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.
Does Google maintain the same history of keyword searches by IP and by "cookie" at google.cn? If so, what are they going to do when the Chinese government demands they provide that information?
It's not hard to imagine a situation where that information would put a Chinese Google user in danger.
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."
I listened to some of this on the Today programme (Radio 4) in the UK and the Microsoft guy sounded *really* nervous when they bought up the IBM/Germany analogy. It sounded like the similarity really hadn't occurred to him before. Really cheered me up on a cold morning.
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.
In general, I would agree with you. However, you are off base on this one because it was Tom Lantos making these statements. He is a HUGE champion of freedom (true freedom, not freedom unless it hurts a corporation). I have taken the liberty of doing a cut & paste of part of his online biography:
An American by choice, Tom Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary, on February 1, 1928. He was 16 years of age when Nazi Germany occupied his native country. As a teenager, he was placed in a Hungarian fascist forced labor camp. He succeeded in escaping and was able to survive in a safe house in Budapest set up by Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. His story is one of the individual accounts which forms the basis of Steven Spielberg's Academy Award winning documentary about the Holocaust in Hungary, The Last Days.
Say what you will about most Congressmen, Senators and the President, but complaints about MFT and coddling those commie bastards doen't apply to Rep. Lantos.
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
Seriously, you're an idiot. That may be a problem for other members of congress, but Lantos was one of 141 House members who voted for a measure that would have overturned MFN status for China.
He was wrong then and wrong now, but at least he is consistent.
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.
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?
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.
Tibet has been a part of China for 700 years.
That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "a part of."
Yes, Tibet first came under Chinese control 700 years ago, when it was conquered by the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongol Empire. (Prior to that it was off doing its own little mountainous thing, one would presume... so the fact that it is under Chinese control seems to fly in the face of your prior assertion that China doesn't invade people. But anyway.)
That said, there have been periods since then during which China had little if any control over Tibet, and prior to the Cultural Revolution, even when it had control, it apparently chose not to exercise that control very much.
So there are some people who see things differently. And there are some people who feel that China's control, particularly in the last several decades, has had a... detrimental effect on people in Tibet, as far as certain cultural or religious freedoms might be concerend.
It's not surprising that there are misunderstandings, there are a lot of people in the world with many different views. These sorts of things happen.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
>> 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.
After doing quite a bit of research, I discovered two things.
p onsibilityc orporatelaw.html
First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law) governing corporate profits.
Second, virtually every state has a law that DOES require maximizing profits.
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_res
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_
Each of these links add information, but because the laws are specific to each state, I'm not going to look them up for you.
Regardless, the point is clear.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I was hoping somebody else would kick this obvious irony straight in there and the tone of the replies was to be expected.
After the recent UN Human Rights condemnation of the Guantanamo prison camp, I was a bit shocked by the allusion to the 10 year prisoner when there are prisoners in Guantanamo for nearly 5 years without trial.
The problem that I have with this is in China the 10-year prisoner is incarcertated legally according to Chinese law (even if you don't agree with thoses laws), the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo are not there legally according to American law.
Fine, if they are terrorists, try them and lock them up or execute them, if that's what you want to do - but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about China acting under its own laws while having a blatant disregard for your own laws and the right to just and fair treatment under them.
It's do as I say, not as I do.
I can see where Tom Lantos is coming from with his background, and I like a good Microsoft roasting as much as the next man, but as a representive of the government of the United States, I wonder is he ashamed?
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
In the late 1930s, Gerald Nye of North Dakota and Martin Dies of Texas were outright for the Nazi party practically right up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They were unabashedly anti-Semitic, pro-fascist, and anti-Roosevelt.
People forget that the Nazi party was probably the most political party in the world during the 1930s. The American Bund (a group formed to promote Nazism in the states, and to encourage neutrality while Hitler invaded the rest of Europe) was not a fringe group - they had among their members Congressmen, Senators, judges, and governors.
Even after World War II had begun in earnest for America in 1942, members of Congress gave classified information to Nazi agents, spoke out for the extermination of "the Jew" on the floor of Congress, and continued to spout anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rhetoric in newsletters sent to their home district.
Luckily for us, Congress is not beholden to respect the opinions of all of its members individually - it only has to respond to the majority opinion, which usually correlates with public opinion. This is also true of corporations - their "public" is just limited to those who own stock in 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.