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

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!!!!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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".

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.

--

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.

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.

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/

"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: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?

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.

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?