Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Allegedly Helps Beijing Arrest a Third Reporter
reporter writes "According to a damning press release from Reporters without Borders, Yahoo has
helped Beijing to locate, arrest, and imprison a 3rd reporter.
This latest incident occurs about 2 months after Yahoo testified,
under oath in front of Congress, that the company regrets being
'forced' to help Beijing." From the article: "'We hope this Internet giant will not, as it has each time it has been challenged previously, hide behind its local partner, Alibaba, to justify its behaviour. Whatever contract it has with this partner, the email service is marketed as Yahoo !' the organisation said. According to the verdict, Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) confirmed that the email account ZYMZd2002 had been used jointly by Jiang Lijun and another pro-democracy activist, Li Yibing."
Because these 'safeguards' will work both ways. They protect you but they also identify you by your access information (and worse) machine IP address stored in server logs. "Federal Regulations" here in the states means your identity should be protected (but we've all seen that start to ebb) while in China it probably means just the opposite. There, the government is a government 'of the people' which means it has a right to all information and property of the people. Without arguing against too much Marx & Engels here, I'm just going to say that it's not aligned too closely with my beliefs of a government's limitations.
As Reporters without Borders states, the solution is obvious: move your servers to a country where "federal regulations" protects rather than ousts the end user. Yes, it's going to be slightly more expensive for Yahoo to host it out of the United States and there will be more network load for the internet. This would most certainly be a slap in the face to the Chinese government, however. Not as bad as moving the servers to Taiwan but still bad. I think that we should all watch this quite closely. If Yahoo moves the servers, then they are concerned about the Chinese citizens who want better human rights. If they leave them there and continue to allow the Chinese government to mine their servers
Honestly, the Yahoo! logo is colored red. It's missing a star or maybe a hammer and sickle
Have search engines become government whipping boys? Will Google kneel before the Bush administration while Yahoo! raises the population of the gulags?
My work here is dung.
Companies exist to make money. Period. Reporters Without Borders can plead with Yahoo! to end their collaboration with the PRC all they like, but as long as China has that big juicy carrot of marketshare dangling in front of Yahoo!'s nose, Yahoo! will do whatever the PRC wants.
One cannot expect Yahoo! to turn away from such a lucrative market any more than one can expect a scorpion not to sting. It's what they do.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
And we give Google shit for being in China? Although, after they've set their stuff up in China, can we expect them to argue when the government demands something?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
The blind eyes being turned here are the eyes of Congress and the American government. So willing are we to have our cheap plastic home appliances that we refuse to stand up to government-sponsored persecution of freedom. The Chinese market is huge and the opportunities are boundless, but theirs is a government which does not value what we claim to value. In fact, it is questionable that we even value what we claim to value anymore.
This bright shining city on the hill is now as bad as any Chamberlain or Frog. Unwilling to stand up to evil when it arises, and quick to appease enemies in the name of free trade.
Free trade without political freedom is not free.
Maybe its time we started boycotting Yahoo? This would mean amongst other things replacing people replacing own their Geocities pages with a boycot message.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Is a myth. Irrelevant. Mantras and ethically-pleasing slogans sound great when a company is growing. It -certainly- helps when you're looking primarily at US investments and venture capital.
Once you're big and multinationally, however, the corporate entity is just as ethics neutral as you can possibly be. The corporation as a person has just one goal. Make money for stockholders. Above all else.
And if you believe otherwise, I've got a nice bridge in Brooklyn that you can have for next to nothing. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft. They're not thinking about the quash of free speech, they're thinking of ways to get access to the world's largest consumer base.
If firefighters fight fire, and crimefighters fight crime, what do freedom fighters fight? - George Carlin
Just weeks ago I commented on a slashdot story about Google censoring Chinnese search results. My opinion then was that Google was just "complying with local laws".
Someone replied asking if it did not mattered if the country laws where broken to what I answered that no, it did not mattered.
Last weekend I saw a movie called "The Corporation", I recommend it a lot. After watching it I changed my point of view. I hated corporations before watching it (I was 100% against Sony in the rootkit thing and started a personal boycott after that) but now I find more difficult to see the good side of having corporations.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It isn't Yahoo's job to change the political climate in China, no more than it is Googles. Change in China will occur once the people demand it and other nations (not companies) apply pressure and lend support.
http://religiousfreaks.com/Trafficing marijuana is likewise illegal here in the U.S. Sure some folks claim its a naturally growing plant that is one of God's creations. Nevertheless if I was corresponding back and forth with all of my contacts in Mexico I sure as hell wouldn't be doing it through GMail.
Do any of the yahoo! people know about things like this: http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-3-17/39369.htm l ? Maybe they would think differently then.
Simply for the fact that in order for China to change they must be brought into the world arena. The more you are in the world arena, the harder it is to get away with this kind of behavior.
Remember that it was not that many years ago that you would have heard ZERO about this kind of stuff. Will China change? Ultimately yes, and they will change when they realize that suppressing human rights will not ultimately serve them to make $$$
And besides gravitational physics, it's indeed money that makes the world go around. China is realizing that as their economy grows at near 10% every year.
"This latest incident occurs about 2 months after Yahoo testified, under oath in front of Congress, that the company regrets being 'forced' to help Beijing."
Latest incident? If by latest incident they mean the revelation of Yahoo's involvement then it did happen 2 months after they appeared before congress. If one reads the article they will see the verdict was handed down in 2003.
Doesn't excuse Yahoo and a lot of what is said in front of congress is fluff, but finding out about a years old verdict doesn't change their current statement of regret, the only thing new here is the revelation years later. Does it change anything we already knew about Yahoo's practices in China? If we find out about cases like this after there congressional appearance then there'd be cause for an outcry.
http://www.worldsoccerbars.com
Yahoo is operating a business in China so it is bound to act in accordance with Chinese laws. You cannot simply decide you do not agree with a countries law and you are going to ignore them.
Obviously there is an ethical argument that maybe Yahoo should not be doing business in China but in the absence of any US laws prohibiting them from operating Chinese search engines and given the fact China represents a huge market its easy to see why Yahoo has decided to do business there.
If Yahoo did pull out of China then any other search engine would be subject to the same Chinese laws as Yahoo was so it seems to me that Reporters Without Borders should concentrate on efforts to change Chinese law to suit their own ideas more accurately rather than critising companies which whatever else they may be doing are helping to bring jobs and money to Chinese people.
Obviously China does have a less than perfect record on such things as humans rights and this is something most people would like to see improved however this is really a political problem which requires a political solution, international companies are not renowned for their ability to affect political change in foreign countries and if their shareholders have given them the mandate to trade in them then that is what they must do.
They also helped San Antonio, TX, USA police arrest a Child Pornographer based on his uploads to a Y! Group. Heard this on AM radio this A.M. so don't have a clicky link for you all.
Yahoo is not very likely to move their servers though. If they were to move the servers out of china to prevent this sort of thing, then the Chinese Government will just block all business from Yahoo.
The and I am sure the Chinese Government is willing to use that as a threat to prevent Yahoo from doing such a thing.
Money is always the deciding factor, lives are usually the last thing on the mind of executives. Just look at Ford and the Pinto fiasco.
I wish I had something really constructive to say on this, but the bottom line is this: the majority China is used to living like that. It's a cultural difference you should try to understand. It isn't just the communist regime, the whole thing goes back thousands of years...emperors and dynasties and fireworks...stuff like that.
Why go fast when you can go anywhere? O|||||||O
I had no idea people still use Yahoo
but Yahoo should try and avoid whoring itself out to one of the worse regime on the planet. Just as a common courtesy.
Hammer? Sickle? Yahoo is doing this thanks to a love for money. Me things you have your signals crossed, it's not the hammer and sickle that are creeping into their logo, but rather its opposite, the almighty dollar.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
"Hmmm...Yahoo has previously turned over information about my fellow dissidents. I wonder what service I should use for e-mail, or if I should encrypt the content of the e-mails I send. Nahhhh...too much trouble. Hey, Li, someone's knocking really hard on the door...go see who it is."
Attention any dissidents that may be reading this. There are more secure ways to communicate than Yahoo Mail. Nothing against Yahoo Mail - I've used it for years, but I'm not a dissident.
Hey, what's that knocking at my door?...
Why is it that every time this issue comes up someone pops up with a supposed 'realistic worldview' defense of these companies?
Everytime I read through another instance of China putting the kibosh on freedom and liberty, people here start picking up the "businesses make money, China has money, therefore businesses will screw anyone and everyone to make money" line of reasoning? Businesses aren't some unnatural entity that sprang forth, they are a collection of man-power, and resources, working towards a common goal. There is a *person* somewhere, saying "Toss the guy to the Chinese authority."
The more people blindly accept the justification that "that's just how it is, I can't change anything," the less you ACTUALLY can change things. Don't give your power away to multi-national corporations, don't give it away to the goverment.
I guess I just don't see what your policy advocacy says. Do we let Yahoo! off the hook for hosing people? Are you saying this just isn't newsworthy? That too much of your valuable time has been wasted or learning that Yahoo! is pulling some shady deals in China? Just let them get away with it, and stop talking about it because we're wasting our breath?
Can't people speak out against a perceived injustice and have it mean more than a wasted breath? Sheesh, usually I'm considered the cynically one, but next to the average Slashdotter, I'm dancing in the land of fairies and make-believe and butterflies and rainbows.
Quit shrugging your shoulders about a problem as fundamentally restrictive as this. The more people speak, the more can be done.
Q: What's your favorite search engine, and why?
I once had a prospective employee answer Yahoo! I should have known that she was a bad apple just from that answer, but she was otherwise qualified so I hired her. What a big mistake. Turns out that she wasn't nearly as good as her references suggested, and she left with one days notice.
Now I know: never hire anybody who claims to use Yahoo! as a seach engine.
China has laws. They will enforce those laws in their own country. If a company does business there they expect that company to follow the regulations / laws.
So what happens when the government requests information? It is given. Here we can appeal there I would imagine you can't. You could resist but you'd get in trouble and probably hauled off to jail.
Hmm what would you do as a manager in China at Yahoo? Risk your life or give up the information? Sure Yahoo could just kicked out of China but I'd bet they'd make an example out of someone their too.
So how would you handle it?
Wont do jack, with 1.2 billion people they have plenty of people to sell to domestically. The only way that government is going to change is if the people of china demand it to. With all that we did to stop the USSR and the spread of communism, the iron curtain wasn't lifted until the people of eastern Europe stood up to their oppressors. Its the same thing that's happening in the middle east, people will not adopt our style of government and our values unless they want to, they cannot be forced. I'm to young to personally remember, but we did some pretty extraordinary things during the cold war when there was a common enemy to work against. Our best strategy may be to continue to work with Chinese companies so if china eventually goes through a revolution our companies will have a leg up with experience on doing business in a new system; the second part would be to bind together to build new technologies to lead the world ahead in this century as well.
So how would you handle it?
how about accept a slightly lower share price in return for not dancing with the devil?
"Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as love, justice, humanity or morality. He called this "soulful ravings" and "sloppy sentimentality." . . ."
This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be from enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within." . . .
The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores . . . but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate, or members of minority groups who have been traitorous to this Nation, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest Nation on earth has had to offer . . . the finest homes, the finest college education and the finest jobs in government we can give.
-Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 1950Heck, they wiped 7+ years worth of my e-mail for no reason whatsoever. They won't own up to it, and they claim they cannot restore them. If I cannot trust them for something as simple as e-mail, then I would never trust them with my money, my identity, etc.
But I just have to ask, since we are so demanding of Yahoo why are we not asking the rest of the companies in the US to also boycott China in the name of human rights? Why single out Yahoo?
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Just as the FCPA currently prohibits US companies from certain behavior abroad (primarily -- bribing foreign officials) -- FCPA-2.0 should also prohibit the anti-human rights disclosures, like the ones Yahoo! was forced to make.
It is not going to be easy to make this law, but something is needed to give these companies a backbone and help them weather a foreign government's hostile action. Something like a threat of sanctions against the country demanding an American company's cooperation in an unjust (in USA's view) prosecution. Such sanctions ought to be automatic only requiring a US federal judge's approval.
I'll be very glad to see such a law condemned as "imperialist" and US accused of "twisting" the tyrants' arms with it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Obviously there is an ethical argument that maybe Yahoo should not be doing business in China but in the absence of any US laws prohibiting them from operating Chinese search engines and given the fact China represents a huge market its easy to see why Yahoo has decided to do business there.
So, it's okay to help a totalitarian regime wrongly imprision people, as long as you do it for money?
I'm not sure you really understand what an "ethical argument" means.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Honestly, the Yahoo! logo is colored red. It's missing a star or maybe a hammer and sickle ... but they're almost there.
Grow up, China hasn't been truly communist for over a decade now. These days they just call themselves communist. For example, just who do you think owns the Nike sweatshops or the shoes they produce there? People like you who refuse to give up the old fights are what are making us lose the new ones.
Hey guys, check out our new feature at Yahoo! If you use Yahoo! and write about something your government doesn't like, we will help them arrest you!
Yahoo, for all your tyrannical needs!
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
A little of both. Desire for money justifies (not really but for Yahoo!) compliance with the hammer and sickle rule of law.
What's a shame is that people in opressive countries see these companies - Yahoo!, Google, etc. as bearers of the American brand of freedom - as idealistically as they may see it. So Yahoo! and Google and the like make their money off of the desire to partake and the understanding that the American company will bring American values and understanding of freedom of speech, and then said company turns around and stabs them in the back.
Yet another reason that people are growing increasingly upset with America. Anything for the almighty buck, even if it means preaching American freedom to justify Iraq, and then allowing companies to cooperate with communist regimes at the same time. Anything for that next dollar.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
The problem is that Yahoo's behavior sets a dangerous precident for the expected behavior of other US companies operating in China. One of the greatest powers of the internet is the ability to bring people together, and in this case it is being used to further isolate the people who seek this type of social change.
Yahoo's behavior in China is indicative of current and future behavior in the US. We already have confirmed reports that they've handed over private information at least once before to the US gov't. Why should we be so naive to think they aren't doing the same thing in the US? Why stop there? Yahoo could be redirecting all e-mails through CIA sniffing computers. After all, the Patriot Act gave the administration the power to make these kinds of requests and hide the fact with an accompanying federal gag order. (It would explain why Yahoo's mail servers take forever to connect, if they connect.) But that's just the Patriot Act paranoia in me speaking out.
Conspiracy theories aside, Google is at least doing "something". A company (or person) that believes in nothing, will not stand up against anything or anyone, whether it is China or the United States.
One thing that strikes me when the talk is on China and 'democracy' is that we just hear about how they arrest 'pro-democracy activist'; but we never hear any details about what these alleged activists actually stand for. It may be because I am blind and deaf and very, very evil (as well as stupid etc etc), but I can imagine many different kinds of activity that the activists themselves would describe as 'pro-democracy' and which others would not.
The sad truth is, the one sure way to win a lot easy sympathy from people in the US is to claim that you are 'pro-democracy' or 'religious' and being oppressed by the evil Commies. But just take the word 'democracy' - it can't always be taken at face value; after all we have the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' (N. Korea), the 'Democratic Republic of Congo' and not long ago the 'German Democratic Republic'.
So is there any reliable information available about these persons did and stood for? Is it possible that their variant of activism was illegal, not because they talked about democracy, but because they were engaged in subversive activities (something that is illegal in most countries, I would think)?
Maybe its time we started boycotting Yahoo? This would mean amongst other things replacing people replacing own their Geocities pages with a boycot message.
I hate to say it, but Yahoo is asking for a lot more than a boycot. When you start imprisioning and threatening the livlyhood of people over free speech - it takes things to a whole different level. I wouldn't be supprised at all if people started calling in death threats to Yahoo execs and bomb threats to Yahoo offices. People know darn well that the excuses given by them are bullshit - how much you want to bet that things will change quickly at Yahoo when it starts getting personal and starts hitting ther bottom line.
... and get rid of everything that you own that was created by a corporation. Your car, your computer, your iPod. Yes, your house or apartment was even was built by people working for a corporation. So go live on the street, naked, under a cardboard box - oh wait, that too, corporation. Dammit.
The world is not black and white, you need to grow up and see the world as it is.
I'd mod you up if I had the points.
"people will not adopt our style of government and our values unless they want to, they cannot be forced."
If only people who profess in "helping China" understood that. And for your information, most people in China had enough of "revolutions" for now, if you understand what I mean. And despite that I agree with you on the point I quoted above, I have reservations on the other points that you've raised (not that I think I really understand them though).
I technically live in the PRC, so take my post with a grain of salt.
Don't quote me on this.
Just to clarify, it's a companies job to increase shareholder value. To take risks and return value based on those risks. Getting kicked out of China would immensely damage Yahoo's stock, and therefore it made the right decision. The US Government is the body to blame here, and it is short sighted to place the blame elsewhere.
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
Yahoo! is never notified by the Chinese government regarding the nature of crimes of the subpoenaed account. In any country the criminal law states that the organization (be it commercial, government or non-profit) has to provide the required documents if a court-issued subpoena comes in.
When Chinese authorities come and ask for personal information on an account suspected of criminal activity, Yahoo! doesn't know whether the suspect:
1) raped kids and made profit from child pornography
2) disagreed with the Communist Party of China
3) was a serial killer who concentrated on women and cute puppies
Believe it or not, Chinese government doesn't actually clarify what they want the data for and how it will be used.
Here is yahoo china's logo, it all makes sense.
The logo
Please reuse it, and/or make a better one.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Here in Beijing expat reporters have their knickers in a twist about Yahoo (HK), Jiang Lijun and Li Yibing. I have some sympathy for their position but, really, you have to apply a bit of common-sense and objectivity to this. The underlying sentiment, if not argument, is that what Yahoo (HK) and China did together would not happen in the US. Lets all move servers. Huh? Come on. The only difference between China and the US is that China for some reason is allowing Yahoo (HK) to speak to the press about China's legitimate (as in legal) request and Yahoo (HK)'s response. In the US, government requests to Yahoo for similar data are allowed, frequent, protected and secret. The whole process is secret and cannot be revealed even in court - by law. Yahoo, cannot tell anyone about the governement request, its against the law. The victim, if he/she were to somehow get to know of the government request, would be forbidden from telling anyone about it - its against the law and you can't go to court and have it reversed. The main difference here folks is that China does not have the Patriot Act and is not applying a press gag. I am no defender of China but . . . . Sheesh. The US is the one that has the Patriot Act and makes all such transactions and requests secret, hidden, beyond review.
China could also flex its muscle by slowing down shipments, or blockading Taiwan. The entire US high-tech hardware sector would be unable to sell anything. Even those who don't manufacture their goods in China/Taiwan rely on just-in-time manufacturing and Chinese components.
Apple would be unable to sell a single Mac, for example.
This would be an adequate demonstration of power, without destroying the entire US economy.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yes, that's why it's absolutely okay that companies made profit from collaboration with the Nazi-Regime in Germany. Melting jewish golden teeth into bars is a good deal to improve shareholder value.
I learned at school in Germany that companies are responsible for the politics they support by their actions and that this is one of the lessons to learn from my countrys past.
But obviously my teachers were wrong.
I'll go investing into some company dealing with the organs of executed chinese people now.
k2r
Or is his family being held hostage?
and then I read a Bush bash in the post
You mean the part where the original poster alluded to the warrantless wiretaps, warrantless library and financial record seizures, and so on, which all exist here in the United States, and all came into existance on Bush's watch? This is the truth.
"I never gave anybody hell. I just told the truth and the Republicans thought it was hell."
I'm sick and tired of people who are so damn afraid of the truth. I open the paper and read letters making oblique references to treason, claiming that their editorials critical of the mismanagement of the war "aid and comfort the enemy". Well guess what, if talking about the fact that our soldiers ran around in Iraq for years without armor or a plan "aids and comforts the enemy" where does that put your treasured leaders for sending our soldiers to their deaths without armor? What do you think aids and comforts the enemy more, easy targets or an editorial in a US newspaper they'll never even read?
Face it, Bush is on the way out. The Republican Party is finally beginning to reject the neocon tumor that has been killing it from the inside. If the Republicans can succeed in time for the '06 elections, I might even be willing to vote for Republicans again, provided they can show me that they really are for small government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional behavior.
And when IBM operated in Germany, it should have given all possible assistance to the government in the vital work of efficiently rounding up Jews and sending them to death camps, right?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
"So willing are we to have our cheap plastic home appliances that we refuse to stand up to government-sponsored persecution of freedom."
And you buy computers. Give up YOUR Chinese made appliance, and we'll talk. Otherwise, shut your hypocrite mouth.
Ouch. Typical American ignorant arrogance.
I have a considerable amount of exposure to people in the PRC, and here is some good news for you: nobody there is seeing American companies as bearers of freedom. Nobody is expecting American companies to do that. People are expecting American companies to give them the worldly conveniences that people in America are enjoying right now.
But whatever is the case, you're definitely right on one point: Anything for that next dollar. And believe me, the people in China are like that too. More so.
Don't quote me on this.
This is what happens when people are free. You can't have it both ways!! There is nothing illegal about doing business in China, and Americans are FREE to do so. Don't blame the whole of America because an American company chooses to act a certain way.
Oh, come on PLEASE stop saying China is Marxist just because they say so... they claim to be a democracy too, but I'm in no rush to grant them that...
Desire for money justifies (not really but for Yahoo!) compliance with the hammer and sickle rule of law.
Ummm... China hasn't really been Communist for a long time. This is a good thing, since Communism is a pathetic failed ideology, but rather than choosing liberal democracy to replace it, they seem to have chosen fascism.
"Why is it that every time this issue comes up someone pops up with a supposed 'realistic worldview' defense of these companies?"
Because they're right. How many US companies were in China 50 years ago? How much access did the average Chinese citizen have to western media and ideas 50 years ago?
The presence of foreign business in China has caused obvious and dramatic changes. These changes have led to far more freedom than before.
Businesses did that by playing by the rules. And as long as they continue to do so, freedom creeps in in ways that the Chinese government can't police.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
the solution is obvious: move your servers to a country where "federal regulations" protects rather than ousts the end user.
Foreign governments can and do request information from each other for criminal investigations. In most countries there are no privacy laws that will protect you from a search warrant.
There was a US law (I don't know if it passed) to attempt to permit the US government to force American companies to disclose any information to the US government irrespective of where the information is located and despite the privacy laws of that country.
If someone has links they would probably make an interesting addition.
Have search engines become government whipping boys?
It is a known phenomenon that when companies become large and influential enough in an important sphere, they essentially become branches of government.
Look at Boeing, AT&T, MicroSoft, ExxonMobil, Lockheed-Martin. All claim to be private entities, yet there's not a single honest man who could stand up and say out loud that they are not as intimately connected, if not more, with the US Government as a state body such as the IRS or the department of health.
The companies toe the government line, and in return reap the benefit of monopoly and preferential treatment.
You'll note I included MicroSoft and ExxonMobil in that list. However, in these days of globalisation, their subservience to any one government is suspect. Essentially, they are too large and global for any one government to seriously control them, or indeed trust them, as a de facto arm of government.
Google and Yahoo are in the information search business, an area of ever growing importance. Governments will never allow these companies to operate with private impuity. Eventually they will become mere arms of government, using their information for whatever purpose the government sees fit. China has simply already done this with Yahoo China.
May the Maths Be with you!
The story says that Yahoo received a demand in China that was legal under Chinese law and that Yahoo turned over the information.
Suppose Yahoo were to receive a demand in the U.S. that was legal under U.S. law. What do you suppose they would do? . . . Perhaps they'd file an objection, but if it was overruled, they'd turn over the information in the U.S., too.
The only difference, if any, between what Yahoo would do in China and what they would do in the U.S. is in what info the government can demand.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Actually, my clothes aren't Chinese made and I boycott Wal-Mart because of their Chinese made crap and adblock Google's because I am too lazy to change blogging companies.
The problem is we dont give our rights to non-americans. If we where truely a modern, civilized country, we would give the basic right consitutional rights to everyone.
So, next step, china isnt considered breaking human rights by the UN standard, you cant sue Yahoo.
Question. Is it possible for a chinese to connect to the TOR network and thus avoid detection?
Businesses that operate in the US must obey US law. Businesses that operate in China must obey Chinese laws.
If you or your company finds local laws and customs distasteful or inhumane, then you should pack your bags and go home. It is not the responsibility of companies, or even a foreign government to dictate to a nation what laws are right and wrong.
If the citizens of China feel their government's behavior is heavy-handed, then the people of that nation should force change. Power is derived from the people - not from foreign companies or governments.
Many people argue that the citizens of China could never rise against the well-armed military machine of the Chinese government. I say bull - a solitary assassin's bullet is very effective and does not require a military machine to implement; I didn't say it was going to be easy. After a few key leaders get capped the rest might notice....
Americans seem to feel that every other nation should be like America. There may actually be parts of the world that don't want Wal-Mart, GM cars, women's rights, free-speech, representative government, capitalism....etc. If these things are not wanted, why should we force them?
-ted
Wrong website. You should look in the Yahoo! HK site instead. Specifically, Yahoo! HK's Privacy Policy.
Furthermore, as a company registered in Hong Kong, Yahoo! HK falls under Hong Kong jurisdiction, where there are laws regarding privacy such as the Personal (Data) Privacy Ordinance. Some info here. In fact Hong Kong's Privacy Commissioner Office is currently investigating Yahoo! HK on whether it has breached any HK laws.
You seem to be assuming that because these things come from corporations, that without corporations we would not have them. That is ridiculous. There could be an infinite number of alternative systems that would provide all those things and more, without the evil that corporations also produce.
When corporations were first created, they were very limited. They could only do the business they were chartered to do, in the area they were chartered to do it in. They were dissolved when the last founding member died, and could be dissolved at any time for breaking their corporate charter. They had no rights as a person.
They were essentially fiefdoms granted by the crown, but not tied to a piece of land or a group of serfs. As such, the kings knew they were an inherent threat to any sovereign power. But they didn't put enough safeguards in place, and gradually the corporate structure caused money to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, which led to corporations being able to buy favorable laws, which exacerbated the money/power problem evgen further.
You need to grow up and realize that evil is evil, even if it produces some good as a by-product. You also need to realize that the way things are is not necessarily the way they have to be. You should also realize that just because you can't think of a better alternative doesn't mean there isn't one.
And finally, it may help to realize that if a system rewards you and allows you to believe that you got where you are through merit and not through any inherent unfairness in the system, you will be hard pressed to admit to or even notice any such unfairness.
Posting anonymously because I already modded in this discussion, but I'm the guy with the Monty Python argument sketch quote in his sig.
I put a bullet in the back of its headers and e-mailed the bill to Yahoo. I have had the account for many years. The execution is as pointless as Yahoo selling peoples lives for money. It just shows how well corporate America is aligned with the ideals of the People's Republic of China. What company wouldn't want access to a billion strong, subservient population?
I learned at school in Germany that companies are responsible for the politics they support by their actions and that this is one of the lessons to learn from my countrys past. But obviously my teachers were wrong.
Obviously. What you should have learned about the history of your country is to not allow a dictator to take power. Of course your socialist state wouldn't own up to it's own faults, much easier to put the blame squarely on capitalism.
Maybe some lessons on how placing the blame on others instead of owning up for your own mistakes guarantees you continue to repeat them would be of use. I mean come on here, you started, fought, and lost World War One, so you have to go and do it all over again with the sequel.
You let a dictator take power on a platform of hate and racism, and the lesson your schools teach you is that it's the companies faults for going along with it. Brilliant.
I'll go investing into some company dealing with the organs of executed chinese people now.
You do that.
Last I checked, no German company started the holocaust because on day an actuary said "Hey, there is an untapped metal resource in people's teeth! Hans, run the numbers, whats the ROI on slaughtering an ethnic group here!"
This article has recently been linked from Slashdot. Please keep an eye on the page history for errors or vandalism.
...is that the Chinese government does respond when people make noise about human rights abuses. It's just that companies like Yahoo are bottom-line oriented, and thus afraid to risk antagonizing the officials they have to work with.
As Reporters without Borders states, the solution is obvious: move your servers to a country where "federal regulations" protects rather than ousts the end user.,p> I'm quite sure that one of the prerequisites of doing computer business in China is that the physical servers are always accessible in an instant to Chinese authorities. I don't think that the Chinese government would miss a loophole that big. Besides, there's gotta be some advantage (outside of latency) to having email servers in China. Otherwise, why would anyone need any servers other than the ones in the US?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Three reporters are nothing. How many Chinese have died in industrial accidents making all that cheap plastic crap for Americans to buy at Wal-Mart? How many will get cancer from exposure to chemicals in factories, or wastes leaked into the water supply? How many will die early from breathing smog? Three reporters are nothing.
"A system organized around the weakest qualities of individuals will produce these same qualities in its leaders. The mark of the educated man is the suppression of these qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true of civilization." -Warren Spector
from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23googl e.html?pagewanted=9&_r=1
I expected Zhao to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. Microsoft came next; Zhao was obviously unhappy with its decision, but he said that it had produced such an easy-to-use blogging tool that, on balance, Microsoft was helping Chinese people to speak publicly. Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.
"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo."* The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage. (Yahoo did not respond to requests for comment.) Google, by contrast, had avoided introducing any service that could get someone jailed. It was censoring information, but Zhao considered that a sin of omission, rather than of commission.
*bold is mine.
If the chinese people hate Yahoo, then they will have no reason to use Yahoo. If they won't use Yahoo, Yahoo is not going to make any money. Therefore, for what reason is Yahoo in business in China? They're bleeding money in China and support in the United States.
Dat's wacist!
You're missing the point. It's not about whether they are allowed to do business in China, and it's not about whether they obey the law when they do. They are allowed to do business in China and they do have to obey the laws there. No argument.
What it's about is whether or not they are acting ethically.
If you do bad things because the law says you must, well, you're still a bad person. If a company does bad things, then they are a bad company. Law be damned, a simple statement of "it's the law" does not excuse their, nor anybody else's, actions.
Yes, they should obey the law. However, in this case they should suspend all Chinese operations and pull out of the country, and make it damned clear why they're doing so. What they are doing is wrong, even though it's the law. Instead of blindly obeying unjust laws, they should refuse and put themselves in a position where they don't have to obey those unjust laws.
And yes, it's a matter of degree as well. Google is wrong to censor their results to China as well, however they're not actually imprisioning anybody for free speech via the action of censoring their search results either. Censorship is bad, but actually helping to lock away reporters is one hell of a lot worse.
It's good to bring our influences to China and we should continue to do so and not prohibit it. But when having our companies in China means betraying our principles and ethics, then we also need to step back and stop doing those things.
And yes, I personally will no longer use Yahoo services in any way at all because of this. I've already cancelled my account with them. Nor will I use any of their services in the future until they pull their operations out of China. Maybe you have no principles, but I do.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You say everything legal is open and public in China? Hahaha. When so much is "legal" in China for the government to do, it's not difficult for them to do *anything* to the people. It's entirely legal for the government to whitewash everything and disappear people from their families. At least in the US that only happens to foreign enemy combatants.
% 2C31200-china_p10436%2C00.html# Were these people's cases open, and subject to public review, scrutiny, and appeal? That would certianly appear not to be the case.
The government of China is designed to protect and serve itself, not the people; this is the opposite of what the US government was designed to do, and even then, it does it poorly more often than not. When the state 0wnZ the media and everything, they make it all look like gingerbread and lollipops, when behind the scenes they're raping and pillaging! It's in their best interest! Can it be any more obvious?
http://www.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0%2C
Although corporations don't feel a responsiblity to anyone but their shareholders, the fact of the matter is that they should be responsible citizens anyway. Time has proven that corporations that are not do eventually get punished for them. Witness the companies in the USA that profited from slavery and the companies in Germany who went along with the Nazis. They've had to pay reparations to victims of their behavior, which ultimately does affect the stock holders. I'm willing to bet that companies who are currently helping China oppress their guys will be held accountable for their actions in the future as well.
I wonder how far off that future has to be. Could someone jailed for Yahoo's behavior sue them in a US court? Could the family of someone killed because an Internet company revealed their behavior sue the company outside China? It might be a damnd if you do damned if you don't situation for these companies, but I think it's time to make it "MORE damned if you do."
Oh and I think I technically just Godwined the discussion. Sorry.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
As mentioned previously on West Wing, our policy is:
"Kids in China will be sewing soccer balls whether or not we sell them hamburgers. So let's sell them hamburgers"
I watched a Frontline special on PBS online regarding media censorship on the internet in China. They made a point of fingering Yahoo/Google/Cisco/Microsoft and American companies in general for making this possible. Very interesting/insightful/informative. They selected four freshmen from Beijing University and not one of them recognized the "Tank Man" photo from Tiananmen Square in 1989 due to this censorship. The ironic part? After railing on Chinese online censorship for the better part of an hour, you get to part six of the video and a portion of the PBS online video is censored by American law. The screen goes black, and all you get is white text which you must read quickly. Censorship is being used in the United States to wipe out historical events while recorded evidence rots away in locked vaults. In China, we call the end result censorship. In the United States, we call it copyright law...
> easier to put the blame squarely on capitalism.
Yes, every other government than your government is lead by evil socialists.
Just - I didn't say that it was the corporations fault that fascism took over in Germany / Europe.
I said that it's the responsibility of corporations which regimes they deal with and support. But I understand that this is a little to difficult for you to differentiate.
If I understand your other points correctly, you say that
I'm quite happy then that you aren't the leader of the free world. Wait, are you?
> "Hans, run the numbers, whats the ROI on slaughtering an ethnic group here!
:-) A very good guess about what the nazis where about partly.
Guess how much of jewish valuables ended up in "aryan" hands... It's always about the money. k2r
I must say I am a bit disappointed by most comments found here. I had expected smarter replies basically. It seems the mighty dollar overrules any sense of morality or interests in human rights.
:P), brother, sister, friend suddenly disappears, gets tortured (oh sorry, I mean re-educated according to "traditional" and "cultural" values) and perhaps murdered due to Yahoo! giving their details to an oppressive government you will still defend the mighty dollar over human rights? It's so bloody easy when it doesn't affect you directly. I wonder what the people being tortured right now would think about such high and mighty statements.
Comments about if you want to do business there you need to abide to their laws. Correct... so by doing so, you have decided money is more important then human rights. And in my eyes you are wrong. It's not a very solid defence really for Yahoo!. It basically says making a profit is more worthwhile then human rights. Because China is an economic powerhouse it has the rights to do whatever it wants.
I guess those posters here also had no problems with companies like IBM supporting the Nazi's and doing business with the Nazi's when the US was wat war with Germany? Because hey, if you want to do business there, you need to accept their laws and as such you become absolved of any blame.
So perhaps do business there, as long as you can do it on your own terms, those that respect human rights and decent moral values (don't tell me the mass executions and torture are just another set of moral values we should respect and it's all "culture"). China is not really a communist country, it's just a good old fashioned dictatorship, with the most executions of any country in the world almost. Who torture their prisoners and who do imprison people for simply opposing the government. When it's some minor (compared to China) dictator like Saddam we all cry havoc, when that dictatorship temps us with money it all becomes alright.
So if your wife, husband (woops this is slashdot.. sorry wife's and husbands?
Well! For Yahoo! it is about money, they say they will do anything to comply with the local laws. But, when do you now if the laws are "just" or not? It is a same story of IBM selling machines to Nazi's so that they can keep tabs of all the Jews in camps! and they must have followed the Nazi law to the last letter! But is there is universal ethical or moral code? May be if Yahoo felt the pinch from the western users who would just stop using Yahoo! they may rethink the strategy, this is similar to not buying goods produced by slaves in 18th century, or not buying good which are non-bio-degradable. All these actions were influenced by a perticular moral code which people believed in and realized that they can make a difference. Just a thought! On the other hand you can say "THEY get what THEY deserve"
Of course all countries wants companies to respect their own local laws:h tml).p /2165101).
- US forced european airline companies to disclose private informations about passengers like credit card number, address or choice of meal. But privacy is really a great concern in Europe and disclosure can only be done on a case by case basis (http://www.epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.
- Yahoo! was sued in France because it was possible to find nazi goods on their site (http://www.lapres.net/yahweb.html). France also have freedom of speech but has laws to regulate "hate speech". Google also filters content of its french site like it does in China (http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/article.ph
In the same western governments creates a lot of business partnerships with emergent countries but don't speak a lot about human rights. "The end justifies the means."
Welcome to the world... It's not all X-Box360's and Coca-Cola out here. Welcome to death, dictators, human rights violations and hunger. The USA may try and be the world police and force people into a mold of mini-USA's but the truth is America is so separated from life and nature it's like watching an autistic child. Where in the world have you heard kids say "I killed him because I wanted to know what it felt like" only in America. Where children that are abused can receive no help but silver spoon fed brats cant get the spanking they deserve for fear that the parents will be child abusers. How many of us are guilty of measuring others by our standards, not listening but only waiting for the chance to speak again and damn the other for having ideas. We let corporations and money dictate social acceptability and if we can be distracted yet again oh well, forget the starving, homeless children in the good ole USA just so long as they don't quash my PSP releases or HD-DVD is compatible with my 1st generation HDTV. Maybe we'll wake up before it's too late and all our rights have us strapped in to a giant grid that all we're good for is consuming mass quantities and generating bio-energy and fertilizer.
Wake up people and look around, nurture each other instead of neutering each other
A pure capitalistic world would be a very grim world indeed.
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
Read 'IBM and the Holocaust', which IBM cooperated with the writing of.
IBM Germany configured, sold and serviced punch machines ran in concentration camps. They designed which holes were linked to gay, Jew, to be gassed, etc. Their defense was that they were a company stayed out of political arguments.
So jeffs72. If one day you are scraping at a double glass window as you and your family are gassed to death, then your bodies burnt and your fat used as fuel oil, remember this post.
Ted you have posted one of the smartest and non-biased posts I have seen in this entire thread.
America is not the nirvana Americans make it out to be. Sure it's got alot of great features and benefits, but you know what? Canada is a separate nation because it doesn't stand for many of the right winged politics the USA stands for. China is a separate nation because they have their own agenda also.
Now, there is a huge difference between Canada and China, but what people need to understand is that not everybody wants to shop at Wal-Mart, eat McDonalds, listen to rap music, and spend 10 hours a day on myspace because they are bored out of their minds in the suburbs.
It is my personal belief that there should be MORE corporate ethics and morales. Companies should be held responsible for their actions. Corporations need to stop being greedy and begin to give back to communities that created their empires.
Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
Kristof of the New York Times has basically called for a Yahoo boycott (I think he said they should be "shunned" until they make reparations with the families of the imprisoned and set up a scholarship fund for Chinese journalists.) Kristof also opined that Google received a "bum rap".
6 0815F63B5A0C7A8DDDAB0894DE404482&n=Top%2FOpinion%2 FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FOp-Ed%2FColumnists%2FN icholas%20D%20Kristof )
(Feb 16 op ed, purchase req: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F
Alternatives to Yahoo include www.myway.com, an internet porthole that eschews banner ads. ("No banners. No popups. No kidding.")
Boycott Yahoo blog: http://www.booyahoo.blogspot.com/