Slashdot Mirror
Jailed Chinese Reporter Joins Yahoo! Suit
taoman1 writes "The Associated Press reports that Shi Tao, who was sentenced in 2005 to 10 years in prison, is now seeking compensation from Yahoo. He claims the Hong Kong and Chinese branches of the company provided information to the Chinese authorities that led to his arrest. 'Shi, a former writer for the financial publication Contemporary Business News, was jailed for allegedly providing state secrets to foreigners. His conviction stemmed from an e-mail he sent containing his notes on a government circular that spelled out restrictions on the media. Yahoo has acknowledged turning over data on Shi at the request of the Chinese government, saying company employees face civil and criminal sanctions if they ignore local laws. It denies Yahoo Hong Kong was involved.'"
... that China is right in their efforts to censor the Internet or stifle free speech, but did Yahoo! actually do anything legally wrong?
You know - if as much rhetoric and time and effort was spent addressing the problems with the Chinese govt as with Yahoo obeying their laws, there might not be a problem in the first place.
Nah - too fucking obvious. China's perfect. DEATH TO YAHOO!
or you could just have been anonymous and use networks such as anonet.org to move information about!
it isn't hard
Laws arise because it becomes clear that something is morally or practically wrong. First, it is necessary to show that no existing law fits the bill; which means the courts have to investigate. Then legislators, under various forms of pressure, are supposed to legislate.
"Not doing anything legally wrong" is the argument of the crook throughout the ages when they've been caught doing something that offends a lot of people. At the moment BAe in the UK is arguing that redirecting large Saudi funds to a member of the ruling family as part of an arms deal is not legally wrong. The fact that the British government tried to suppress the police investigation suggests that My. Blair, at least, is not so sure.
So the answer to your question is, we don't know yet. It is for the courts to decide. And, if they decide it is legal, then it's up to the legislators of the US to decide whether now is the time to stand up for the Founding Fathers, or time to bury them a bit deeper.
Pining for the fjords
Actually I heard there were scripts to get the first post, and that it's how some first post trolls like goatse or GNAA trolls do it.
You just got troll'd!
Treason is aiding or abetting an enemy of the country. I don't see how handing over records that prove one's culpability to China amounts to this...unless you're REALLY scared fo the Yellow Menace.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I see posts asking if it is legal or not but does this matter? If country A passes a law that by moral standards is so disgusting can't people be held accountable if they still obey the law? If the law saws genocide against a people is legal and people do it, shouldn't those people still be held accountable? So if what happened in China is legal but makes the free world barf in disgust shouldn't the human morale side overrule the legal one?
Just some food for thought to hurt our brains on a Monday.
BTW, I believe it is illegal for US companies to trade with Cuba, for reasons supposedly associated with human rights violations. This shows that the US has in the past created laws directed against cooperation with another, specified government. So, not only is your rant off-topic, but you appear ignorant of your own country's legislation. Unless you are, in fact, a Chinese sock puppet.
Pining for the fjords
Best summary of the case:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2173
If the Chinese says that the importance of defending social order and national rights is equally important as the importance of defending against racism and individual rights, they could severly _increase_ the repression before they would even be on par with Europe.
It is not a question in most/all countries of whether free speech is curtailed, it is rather a question of exactly which speech is curtailed.
Go ahead, tell the Chinese that our concerns are right and theirs are wrong.
Yahoo has often recited the standard 'must comply with local laws' line, but have they ever identified which Chinese law(s), specifically, forced their hand? They were even asked point-blank, and remained conveniently silent.
Shi Tao's lawyer says there was "no obligation at all to follow mainland China's law" (from the article linked above).
Is there in fact any substance to Yahoo's position, or is it just a hollow public relations exercise? If there's truth to what Yahoo says, they could be a bit more open about this.
Okay, so this guy is suing Yahoo because he's under fire for breaking "laws" in his own country. Look here, if I'm committing a "crime", say uh, smoking dope in my Canadian backyard and some NDP neighbor calls the pigs, well my neighbor is an asshole but I was still technically breaking the local law. I can harbor seething distaste for my politically-inferior cohabitant, but I have no legal ground to sue him.
Do we agree with China's corrupt censorship ? No. Does that mean it's ok for us to ignore their government's laws and impose our liberal views on THEIR citizens ? No. This guy got what was coming to him. If he doesn't want to be punished for speaking his mind, he should move to a free country.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
No real case here that I can see.
He was in China when he sent the email
It was Yahoo China and it's subsidiaries that handed over the information
They were legally obliged to hand over the information (moral obligation is of no concern to the courts) according the Chinese law
The only reason they can even try to bring this to trial in the US is because Yahoo China is owned by Yahoo US
These cases are only being brought to give bad publicity to the corps involved and raise awareness of the China situation, I highly doubt they have any realistic expectations of winning
Plus them winning would be very bad for the US because not only would it be saying US > Foreign Law in that foreign country (never a good idea because it rapidly turns into a tip for tat situation) but also it would raise the question of countries or foreign companies in the US sharing information with the US Law enforcement about people, because after all US is now a country where you can be tortured and imprisoned without trial (Guantanamo and CIA prison camps)
> ... that China is right in their efforts to censor the Internet or stifle free speech, but did Yahoo! actually do anything legally wrong?
a in504730.shtml
IBM didn't do anything wrong when they sold their Jew, Gay and Gypsy tracking services to the Nazis. Yes: Really! They even had IBM Customer Service Engineers on site at Concentration Camps running the tabulation equipment. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/27/print/m
Yahoo Jerry Wang's argument is that Yahoo should comply with the law of the countries they operate in. In 1939 IBM did the same thing. Today helping a facist regime that's murdered thousands track people who dare speak against them, even anonymously, is reprehensible. Only hope one day Jerry Wang gets to feel the misery he's inflicted on others.
Reverend Lovejoy said "When the Government legalizes something, it's no longer immoral." It was meant to be satire.
Yahoo to judge:
But... Sir, we just complied with local laws according to our well known policy.
Of course we are sorry that the poor guy and his whole family had been cremated. But who are we to impose our racial points of view on a sovereing foreing country?
Who are we to say that or moral ideas are better? Besides, we must look after our shareholders. Had we not complied with local law whe would have to pull out of a very profitable market Sir.
Etc, etc..
I believe personal liberty that does not directly stiffle another person's liberty is a good thing (TM). Change is needed across the globe to this end.
Ideally, we would all like change to happen from within by awareness. There are repeated reports that governments attempt to stiffle awareness (maybe more so in China).
Attempting to force change externally often does not increase awareness because abstractions are created which shifts focus away from the element trying to be changed.
From this perspective, this lawsuit seems to directly target an element which I think needs to change. Not that Yahoo! needs to change, but might the lawsuit increase awareness within China?
What?!?
the op is copypasta. go look in my history for the goatse first post...
+5, Truth
Welcome to the reality. Our laws don't apply past our borders. So sorry. While it is morally wrong to do this, it's also perfectly legal in China. A similar example would be in the U.S. - there are laws for indecency and pandering and such(as well as certain drugs) that just don't apply in Amsterdam. You can get arrested and thrown in jail in the U.S. for what over there is considered not to really be an issue, legally.
http://www.editorsweblog.org/editors_forum/2007/06 /golden_pen_of_freedom_awarded_to_jailed.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Pen_of_Freedom _Award
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Tao
The personal data of Shi was leaked by Yahoo Hong Kong but NOT Yahoo China.
Yahoo Hong Kong probably violated HK privacy law.
Under "one country, two system", Yahoo Hong Kong ONLY need to obey HK Law. While China asked them to give data, they can just refuse to do so.
And yahoo sucks because they surrender under the pressure of China.