Slashdot Mirror
Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame
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.'"
We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.
Ironic how MS is doing everything not to have to comply with the EU's antitrust rulings.
One interesting section I saw was when Yahoo was being quizzed about handing over information to the Chinese Government about a Blogger. They were asked if they would have done the same if the Nazi's asked them the location of Anne frank. Its good that people are drawing paralels on these areas, they are very similar but I think it helps people to think about it more deaply than they might have done. The Nazi state is something people understand and have seen a lot about, China is similar but a lot of what you get taught about it in school is about Mao and later leaders, all told in a possitive way, and less about areesting people who want democracy
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Simply because it has no conscience. There's always someone "higher up" demanding that you do what you have to do. You have no choice but to do what you do. Do it or be fired. And on top, you have the shareholders who want their shares to rise. So you have to do what you have to do, or they get angry and replace you. And the shareholders don't have anything to do with the way a company is lead. They don't know what's going on.
Comforting, isn't it? And so convenient too. Nobody's to blame. In fact, if it wasn't illegal, you could run a corporation dealing in murder. Nobody would have a problem pulling the trigger. 'cause hey, he can't do anything else anyway, it's the system.
And since I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, I'll end here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Seriously, Lantos has some nerve. He's a memner of the same congress that both approved Guantanamo Bay and moved to supress images from Abu Ghraib. Censoring information to people in other countries is one thing. Censoring information from your own counrtymen is another.
Perhaps Lantos should look closer to home for people to berate. Asking the sociopaths that run multinational corperations whether they are "ashamed" is ridiculous to begin with. These people are physically incapable of that emotion. Joe Congressman on the other hand, may have developed the ability by tuning himself into his electorate over the years.
May the Maths Be with you!
Look, it's quite simple.
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
You aren't suggesting that Microsoft should deliberately make less money than the maximum theoretically possible, are you? That's Communism! That goes against all the principles of liberty, justice and shameless gouging that America was founded on!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Ah yes, it is those EVIL tech companies support the EVIL chinese regime by following the law and not the US government which has given them the Most Favored Trade Status with the US.
It would appear that you're trying to let google off the hook, just because another organization (the government) has also dealt with the criminal regime. Sorry, morality doesn't work that way. Having company doesn't excuse a crime.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, Congress things that censorship of the Net is a bad thing.
This is the SAME congress that mandates filtering of the Net in all libraries.
So, basically, if other countries do it, it's evil, but if the USA does it, that's the right thing to do? Sounds a lot like Congress' policy on detaining and torturing prisoners.
The issue as I see it is this:
Either the company comply with Chinas laws or do not do business there.
So what they are debating , is if they are going to ban the companies from a particular area of trade and services in china .
Is that somehow anti-capitalist ? does it constitute an embargo ?
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
You aren't suggesting that Microsoft should deliberately make less money than the maximum theoretically possible, are you?
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
I honestly believe that this entire topic has been blown out of proportion - congress is not interested in promoting free speech, they just want to spread democracy to the rest of the world.
Just remember how communists in the US were treated during the cold war - there goes the free speech argument. It can be said that the United States is the greatest example of democracy, however, it is also the greatest example of it's failure. In the US corporations run the country at least in China they are forced to tow the line.
Having recently visited China, I can sincerely say it is not the police state that most people envision (actually the heightened security in the US is far more restrictive in my experience i.e bags being searched and going though metal detectors in some buildings most notably SF City Hall)
Although many people do comment on China's education system which puts Mao on a pedistol, it is no different to what the US does with Kennedy - secondly in China's education system, the incident at Tienanmen Square is not taboo - my current girlfriend completed high school in China and was taught that the military was wrong but so too were the protesters (allegedly they set fires)
I'm not trying to make excuses for the Chinese Government, I just think we should give them a fair go and accept their sovereignty like they do ours (has anyone heard Chinese criticising the US for their human rights record?).
Excuses Are Like Assholes - Everybody's Got One
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
Care to back this up with a quote from the U.S. Code? I know they have a responsibility to their shareholders as spelled out in pretty much any corporate charter, but civil or criminal liability? I seriously doubt it unless it was a case of willful negligence or stock abuse (e.g. Enron). Just failing to meet an opportunity to make more money is hardly illegal. The worst case is that the shareholders would vote out whichever board member messed up.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
You are so wrong about Tom Lantos that there is not enough room to write about it. I can assure you that as a survivor of a WWII concentration camp, Tom Lantos is in no way a supporter of Gitmo. You are showing igorance by painting an individual member of the House with a paint brush better suited to the Republican majority.
Mr Lantos,
Do you have *any* equipment that says "Made in China" ?
If you do, your questions should be asked in the mirror.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
If it's not for everyone, it's for no one. Universal rights mean nothing unless they're universal.
What? Are the Chinese too "yellow" for democracy? Politcal freedome is only for white Europeans?
Interesting as all shit that you conflate security searches designed to protect against terrorist attack with military tanks running over people engaged in a political protest.
You sure as hell are trying to excuse and explain the Chinese government.
Tell it to the Dalai Lama.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Let me please provide the Congress with a few examples in which questions about ethical behaviour and/or shame might be appropriate:
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people.
* Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it?
* Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
And at the time IBM had divisions in Germany.
If they wanted to do business there they had to comply.
You never saw senate hearings THEN (Especially Postwar) About their actions
China will change, it wont be a "grand" revolution, but it will change. In 50 years with the Decline of Freedom and Liberty here in the US I wouldnt be suprised in the LEAST if China were a MORE free society, (in 50 year I estimate) There are simply too many people, and the more that become educated with a market system such as china has , it will happen.
If American companies should ignore local law when operating in China, does this mean that Dutch companies should now be encouraged to sell pot in the US?
"The Chinese don't have anything similar to the Guantanamo base, where alleged terrorists are held, without being given status as prisoners of war, without the right to a lawyer, in order to interrogate them with torture off American soil."
Are you qualified and authorized to make that statement? How familiar are you with how China deals with its dissident groups, like, say, Falun Gong? Most of the outside world does not know what China does or does not have in that regard, because China is not exactly forthcoming about such matters. Amnesty International notes that a lot of secrecy surrounds China's judicial system, and believes that annual figures showing over 3,000 executions may actually represent one-third or less of all those carried out.
"The Chinese don't invade countries, going all against the UN, without a single thread of evidence for the alleged cause, like it happened in Iraq ("Weapons of mass destruction") and has it happened in Vietnam."
For much of history, certainly, this was true. And in the 20th century, China itself was sadly subjected to invasion and foreign occupation. However, I seem to recall China having... erm... "assimilated," shall we say, a little country called Tibet. And I can't imagine what large, powerful neighboring country might have been supplying the Viet Minh... can you? Oh, and there's that little dispute about Taiwan, I suppose.
"I think it is time the Americans start to realize that AMERICA is today's Nazi regime, NOT China."
A lot of us realize this. A lot of us also realize that while America may be today's superpower, China is most likely tomorrow's. And we also realize (although you may not) that there's very significant cross-investment between the two countries, and that most of the "bad" things about each of the two tend to be closely related to the other.
Anyway, thanks for the interesting, if a bit impolite, dialogue.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
It is unreasonable to suggest when the topic is totalitarian regimes who routinely lock people up because of their beliefs and also routinely execute people and harvest them for organs, that comparisons to Nazis are either off-topic or a sign that the argument has been lost.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I heard the snippet of inquisition on the radio and regardless of my feelings about Google et al's activities in China, I though the congressman's question deserved an answer which highlighted it's stupidity.
Lantos asks:
Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?
The answers should have been:
Are you saying that the current Chinese regime and the Nazi regime are equivalently evil? If you are then my answer to you is that not only IBM but the whole of the U.S.A had something to have been ashamed of during that period.
The U.S.A had yet to enter the war despite evidence of what the Nazi's were up to. They had yet to implement full economic sanctions against the Nazis.
If, congressman, you believe that the Nazis and the chinese are comparable, why hasn't the U.S declared full economic sanctions against China, and why hasn't it made illegal for any U.S company to do business with that country? Why have you yet to propose that we declare war against China?
The truth is, because China is not equivalent to Nazi Germany, and your question is nonsensical.
I find it absolutely absurd that anyone would claim the US is as bad, or worse even, than China as far as human rights is concerned. American citizens have a right, in fact a responsibility to always be aware and in fact question what the US government is doing. Blindly following the government, like so many in China do, is dangerous.
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any of your friends have been questioned or imprisoned for voicing your opinions. When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Don't twist the truth here by pointing out protesters who've been jailed. They were jailed for breaking specific reasons, demonstrating without a warrant, vandalism, or other such activities.
Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism, not because they were simply anti-American. You may not agree with what the government is doing, but there are specific reasons why they're doing this. Rest assured that China would be far, far more aggressive in this regard. These guys are our prisoners and soldiers are going out of their way to make them feel comfortable.
All the sites I've ever seen against this administation specifically are still up and running, one of the most prominent in the past having been moveon.org.
These sites aren't allowed to exist in China. Period. Those guys at moveon.org would have had the site up a week before they were found themselves in prison and likely tortured.
What about all the farmers negected by the Chinese government, who've been forced to protest in order to be heard, and now their voices are being trampled by their own government.
I'm not even going to bother getting into this China appeasement crap. What Google and Microsoft are doing is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. It's even more absurd that the US and worse, the United Nations refuse to recognize a soverign nation like Taiwan because China demands it.
The Chinese do have one thing that many Americans today lack. That's nationalistic pride. The Chinese are willing to do what it takes to get ahead in the World; the average Chinese citizen is far more likely to defend China's actions than any American would be. Many Americans are far more critical of the US government, and in fact, are quickly to defend foreign nations than they are their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if over the next hundred years China grows to be a real superpower and the US is relegated to the second-class status that Europe currently enjoys. Let's see if the Chinese government turns out anything like the US. People criticize the US and what it does around the world, but rest assured that many other nations, and I expect China as well, would be far, far worse.
And if the Chinese government is so bad, why does our government even negotiate with them? Maybe these companies are within their legal bounds merely because our government has hypocritically refused to boycott another communist regime. I guess we only boycott them when they'r poor, anyway (like Cuba).
And before anyone gets on my case, this is apolitical - both parties have kowtowed to the Chinese in the interests of American businesses. It's a bit hypocritical to start getting mad at them now when our government led the way.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Are you serious? China is a world leader in human rights abuses. You're not allowed freedom of religion, only Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity and Islam are allowed. Free speech? An extensive censorship bureaucracy licenses all media outlets and publishing houses and must approve all books before publication. Dissidents who make their opinions known to the foreign media are often subject to threats, detention, harassment, intensive surveillance or imprisonment. Independent advocacy on labor, human rights, environmental, development or political issues is outlawed. They torture their prisoners, political and otherwise. You can be arrested by the police and taken to a hard labor camp for four years without trial. Then your family will have money extorted from them to pay for 'prison supplies'. I could go on and on, but the point is that this is an evil government that's a blight on humanity. We're all in agreement here, I hope. So if you're a company doing business in China, you're supporting the conditions that they're living in. We had tough trade restrictions against the Soviet Union, and it was a major factor in their implosion. Google, Microsoft, et al, should be ashamed that they're looking out for a few shareholders to the detriment of millions living in China under the current regime. Do you have a soul?
I just watched a documentary on Ecuadorian ayahuasca shamanism. The interesting thing is how honestly connected these people are with their surroundings, and how much they love the planet.
The crazy thing is that in my reckoning, the land belongs to the indians who have lived there for generations and generations. At some point, a government came in, declared ayahuasca illegal, and is allowing big oil companies to come in and destroy the land.
The head of one village was knifed by military forces because he nonviolently opposed the supposed right of these people to destroy his home.
The sad thing is that we as Americans are not only on the side of evil on this one, but the biggest force on the side of evil. And I really don't see how to get people to care. I mean, tell people about an illegal plant, and they think you're a drug addict.
Sell them Budweiser (now and always with formaldehyde!) or Marlboros (look up the list of chemicals) and they'll kiss your feet. You can't patent a plant, why can you make them illegal?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
The reason Godwin's Law has caught on so strongly is that it's a useful rule of thumb. Once a discussion on USENET has reached the point where people are citing the Nazis, chances are it has long ago stopped being worth reading.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
In the 1940s, it was IBM supplying the machinery needed to handle the great indexes and lists needed to keep track of the processing of six million or so undesirables, and the consultants and technical assistance needed to set up and run that machinery.
Today, it is Yahoo handing over the emails of activists, and Google censoring search results. Is this quite the same scale of evil as IBM's collaboration in the Final Solution? No. Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes. Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Godwin's Law, therefore, cannot be applied. Comparisons to the Nazis are clear and appropriate.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
"We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China."
I'd have asked the congressman if he really wants us to think about whether a law (that he probably voted for) is legitimate before obeying it. If questioning authority is good in China, it must be even better here!
Did this congressman vote for the DMCA? Should Google think whether the DMCA is ethical before abiding by its provisions?
Did this congressman vote for the Patriot Act and its renewal? Should Google think long and hard before handing over information without a warrant? Or is he saying, "don't cave in to regimes we say are bad - but do cave in to us?"
The other thing I take issue with is that once a society or a regime crosses a certain threshold of evil that they become Nazi Germany. There has been a lot of evil in the world over the years, but it is generally believed that Nazi Germany represented a particularly unique and malignant evil in that history. It also diminishes our rememberance how just how bad Nazi Germany was when we equate it to Milosovic's Serbia, Saddam's Iraq, or modern day China. While there are people who may argue this point, it is even believed that Stalin's Soviet Union, however lethal and repressive a regime that was, didn't quite rise to the unique combination of modern science and industrial production with a racist world view and mass murder that was Nazi Germany.
There are many ways that all regimes that practice evil resemble Nazi Germany, and people have even invoked this comparison for matters that bring shame to the U.S., but there are many ways that Nazi Germany was unique, and to call every bad regime a Nazi Germany diminishes the rememberance of those who suffered under it, and I would say that publically to Mr. Lanos.
Sorry, morality doesn't work that way.
Your right morality does not work that way, you don't go critize someone else for actions that you are unwilling to do yourself. You set the example of what others should be doing.
I do not see them making a big stink of stuff that are real crimes like child labor, human rights and corrupt government officials which are worse and more directly affect peoples lives. If the issue of human rights is such a big deal they should not be treating China with MFT status, they should wit
This was a dog and pony show for some politician to say I am paying attentioning without having to really do anything.
This is political grandstanding. Aside from invoking Nazis, there was a part of the transcript excerpt that really bothered me.
Lantos asked Yahoo! about whether it has contacted the family of the jailed reporter and what it felt about that. Okay, fine. Then he asked Microsoft about the blogger, to which Microsoft clarified that it only took down the site and never provided the government with private information. Well, that's fine too, I guess, if Lantos didn't know beforehand the specifics of this incident and exactly what was different this time between "turn in" and "take down". And then he asks Google the same question. And here, that political grandstanding shines through clear and bright. Google just censors search results. It hasn't turned anyone in. It hasn't taken down any sites. Nobody could conceivably be harmed in this sensational "think of the family!" way by seeing rosy pictures of Tian'an'men. It's purely political.
If Congress was *really* interested in doing something about this, then they would recognize that the solution is not to criticize American companies, but to back them with a strong diplomatic stance up so that they would have the ability to say no to Beijing. But being tough to Beijing is hard, so let's bash these companies instead and hope that Americans will equate that to us doing something productive.
And as much as I dislike these Nazi references, maybe we should think of it this way. Remember that scene in Schindler's List when Jewish doctors kill their patients with lethal doses of some sort of liquid shortly before the Nazis come crashing in? One could argue that these doctors were immoral because they killed Jews and by killing them, they were in a way helping with the Nazi extermination. But most people would not hold that view, and instead would praise them for having mercifully killed them instead of letting them be killed by machine gun bullets when the Nazis come. The doctors could do nothing about the fact that those people were going to die, so they decided to do a little evil of their own, but in a way that mitigated a worse evil. Replace killing with censorship, doctors with American companies, and now you have a more accurate Nazi comparison.
Shit, I must be getting althzeimer's disease (you know, where you forget how to spell things), but didn't the government just include China in its "most favored nation" trade status not too many years ago?! This whole charade is hypocrisy of an order of magnitude only a government body could manufacture.
Our bad. We didn't realize until your "5, Insightful" post that dissenting opinions in Congress are Another Liberal Myth.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I don't think vices and basic corporate morality / humanity conflict myself. (e.g. ethical investing to me means avoiding companies that don't respect human rights, freedoms, freedom of speach, but seeking companies that invest in their employees, pay decent salaries, and treat their customers and parners with respect also (not Microsoft, Sony, or any RIAA company.) If the vice company was keeping slaves, outsourcing to someone who did, or even running sweatshops overseas, that would be a problem, but Hugh Hefner is not.)
I did not specify that references had to be 'net based. Neither have I said I'd consider an Internet based reference to be sufficient to convince me (or otherwise). I'm happy to accept in advance your apology for misrepresenting me by saying otherwise.
Can you provide actual evidence that the detainees are all terrorists, or linked to terrorism? And can you further provide justification for the flagrant abuses of their civil liberties?
Obviously those infringements of civil liberties can be referenced through multiple US court representations, speeches and comments by American political figures and government and military staff, and numerous print media outlets, quite apart from the recently published United Nations paper that led to Koffi Annan calling for the camp to be closed.
Please, help me understand the law being used to hold these people - and explain why the US government is scared of the US Supreme Court getting involved (by scared I mean they've asked the court to dismiss a case relating to detention at Guantanamo).
All I can find out is that these people are "enemy combatants" and that this justifies treating them as something other than Prisoners of War.
I can accept that they may not be members of a nation state's standing army, and that they are thus not covered by Geneva Convention regulations on treatment of POWs.
I can not accept that this obviates their civil rights, that it is an excuse to hold them without fair trial. If they have broken a law, hold a fair and open trial; if that convicts them, apply appropriate justice.
Don't just hold them in perpetuity under a vague banner of "enemy combatant" and pretend this is morally, ethically or even legally acceptable.
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty.
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgement Rule protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypo_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You cenrtainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board.
Nope, he's still a wanker. (Note - I'm truly uninhibited by skin and race. I'll call *anyone* a wanker if they're acting that way.)
In this guy's case, if he really thinks China is equivalent in evil to Nazi Germany, then as a member of the US government he can't justify the US government's encouragement of trade with China.
Or if he doesn't think that China is equivalent in evil to Nazi Germany, then he is even *less* justified in using it as an arguing point, bcos he knows *exactly* what happened in Nazi Germany. Implying equivalency in that case is spitting on the graves of his relatives.
Either way, he's not got a leg to stand on.
As an interesting sidenote, the US is doing precisely the same as it did in WWII. It's providing limited support to the side that it would *like* to win, but it's continuing trading with the evil side, so as to keep the money coming in. Unless the Chinese are stupid enough to create a second Pearl Harbor, that's unlikely to change. (Not that the British government is any better. I'm entirely with Prince Charles's take on the Chinese government - "ghastly bunch of old waxworks".)
Grab.
Moreover, invoking Godwin's Law is typically in the context where it is overexaggerated hyperbole, not when it is, sadly and disgustingly, a reasonably accurate a comparison.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I don't think its accurate at all. We are not at war with China, and AFAIK, Nazi Germany didn't enjoy Most Favored Nation Trading Status. IMO it looks like Congress is using these companies as the scapegoat so they can look like they're being tough on China, when they're really not.
I also wonder if they would have suggested that these companies not cooperate with another government that recently came to them for information.
The people brokering our investments are just doing what we tell them. If you don't want to invest in Google then you always have the option of putting your money elsewhere. If you're a mutual fund investor then it's your responsibility to read through the prospectus and see where that money is going. To make things easier for you, many investment companies offer "Ethical Funds". They tend to have a lower rate of return than the other funds, but that's be be expected because their priorities are different. When consumers stop buying from unethical companies then the ethical ones will become a better investment.
The brokers of the various investing companies are the one selling us this "eat our own tail" lunch
Welcome to the "Walmartization" of America. Purchasing from a regular mutual fund rather than an ethical fund is essentially the same as choosing to buy products at Walmart instead of your local department store. People are inherently greedy and seldom consider the effects of their purchases. People who shop at Walmart and then complain about their local industries all going bankrupt really need to wake up!