Slashdot Mirror
Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft
QuatermassX writes "The New York Times editorial page comments on the responsibilities of American technology companies doing business in China. From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. Some in the American Congress are talking about holding hearings. Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, 'We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there.' This is a false choice. China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.'"
Goo-do-no-evil-gle also has a stake in Baidu, which conveniently offers painless search for MP3 downloads.
I guess it's better to be there (do a bit of evil) than not be there (no evil).
From the article: "Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression."
You mean like countless protests, threats of sanction on China's poor treatment to basic human rights, which result in nothing? Or do you mean North-Korea or Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries?
I guess it's time for parents to wake up and realize that their children have grown up and are strong and indenpendant enough to ignore or repel parental guidance. These parents can either act nice in order to live peacefully with their children, or get kicked out of the house.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.
That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". Microsoft is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
Fed up with slashdot? I am too.
China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.
No it doesn't.
PimpMyMazda.com - Crazy mods to a 2002 Mazda Protege DX.
A country that jails people for expressing opposing political viewpoints is in material violation of the spirit of the free software movement. IMO, there should be an anti-totalitarian variant of the GPL that denies repressive states and their institutions any license under which they can legally run the software or use the source. And the FSF should be suing these states at the Hague daily.
Why should the burden of trying to use software as a lever to lift state oppression fall on the shoulders of Microsoft? If any group has a philosophical goal that is in line with lifting oppression, it is the Free Software movement. So why is Microsoft lambasted in the NYT while the OSDL gets cheered for admitting Red Flag Linux?
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
... the citizens of a country carry their morals with them when they go abroad, no? It isn't so much China's behaviour, it's the behavious of my fellow Americans that disturbs me.
Wow
We're going to censure MS for abiding by Chinese law, while simultaneously maintaining MFN status with them?
And what do you suppose we'd say if some company from another country set up shop here, and refused to abide by OSHA regs or US child labor laws?
This is just...asinine. I can even see an argument that MS should voluntarily choose to not do business in China for ethical reasons, but I just can't see our government mandating it.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Nope, nothing here giving Congress any authority to regulate business in the U.S., let alone China.
Wrong on both counts. The Interstate Commerce Clause gives Congress broad authority to regulate business within the borders of the US, and various trade treaties approved by the Senate give the government strong powers at regulating the activities of American companies in other countries. In addition, the Federal government explicitly has the authority to level taxes and tariffs on all commerce coming in, or going out, of its territories. So, yes, the federales can tell Microsoft where they can and can't sell their products.
Even leaving all that aside, it can be argued that the US has a strong strategic interest in seeing democracy flourish around the globe. Companies which empower countries to keep a chain around their citizens' necks shouldn't be able to plead "We have no choice, we have to do as they say!" Because they do have a choice, and that choice is not to do business in those countries. There's nothing immoral in, effectively, blockading China's ability to buy software from American companies. Whether it would be effective is a different argument which I am avoiding.
FWIW, China isn't the worst government. I know of one that warmongers in 100 countries as we speak, forcing oil-buying countries to use this Empire's currency, all the while stomping on its own citizens' rights and freedoms while pretending to defend liberty.
Oh, please, now you're just trolling. We're not actively at war with any other country currently, we don't force anyone to use our currency (in fact, the Congress was about to levy sanctions on China if they didn't stop pegging their currency to ours exclusively), and if our rights and liberties were as jeopardized as you seem to be claiming you'd be in jail right now, or worse.
I usually agree whole-heartedly with what you write, dada, but you seem to have some wild hair up your butt that's making you spout nonsense today. What gives?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
That Would kill our economy. Turn over some of the things you have in your house and see were they are made. As much as it pains to say, we are depended on China. Need more proof? America's (and the world's) largest comapny, Wal-Mart, needs China's cheap labor to 'Roll back those prices' in the United States.
Article II Section 8 grants the Legislative Branch (Congress) the power to " To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" This is what is known as the Commerce Clause
Also in that same section: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." This allows them to actually do the above.
That would grant them say the ability to prohibit U.S. Businesses from engaging in commerce of proscribed types with select foriegn nations. This has been done with Cuba, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, the USSR...
The market doesn't cure all ills. We should censure MS / Yahoo! for not maintaining American ethical standards while operating abroad. Sure a corporation exists to maximise shareholder value, but we should ALL operate with our ethics intact. To do otherwise implies what's good for Americans is ... flexible for others. While this may fly with our "guests" in Cuba and those nice people we fly around Europe and the Middle East for "talks" in non-US jails ... well ... this is all plainly wrong.
This goes back to a fundamental mistake made by many people... a company's purpose should not be to make money at any cost, legal or otherwise. Companies are not mindless entities that must suck as much money as possible from people to add value to its stock price. Companies wouldn't exist without the people that run and own them. Those people have basic moral obligations to society. And I believe those should translate into the corporations they own and run.
In fact, corporations that follow basic morals can make as much or more than companies that do not, in the long run. And that's one of the problems... they often don't care about long term costs of acting unethically. Take Microsoft as an example. If they acted better they'd have more community and corporate support long term. They'd have a much better image and not have to be so reactive to every threat to their bottom line.
Ethics in corporations matter. And more people need to realize that.
Developers: We can use your help.
And the FSF should be suing these states at the Hague daily.
Precisely how would they go about that? As a non-state entity, the US Federal courts or the courts of the offending country are your only options. Unless you can get a state to bring the case to the ICJ/ICC, you're not going to get past the gate.
Here's a really good index of economic freedom:
o untries.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/c
I realize that economic freedom is just one of the "types" of freedoms, but it's still a very interesting read. We tie for 9th in the world.
An example of an apparent (though maybe not actual, I'm no expert) flaw in using this as an index of freedom as a whole would be the UK out ranking the US considerably, since the massive surveilance that you mentioned would seem to preclude that.
In a competitive market, morality is defined by law. Companies will (and are supposed to) do whatever it takes to succeed. If one company decides not to do something on based personal morals, not determined by law, they'll be simply be pushed aside by a company that will, so that their restraint will have had no positive effect. Same goes for pollution. If the profitable choice is the polluting one, the companies that choose not to pollute will have no success in reducing pollution, but instead will simply be pushed out of the market by those that are willing to pollute for profit, unless the law steps in to make pollution an unprofitable choice.
It's beyond time to question "free trade" when America can't sell it's #1 product: the freedom to say what you want.
Actually, I think that is pretty profound. What is "Western Culture" except science on one hand and the "rights of man" on the other hand. The rest of the world has science now. All we have left to give is Enlightment humanism. Failing that, our culture has no reason to exist beyond Hollywood and Las Vegas.
> You don't believe, despite their own claims to be doing so, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Care to back that statement up, neocon? As far as I know, they've claimed to develop a peaceful, civil nuclear program to generate power.
Of course, nobody believes them, but then nobody believes you either.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Older geeks on /. will remember that it used to be a mantra in the West that if we only showed how good it could be to have our consumer goods and other material things to the citizens of repressive regimes, they would ultimately overthrow their Evil Overlords. It was due to this pattern of that the we actually wanted companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonald's to do business in totalitarian countries like the USSR.
Flash forward to now, and suddenly it's a bad thing? I'm sure US companies in the Soviet republics had to do their fair share of blinking previously, and it's still the price to pay when dealing with a repressive oligarchy like the current Chinese regime.
I guess the big difference now is that I don't think having Microsoft or Google in China is advancing American interests much. Quite the opposite, in fact.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Giving sh-t to Microsoft for supporting China - an oppressive regime - is a cheap shot that only alleviates our guilt. Did any one of you refuse to purchase the componets from the computers you are using right now that were made in china? Fuelling money into this opressive regime? Did anyone complain about how cheap their latest gadget was because it was manufactured in China? Did you opt out of buying clothing that was made there? Are Microsoft's actions more politically vulnerable to attack? Yes. But lets not forget all the other companies that operate in China that we are all too happy to support. In my opinion, Microsoft getting their software in the door with restrictions is much better than an insulated China-made alternative. Anyone who thinks that it's the microsoft software that's keeping people from free expression, and not the people that are going to come knocking at your door, is crazy. Free expression in China will require people who can avoid detection and get around restrictions anyways - a word filter from Microsoft isn't going to stop them.
If I don't patent bubble-sort, somebody else will. If I don't sell arms to terrorists, somebody else will. If I don't sell crack to children, somebody else will.
If I don't take the moral high ground, somebody else will. Or will they?
No one could care less about the people in China. "Human Rights" is an issue people bring up when they want an excuse to complain about Microsoft... or when they want some protectionist policy to save the local sock factory.
Here is an example of the totaly inconsistant views that many people have about "human rights":
1. Why did labor unions in the U.S. start worrying about human rights in China, only when China started winning jobs from the United States and kicking ass economicly? I don't remember labor unions upset about Maos Cultural Revolution back in the 60s the same way they railed on about the Tianemen Square massacre!
2. Why is it bad that U.S. companies are NOT doing buisness in Cuba? Every anti-corporate crusader who thinks U.S. corporations should stop doing buisness in China because China censors the Internet is in love with Internet censoring Cuba and thinks the trade embargo on Cuba is some big horrible plot by the corporations.
3. Why is it bad when the U.S. tries to stop advanced U.S. weapons from being sold to China? I think the Guardian newspaper called it "Imperialistic" that the U.S. didn't want advanced weapons sold to China via 3rd parties in Europe. I guess it is a human rights violation for Microsoft to help read people's emails, but not a human rights violation to blow people up?
4. Why is it so bad when the U.S. doesn't want to turn over control of the root internet name servers to an organization dominated by countries like China? Why is it reasonable when China demands the U.N. give it the ability to censor the Internet , but the epitome of evil when Microsoft inside China aids censorship strictly inside China?
5. Why are Europeans always carrying on about capital punishment in America being an affront to human rights not urging Mercedes, or LG, or Semens, or Shell Oil, or Nestle, or other European companies to stop doing buisness in the United States?
I don't care what your political beliefs are, or what country you are from, I bet I can point out a whole bunch of inconsistant and hipocritical positions on "human rights"!
Why are people's views on human rights so inconsistant? Because people don't care about human rights: People care about their own economic self interest or their own political agenda, and human rights is a rhetorical tool. If you look at people's views based on what benifits them economicly or politically, you will find their views are 100% rational and consistant.
So, come to me with human rights issues when "human rights" means something more than a political slogan or economic tool.
"EXACT SAME GARBAGE". :-) I'm glad to see there's at least some people who are awake.
When Craig Whitney on the Council on Foreign Relations admitted that the whole Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq deal was a scam and he, along with Charles Duelfer, announced that the USA would first attack Iran and then North Korea on May 24, 2005 in New York, he blurred out: "But we now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to speak of in 2003, when we went to war. Does it matter to Americans that our country went to war on a false premise?"
Guess not, because in the very same briefing, minutes later, Charles Duelfer said:
"Secondly, and we describe this in some detail in the report, there was a greater concern than we could appreciate sitting here in Washington of the threat posed by Iran. And we just, you know, that our gut feeling for that was not the same as the gut feeling one would have sitting in Baghdad, where you had invaded and killed a lot of those people, and then every once in a while they were throwing rockets at you, so there was an ongoing conflict there. And Saddam was certainly aware of the WMD assessments of Iran and he created intentionally a certain ambiguity about what his capabilities were. So there were mixed motivations."
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8157
(for those of you who haven't realized it, the Council on Foreign Relations is the primary political institution of the power elite in the USA and behind the facade controls both political parties)
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation