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.'"

Comments

Not to suggest ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... that China is right in their efforts to censor the Internet or stifle free speech, but did Yahoo! actually do anything legally wrong?

Re:Not to suggest ...

[Stormx2]

From the article:

Shi's legal challenge, filed on May 29 in U.S. District Court, is part of a lawsuit filed earlier by the World Organization for Human Rights USA. The group is suing Yahoo Inc. and its subsidiary in Hong Kong. Also named is Alibaba.com Inc., a Yahoo partner that runs Yahoo China.

He's suing in a U.S. court. I'm fairly sure there are laws in the U.S. prohibiting companies governed by U.S. law from giving away confidential data (in this case the email) to countries where it is likely to get the person imprisoned.

It would certainly be illegal in the UK under the data protection act, I don't know much about U.S. law.

Re:Not to suggest ...

[ubrgeek]

I suppose it depends on the language of the EULA (Which I have zero desire to read.)

Re:Not to suggest ...

[jellie]

The article lacks detail regarding the actual claims and which lawsuit it is, considering that there are probably many lawsuits against China by dissidents who have been oppressed or punished by the country. Here's an article from the Washington Post, dated two months ago, that said Wang Xiaoning filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! (I'm guessing this is the same suit). They argue that by giving up their information, Yahoo! is supporting torture (I believe), a violation of the Alien Tort Statute. My guess is that this Shi Tao is being added as a plaintiff to this lawsuit. From the article:

The suit, in trying to hold Yahoo accountable, could become an important test case. Advocacy groups are seeking to use a 217-year-old U.S. law to punish corporations for human rights violations abroad, an effort the Bush administration has opposed... Yahoo is guilty of "an act of corporate irresponsibility," said Morton Sklar, executive director of [World Organization for Human Rights USA]. "Yahoo had reason to know that if they provided China with identification information that those individuals would be arrested."

If that's true (which will need to be debated in court), then yes, Yahoo! did do something legally wrong.

Re:Not to suggest ...

[morgan_greywolf]

So he is suing in the U.S., but where was he when he sent the e-mail? And from a legal perspective, does physical location matter?

Yes. Location determines jurisdiction, even in cases involving the Internet, unfortunately, at least in the U.S. and probably in many other countries. Now, in the U.S., a court may choose to hear some cases that do not technically fall under its jurisdiction -- in which case it is up to one party of the suit to challenge the court's jurisdiction at the appellate level -- but, generally speaking most U.S. judges will look at a case and then decide not to hear it if the case does not fall under the court's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction in the U.S. is decided based on the location where the event took place. There are some gray areas when it comes to the Internet. For instance, cases involving e-commerce disputes can really fall either to the jurisdiction where the buyer is located or to the jurisdiction where the seller is located, absent any agreement deciding jurisdiction of disputes at the time of purchase.

In cases involving the liability of e-mails or other electronic communication, jurisdiction can fall either at the sender's location or at the receiver's location.

Interstate and international communication and e-commerce almost always fall under the federal circuit courts and not at the state level.

Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[Flying pig]

Yahoo on the face of it did something that was morally wrong. Law is not something that is fixed and unchanging, it evolves, and the Internet being so new, the laws affecting it are likely to be inadequate and out of date.

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.

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[speaker of the truth]

NOT to have turned over this information would have been at least as 'morally reprehensible' as turning it over because individuals would suffer for it -and- they would be breaking the law. Bullshit. In no way is losing money is as morally reprehensible as being thrown in jail for trying to shed light on censorship. Nowhere near even close. And that's all that would happen to Yahoo, it would lose money because it wouldn't be able to operate under Chinese law and so therefore would have to pull out. However they chose to operate under Chinese law, and so therefore they should be held accountable for every morally reprehensible thing they do.

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[speaker of the truth]

after all the US has a death penalty and their companies may horror of horrors be forced to help the police in a murder case (where the suspect is likely to face the death penalty). Funny you should mention that as not all countries are willing to help us in murder cases. The example of Canada comes to mind.

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[trippeh]

The example of Canada comes to mind

What does Canada have to do with this? This isn't an American murder on Canadian soil, this isn't an extradition case. This is one man subverting a government he sees as unfit to govern, which is against the laws set by said government, him being found out due to the actions of a certain company, and the moral and social ramifications thereof. Where did Canada and the death penalty come into this?

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[Rakishi]

They came from my previous post and apparently you can't read. Anyway.

Morals are not black and white nor can they be agreed upon by all, laws exist to set a line in the sand. You wish to set a line in the sand based on the morals of the people and so I mentioned cases where other countries go against US morals or vice-versa.

So what if a Canadian company was asked to provide emails for a police investigation into a serial murdered in a state with the death penalty?

Since to many Canadians the death penalty is immoral I take it would the company be justified in refusing? If the US had laws that force US companies to act such a way in China would it not be hypocritical to not let the Canadian company do likewise?

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[speaker of the truth]

Who are we to say that OUR moral code is more valid than the Chinese government's moral code? That sounds like a great way to let anything happen. Genocide in a small african nation? Not our problem, perhaps their moral code is different. Trampling of civil liberties in Europe? Well we'd like to help, but perhaps the moral code of those Europeans are different so we just can't risk it.

Or we could accept that some things are morally repugnant and do everything in our power to stop those we can.

Also, what happens to the people who are working for Yahoo!China? Do they lose their jobs just so Yahoo! can be morally upright? People always say how another search company will rise to replace Yahoo if it leaves, so these people aren't out of jobs, they'll just be hired by those we can't deter from operating in China.

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[speaker of the truth]

we are talking about employees of theirs going to JAIL under the same oppressive regime that is forcing them to hand over the info. Yahoo employees cannot go to jail for breaking Chinese law if they do not operate out of China. Its that simple. They choose to operate out of China, therefore they choose to do morally repugnant things.

Re:Is "morally" dead nowadays?

[truckaxle]

In other words, NOT to have turned over this information would have been at least as 'morally reprehensible' as turning it over because individuals would suffer for it -and- they would be breaking the law.

Just who would be suffering for it by not turning over this information? Laws are man made artifices that often go against higher ethical laws. In Nazi Germany it was against the law to hide Jews. In the US at one time it was not against the law to keep and abuse other humans. Today, in several ME countries it is against the law for women to drive or to openly defect from the state religion.

But this isn't treason

[BlackCobra43]

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.

Re:You didn't read my post

[Rakishi]

I didn't say I wanted any such thing. I said it was up to the courts to decide whether or not an offence had been committed, and, if not, whether legislators might decide to legislate for the future. Your rant has absolutely nothing to do with my post. Sure it does, its about the legislation of morality which is something you mentioned. Not the fake sort of legislation that would pass, not the half assed one that is the limit of US voter attention spans but true moral legislation applied to US corporate behavior.

This shows that the US has in the past created laws directed against cooperation with another, specified government. Yet US companies deal with lots of other not so nice countries. Nor is the law that they can't do X in cuba but rather that they can't do anything in cuba period. That's my point, isolationism is the only method to ensure this and since all countries have differing laws (that encroach on each others morals in one way or another) only total isolationism is a solution.

Unless you are, in fact, a Chinese sock puppet. Fucking kick ass, yet another one to add to my list of "things I have been called." I wonder if this balances that capitalist pig item.

I do so love the assumptions people make when I talk from a rational and logical point of view (to me at least), apparently we're all expected to blind never changing zealots that keep to some invisible personal party line.

What Yahoo doesn't say

[whamett]

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.

China sucks, film at 11

[billcopc]

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.

Reap what you sow

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> ... that China is right in their efforts to censor the Internet or stifle free speech, but did Yahoo! actually do anything legally wrong?

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/ma in504730.shtml

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.

When in China...

[Plekto]

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.