. IE: China -> US. This network is _primarily_ used for two purposes: 1 - We are a self contained (for lack of a better word) Darknet. We have root DNS servers, a search engine (mnogosearch), email (webmail if someone doesn't want to run their own), IM (jabber), Web servers (with the ability to post anonymous content, and by anonymous, I mean anonymous even from the people INSIDE anoNet), FTP servers, IRC, News servers, Asterisk VOIP (although this is still in testing), Proxy servers, etc..etc.. We have taken great pains to re-implement the internet but with anonymity and encryption in mind. 2 - To provide users in countries that restrict internet access (China) the ability to browse (proxy) in a secure, safe manner.

    I was going to throw a few common questions and answers in here but this post is long enough. If you want more info we have a nice Wiki setup to handle just about any questions you could have (but you have to connect to access it).

    Bottom line if the people mentioned in this article had been using our mail relays / proxies this wouldn't be an issue right now. If people in (supposedly) less oppressive countries want to make a difference in the world, then donate a little time and bandwidth to the cause instead of blowing up countries.

  70. It's the year of the rat for Yahoo in China by Everyman · · Score: 1

    Put this on your website and title it "The Year of the Rat."

  71. Are we talking about the same Yahoo that ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..refused to turn over the password of a dead soldiers email account to his parents a year or so ago? But appearently gleefully gave up emails so a guy in Hong Kong could be imprisoned? Erosion of freedom is still a bad thing whether from governmental sources or private industry. Yahoo and M$N should be ashamed to cave to the Commies for a buck. If you continue to patronize these businesses know that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

  72. a free market in Chile? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Yes. You might want to check out the history of Pinochet's rule in Chile. Pinochet was a totalitarian ruler who brought free-market economics to Chile. Laissez-faire capitalism can exist in a totalitarian government, just like socialism can exist in a democracy or a republic.

    Chile didn't have when Pinochet was in charge and doesn't have a free market economy now. In a free market a company can't just take land from those who live on and own it yet that's exactly what is still happening in Chile:

    The Spread of Commercial Tree Plantations in Ancestral Mapuche Lands
    Important as they have been, government reform initiatives are insufficient to mitigate the negative effects of economic development schemes on Mapuche communities. During the 1990s Mapuche lands were profoundly affected by the expansion of investment in forestry, hydroelectric projects, and road construction. By the year 2000, an estimated 1.5 million hectares in ancestral Mapuche territory had been planted with commercial pine and eucalyptus. Two Chilean companies alone, Mininco and Arauco, accrued more than one million hectares of exotic trees, many of its plantations encircling Mapuche communities. Community members fiercely opposed encroachment by the forestry companies. They complained that the pine tree farms dried up their water sources, eroded the soil, and blocked the light needed to sustain the rich undergrowth of the native woods, on which Mapuche still rely for medicinal and ritual needs. At the same time, the Mapuche found only limited employment with the companies. For more than a decade, anger at what they considered the plunder of their livelihood exploded in public protests, occupations of forestry land, road blocks, and burning of trees, forestry vehicles, and equipment.

    In response, the forestry companies denounced Mapuche leaders in the courts and invested in armed guards to protect their plantations and installations. Some communities reached agreements with government authorities to purchase forestry land through CONADI, regulate water rights, and institute bilingual education programs. However, in many areas the relationship between the communities and the forestry companies and government continued to deteriorate. These conflicts provide the backdrop to the prosecutions discussed in this report.

    Another deeply conflictive development was the construction of a large scale hydroelectric project on the upper reaches of the river Bío Bío, ancestral lands of the Mapuche-Pehuenche people. The construction of a dam at Ralco, a project administered by the national electricity company Endesa, went ahead only after then-President Eduardo Frei intervened to secure its approval by the national environmental agency and by CONADI. Two CONADI directors who had opposed the Ralco dam were fired in quick succession. The project received a green light against the express wishes of the two indigenous communities directly affected, and of the Mapuche people in general.

    Six Pehuenche families who refused to accept resettlement by the government led the protests against Ralco, gaining wide support from environmental and indigenous rights organizations across Chile.11 Many of the protests were broken up by the security forces. In March 2002, carabineros violently routed a group of families from the community of Quepuca Ralco who were blocking an access road to a construction site. Carabineros indiscriminately hit children, women, and old people and arrested about fifty protestors, who were presented to the military prosecutor in Chillán. As a leading Chilean environmentalist has argued recently, approval of the Ralco project without sufficient consultation with the affected indigenous families has inflicted profound damage on the government's credibility with the Mapuche people.12

    In other cases the indigenous Mapuche people have been convicted of "terrorism" for opposing forestry companies who take their land for tree farms. In a free market these things aren't allowed.

    Falcon
  73. Only in China, I wonder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy to be shocked that they're doing this in China while forgetting that a lot of companies carry out the same kind of activities in Europe and the United States. If the Department of Homeland Security requested information about a poster on a Yahoo! message board, for instance, would anyone be shocked that they turned it over?

  74. Laissez-faire capitalism is made for by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    totalitarian government (or the other way around) Socialism is made for democracy/republic (because the basis of Socialism is democracy/republic, you could also say Socialism is a extension of democracy/republic)

    You've got that all wrong. A Laissez-faire or free market requires the government to keep out whereas a totalitarian and socialist governemnt require the government to control the market. Perhaps a reading of Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" will clear up the confusion of what a free market and laissez-faire capitalism is about.

    Falcon
  75. It's not only the government by DrIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Half of it is the government, but half of it is the people.

    I'm an American born Chinese whose parents are from Taiwan. I have friends who are Chinese from China who've moved here, and I'll be damned if all of them oppose the Chinese government.

    Sure, you've got a large number of people in China who want democracy, who want elected officials and a say in government. But you've also got a large number of people that are either so caught up in nationalism to notice or sincerely don't believe it's that bad. For a change from totalitarianism to democracy to occur, the idea of change has to be internally ubiquitous.

    When you've got a Chinese telling me that the Taiwanese form of government is worse than the Chinese form of government, we've got a problem here. Although the Taiwanese form of government may not be perfect, especially in its beginnings, at least officials are elected by the people, at least it's a multi-party system, and wow, there isn't this rampant totalitarian censorship and control exerted over the people.

    When you've got people pointing to the Chinese legislature as a legitimate form of legislature, that's a problem. A one-party legislature is not legitimate, it's a pathetic excuse.

    When you've got people saying that there should be a balance between control and freedom (which isn't false at all - for instance, you don't have the freedom to murder) and pointing to CHINA as an example of this, we have a problem. Especially when that same person cites the PATRIOT Act as a problem in the United States.

    When you've got people failing to recognize that China is rampant with censorship and has a foreign policy that's worse as ours (Tibet, anyone?), that's a problem. They simply fail to recognize this as a human rights violation. Yet when we bomb Iraqi civilians, they're completely opposed to it, citing human rights. So when the United States kills people it's wrong but when China does it's not? Bullshit. Nationalism at it's peak.

    These aren't conservative or totalitarianistic-thinking people either. In America's terms, they'd be considered liberal. It's just when it comes to the subject of China, they're automatically in support.

    And it's so hard to show them how absurd this mode of thinking is.

    Right now, I have little confidence in the Chinese people to change their government. I also have little confidence in foreign nations to have the ability to change the Chinese government. Not only that, I oppose any attempt by any nation other than China itself to change the Chinese government. Change must come from within. And it doesn't seem like it's coming anytime soon. Tienmen Square shut dissenters up pretty damn good.

    You can't blame Yahoo or Google for complying with the Chinese government. If they don't comply, guess what? They're going to be blocked from China. Lot of good that'll do then, right? All those websites about democracy are going to do the Chinese real good if they can't even get there. At least with search query censorship, a clever search may yield good results. When blocking the entire search engine, that whole mode of finding information is lost.

    1. Re:It's not only the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So DrItiot - or anyone else- do you think this newfound desire to be affluent will translate into an eventual transformation of chinese human freedoms or is the stage set for a long term future of rampant totalitarian censorship and control exerted over the people ? (I wrote: "China can succeed as a authoritarian country" underneath this)

    2. Re:It's not only the government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DrIdiot, I agree with most of your points, and I have very similar experience to yours. I also agree that any change must come from within. And this is where I see a problem. As you said, large fraction of the population in China seems to be rather content with the situation. In such situation, what kind of message is Yahoo and other western companies sending to those that are unhappy with the government? I can see one of two things (possibly both) happening:

      1) The government can use this to weaken opposition. They can use their rumor mills to spread FUD about western nations, about democracy, etc., "Look, all those American companies are happily cooperating with our government, helping them jail dissidents, yady yady yada..., they are just as bad as the communists, ..."

      2) If (when) there is a change of regime in China, the new "elite" may not be exactly friendly towards the west, after seeing western corporations aiding their prosecution by the government year after year after year. I can imagine all sorts of nationalist politicians yelling "OK, we kicked ass of the evil communists, now lets kick the asses of all the evil Americans and other western scum that cooperated with them so happily." Again, not a very good situation for us.

      I agree with you about the necessity of some concessions to the government in order to open the flow of information at least to some degree, but helping to stick a journalist in jail for 10 years is, IMHO, going way too far, and I think it is going to make Yahoo extremely unpopular in some parts of Chinese society.

    3. Re:It's not only the government by DrIdiot · · Score: 1
      American companies != American government. I really hope people don't identify Americans by their corporations. American corporations exploit third world children, support totalitarian dictator regimes (Bechtel privitized the water supply of Bolivia, which didn't go through because of massive protests and rioting)...

      Also, it's entirely possible that the change in regime would be U.S.-hostile, but that isn't something I'd anticipate. Mostly because a change into a democratic government would be different from the change into the communist one in the 1940s. I think they'd be more likely to seek allies rather than enemies.

    4. Re:It's not only the government by kongjie · · Score: 1

      Great post. Sometimes I get upset with over-patriotic fellow Americans, but patriotism is nothing compared to nationalism, and the Chinese have cornered the market on nationalism.

  76. China can succeed as a authoritarian country by gritty214 · · Score: 1

    If you need examples of China's probable future there are some rather frightening examples of Asian success stories like Singapore. Singapore has long been criticized for its human rights abuses; at the same time Singapore can be called Asia's most competitive economy. The people there do tolerate the abuses of their government supposedly for the order and peace that it maintains. Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, even India are all on human rights watchdog lists right now for various reasons. I have no idea just which direction the present government of China will take, an experiment on this scale has never been tried. What makes me much more optimistic about the future is that there are people (like some of the folks here) that care a great deal about what happens to these people and will actually go to some lengths to help stop these intolerable human rights abuses.

  77. Economic Leverage by amembleton · · Score: 1

    It concerns me that the Chinese government might spread their control of companies to locations outside of their territory. For example, they could ask Google to stop linking to any negative articles about China or its human rights record. In exchange Google would continue to have access to the vast Chinese market. If not, they would have to pull out which would loose them a lot of potential revenue. Wall Street would likely demand that they bow down to the Chinese government.

  78. economic and personal freedom by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Capitalism just suck, in the name of economic freedom personnal freedom need to be set asside because they are bad for the economy.

    Because economic freedom, freed market capitalism, requires a voluntary exchange, it can't exist without personal freedom.

    Falcon
    1. Re:economic and personal freedom by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

      You obviously are wrong since our freedoms are constantly being trampled for the good of the economy...

      witty comment don't change anything about it, have you even read the thread subject...

    2. Re:economic and personal freedom by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You obviously are wrong since our freedoms are constantly being trampled for the good of the economy...

      How hard is it to understand a freemarket requires freedom? If rights are being trampled for the economy then said economy isn't a freemarket.

      have you even read the thread subject...

      I've read it and understood it, have you? Is there a problem in understanding it?

      Falcon
    3. Re:economic and personal freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How hard is it to understand a freemarket requires freedom? If rights are being trampled for the economy then said economy isn't a freemarket.

      But the U.S. doesn't have a free market - there are tariffs imposed on goods imported from overseas, thus precluding the possibility of it having a free market. Therefore, using your reasoning, the U.S. is not free.

      Is there a problem understanding that?

  79. Remember - Information wants to be free by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    The average chinese citizen already has access to "technology" to get around the filters - after all, LOTS of the spam we get is from them.

    They'll search for and write about "fr33d0m", or "d3m0cr4t1c", or "1 p3rs0n, 1 v0t3".

    Or they'll create their own "free-speek", as opposed to "l33t-sp34k".

    Lets face it, subcultures are good at producing their own language to communicate with that are impenetrable to the overlords.

    The mafia, the hells angels, etc. all have their internal language to make sure that anyone overhearing them on a wiretap doesn't get the real message.

    We're having a party over at Joe's (the buy location). Jake's bringing a couple of king cans (2 kilos of coke) and 4 6-packs (24 kilos of marijuana), and you're expected to bring 5 bags of chips ($50,000) as your contribution. It's an invite-only party (don't bring your fucking hanger-ons again) - anyone not on the "A List" will be show the door (we'll kill them) as opposed to getting their free ticket to the baseball game(beating them up with a baseball bat).
  80. sharp turn towards authoritarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From outside the U.S., it looks like you took that "sharp turn towards authoritarianism" when you elected Bush in 2004. Events since (Patriot act, Guantanamo Bay, media-fear-campaign, Iraq war, etc) have certainly borne this out.

    Of course the 2000 elections were rigged with the aid of deliberately-insecure closed-source voting machines by Diebold and others, and NEITHER the Democrats nor the Republicans tried to do anything about it in 2002 or 2004, so it's hardly the will of the people that Bush's government be in office. You should throw him out on his ass for lying about Iraq.

  81. Chinese executives by Arandir · · Score: 1

    As an employee of a huge multinational corporation based out of Europe, I have to relate the following rumor. The vice president of the China group was let go (fired) a couple of years ago because he was caught trying to marry a fifth wife while visiting the US. He claimed he didn't do anything wrong as each of his earlier four wives were each in different countries.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  82. "Following the law" might sound reasonable, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a good article, but it misses a key point: Yahoo's Hong Kong branch is actually under no obligation whatsoever to obey mainland China's law. Yahoo either (a) cooperated with a reasonable expectation of what would happen, or (b) was, unfortunately, naive.

    Even if there were no jurisdiction issue, when the "law" is used as a tool to persecute people, it is not legitimate and should not be followed. Western companies may do well to think twice before doing business with a regime that has killed nearly 100 million of its own people.

  83. Business At The Price Of Freedom by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Business At The Price Of Freedom

    That is best description of the Republican Party I've ever read.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  84. Oh yes I forgot by gelfling · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is an echo chamber where unless you agree with the inplied sentiment of the article you are therefore called a troll

    1. Re:Oh yes I forgot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true, indeed!

      I'd also like to take the time to mention that I'm very, very pleased that Americans are dying during the Iraq occupation. Oh yes, let's all weep for the poor poor Americans.

  85. Learn to play along by charlesesl · · Score: 1

    More than the decade after the cold war, Americans are still talking about ideology supremacy. Russia is not spreading Communism, nor is China spreading Socialism with Chinese chrematistics. It is time for America to do the same.

    The time when US could use economics as a weapon is gone. No country depend on US to get what they could not get anywhere else. As Zimbabwe has shown, Western sanctions only allowed India and China to move in and fill the gap.

    The world is not created according to the American image. And it never will be. Cooperation is the only way of the future.

    1. Re:Learn to play along by artefactual · · Score: 1

      :spreading Socialism with Chinese chrematistics. It is time chrematistics? not trying to be a bastard, but I'm having trouble what word you mean! At first I thought I was just ignorant, so looked it up, but no dictionary I have access to has it. Bst guess is; characteristics? anyone a suggestion?

    2. Re:Learn to play along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i dont think u have access to a brain.
      less so, to google.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Achrematist ics&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

  86. Hurting themselves? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

    Given that China's trade surplus with the US is a relatively significant percentage of their GDP, wouldn't anything that hurts the US hurt them too?

    1. Re:Hurting themselves? by cpu_fusion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that China's trade surplus with the US is a relatively significant percentage of their GDP, wouldn't anything that hurts the US hurt them too?

      That's a great question, and it hits at the heart the policy's assumptions.

      You have to define who the "them" is that would be hurt by something happening to the U.S. In China, there are two "thems". There are (1) the people in government, the unelected "party". (2) The wealthy businessmen who are outside of government, but certainly connected to it. And (3) "everyone else", from the farmers, the factory workers, to the university students who are not "connected."

      Let's say L.A. gets nuked. Suddenly there are a couple hundred thousand less consumers in America. Groups #2 and #3 suffer slightly. Group #1 is going to take whatever it wants anyways, because it is the king, and it is good to be king. Group #2 is going to suffer less than group #3, because the workers aren't calling the shots. They are lucky to have the work. Group #2 will simply pass the buck on the economic downturn on group #3.

      But what happens if LA or NYC is nuked by NK or Iran? America will lose its belly for defending Taiwan. Suddenly we know, all to real, what it means to have a city nuked. The Chinese are counting on this. They want us to lose our belly for defending Taiwan, and most likely Japan. You see, group #1 still adheres to ideology: they want Taiwan, and they want revenge on Japan. Once we lose our belly for limited nuclear war (which is what it would be with China), China can do as it damn well pleases.

      Now China takes Taiwan, and we waffle. Now groups #1 and #2 win! Group #3, powerless, is going to hurt, because there are now more workers to compete with. Workers who are westernized. Workers like the folks in Hong Kong.

      Anyways, I know there are assumptions here in how the US would react to a limited nuclear strike (1 or 2 cities), but to think of China as a single entity which loves American dollars is blind: the government in charge is still very much based on an ideology, and the Chinese capitalists and their wage slaves are still very much their pawns.

  87. Good for China by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 0
    I didn't see anyone say this yet, so here goes.

    Good for China. Not every culture wants to live under the same government or with the same laws. Thus we can't expect every country to act the same as us or to do our bidding.

    Apparently the Chinese want or will tolerate the repressive form of government they have. It's not for us to judge them or force them to change. If they want change, it is up to them to instigate it. We did it for ourselves in the US, if they want to, they will do it in China.

    If any US companies don't like what they have to tolerate to do business there, then they don't have to do business there. Quite simple really.

    1. Re:Good for China by Bitsy+Boffin · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points - +1 Insightful.

      China has about 1.2 billion people, when, and if, the majority want change, they will fight for it and win, whether the government likes it or not. But until that revolution begins, how about America just shut up, sit back and let them be. Thier way of life is different to yours, why should that be a bad thing, why should you have to force your "freedom" (becoming less and less free lately) down thier collective throat?

      If the majority of the Chinese population wants change, then they will make it happen, if nothing else then by sheer force of numbers. Revolution by the people is older than history - America has only had one.. so far.

      --
      NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
    2. Re:Good for China by Strange+Power+Duck · · Score: 1

      I agree. You know, restriction of freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is something like *too much* freedom. Besides, here in the West, business is practised at the cost of freedom also. Do 'Vendor Lock-in', 'DRM', 'Microsoft EULA' and 'RFID' ring any bells?

    3. Re:Good for China by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      You know, restriction of freedom isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is something like *too much* freedom


      You should not have the freedom to post that!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  88. No it cant by argoff · · Score: 1

    If things were always static, then you might be right. But things are never static, and that's where these governments get killed. Or more like, take the path that Germany did in the 1930's.

    Look at US history. The indian wars, the civil war, the great depression, the racial issues in the 1940's, and the baby boom generation in the 1960's, and inflation in the 80's ( and now the financial system crash about to happen in 2005/06 with 270 TRILLION with a T dollars in outstanding derivative contracts ).

    Has the US treated people like trash? Absolutely, but things eventually (more or less) changed and improved both politically and economically because the underlying forces securing individual freedom and liberty were in place moreso than in other countries that completely fell apart under similar pressures. Where are those underlying forces in singapore? Where are those underlying forces in China? They are not there, and when times change (which they always do) then the system will break down and they will loose economic freedoms (and thus economic strength) in addition to their already lost political freedoms.

    Many of these companies are being short term prudent, but long term foolish when they invest in China without insisting on at least functioning democracy and basic freedoms first. About 10-30 years down the road, the people of China and the world will pay a bitter price for that failure of understanding.

  89. Liberal Democracy? Where? by poptones · · Score: 1

    Is wanting other people to enjoy the same rights under a liberal democracy that we in the USA have cultural chauvinism?

    Where the fuck do you live in a "liberal democracy?" Surely not here in the US - where tolerance is only lip service and "liberal" means you only espouse a more agnostic fascism...

    1. Re:Liberal Democracy? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually, it means you suck mean swinging donkey dicks. Liberally and with complete abandon.

  90. Tiananmen Square massacre by Fenster+Karton · · Score: 1

    Nothing has changed. The Chinese gvt knew who the leaders of the rebellion were because they had photos courtesy of equipment released to them by the US gvt. (http://www.celestron.com/telescopes.htm) These compact Cassegrain optics were (and may still be) controlled items under the restriction of transfer of technology. It was a felony to export them The green light came from the highest authority. So the students who thought they were far enough away to not worry about photographs were wrong. Dead wrong in some cases. So to kvetch about Yahoo is just misplaced. It shows a lack of appreciation of the real dynamics of global politics. FK

  91. Business At The Price Of Freedom - Yahoo and China by newssubscribe1 · · Score: 1

    You all have your knickers in a twist don't you? Well, get over it. China is a very reprehensible nation when it comes to individual liberty and political expression but what it did with Yahoo (HK) was, unfortunately, quite legal, normal, kosher. China along with all the major democracies have laws and regulations in place to require internet companies hand over membership data and history. The main difference between China and the US, it would seem, is that China allowed Yahoo (HK) to tell the public what it had done. In the US, the Patriot Act, check it out, makes it illegal to mention such a case let alone advise that a law enforcement approach/request had been made. Go talk to you librarian about the law's interest in your reading habits. Before you start sanctions on Yahoo, go have a look for own freedoms that have been put in the shredder over the past few years. Fact is, if Yahoo (US) or any other US corporation had a request made to them by the FBI or whoever, you would not know it. You can be guaranteed, however, that such requests are regularly made.

  92. I wish you all ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The priviledge of living in constant fear of arrest.
    The freedom of suspecting your neighbors, co-workers, even children have turned you in to the government.
    The warm feeling that you have little to no control of your life and there is nothing you can do to change that in your lifetime.

    10 years in a Chinese prison? 10 years of your life? For what? For sending an email with some government policy info? Most people in democratic countries get annoyed when they wait 10 minutes at the dentist..

    I advise you all to get some proportions - this is not like the FCC regulations, not even close, and anyone saying otherwise is a demagogue.

    The excuse that "this is the law" in china simply doesn't hold water - I hope I dont have to remind you that in a totalitarian regime 'law' means 'the whim of an absolute ruler or group of rulers'.

    These corporations are US corporations - they received operating licenses from the US government, which is the sovereign and holds responsibility for actions of its subjects, even if they happen to be doing some business overseas. This government was mandated by your US constitution, which I believe a major part of was dedicated to upholding citizens' rights. It is YOUR responsibility to go out there and make your government uphold that mandate. If you're sitting at home on your made-in-China chair watching your made-in-China TV sitting on the IKEA made-in-china cupboard then you are simply cowards.

    Your representatives in the senate and in congress are here to represent YOU - do YOU regularly assist the mafia in harrassing the local drugstore owner? do YOU make your employees carry out abortions just so they don't miss work?

  93. What about distributed criminal liability? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    Imagine if corporations could be not only fined, but jailed for their behaviour? And the stockholders would have to serve that time proportionately to their share of interest in the corporation. Imagine Microsoft gets a year and you own 1/25,000,000 of it? You have to serve 1.26 seconds. Might as well just go to the station with a box of donuts and call it served. Own half of it? Now you're paying attention.

    Mal-2

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  94. Mod this up, please by Skip666Kent · · Score: 1

    This is a VERY workable solution. I'd love to see the fallout of this!

    Yahoo et al couldn't 'crack down' on the operation without drawing some seriously negative press.

    They couldn't crack down on it without cracking down on regular SPAM too.

    The parent post should be sitting on top of all the others. This is a solution that slashdotters can work themselves, rather than idle pontificating and posturing on this side of the imaginary fence or that.

    --
    **>>BELCH
  95. nauseating by Sjobeck · · Score: 0

    Nauseating.