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'."

Comments

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[pvt_medic]

and I am sure that the Chinese government would allow that.

China needs the RIAA

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

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!!!!

Re:China needs the RIAA

[kusanagi374]

What happens over here is that corporate lobbyists convince the government to do things their way, so everybody can make money. China isn't much different, except for the fact that the one who dictates the rules is the chinese government. That would actually be a good thing if the government wasn't draconian and used such power to enforce an intellectual dictatorship.

But... a place where the government enforces its laws for the greater good? Only when pigs start flying.

Ordinary Criminals?

[pryonic]

'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'

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.

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[db32]

Uhm...you should reexamine that one. The west often does see political dissidents as criminals, and often treats them as such. Just recently everyones favorite anti-war mom was removed and from the State of the Union for wearing a Tshirt that they didn't agree with. She wasn't the only one removed, as a war supporter's tshirt got another woman removed...but the anti-war mom was the only one ARRESTED too. We just don't treat our criminals the same way the Chinese do, but to say political dissidents don't get treated like criminals here is pretty false these days.

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[pryonic]

I do agree with you to be honest. I stated "I hope we don't" and these days this is false hope. I did read the story of the anti-war Mom and it shook me, but I'm a Brit and I have a similar tale from my side of the pond. An elderly gentleman was ejected from the Labour Party Conference last year and charged under terrorism(!) legislation for shouting "Nonsense!" during a speech by Jack Straw.

Hewas released and charges dropped when it hit the news. But so much for freedom of speech and being able to speak out against the Government in both countries!

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[dr_dank]

She wasn't the only one removed, as a war supporter's tshirt got another woman removed...but the anti-war mom was the only one ARRESTED too.

As such, the charges were quickly dropped. This is a common tactic to silence people long enough to let an event take place. Much how the protestors for the 2004 RNC were swept up by NYPD, detained for duration of the RNC, and released with only a handful of the bunch being charged (many of which were later exonerated after videotape disproved the polices claims. Funny how police don't get charged with perjury...).

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[Rude Turnip]

"Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses."

Do you think the guy that got arrested in China shares the beliefs of the government there?

On a related note, is there an easy way to download all my Yahoo! emails (going back to 1998 I think) so that I may cut loose from them once and for all? Sooner or later, Yahoo! will be complicit in the murder of a Chinese citizen, if they aren't already.

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[d3ac0n]

Gentlemen,

Above I present to you the NUMBER ONE reason why totalitarian regimes have been allowed to survive around the world. The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous. The lack of a belief in the desire of humans to be free, and the lack of a belief in Freedom, Liberty and Democracy as the greatest concepts and forms of government in human history.

Somehow, despite centuries of evidence and libraries of books written on the concepts of the basic human yearning for Freedom and Liberty, there is a strain of thought that still survives. It hides in the shadows and mewls "Well, maybe they don't believe like we do, we shouldn't judge them, it's not our place...".

Look, I know I'm not going to earn many mod points for this response, I'll probably get rated a Troll. But the OP is NOT insightful! Just the opposite, it's the LACK of insight and depth of thought that drives posts like that. Here we have a Chinese journalist that yearned for Freedom. As such he was trying to join a dissident party group. They aren't a Terrorist organization and have never been linked to violence. That journalist is going to probably be imprisoned for a long long time, and the OP has the gall to say, "Well, we shouldn't judge..."

OF COURSE we should judge! It is not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY of every Freedom and Liberty loving person to hold any and all governments accountable for thier actions, thier laws, and the way they govern!

To do anything less is nothing short of cowardice and collaboration with those who would steal our freedom for thier own power and enrichment.

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[cnelzie]

While I, in principle, with what you have said, it is not necesarily "Liberal" thinking that puts this society in danger. It is the beliefs of BOTH extremes that put Freedom and Democracy in danger. Only true moderate thinking can keep this nation continuing as the majority of us wish it to be.

    The Conservatives, for instance, have been painting anyone who doesn't agree with that as Un-American and only those that agree with them as being "Patriots".

    If you look back to the founding of this nation, those that disagreed with the government, at that time King George, were called "Patriots", while those that followed the "Party Line" (Again, King George), were known as "Loyalists" and that is what we have today.

    It is Patriotic to stand for Freedom and Human Decency, regardless of what our government says or does.

    To be a Loyalist is to follow the government line, regardless of what the government says or does.

    Every single American should ask themselves everday, "Which one am I?"

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[Bogtha]

25-year-old woman reading out names of war dead at war memorial as protest against war: arrested and fined.

Large number of people with signs saying shit like HOORAY FOR 7/7 and SHEIKH OSAMA IS COMING TO GET YOU and BEHEAD THE DANISH KAFFIRS: left entirely unmolested.

The former has a chance of being taken seriously by the general public, in which case it would hinder the pro-war people. The latter has no chance of being taken seriously by the general public, and is likely to anger them, in which case it would aid the pro-war people.

The best way of manipulating the public is to supress your reasonable opponents and exaggerate the unreasonable opponents. It's a subtle variation on a straw-man argument. If the only people the public sees oppose you are lunatics, it makes it much easier for them to believe yours is the only reasonable course of action.

See also: "They hate our freedom" vs "They want us to stop interfering in their affairs".

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[Jaysyn]

http://www.ypopsemail.com/

Here you go. I'll be nuking my account later this week as well.

Jaysyn

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

[Fnkmaster]

This is an entirely confused post. In fact, Liberalism is an ideology which holds liberty as the primary political value. This is what the phrase "liberal democracy" implies.

You are using the word Liberal to refer to a modern, far left wing ideology of moral relativism.

While the word "liberal" (little L) has commonly become associated in America with the Democratic party and a so-called "American liberal" philosophy, this still has nothing whatsoever to do with moral relativism. In any case, it should tell you something whenever you hear certain far right Republicans try to smear the words "liberal" and "liberalism" - it's clear what they oppose.

Liberalism is a good thing, and stands in firm opposition too totalitarianism. This doesn't mean supporting war or violence as a means to spread individual liberties (a concept which I find inherently flawed and self-defeating), as the current Republican administration does. And moral relativism is a useless philosophy - most mainstream political groups and figures would reject it.

In any case, I'm not sure why anyone would think that either Democrats or Republicans would be more in favor of a company like Yahoo doing business in China. Both parties are pragmatic and generally pro-business, and both parties have presidents who have encouraged trade with China. I gather that both parties hope that over time, doing business with China would lead to more of their people recognizing their basic human rights and demanding freedom from their own government. I generally think this is a better strategy than the "bomb them until they are 'free'" thing. Unless you are advocating economic isolationism?

You can't blame Yahoo!

[vm146j2]

After all, they are only following orders...

of the free market.

Re:You can't blame Yahoo!

[ranton]

You also cannot blame Yahoo until you have some reason to believe that they knew why this person was being arrested. Reporters without Borders is quoted in the article as saying that Yahoo knew he wasnt an ordinary criminal, but doesnt say why. For all anyone knows they simply said that because they felt like it; wouldnt be the first time that a reporter put a spin on a story to make it more interesting.

I was an administrator at an ISP a few years back, and I was once subpoenaed to release information on our servers about web access. I had very little idea about what the information was being used for or what that person did wrong, I just knew what logs to pull from (although I believe it was a case of identity theft). I do not see anything that shows that Yahoo knew anything more than that. They may indeed have done something immoral, but it takes more than just blind accusations.

--

Re:You can't blame Yahoo!

[IamLarryboy]

Please explain how a government threatening a company to get it to perform some action constitutes a free market. By definition this is the exact opposite of a free market, it is a controlled market.

This is to be expected

[stinerman]

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.

Re:This is to be expected

[GospelHead821]

Companies also have a duty to behave ethically. Under the circumstances, however, I believe that ethics diverged from morality. It is ethnical to obey the law. In this case, Yahoo was obeying Chinese law since that was the jurisdiction in which this event took place. Unfortunately, many will agree that the Chinese law in question is immoral. The ethical course of action led to immoral behaviour. Companies are, as you have suggested, amoral entities. Although codes of business ethics sometimes prompt moral behaviour, one of the primary rules of every business ethic that I've ever seen is to obey the law. One can only hope that lawmakers behave morally when writing the laws.

Not what America used to be about

[MikeRT]

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

--Samuel Adams

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.

Re:Not what America used to be about

[elrous0]

If the government asks you for your cooperation in an investigation, as is their legal right in THEIR country, you comply.

Google/Yahoo have a responsibility to not do business in countries where they will be compelled to violate basic human rights. They also DAMN WELL have an obligation to honor *U.S.* law (you know, the fucking country where they're headquatered) where this sort of thing is not only a violation of law, but a violation of the very CONSTITUTION on which the entire country was founded and all our law is based.

This "we're just following the law" dodge is just that--a dodge. They are just greedy fucks who are willing to sell their souls to get in on the rising Chinese market. Google's "do no evil" motto is the biggest bunch of obvious bullhit I've heard since George Bush's State of the Union address.

-Eric

Double standard...

[confusion]

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/

Re:Double standard...

[arrrrg]

Somewhat offtopic, but dammit children's access to internet porn is NOT the same as child porn . Please stop perpetuating this misinformation. Thank you.

Global companies VS Local Laws

[xtracto]

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.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[Skye16]

I'm sorry, I just don't see why this is insightful. It's common sense. The problem people have isn't that these businesses are complying for no-good-reason, it's that they're complying and helping a government stiffle contrary views. Is it allowing them do business in these countries? Absolutely. Do we give a flying fuck whether they do business in these countries? Fuck no.

Look, Yahoo and Google can do whatever the hell they want. If there is a country that allows corporations to place babies on spikes and plant them in the ground, and these corporations do it, so be it. We don't have a legal right to stop them, here, in America.

That doesn't mean we can't say "fuck you" and stop using their services. Of course, we also have to avoid the ubiquitous advertising services they both offer to all and sundry, but a quick configuration of ad block will fix that.

Is this going to change things? Probably not. But at least we know we did something, no matter how pathetically inconsequential, to say "we do not agree".

-------

It pained me to see Google agree to filter things for China. That was bad enough. But what Yahoo has done is take it one step farther. And that was one step entirely too far.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Right or wrong, the US does claim the power of law over its citizens when they are not in the country. If I can't go have sex with little girls in Asia, why should Yahoo be permitted to rape journalism there? Or are you going to go all double standard on me and tell me that sometimes it's ok for US law to apply outside its border, but only when you agree with it?

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[stinerman]

Yahoo MUST comply with local laws if they want to make buisness there, there is no other choice, comply or go

Why isn't "go" an option on the table? To me, its a no-brainer.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[hey!]

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.

I think though this puts you outside the mainstream. Most people consider morality and legality two different things, although many wish they were closer.

Ultimately, you have to question what "legality" is, and given that definition, why you should obey it.

Mao said, "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun." From this point of view legality ultimately is whatever the strong are able to force on the weak. As an American, however, I am inclined to believe that governments make laws "deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed."

If you believe that laws dervive from the state's ability to punish you, then you "should" obey the law to avoid punishment. If you can disobey the law and escape punishment, that's OK too. You owe them nothing more than they can take, and they can't take what they can't see. If you believe law comes ultimately from the consent of the governed, then it works out to this: others around you agree to treat you in a certain way in return for which you agree to be bound by the same rules.

Neither of these views of the law precludes anyone having higher personal standards of morality than the law requires. Even if you accept as axiomatic that it is immoral to disobey even illegitimate laws, Yahoo still had a choice here. They could hand a man over to a kangaroo court for the political crime of wanting freedom, or they could simply not do business in China. The view that companies are by their nature amoral entities is malarkey. Beneath it all it's people who make the decisions. It's executives, and behind them stockholders. We have no legal grounds to use state power to punish them, but we can use our powers as individuals.

The Mexico example you give is a poor one on several accounts. First, Mexico is a democracy, and by doing this we are interfereing with the right of a sovereign people to decide who they will or will not associate with. Second, it overreaches our own laws. We have laws saying you can't do business with Cuba, it is true. But we don't have laws saying that you can't run into Cubans overseas, or that private companies have to enforce this policy. Third, we do not Constitutionally give our government the right to determine who we associate with. Yes, they can regulate our business, but who we talk to and meet is not in their power to dictate. Finally, the Sheraton was not only not obliged to kick out the Cubans, but it certainly was obliged to return their money if they did. Hotels don't have to give you a room if they don't want to, for whatever reason they wish that is within the law. For example, hotels routinely overbook their rooms, and if you turn up and they don't have room, it's tough luck for you, even if you have a deposit. However, they don't get to keep your deposit and give you nothing in return. That's theft.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[bnenning]

From my point of view, Yahoo is not doing wrong as it surely is complying with petitions that the Chinese government asks.

An entity calling itself "government" does not magically acquire a halo of moral legitimacy. It's not any more right to cooperate with the tyrants in Beijing than it is to cooperate with any other gang of thugs and murderers.

A lot of people in slashdot think that just because they *believe* the type of Government China has is unfair

Do you believe it isn't?

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[LilGuy]

An interesting proposition. Sometimes its the little things we CAN do that can make the biggest difference of all. Say suddenly 25% of America decided to humor you and adblock yahoo and boycott them.. they would change their stance pretty damn quickly. Yet, we do not do such things. We whine and complain and stamp our feet, but then we go back to our daily routines and try not to think of ourselves as contributing to the problem, all the while knowing at the back of our minds we're hypocritical. I will go ahead and humor you. I will adblock yahoo and their services, but mind you, I do not depend on yahoo for squat. Had this been about Google, I would most likely be a hypocrite with the millions of others.

I guess it depends on how important what they offer is to you personally, and what you'd be willing to sacrifice (dignity, others' liberties) to continue to receive their services and goods.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

[charliekowalchuk]

Perhaps you don't get it. America was founded on these principals. Read the Declartation of Independance. Therefore, the system will continue to act upon these ideals. If they don't, the government is supposed to disband, read the constitution. Honesetly, if you have a problem with America, you can fight, but the majority wins.

If Bush got releceted, the reason is because half of America either likes Bush or hates John Kerry.

Regardless if you don't believe in it, (using your own words against you), you have to respect that.

You are free to dislike American Government and I'm free to dislike China's government. Perhaps this makes more sense. Thats the way it works here. America was founded on ideals that didn't just government accept authority as the ulitmate truth. There is a higher power, and Government shouldn't outstep its bounds to try to strip mankinds born rights.

"The West" needs to make up its mind

[Paul Bristow]

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?

Re:"The West" needs to make up its mind

[hswerdfe]

"The West" as you say is made up of more then one person.
and thus more then on view will be expressed, often these views will conflict.
having trouble groking this concept?
see /. for an example

Passing the buck...

[faloi]

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"

Rebel Scum

[Thrymm]

"He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him AWAY!"

The regional governor of Yahoo didnt want any Empire entanglements.

Money speaks loudest

[hodet]

I think corporations will wrestle with situations like this in China for some time. On one hand we send trade missions with high ranking government officials to China to expand trade yet in order to make money on their soil you have to play by their rules. Governments aggressively seek to get a piece of the trade pie with China yet the public holds our corporations responsible for ensuring human rights are not abused? We can't have it both ways. The world over lends legitimacy to the Chinese political system (expanded trade, 2008 Olympics etc. etc. ) yet our guilt makes us pooh pooh them for not seeing things the way we do. The question for corporations is going to be, how do I maximize profit and still remain palatable to the people at home because there is a shit load of money to be made towing the party line in China. But how do we not look like major pricks doing it?

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.

over money???

[slackaddict]

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?!??!?

Net zero.

[Raven42rac]

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.

The US constitution in Beijing

[BecomingLumberg]

As much as I love free speech, we must remember that the US Constitution, and all that is wonderful about it, does not exist in China. As much as it appalls us, the fact is that this man broke Chinese law and is going to get punished for it.

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.

Re:The US constitution in Beijing

[saihung]

The law is not just simply because it is the law - this is first. Apartheid was the law in South Africa, but many companies and governments decided, rightly so, that it was better to leave than be obliged to obey laws that are at odds with the behavior of civlized men. Second, the law in China is whatever the junta says it is. There is such a thing as the Chinese Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, and a whole raft of rights that your or I would recognize. But neither the courts nor the legislature exist as independent bodies, and both are controlled by the CCP. And if the CCP decides that you are violating the security of the state, then you are, and no one can say otherwise. This isn't law as I understand it, it's rule by fiat, what the Chinese call "ren zhi," and it seriously saps any claim to legitimate authority that Yahoo! can hide behind.

Slippery slope

[HangingChad]

'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'.

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.

Re:Slippery slope

[theborg1of4]

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.

Part of the problem with these sorts of situations is that people want to imprint foreign custom and law with their own beliefs. If it was a legal requirement for businesses in Russia to provide information to the authorities as part of an ongoing investigation of criminal activity, then you would of course comply. If you don't feel you could do that, then you should have never elected to do business with them in the first place.

Now I want to take another approach. Let me put a different spin on your assertion and see if you feel the same way:

"So, I'm an IT consultant and I've worked with American customers. The NSA calls up and wants information about my clients. What do I do? Personally, I tell them to go stuff it. Knowing I could be branded as supporting terrorism and never seeing light of day again."

Still thinking of denying the authorities?

But that's just me. Yahoo might have a different perspective.

They most certainly do. I'm fairly confident that Yahoo's legal department has cleared the decision as in accordance with Chinese law. And I mean no disrespect when I say I'm also pretty confident that they stood to lose a lot more financially than you would if they were blackballed by the Chinese government. Yahoo can't cloak itself in its own morality when shareholders are at stake, especially if it's one culture's morality being applied against another's.

Devils Advocate...

[Manip]

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.

Like hell its your duty to always comply

[MikeRT]

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.

There's some impartial reporting for you ...

[Keyslapper]

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?

Re:There's some impartial reporting for you ...

[aeoo]

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.

Actually, corporations have no will and no intent. It's the people who comprise the corp that act. And since it is the people's job to act humanely, even if the people join together to form a corp, they are not thereby relieved of their morality.

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.

Saying that you commit injustice because you were required under law is not a valid defense in the same way that during the Nuremberg trials "I only followed orders" was not recognized as a valid defense. Human beings are always making moral choices, even when following laws and orders, and should thereby not follow anything blindly.

People form corporations to avoid financial liability. This is an already somewhat dubious concept, but when the liability they are trying to avoid is a moral or an ethical liability, then the people who form the corp cross the line from dubious to ignoble. But it's always the people who are responsible for their actions and never the fictitious legal entities.

Those buying Chinese product are guilty, not Yahoo

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Long ago

[Nephroth]

I thought to myself that Western influence combined with booming economy would one day make China a relatively free country. Apparently I was incorrect. What is really happening is that the United States is learning that it can have free-market trade without giving freedom to its people.

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.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[aussie_a]

I browse at 0 and mod anything that has a moderation (including underrated and overrated) +1 and moderate ACs -6. This way I get to read every post (regardless of moderation) except ACs (again regardless of moderation). No more do I see GNAA posts, and while I might occasionally get the occasional race troll (their post has nothing to do with the topic and is normally one of the first posts), a foe rating (which get modded to -6) fixes that.

Just an idea if you want to read quality posts.

prison

[Jacek Poplawski]

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.

'Rigorous Procedures'

[hey!]

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.

China's constitution in Beijing

[cf18]

Too bad Yahoo and the like don't have the guts to fight it out in court against the illegal orders from the goverment.

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.

Multiple Sovereigns = Multiple Laws

[bedroll]

See the problem is that Yahoo! is doing business in China as an American company. This means that they are operating under the control of multiple sovereigns and must tread carefully. To continue to do business in China they must obey Chinese laws, even if those laws may appear contradictory to American law. However, because they are an American company they must still follow the laws of our sovereign. This typically means added limitations without added freedoms.

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.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[MelvinSmalls]

Freedom of speech gives you the right to go into a public area crowded with US soldiers, stand up in the front and call them all baby killers. What do you think the outcome of that would be? What do you think the outcome would be if you exercised your right to go to Watts with a sign that says "I hate ni**ers"?.

It has nothing to do with morality. With freedom comes responsibility. Unless you are a fool, you can't be at all surprised when an act deliberately designed to piss people off, pisses them off. Especially, ESPECIALLY, when said pissing off involves religion or race.

Its not a double standard, its common reality based sense.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[iamacat]

Well, I don't see anyone jailing the Danish cartoonists. Their leader affirmed the freedom of press while responding to his muslim counterparts. Bill Clinton and even Bush have a right to their own opinions as long as they don't force them on me. With a heavy heart I have to say so do the people of Iraq and China as long as they don't commit any violence outside their borders and allow free emigration. Otherwise how can I hope to someday live in a liberal place that will be patently offensive to any capitalists, communists or christians?

Me, I kind of like those cartoons. The one about running out of virgins is hilarious. Here is a link for slashdotters whose local media doesn't have balls.

I don't think the current violence has anything to do with an obscure newspaper page published 6 months ago. (Many) muslims just hate westerners and naturally find mascots to express their rage.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[Achromatic1978]

Without approving or disapproving (and what does it matter whether I do or not, isn't that the point of free speech), I'd be curious, though I know none would have sufficient balls, to see what the reaction would be from the Bible Belt / more ardent Christians, were a newspaper to print a cartoon of, say:

Jesus, using his crucifix as a makeshift crossbow, shooting people as they enter/exit an abortion clinic.

My guess? It'd not go down well at all, and might expose a bit of hypocrisy.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

[JohnFluxx]

You really believe that christians would go on rampage, burn down buildings, call for the artists to be killed, and call on all christians to go on a jihad??
And worse things have been done then a cartoon to annoy christians. Take the "piss christ" (google for it if you've been living under a rock).
Not to mention lots of tv shows (Southpark comes to mind) with a murderous Jesus, and so on.

There's no hypocrisy at all. And I'm not even christian.