Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities
truckaxle writes "Yahoo! has been accused, again, of providing information to Chinese authorities that resulted in the imprisonment of a Chinese journalist. Yahoo! apparently provided Chinese police with internet activity information in a case that resulted in the arrest of Li Zhi. His crime - trying to join the dissident China Democracy Party. Yahoo! says it simply responds to requests from the authorities and was just complying to local laws. A Reporters Without Borders post reported that 'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'."
China needs a good online mail service that doesn't keep log and isn't easily blockable.
OK we need to send some RIAA lobbiests over to China to straighten that country out! Doesn't China realize that its corporations who are supposed to threaten and strong-arm the government, not the other way around!!!!
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Snitches get stitches.
But anyone who attempts to join this party is an oridinaty criminal in the eyes of the Chinese authorities. It's us in the west who do not see political dissidents (at least I hope we don't...) as criminals.
I certainly don't condone what Yahoo has done or the policies of the Chinese Government, I'm just trying to point out a possible reason it was done. Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
About time these "dissidents for democracy"(tm) were stopped! It's probably another ploy by the Evil Bush Administration to spread freedom(bells ringing).
After all, they are only following orders...
of the free market.
"Lost time is not found again."
I think if people stopped using their services they would change their business practices pretty quickly, let's hope "Internet People Power" can save the day. I for one am going to dump my email addresses with both and find a search engine/email combo elsewhere which has a more "user-friendly" attitude (and doesn't track my every move)
Resident of Skara Brae since 1985
Yahoo! is a publicly traded corporation. Publicly traded corporations have one duty -- to make profit. If the Board of Directors thought that they'd make more money by turning in "dissident journalists", then they will do so. Similarly, if they could make more money (that is, after all penalties are levied against them for breaking any local laws/customs) by torturing children, they'd do it. In fact they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.
Corporate ethics is an oxymoron.
Yahoo is better than IBM in 1939 in shades and degree, not principle. There is nothing so craven as a man or men who value profit and wealth greater than liberty.
Who wants to take a bet that Reps. Lantos and Smith will have a field day with this? Btw, they are the real deal as they were in the minority that voted against renewing MFN for China the last time it came up, in 1999.
I'm no advocate of the Chinese government, but the US is applying a double standard to these companies. On the one hand, the US wants Google to roll over and give them what they want to stop something the US considers "bad", namely child porn. In the same breath, they want those same companies to stand up against foreign governments who are trying to prosecute something they consider "bad".
"We want you to always do the 'right thing', unless we're the ones asking you."
Jerry
http://www.networkstrike.com/
This is a deeper problem than it seems at first sight. From my point of view, Yahoo is not doing wrong as it surely is complying with petitions that the Chinese government asks.
A lot of people in slashdot think that just because they *believe* the type of Government China has is unfair then it is wrong and unfair. But companies working over there MUST comply with current legislation.
Just some days ago USA government gave an order to the Sheraton hotel to make the Maria Isabel Sheraton hotel in Mexico City remove some Cuban citizens from the installations and avoid a meeting with some USA company representatives (Caterpillar is one of them).
The problem was not the order that USA give, but that the Sheraton hotel *in Mexico* actually asked the people to leave AND did not returned their 3 night deposit.
Just today, the Sheraton hotel has been shut down as they tried to apply the Helms-Burton law in Mexican ground. This is bad, but is the opposite of what happened to Yahoo.
Yahoo MUST comply with local laws if they want to make buisness there, there is no other choice, comply or go, and while China keeps giving good revenue, they will continue.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Well I guess that raps it up for the "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" option. Wonder what their excuse will be next time they pull this stunt...
I mean Google told the US Government that they wouldn't turn over search records!
To be a bit more accurate, Google has just challenged the order to turn over those records because they don't believe the order was legal. However, if a judge rules against them I can promise you they will comply with the order.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Accoring to the reported Yahoo! Hong Kong gave Chinese authorities info. Accorinding to Yahoo! Inc, Yahoo! Hong Kong does not have access to the info. It doesn't add up.
I just love how reports don't get their facts straight. They are more interested in their name on the headline than getting us the truth.
Evolution or ID?
"Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities"
Now I'm the first one to rag on Google for being 'the good guy company' or to flame China's wonderful human rights, but before we all get too uppity, this could have easily happened in your country too. File this one under the "suddenly news department".
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Finally the portal companies shed their idealism about changing the world and have become like every other corporation with power: willing to sell out ideals, ethics, and even people in the name of profit! /sark.
Is China now an accepted member of the World Community or not?
It seems to me that everyone wants to do business in China while turning a blind eye to the simple fact that it is a one-party dictatorship with an extremely questionable human rights record.
We can't have it both ways - either our businesses are allowed to to business in China - in which case they HAVE to comply with the local laws (assuming we still believe in the sovereign state) - or they are not.
At this point we seem to want companies to do business in China under Western rules - sorry but that isn't how it works, any more than a company could come into Europe or the USA and only conform to Chinese laws.
So, are we working with China or not?
- Paul
much as we may not like some, or all, of the chinese government's policies on free speech the fact remains that they have laws, as do we. /. we would probably still disapprove given what seems to be the popular opinion of "anti-terror" laws, but let's not forget that our laws are not the only ones in the world.
if we can all take a quick step back from our outrage, and believe me i share it, and pretend yahoo! were a chinese company who were asked to follow one of our laws and turn over information to catch a "terrorist." now here on
yes, i agree yahoo! "should have done something," the omnipresent argument that doesn't solve anything, but it's not always so easy to break laws and go against governments.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
Look for Yahoo to start passing the buck to their regional partner soon. Taken from this site.
"In October, Yahoo formed a partnership with Alibaba.com, which has responsibility for complying with Chinese authorities' requests for information going forward"
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him AWAY!"
The regional governor of Yahoo didnt want any Empire entanglements.
Your average North American or European citizen really needs to take their own personal stand on this and live by it. Don't like what's going on in China then make sure those widgets you're using weren't made in horrendous working conditions. (Of course how could you ever be sure, I am sure that there are many products that come out of China that are made in good working conditions just as there are that are made in terrible ones).
The point is, don't flaunt the great buy you got on those widgets and then look down on the Chinese political system and mostly don't look down on corporations for doing what is they are meant (and want) to do, which is maximize profit. Don't like it? Let your government know and don't give your business to companies that don't share your views. Whatever, just drop the hypocrasy allready.
I know that I'm totally being an idealist by saying this, but when are people going to stop selling out their brothers and sisters for a few dollars? Is the advertising revenue enough to counter the bad will/karma/fortune/juju? I'm a very firm believer in "reaping what you sow" and it gives me a sick feeling when I keep reading stories about companies repeatedly selling out journalists, demonstrators, activists, students and censoring the speech of others just to make some money. Unfortunately, as we have seen, even the beloved Google has sold out. Is there noone who will stand up to this?!??!?
ConsultingFair.com
Companies are not people and do not have moral/ethical codes.
But the people running the companies do.What you are saying is that morals/ethics don't matter when it comes to money.
That is incorrect.
The people in charge at Yahoo! make the moral/ethical decisions and they've chosen profit.
The question becomes
To me, they're netting zero, they're opening things up, but helping an extremely repressive regime keep a stranglehold on power. I don't know how the heads of these companies sleep at night. The great firewall, yahoo helping them jail dissidents, google blocking things. This could be us in a few years.
I hate sigs.
That sucks.
But- it is also the law. Saying Yahoo is evil for obeying the laws in the country which they serve I think is short sighted. Were Yahoo to balk the Chinese, they could be told to pack up shop and leave, which would do nothing to promote free speech for the Chinese people. China is getting better, slowly. For now, they will have to rely on the tools of all freedom fighters: obfuscation and anonymity. It worked for the Apostle Paul and for Harriet Tubman.
The war for free speech in China is good, but this battle isn't going to have a meaningful result.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You have to obey the law, like it or not.
If they do it because they like to f#$% chinesse dissidents....that's another issue
Welcome to the real world...where everybody is trying to mess with you
It's never too late to stop doing something wrong, or to start doing something right.
Yahoo certainly would have discovered that in the course of collecting the information. This begs the question of how low US based corporations will stoop in accommodating the oppressive practices of foreign countries. We already know how low they'll stoop in accommodating the oppressive practices of our own government...er, well, at least we know some of it. I don't think we can expect corporations to respect the same type of moral compass an individual might use. Still there has to be a line somewhere in the sand that says this far and no farther. Otherwise the request will be for data that ends up getting a lot of people killed. Who knows, that may have already happened as well! No easy answers here.
So, I'm an IT consultant and I've worked with Russian customers. The KGB calls up and wants information about my clients. What do I do? Personally, I tell them to go stuff it. Knowing I won't be able to work in Russia ever again. But that's just me. Yahoo might have a different perspective.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Mama always said search engines are the devil!
Why, when the Chinese government ask for information to enforce a law, is it wrong but when the American, or other Weston governments ask for information it isn't?
You can call them political dissidents if you want to, but we here in the west have branded them terrorists and have all sorts of powers to stump down on them.
Terrorism isn't just about violence, just look at what has become against the law since 2001 for evidence of that.
...From a country that believes in Karma, the Chinese government is truly doing a disservice to their own people. Imagine a free China competing against the rest of the world? In a way the Chinese government is helping keep the Billions potentially good competitive people under control.
God Bless Communism!
"We can't trust Google to protect those peoples rights!"
The fact that anyone even thought that Google would 'protect their rights' is disturbing. Hell, the thought that ANY corporation would protect people's rights is even more disturbing. A corporation's first priority is to make money, NOT to protect someone's rights. Silly motto be damned. Google is a publically-traded corporation, whether you like it or not.
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
So when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews, it was right for IBM to help them rather than stimy them? Since the US had almost no trade with the Warsaw Pact, we can't compare that, but you are dead wrong. There comes a point in which the company is no longer morally obligated to obey the law of the land.
This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.
In the United States, they are required by certain laws to protect their customers privacy, and therefore required to refuse blatantly opening their records to law enforcement without a specific warrant. Good for Google.
In China, these companies don't have those laws to back them up in refusal to provide whatever information the government or law enforcement requests. Yahoo! is only following the law. As a corporation that is all they can do. It is unfortunate that the individual in question was victimized, but don't forget just who it is victimizing him - the Chinese government, not Yahoo!.
Does this mean Yahoo! should pull out of China? Of course not. Aside from the fact they would be remiss in their duty as a corporation (maximizing shareholder profits), they would be robbing the Chinese people of a valuable tool - communication. Make no mistake, this incident is unfortunate, but do you really think everyone trying to join the dissident parties are getting caught? Don't be ridiculous.
People with a technical bent will always find a way around these barriers, and there will be a good number of these people supporting the dissident movement. The government in China will change, simply because the government can't stop all the cross communication, and nobody rules a country with no support within the population, unless they do so behind an iron curtain. So regardless of these unfortunate events, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN are doing good there whether they like it or not.
Freedom won't come to anyone simply because a corporation pushes for it, it will come when the people demand it and make it happen (hopefully through peaceful means, but by whatever means the people deem reasonable).
Besides, any freedom given by a corporation will necessarily come at an unknown cost - it is a corporations primary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit after all. Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.
Besides, isn't there enough of that going on in the US?
getting people tossed in jail over there ... the most heinious of human rights violations
Going to jail for breaking the law is not a human rights violation. That the western world disagrees with the law notwithstanding. In China it is illegal to do what he did.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A Reporters Without Borders post
This demonstrates a major fallacy. Borders exists and journalists are subject to them whether the like it or not. Journalists operate in an idealized environment where they are free to investigate and advocate as they care to only when the local government *gives* them the right to do so.
The pen is mightier than the sword only when those wielding the sword allows it to be.
Yahoo! says it simply responds to requests from the authorities and was just complying to local laws.
And they have no option in this matter. The decision is not do we comply with the local law or not, the decision is do we do business in China or not. Anyone who decides to do business in China will be subject to such laws.
I'd wager that most of the posters flaming Yahoo are hypocrites. They babble about how Yahoo should stand up but they fail to realize that they also fail to stand up. When they go shopping do they look at where something is made? Do they buy the $3 screwdriver made in China or the $6 screwdriver made somewhere else when they need to screw together their homebrew 64-bit Athlon Linux box. Yahoo can not change the Chinese government, western consumer might be able to.
Based on the premise of many like-minded posts here on /.:
Therefore, as shown here, we can extrapolate:
The primary goal of the corporation is to reduce the value of shareholder investment to zero over time. (see Dot.Com Bubble)
--
Sig monde
uhm, you missed the part where you put the ... at. I'm not saying going to jail is a human rights violation, I am saying what goes on in chinese prisons are often human rights violations.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
As much as everyone hates that woman, she's perfectly free to dissent all she likes. Nobody's arrested her for opposing the president, protesting outside his ranch, giving speeches calling for his impeachment, etc, etc. How far do you think she would have gotten in China?
So with that said, the reason she was arrested is because she was trespassing. Every country has trespass laws, and they're all fairly similar. If you enter onto private property without invitation, or after being invited are asked to leave and refuse, you are guilty of trespassing and upon conviction are liable to...yadda yadda yadda. The case for government property is similar, the only difference being that generaly you don't have to be invited to enter, however, any time you are asked to leave you do so or risk imprisonment. Little Miss Cindy had every opportunity to leave under her own power and continue her protest outside. Instead she chose to be a bitch about it. Fine, slap the cuffs on her and drag her away. Everyone involved was quite happy that she gave them a reason to arrest her; there would have been a lot of dissapointed SS guys if she'd walked out wilingly.
So, if Yahoo is doing business in Pakistan and the government comes to them as says "We think this woman is committing adultery and we need her Yahoo emails to verify this so she can be gang-raped by the local elders" then Yahoo is obliged to turn them over? I mean, hey, our beliefs aren't everyone else's right?
But, you know what, you're right. Our beliefs AREN'T everyone elses. Ours are BETTER. That's right, you heard me, all you politically-correct fucks, I have just blasphemed by asserting that us evil Europeans might actually have a moral advantage over the noble Muslim/Chinese/African. You know, I'm sure that it's just my racism talking, but I tend to think that "tolerance" towards societies that burn and gang-rape women, cut their clitorises off, bind their feet, and beat them with sticks might not be so good. And we certainly have ***NO*** obligation to help them with their oppression and ***EVERY*** obligation to oppose it (and, yes, that includes EU countries helping the U.S. illegally imprison and torture prisoners too).
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"We believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Yahoo!'s terms of use, or as otherwise required by law."
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/
"We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services."
http://www.google.com/privacy.html
(I hope I made my point, do not use Internet sites to carry banned activities by your local/country law)
Well I really was mostly just trying to point out the hypocrasy in the situation. But I can and do expect a certain amount of privacy from companies, else they can expect lawsuits. If they share peoples SSN or CC # they are in for a world of hurt if it comes out. Granted, I don't think in Google's situation it really applies, but there are some very strict laws governing what a company can and cannot do with your personal information. You could argue that violating those laws goes counter to the making money priority, and that they only do it because not doing it could cost them money, but it still puts a vested interest in the companies to protect your information.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
"If I can't go have sex with little girls in Asia, why should Yahoo be permitted to rape journalism there?"
Because in the case of having sex with little girls, that's ILLEGAL HERE. In the case of cooperating with authorities to in your words "rape journalism", that's NOT ILLEGAL here.
It may be wrong, but it's not illegal.
What a terrible analogy.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Going to jail for breaking the law is not a human rights violation.
What sort of idiotic statement is that? So if tomorrow we make a law saying women have to wear a Burka or be gang-raped and then stoned to death, that wouldn't be a human rights violation?
Alright, granted, you did say "going to jail", but your argument can just as easily be used for "alternative punishment", ESPECIALY considering the state of Chinese prisons, and the fact that those who end up in them very often subsequently end up being executed. However, even if we just judge your argument exactly as stated, it's STILL a gross violation of human rights. Arresting people for exercising freedom of thought or freedom of expression is a human rights violation because it removes from the people a basic right which we hold sacred. The fact that their government don't see is it that way is irrelevant.
Naturally, I'm thrilled to get the opportunity to live under an oppressive regime. Why should Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia get to have all the fun? Well, gotta go or I'll be late for four minutes hate.
Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
Yahoo puts it out there and shares it with government. Google refuses to, but will restrict services at the outset: your government does not permit these services. With the former, it's Watership Down, where the farmer fed rabbits occasionally get neck trapped and popped into the soup.
With Google, they simple will not participate in the feeding.
In one the search engine is an agency of the government. In the other, the search engine is an open forum, albeit restricted,
In one, the library has certain off limit shelves. In the other, none of the shelves are off limit, but we'll let you know if we disagree and then prosecute. Oh, what are the rules? they change, all the time.
If a company cannot prevent its technology from being abused, then it absolutely must forgo its doing business.
One form is engagement (google) the other is entrapment (yahoo)
technicaly its not Yahoo that did this, its representitives of yahoo. when you aproach the company, its not a full company decision for something like this, its usualy 1 executive or it could even by the guy who answered the phone and just did as he was asked when it was asked
portfolio
No, never mind...
I'm not going to go there...
Xaotik Designs
As is what happens in American prisons (rape). The American legal system might pretend to be against prison rape, but I'm sure MANY police have used it as an interrogation tactic, and I wonder how many guards turn a blind eye to the rape that goes on inside their prison.
It might not be as bad as China, but it aint all roses either. Now everyone watch as he justifies the rape that goes on in American prisons.
Guys, we are talking about putting journalist in the PRISON.
And you are making funny comments.
I know that it is very fun to see how people dies on your tv screen when you are drinking beer and eating chips, but it's happen for real. People are thrown in prison for their words. People are being killed. And you are making jokes about them.
Yahoo is just evil.
Google is also evil, just less.
There is no free speech in this world - you can't talk about scientology (comment has been removed by Slashdot administrator), you can't make cartoons about Mohammed, Moses or any Christian saints, liberalism is dying.
And you think that's funny.
By that reasoning, arresting a murderer who happens to oppose the Bush administration is also "arresting a dissident". Once again: nonsense. She wasn't arrested for "being a dissident", she was arrested for trespassing. Big difference. Nowhere does the universal decleration of rights state that you have the right to trespass.
As for the other woman, I don't know her situation. I didn't follow the story closely enough. Suffice it to say that either she left when asked to do so, or the authorities exercised their right to be selective. I worked as a security gaurd a long, long time ago, so I know perfectly well how it works. Generaly, if I had to remove someone from the property, I would try to avoid arresting them because it creates more paperwork and effort than it's worth. However, if it was obvious that the individual was going to be a repeat offender, I'd deffinitely arrest him/her. So Cindy's been a major pain in the ass, and it's quite obvious she's going to keep pulling stunts like these (ie. breaking the law). That's reason enough to toss her in cuffs. Whereas the other woman may have been a first-time offender and just taking her out and having a good talk with her may deter her from doing it in the future. Like I said, I don't know the exact circumstances, and they're irrelevant anyway.
In Communist China, Yahoo searches you!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Chinese law states that public dissent is illegal, doesn't that make the victim an ordinary criminal? One has to wonder when our ideologies and our standards were ordained by the gods as being the only right ones.
Yahoo insists that it does this only when "legally compelled" to do so. With Shi Tao, though—and perhaps with Li Zhi as well—the request from mainland China simply held no weight in Hong Kong, which is where Yahoo was registered.
Yahoo was asked directly which specific law they were following. They didn't answer.
The purpose of the law is to uphold justice, but some "laws" are created specifically to maintain the communists' dictatorship. There is always an element of choice.
So, when we say that Western companies must follow the law if they are to operate in China, this isn't the same as doing whatever Beijing demands. The cadres in Beijing are also adept at enticing Western companies to toe the party line willingly.
These companies know this when they enter the Chinese market. They cannot accept only the financial profit but none of the responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
You will fall for anything.
Yahoo is falling for the Chinese government's promise of riches from over a billion possible users in a new up and coming market. The problem is that Yahoo is leaving its ethics behind in the process. This is certainly not the fitst time a large company has used the guise of "following local laws" so that they can get in bed with big governments and open up new market opportunities, but Yahoo seems to be bent on really going overboard with this, right down to sacrificing its own fouding ideals.
Yahoo and all other big businesses are in business to make money, nothing more, nothing less. However, all companies have a ethical obligation to the public and to public interests, not the least of which is freedom of speech. This is a basic and important human freedom that unfortunately is not very well spoken for on a global basis, and it faces trials even in the US.
The internet scares the crap out of big governments because even in the US, nobody could have ever imagined how far freedom of speech could go, thanks to the internet. Freedom of speech is the one right we have that allows us to call our government out and tell them when they are making mistakes. Yahoo and other large internet companies are bulit on the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Giving people a voice is what they are built on, yet they don't seem to care that they are setting a bad precedent by helping any government take that away. They are setting a precedent for their own destruction.
I would hope that large companies like Yahoo would stand up to any government that decided that basic human freedoms are something to be taken away at a whim to control the public. Unfortunately, they have prooved in these cases with China that they will bend to any government's will to make a buck. That means that if the US government were to take a turn for the worse by taking away out freedoms, that Yahoo would be right there to help them with any of their information technology needs as they destroy our freedoms.
Yahoo doesn't seem to care about the people. Therefore I will not be using any of their services, and will recommend that others stop using their services as well. Yahoo can kiss my ass, and I hope that they go bankrupt some day soon or that they realize how far off base they have gone. Probably won't happen, but I can dream. The fact is, that Yahoo has allowed itself to become the complete antithesis of all the Internet is founded upon. They have journied down a road that can only lead to self destruction. Freedom of speech is the foundation. You take away the foundation, and the building will crumble. If Yahoo crubles, I hope that it will serve as a good example of what not to do as an internet company.
I came in grudgingly in favor of Google censoring content for China. It's one thing to trim content to comply with local laws. It's entirely another to cause people to be arrested because they favor democracy.
Thus Google remains un-evil, although tainted and requiring pennance, while Yahoo! is just evil.
Shareholders be damned, that "silly motto" happens to be in their corporate charter.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Definitely Evil over there at Google. Looks like that mission statement or motto fell by the wayside on the road to China. Or was it sooner than that?
Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako insisted that in its dealings with China, the company "only responded with what we were legally compelled to provide, and nothing more".
So, if the secret police knock at your door, and they ask you for the location of any Jews, you lead them to Anne Frank's family in the attic, and "nothing more"?
Yes, I realize I've initiated the inevitable Godwin's Law thread. But I fail to see any fundamental distinction here. This is where craven obedience leads.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I don't think what goes on in Chinese prisons even begins to compare to what goes on in the prisons of most western nations. I may be a little off here, but I am guessing chinese prisoners don't have cable tv, internet access, libraries, and the other ammentities granted prisoners in the US. However, that doesn't mean I don't think the transgressions elsewhere are any less forgivable. I think the guards that participate, or turn a blind eye, should have their badges stripped and given a cell of their own, as far as the prisoners involved...well...they are sorta already in prison. I'm not entirely sure why you are attempting to justify what goes on in Chinese prisons by what goes on in American prisons and then expect me to justify what goes on in American prisons.
Now everyone watch as he justifies the rape that goes on in American prisons.
It's nice to see that Americans don't have a monopoly on childish crap.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
You're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Would the original poster have preferred the Chinese Government jail a few Yahoo executives instead?
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Im sure china is telling them to comply , probably has yahoo by the balls, if yahoo doesnt, that probably shuts off chances in china for yahoo
Like they say: Better dead than RED. And in this case, it looks that will soon be true. Yay! Yahoo! You! Commie! Bastards!
Yahoo in Mandarin Chinese is phonetic Ya hu. The name also has meaning as the characters used are ya = tooth and hu = tiger. So the Toothy Tiger is doing the trolling and the monitoring. Haven't checked to see what Google translates as.
I'm not entirely sure why you are attempting to justify what goes on in Chinese prisons by what goes on in American prisons and then expect me to justify what goes on in American prisons.
I'm not. Someone brought up how what happens in Chinese prisons is bad and that aiding in sending someone to a Chinese prison is a terrible thing to do. However Yahoo also aids in sending people to American prisons, so I thought I'd point out that what happens in those is terrible as well. Not as bad as Chinese prisons, but that doesn't change the fact it is still bad. The parent might agree with me, might not. But I felt it was worthwhile to clarify that the country in which Yahoo is based has bad stuff happen in its prisons. Remember, just because someone else does it isn't a valid defence.
chose to comply with Chinese law and filter results of the Chinese version of the search engine. This and MS helping China find the blogger that was posting the truth about how people are treated in China are the real crimes, not Google filtering results. I know people are pissed cuz they broke their "Do no evil" mantra, but its not evil to filter search results, even if for propaganda uses. However, it is evil to do what Yahoo just did and MS a while back as their actions would EASILY result in the imprisonment/"re-education"/execution of the dissident.
They were 'just following orders' and 'complying with authoroties'.
Sounds like Nuremberg.
SBC/Yahoo DSL is my ISP, and since this story broke I've been struggling with the choice between dropping them and switching to a local cable provider and justifying their actions for them.
No matter what, I know I'm a lousy hypocrite. I buy stuff made in China. Probably every day I'm responsible for some child's dismemberment, or some Chinese coal miner's cancer. In my less reflective moments I can say, "It's not me, man, it's the System." But what is the System, but a bunch of mes?
Yahoo was compelled to follow the law. But even so, Yahoo is responsible for their own actions. A soldier is morally responsible for his conduct even when he's "just following orders." My wife was recently disciplined at work for refusing to break the law. The point is, sometimes there are negative consequences for doing the right thing. Doing the right thing despite that fact is a good definition of "courage."
It's going to be a pain to switch to a new ISP, but I think I have hold them to account like the lousy hypocrite I am.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
To add to this, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (decades ago) that the power of the Constition stops at the border. Not the sea-boundary, but at the shore. This is why the Coast Guard doesn't need any warrant to search a boat.
So, not only are you subjected to U.S. laws when you travel, but the U.S. doesn't recognize any of your Constitutional rights when you are overseas. It's only when you get back on land (not sea) that these things kick in.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
Being an "invited guest" does not protect one from being asked to leave. If you refuse to leave when asked to do so, that in itself is illegal. Nobody owes you a reason! Get that through your heads! When I did retail security, I used to get dumbass punks arguing with me all the time:
"Why should I leave? Huh? I'm not doing anything wrong! I have the right to be here!"
Bullshit. Your presence is tolerated at the discretion of the owner. You can be asked to leave at any time without any reason being given.
Bottom line, if I invite you to my house and then for no reason whatsoever tell you to get the fuck out, you do it immiediately if not sooner because the next step will be arresting you and having you charged with trespassing.
http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitu tion.html
Article 33. All persons holding the nationality of the People's Republic of China are citizens of the People's Republic of China. All citizens of the People's Republic of China are equal before the law. Every citizen enjoys the rights and at the same time must perform the duties prescribed by the Constitution and the law.
Article 34. All citizens of the People's Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of nationality, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education, property status, or length of residence, except persons deprived of political rights according to law.
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.
Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.
What is the best way to let Yahoo! know that this is not acceptable to all who value the freedoms of the modern world? Should I stop using there email service, but I've been doing so for 6 years and would be difficult to give up, should I change my homepage, would writing a letter or email even get noticed? Well, I'll start by changing my default homepage to Google. Goodbye My Yahoo!... I'll miss you!
Well what really entertains me is the original post about Google etc being evil wasn't really meant to be all that serious, but more than a few have taken it a little beyond seriously. :) My original point is that Google is being blasted by the government for complying with the censorship thing, while Yahoo and MSN have been complying with the witch hunts in China for a while now. Compare how Yahoo and MSN play ball with the US government, how MS shells out big money in campaign donations, and how Google has told them the government to go stuff it with the search request stuff, and then think about why it hasn't been such a major issue in the past. I think helping law enforcment track down child predators and the like is an entirely different game than helping law enforcement track down thought criminals. At some point morals should take over the quest for money, but this isn't happening anywhere.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
from now on I'm just posting a link. too many ignorant bastards to argue with.
Click here to see why you are wrong
That includes the shareholders.
If the shareholders value money over everything else, that is their moral/ethical decision.
If they choose to litigate, then they are acting on those morals/ethics.
"By what I could discover, the Yahoos appear to be the most unteachable of all Animals, their Capacities never reaching higher than to draw or carry Burthens. Yet I am of Opinion this Defect ariseth chiefly from a perverse, restive Disposition. For they are cunning, malicious, treacherous and revengeful. They are strong and hardy, but of a cowardly Spirit, and by consequence, insolent, abject, and cruel."
Gulliver's travels, part IV, chapter VIII.
For instance, you may be able to sleep with little children by law in certain Asian countries, but you can't by our laws. The reverse is true about your freedom of speech in some Asian countries. You may be guaranteed freedom of expression by our laws, but if you go to China and start a pro-democracy campaign then you may find yourself in a Chinese prison. The best our country could do is to try and secure your release. With the under-aged prostitutes you'll find that we have a task force that investigates Americans who go to areas where that is legal and brings charges against them in the US.
Certainly it's much easier to enforce an action that happens within your own physical region than it is one that occurs elsewhere but is covered by your laws. I believe that is the reason why you're noticing such a discrepancy in enforcement.
In this case they followed the appropriate set of laws. Someone who is not protected by the laws of our sovereign violated the laws of theirs. This appears contradictory to our laws, but our laws only apply to our people. It might not be morally or socially just, especially by our standards, but it follows the laws that they must abide by. Otherwise they will end up blocked from the Chinese internet users.
Everyone can argue all they want about the legality of all this but the main point is Yahoo! put money instead of an individual's obligation to speak the truth. Once again greed has put aside morality. Yahoo! made thier choice by siding with a country who is known to put down free speech and basic freedoms in general and so I will make my choice by not using their service. In trying to make money I hope they wake up otherwise let them reap what they sow...
Same goes for any company (Google) that lose the vision of succeeding and making an HONEST buck only to go beyond success and wallow in overindulgence.
I urge all to boycott Yahoo! like the late Rosa Parks started the boycott of blacks riding buses. BTW, Mrs. King recently died. May she rest in peace.
Listen, your "legitemate ticket" doesn't mean shit. You can be kicked out of a concert too, or a movie theater. Sometimes you'll get a refund, but even that's not required. The event she was attending was a PRIVATE EVENT. That's why it required tickets. Meaning people who do not have tickets could be kept out. By the same logic, and enforced by law, anyone attenting can be KICKED out at any point in time, WITHOUT A REASON BEING GIVEN.
God DAMN. Invest in an education, it's worth it.
Or are there any search engines out there that won't turn into a MotherFucker against Democracy?
Yahoo's a sneaky brown-nosed grass... fuck 'em!
Soldiers in the military don't have to follow unlawful orders. The question is more a clash of cultures. Cultures define what is moral and the Chinese believe this is a moral order.
Yahoo, as an American company, walks a fine line. As an American company, it should "tow the party line" on persecution of political dissidents. I'm sure they already have to act with Mainland China as though Taiwan doesn't exist (or is rouge state.) As any international organization weaves into the mainstream, they will assuredly have problems like this.
Chris
"No electrons were harmed in the transmission of this message, though many were significantly inconvenienced."
Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what motivated a certain action. Especialy in this case: everyone knew she was going to be there and everyone was expecting something to happen. Maybe the officer did make the wrong judgement call. Maybe the order came from higher up. Who knows. The point is, the original post claimed that we treat our political dissenters as criminals, which is absolutely wrong. They get treated like criminals only when they break the law, because at that point they become criminals; our legal code does not limit their right to dissent, only, in this case, their right to trespass. Getting sidetracked into figuring out the exact "mentality" of the police officer is pointless; it's the legality of what he did that's being questioned here, not his motivations.
As for the police saying "oops", keep in mind that's not always an admission of guilt. Sometimes it's easier to say sorry and have the issue go away than it is to insist you were right and get loads of negative attention. If you want an example, think of the woman-with-hot-cup-of-coffee vs McDonalds case. No sane judge would have awarded her any money, but McDonalds paid up in a settlment just to make the case go away. I've worked for the government in several different roles, so trust me when I say that we chose our battles carefuly. If we can say "oops, sorry" and have the media lose interest, we'll do it in an instant even if we did nothing wrong.
Boycot them, and so align their fiduciary interests with NOT outing pro democracy press in a totalitarian dictatorship.
Then if they continue to do so, declare them evil. For now they are just amoral and gutless.
It's Chinese law. Who are we to judge their laws?
It is certainly not Yahoo's place to dispute it.
The same would have been done for someone suspect of terrorism. They just name it different. And everyone would be like: Wow Yahoo makes me feel more secure.
Every goverment simply protect the imperating status Quo.
btw, I know the difference between a real terrorist and a dissident, I'm just talking about "believed to be" here.
Hemigway defined courage as "grace under pressure."
It would be better if I could spell the author's name correctly. Hemingway, of course.
I've heard that line before somewhere...
Vote for Pedro
In China it is illegal to do what he did.
Off you go then and find that paticular law. While you're at it, try and find the law compelling Yahoo to provide this information. You'll find both rather elusive.
May the Maths Be with you!
They're excuses, and not even plausible ones. They're not the only ones making fanciful excuses and getting away with it, though.
Rulers depend to a large extent on peoples' reluctance either to take responsibility (in democratic systems) or risk the well-being of their families (in more dictatorial systems) - or a mix of the above. If it means a better standard of living (or just living), you will most likely get peoples' votes, tears, etc...
Yahoo was only doing what they're supposed to do in that situation.
at least have the common decency to warn chinese users not to use yahoo, google, etc. for this kind of thing b/c the govt has access to their emails.
don't set up a facade of security to lull these people into expressing their opinion only to end up imprisoned and/or tortured for the rest of the life.
this *is* serious! go sit in a cell and stick two knives into electric socket connections* if you you think it isn't.
don't actually do this, but do get the point here.
yahoo and google may well become the most efficient way to roun dup free thinkers in china... more efficient than the german gestapo (sp?).
...search engine finds YOU!
If companies in China should obey the laws of the Chinese dictatorship and actively help them arrest dissidents, then companies in nazi-occupied Europe should have obeyed the laws of the German dictatorship and actively helped them arrest jews. Same logic. The Chinese dictatorship and its laws have no more legitimacy than any other dictatorship.
The moral thing would be to provide the Chinese with information showing the journalist was innocent (which IMO, he is).
PatriotSearch has been accused, again, of providing information to U.S. authorities that resulted in the imprisonment of an American journalist. PatriotSearch apparently provided U.S. police with internet activity information in a case that resulted in the arrest of John Doe. His crime - trying to join the dissident Friends of Hamas. PatriotSearch says it simply responds to requests from the authorities and was just complying to local laws. A Reporters Without Borders post reported that PatriotSearch certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals.
I've terminated my account with Yahoo. They and the rest of American business have the morals of a styrofoam cup.
Actually, in Chinese, the ya in yahoo means elegant, rather than tooth.
Tell that to the Treasury Department, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide Inc, the parent of Sheraton:
["
"]
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
So Yahoo was just obeying orders, right? That's a comforting defence.
As for your last paragraph, there's a little thing I sometimes like to spend time in called the "real world". If consumers were to avoid products from countries who do things they dislike, no product from anywhere would ever be bought. Consumer boycotts can work -- sometimes, under certain special circumstances, in some places. The sheer selling power China has makes it impossible for a boycott to work. Oh, sure you could get a boycott going in your home town; how are you going to get it to work in Scotland, Poland, Malaysia, and Fiji (etc., etc.), who all buy their clothes and computer hardware from China too?
That's not defeatist. It's just that ignoring Realpolitik isn't going to work.