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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
>> demonstrating without a warrant
Sorry, I need permission to express my displeasure about something?
>> Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism
Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references. Please also explain how holding them there without trial, legal representation, the ability for individual private interviews with representatives from the UN, while interrogating them with abusive techniques is in any way justified even if they do have ties to terrorism.
Just what is terrorism anyway? I do recall considerable amounts of US support for those very people in Afghanistan when they were fighting against the Russians that are currently being targeted by American "anti terrorist" operations now.
Hypocrisy? Hell yes. I don't give a shit what the background of Lantos is, I don't care whether he votes against MFT status for China or not; the organisation he represents is very far from being the champion of freedom and democracy it would have to be for his questions to those companies to have any credence at all.
Shame? I hope to hell he feels it.
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.
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.