Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the ethical-dilemmas dept.

mjdroner writes "Cnet has a transcript of the House of Representatives hearing on net censorship with Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo reps. At one point, Rep. Tom Lantos asks if Microsoft is ashamed of their actions in China. Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.' Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'"

8 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Shit by republican+gourd · · Score: 3, Funny

    Congress envoked Godwin's Law. Now this whole thing is going to peter out and the companies are going to come out blameless.

    1. Re:Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Lantos, to Cisco: Is your company ashamed? Cisco: (Begins to talk about products that Cisco sells.) ace.... typical cisco

    2. Re:Shit by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention that if it's Communism, it's pro-China!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Shit by *coughs+loudly* · · Score: 2, Funny
      That goes against all the principles of liberty, justice and shameless gouging that America was founded on!
      Good points, but I think "tax-evasion" was an even more fundamental principle.
    4. Re:Shit by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Complying with China's demands may: cost some pro-democracy activists their lives
      Complying with the EU's demands may: cost some Microsoft shareholders some of their money

      And the sad part is, some people are going to think that's just you being funny or ironic, but that's exactly how it works.

      It's always easier to apologize later, once the bodies are buried and your pockets are full, than to do anything ahead of time and take heat from your shareholders for it.

      But I have only a limited amount of blame for the corporations involved, or the people that run them. I fully expect, perhaps if I were an investor I'd even demand, that they go to the very bounds of legality in pursuing profit. That's what they do, it is their nature. Do the analysts on Wall Street give a damn whether some Chinese democracy advocate ended up in a re-education center? No; except insofar as it'll change the quarterly earnings. The people who matter don't care, and the people who care don't matter.

      I'm not particularly happy with Google these days -- I'm rather disgusted for them for being hypocritical: I can take unethical/immoral behavior, but I prefer that people at least appreciate what they're doing when they do it -- but perhaps there is something to be said for the effect they're having. If you're a businessperson who doesn't really enjoy doing morally repugnant things in the name of money, but also doesn't want to get run out of business by someone with less moral hangups, perhaps the best course of action is to be as flagrantly immoral as possible, while still staying within the bounds of the law as written: the result might be that the laws get changed, forcing you (and everyone else) to play a cleaner game.

      Of course, the problem is that it's sacrificing other people instead of yourself, in the name of getting the laws changed.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  2. uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    <strongbad-voice>GODWIN'D!</strongbad-voice>

  3. Godwin's Law at 0th post by sco08y · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is this a new record?

  4. traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    They could have been helping the US Government surpress folk in Cuba but they went to China instead!

    Thats the kind of traitorous behaviour that gets you investiagted by the US Government.