Yahoo! Asks That Chinese Rights Suit Be Dismissed

Eviliza writes that Yahoo! is asking that the suit filed against it over the infringement of a Chinese journalist's civil rights be dismissed in US courts this week. The company has stated that it had no choice but to give up the journalist's information, as it's Chinese subsidiary is subject to Chinese laws. "'Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws,' the company said in its filing. But Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights said the company had failed to meet its ethical responsibilities. 'Even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but US law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad,' he said."

Comments

Yahoo! is correct

[geoffrobinson]

If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue.

I'm not thrilled that Yahoo! did what they did. Primarily because I don't like putting exclamation points in the middle of my sentences, but I believe they are correct according to the law.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Daimanta]

In my country it is forbidden to use exclamation marks in the middle of a sentence. You will be arrested and prosecuted. Anything you type can and will be used against you. Resistance is futile.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

China signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is enough to justify suing an international company for violating human rights in my opinion.

There has to be some limit to what an international company can do in violation of human rights. Would supplying genocide chemicals be too far even if it is not in violation of a nation's laws (obviously)? What is the limit? Do international agreements mean nothing?

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Austerity Empowers]

Yet what kind of global economy are we creating when by doing business with countries like this, we are allowing possibly overpaid jobs in a possibly overpriced free country (relatively speaking), go to a cheap location with an unsuitable government?

Isn't this just highlighting the fact that we should not be doing business with our enemies? Isn't letting them hide behind the laws of an oppressive nation creating a global economy at the expense of freedoms the western world fought long and hard for?

China is addicted to the crack, now is the time to take it away from them, and get them into the "paying for it" model.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Daimanta]

Do international agreements mean nothing? If a nation has sufficient power, he can pretty much all international law. *cough US and China cough*

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

I think you'd better reconsider your analogy. It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve for cheap toothpaste, cheap toys and cheap dog food.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

I believe they are correct according to the law.

Really? Last I checked, it was still illegal for Americans to violate human rights, even while overseas. Also, hasn't the "compelled to by the government" defense been pretty thoroughly rejected already?

Of course, this may have changed during the last seven years, just like the government's understanding of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment, so perhaps you're right.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Ajehals]

If a nation has sufficient power, he can pretty much all international law. Write?
Ignore?
Enforce?
Obey?
Invalidate?
Disagree With?
Agree With?

(All of the above I would say, selectively.)

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve for cheap toothpaste, cheap toys and cheap dog food.

Exactly. I see this variety of doublethink at farmers' markets up here. Many people in this moneyed college town, who will fulminate endlessly about the need for agriculture companies to stop polluting and start paying their workers a living wage, are somehow offended that a local organic farmer is charging $4/lb for tomatoes. "But I can get tomatoes at the store for less than half that!"

Lots of folks preach a good sermon, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices to put their words into action.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

The real irony is now this out-of-control economic "success" in China is spawning a corrupt attitude that you can package any shit you like in a box, stamp "Barbie" on it and send it off to eager kiddies in far off lands. The West is getting its just desserts for doing business with a nation which has completely removed the notion of the rule of law over the last century. China is about profits, about getting influence through the Party and military hieararchies, about local officials skimming off the top just like the old warlords of Nationalist China's day, and about a pack of fearful, demented technocrats who want to divert the Chinese populace from their incompetence and hypocrisy by giving them cell phones and flatscreen TVs.

I guarantee you, some day, when the cowards at the top and the corrupt in the middle are finally taken out, Yahoo and its ilk will not be remembered as liberators of China, but as profiteers.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

Ah, you see, but that's where the handy notions of the subsidiary and of brand licensing come into play. It's not really Yahoo, Microsoft and Google giving up people to be imprisoned and tortured, and its not really Cisco building the Great Firewall of China to keep the Chinese people oppressed, it's some Chinese outfits licensing their company names doing it.

All perfectly legal, and completely corrupt and immoral.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

The United States is about profits, about getting influence through lobbyists and financial manipulation, about local officials skimming off the top just like these thieves, and about a pack of fearful, demented businessmen who want to divert the American populace from their incompetence and hypocrisy by giving them iPhones, MySpace, and a War on Pretty Much Everything.

The names and ideologies change, but it's the same game pretty much everywhere.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

Ah, you see, but that's where the handy notions of the subsidiary and of brand licensing come into play[...]All perfectly legal, and completely corrupt and immoral.

My bad. I keep forgetting who writes the law in this country.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

That was the classic defense used by the Soviets and Chinese for decades. "The decadent capitalistic West has no right to talk because they have street crime, drug addicts and corrupt politicians." It wasn't very compelling in 1980, and it isn't any better a defense of cowardly tyrants today.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[upeters]

I agree that Yahoo! should obey the laws of the country in which it provides its service. However the same is not happening in Brazil with Google. There are lots of hate groups, pedophiles and other unlawful user groups with brazilian members, and the federal police - with warrants granted by brazilian judges - is unable to get the user information (IP addresses and other infos which could lead to a positive id of the perpetrator at his ISP) from Google. Yahoo's choice to obey is likely less because of the fear of breaking some chinese law, and more because of economic interests. Nothing else but hypocrisy, in other words.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[ad0gg]

Just because you're overseas doesn't exempt you from US law. Go use drugs or sleep with an underage person overseas and then come back and tell the FBI.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

That was the classic defense used by the Soviets and Chinese for decades. "The decadent capitalistic West has no right to talk because they have street crime, drug addicts and corrupt politicians." It wasn't very compelling in 1980, and it isn't any better a defense of cowardly tyrants today.

Not defending anybody, just pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect the rulers over here to do anything meaningful about the problems in China. I certainly don't endorse the immorality of either side.

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[phoenixwade]

If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue. I disagree - what would actually happen is there would be a larger legal separation between similar corporate entities doing business in multiple markets. In other words, Yahoo! China would offer similar services to Yahoo! US, but they would not be the same. So if Yahoo! China was ordered to give up user information in China, it would comply under Chinese law. However, if that user information was on, say, a Yahoo! US controlled system, Yahoo! China would not be able to comply, since it didn't have the information, and Yahoo! US would not comply since it violates US law.

Or maybe some other method will be worked out. Regardless of how it is accommodated, *"Chaos" in business practices is bad for business, and savvy businesses will find a way to work around the situation.

* Chaos itself isn't necessarily bad for business - Arms dealers love social chaos, for example....

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

Look, the whole argument put forward to bring China into the "fold" was that the only way we could hope to influence their system was through trade, that trade would give the Chinese a taste of what freedom can provide. It was a bogus argument. What trade has done has permitted China to build an incredible trade surplus and to basically hold Western economies hostage, all the while happily doing business with American companies, using Western technology to make sure that this great capitalist revolution does not produce a democratic revolution. They're hoping giving the Chinese population all the trappings of a free society without actually delivering any of the actual political freedoms of that society will be enough.

Maybe it will be, I don't know. Maybe China will find a way to deliver such a society without ever releasing the strangehold of a monopolitical culture. I doubt it, though. I think the cracks are already showing. The country is rife with corruption, and from what we can tell, the uneveness of how this great economic revolution's benefits to various populations and sectors within Chinese society are creating a lot of unrest. What we do know is that the technocrats and military officers at the top of the Chinese political system have no problem torturing dissidents and turning the tanks on their own people. They are killers with no meaningful legal apparatus to prevent them from doing anything they please. They, like all the Communist nations, have these meaningless dusty piles of paper they call constitutions, but that never produce any impediment to the exercise of raw power, or means of redress when the full scope of that damage that power has done is revealed (which it often isn't, we still don't know how many people were killed by Mao's Great Leap Forward).

Now, the West has lots of problems. There's corruption here, there are violations both subtle and flagrant to the constitutions of the "free" countries. As always, the wealthy oligarchs and aristocrats can wield an unhealthy amount of influence, but somehow, the people still hold an enormous amount of power, and can still upset even the most entrenched political groups. We have developed concepts like the rule of law, fixed elections (or at least, in many countries, limits on how long governments can sit), regularized courts with the capacity to overturn laws. We don't always get the results we want, and we can't always guarantee that the powerful won't undermine the system in one way or another, but no one can sit here and tell me that the citizens of the Western world are in a boat anywhere approaching the thought control that a nation like China tries to force upon its populace.

There's no perfect country, no perfect political system, and in many ways I accept that the West has damn little business trying to export its own political and social leanings. By the same token, I don't think we should have to accept that our own companies, which exist solely because the West adopted notions like free markets and free enterprise and minimalized interference by governments in commerce, can wander off to foreign lands and make vast profits, while defending their co-operation with laws we find repugnant and immoral in the age-old rationalization of "we're just following orders".

If China wants to build vast firewalls to prevent their citizens from reading uncomfortable truths (and even blatant lies), then let them develop their own systems. Cisco ought not to be permitted to export equipment to do that. It grew up in a democratic climate, and it *owes* us that. Microsoft, Yahoo and Google should not be permitted to open their logs to Chinese officials hunting for dissidents. These companies grew up in a democratic and free part of the world, and they *owe* us that.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Applekid]

Well, hold it one second, agribusiness is huge. Top executives in that industry, like others, are making several thousand more in salary than their workers. Tomatoes don't have to cost $4/lb even with paying fair wages and being environmentally conscious.

People in the western world don't go "Oh, made in China... GOODIE!" It's the companies and the people in charge of them that see China as a cheap place to maximize their profits that wind up causing these problems.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Applekid]

Replace: several thousand more
with: several thousand times more

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[OrangeTide]

The solution to the Chinese problem is not to ignore our own faults and problems. So your point is moot.

There is absolutely nothing preventing us from solving both problems, because they are totally independent of one another.

Likely the solutions are the same though, the people in America need to rise up and take back their government. And no I am not one of those people with an overly idealized view of America that has no historical basis. I realize that profit and business is an integral part to American politics, and always has been. But it's a matter of degree and a matter of fairness.

It probably all fell apart when corporations were given enough legal freedom that they no longer had to serve the community at large.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[m2943]

Would supplying genocide chemicals be too far even if it is not in violation of a nation's laws (obviously)?

There is no such thing as "genocide chemicals"; chemicals that have been used for genocide have many legitimate uses. So, the real question you have to ask is: can you hold a company responsible for doing business with a regime engages in genocide. And I think that has a clear answer: you can if, and only if, the government where the company is operating has restricted business with that regime.

Do international agreements mean nothing?

They mean something. What exactly they mean in the US is to be determined by this court.

However, generally, I think it would be good for Yahoo! not to be found guilty. If the US government believes that China violates human rights, it should take a firm stance and set clear rules for companies like Yahoo! Right now, politicians want to have their cake and eat it too, by condemning China to score political points and then still doing business with it.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

Cisco ought not to be permitted to export equipment to do that. It grew up in a democratic climate, and it *owes* us that. Microsoft, Yahoo and Google should not be permitted to open their logs to Chinese officials hunting for dissidents. These companies grew up in a democratic and free part of the world, and they *owe* us that.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I disagree.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

The solution to the Chinese problem is not to ignore our own faults and problems. So your point is moot.

Sorry, but you're reading too far into my point. I'm not claiming that inaction on the part of our government is correct, or the solution. I'm claiming that it's the likely outcome of this whole debacle, due to the motivations of our "leaders." We're not actually disagreeing, judging by your post.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[1u3hr]

The real irony is now this out-of-control economic "success" in China is spawning a corrupt attitude that you can package any shit you like in a box, stamp "Barbie" on it and send it off to eager kiddies in far off lands.

The only company that is selling anything in Barbie boxes is Mattel. Mattel pays Chinese factories to make them. It's Mattel's responsibility to set quality standards. China doesn't send products to the US and drop them by parachute. They're ordered, imported and sold by American companies.

China is about profits, about getting influence ...

And so is the US.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[SIIHP]

"It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve"

Well, the most important principal "the West" has defended is the right to self determination.

And yet, when someone (or some country) uses that self-determination to do something "the West" doesn't like, suddenly we see posts like yours.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

Well, hold it one second, agribusiness is huge. Top executives in that industry, like others, are making several thousand more in salary than their workers. Tomatoes don't have to cost $4/lb even with paying fair wages and being environmentally conscious.

They do indeed, if you buy locally in an area with a high cost of living. The agribusiness model is predicated on quite a few things (monocropping, for example) that don't make sense on a local level (where people have a vested interest in the quality of their water and the ecological effects of the pest controls that monocropping requires.)

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not thrilled that Yahoo! did what they did. Primarily because I don't like putting exclamation points in the middle of my sentences, but I believe they are correct according to the law.

Cormac McCarthy agrees...punctuation is the devil

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[zippthorne]

Shouldn't this be kind of like the GPL? i.e. they should be required to satisfy the laws of both nations, and where they cannot, they should not do business?

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Colin Smith]

I guarantee you, some day, when the cowards at the top and the corrupt in the middle are finally taken out, Yahoo and its ilk will not be remembered as liberators of China, but as profiteers. Yay. The new Marx. Back to the idyll of subsistence farming! The proletariat deserve nothing less.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

Isn't that how it works already? Subsidiaries are created (100% Chinese!!!!!), who pay some form of fees, which is the way in which profits are funnelled back to the US corporation. I don't know about Yahoo, but that's what Google China essentially is.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[SydShamino]

Yup. In my country, we require all foreign companies to own and operate one of our death camps, as a condition of doing business. We send them political prisoners to be gassed.

It would cause chaos to allow the foreign relatives of our victims to sue these companies for wrongful death. After all, they have to follow our laws if they want to do business in our country.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent modded 50% informative, 50% insightful. Moderators 100% retarded.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[RexRhino]

If you stop doing buisness with countries that violate human rights:

1) You are going to stop doing buisness with pretty much every country, because they all have their own dirty laundry.

2) You aren't nessicarily going to encourage the country that you are isolating from doing bad things... the more isolated a country is, the worse the human rights situation is going to be.

3) Different countries have different ideas about what is human rights, so by taking action you are asserting the superiority of your culture - Hardly a peaceful and tolerant action.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[RexRhino]

They do indeed, if you buy locally in an area with a high cost of living. The agribusiness model is predicated on quite a few things (monocropping, for example) that don't make sense on a local level (where people have a vested interest in the quality of their water and the ecological effects of the pest controls that monocropping requires.) If you look at high-density population centers in North America and Western Europe, and combine that with highest possible crop yields of nearby farmable land, you will see that buying locally is pretty much impossible for the vast majority of people. Local produce is a luxury good.

The survival of our urban population absolutly depends on the modern agribusiness model. At least until atomic powered multi-story hydroponic urban farming is possible and politically acceptable.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[NeutronCowboy]

What we do know is that the technocrats and military officers at the top of the Chinese political system have no problem torturing dissidents and turning the tanks on their own people.

You know what's really scary? The amount of Chinese living in China and abroad that supported and still support this action. And I'm not talking about the Chinese equivalent of a redneck - I'm talking about smart, educated people who just happen to think that western-style democracy will destroy China.

They are killers with no meaningful legal apparatus to prevent them from doing anything they please.

True. Strangely enough, no matter how autocratic, the Chinese rulers have always been terrified of failing their Heavenly Mandate. If they can't deliver on their promises of stability, food and glory for the nation, they'll lose their mandate and.... well, this hasn't happened in a while, so it's hard to say how that'll play out. But there is a good reason why current Chinese leaders are very worried about keeping a good face: they know that they're at the top only for as long as they deliver what the masses clamor for (currently: having money and returning China to its historic superpower status). The execution of the minister responsible for the equivalent of the FDA shows how seriously the Chinese Party takes the current quality scandal. They know that if they let this fester, the entire country could unravel.

That said.... this is merely an explanation of the Why of how China works. I loathe the Chinese emphasis on national stability over individual liberty. But that doesn't change what we can continue to expect from China.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[RexRhino]

Really? Last I checked, it was still illegal for Americans to violate human rights, even while overseas. Actually, it is illegal for foreign subsidieries of U.S. companies to disobey the laws of the countries they do buisness in. In this case, it would be a violation of U.S. law not to turn over the data to the Chinese.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[RexRhino]

Just because you're overseas doesn't exempt you from US law. Go use drugs or sleep with an underage person overseas and then come back and tell the FBI. Turning over data to police who have a warrant is not illegal in the United States, nor in China. If you want to argue the legitimacy of the Chinese government, that is fine... but you don't do that by trying to extort money from a U.S. company.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MadUndergrad]

Anecdote: My friend at a university (in the US) has a Chinese math professor, Dr. Chang. One day she wore to class a sweater with the image of a tank on it. When asked about the tank, she happily told the students that it was a Tiananmen Square sweater. Apparently it was commemorating the massacre there.

How's that for scary?

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

I'm sorry, but I'd need at least some sort of citation to accept that

it would be a violation of U.S. law not to turn over the data to the Chinese.

I imagine that, if the issue were so clear-cut, the case would have already been thrown out of court.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

The survival of our urban population absolutly depends on the modern agribusiness model.

Tragic, I know. Industrial agribusiness as practiced in the 20th century has created a large population whose food supply is utterly dependent on oil prices, requires rapid technological innovation to come up with new ways to tease productivity from degraded soil, and is greatly composed of nutritionally inferior food. Such has generally been the lot of urban populations in the past (except for the oil issue), but never to the present degree. Of course, we can probably keep it going as long as the economy holds together, but we're setting ourselves up for a serious hurtin' if another depression blows through.

Hey, if I had all the answers to the food supply issues of the 21st century, I'd have a PhD and tenure faster than I can hit the "Submit" button.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[AhtirTano]

The U.S. Government outlawed many traditional songs and dances performed by Native American tribes, because they were viewed as subversive or counter to the government's policy of integration. Some tribes started performing these activities in secret, others shifted to performing them to coincide with American holidays. If they weren't allowed to do an Eagle Dance, they would do it on the Fourth of July and say they were celebrating the founding of America. If they otherwise kept their noses clean, the FBI and BIA agents let them get away with it. But this wasn't a sign of embracing American culture. What they were really doing was finding a way to keep the memory of their culture alive against an oppressive regime.

So, does this Chinese math professor really commemorate the massacre? Or has she found a way to remind her students and colleagues of what happened, using rhetoric that won't get her pegged as a dissident and punished? And, how do you, or the Chinese government, tell the difference?

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[NeutronCowboy]

Apparently, your anecdote differs from mine. :) I'm not saying that all Chinese are lobbying for tanks to crush any dissenters. But there seem to be enough out there to create a significant constituency - as much as a constituency can exist in China.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[krycheq]

In Nazi Germany, companies built the factories and produced things like Zyklon-B, the ovens for the crematorium, the rail-cars and transport used to conduct human beings to the death camps, the uniforms for the death-camp guards, the guns, and all the other enabling technologies that helped allow one of the worst crimes of human history to occur.

All they could say after that evil was stamped out was... they were following orders, they were conducting their business, they were making profit, they were obeying the laws.

Did that make them right? Does that kind of thinking really make Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, and the other technology-enabling companies that do business in China and help support one of the most evil regimes under the sun right? Does it absolve them of their responsibility as human beings first?

I'm sorry... but the whole corporate model is broken. The first rule of any corporation needs to be "Do No Harm"... not "Profit at any price". The ONLY reason China is able to get away with the vast amount of human-rights violations and corrupt practices that they do, is because we in the West tolerate it in the name of the almighty dollar!

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[skeptictank]

"If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue." I disagree.

The "I was just following order" argument is not a good reason and damn sure isn't a legal defense. This is the standard defense in almost every war crimes trial. Those courts don't go for it, U.S. civil courts shouldn't either.

Corporation are driven by a desire for profit, they will do any and everything within the limits of the law to achieve that goal, and that is fine and good. Generating wealth is what they are created to do. The government of a country has an obligation to hold a company to a legal and ethical standard. Western government have an obligation to hold companies that operate in their nations to these standards even when the company is operating in a foreign state. Especially one like China.

The Chinese government is not going to change their ways just because we buy cheap lead-laced consumer crap from them. They will be much more likely to alter their policies if big corporation tell them "no we can't do that because we will be exposed to civil litigation in another country where we do business." The rule of law only has meaning if the government of a country has to live by it also. The government of a country is only valid if it has to live by the rule of law. It is time that the government of China began to learn these lesson. Holding Yahoo responsible for their action in civil courts in the West is a good starting point.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MadUndergrad]

Given that this professor lives in the US I don't think she's worrying about being pegged as a dissident and punished. China's arms aren't quite that long, yet.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[sydneyfong]

The fallacy of Americans trying to solve the "problems in China": If the USA does not have a good "solution", how do they convince others that they can solve the "problem" better than anybody else? i.e. "If you can't fix your own problems, why should I believe that you can fix mine?"

A similar problem is this: the excuse generally goes along the lines of "it's not ethical to allow China to do blah blah blah". When one brings the issues of ethics and morality onto the table, others generally expect that one practices what he preaches. It's not terribly convincing to say "sure, we suck, but *still* we condemn you for being unethical and immoral... just like us! So let us fix your problems before we fix ours...".

And perhaps I don't really understand your culture and customs. But here, we generally don't try to break into our neighbor's house to fix their roof, or telling them that grounding their kids for not eating vegetables is an inappropriate way to educate their kids.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[ppanon]

The amount of Chinese living in China and abroad that supported and still support this action. And I'm not talking about the Chinese equivalent of a redneck - I'm talking about smart, educated people who just happen to think that western-style democracy will destroy China.
It's not clear that they're not wrong. Look at the USA. You have a poorly informed electorate (because the majority of public information sources are controlled by a few right-leaning corporate interests instead of a political party). Legislation is controlled by special interest groups that use money to warp the political process in favour of the rich and at the expense of the populace. Why should Party officials give up their positions of power for a change of oligarchy to corporate masters? Probably a good number of the intelligentsia can convince themselves that they are the only things that stands between China and even worse worker exploitation by external corporations, more corruption of public officials (look at Russia for an example of a failed communist->democratic capitalist transition), Malthusian disaster through the inevitable repeal of one-child laws and penalties, etc.

And for the next 30 years, while they continue a demographic transition from a mainly agrarian, pseudo-feudal society to an industrialized society, it's not clear that they're wrong.

The execution of the minister responsible for the equivalent of the FDA shows how seriously the Chinese Party takes the current quality scandal.
For instance, that's an improvement over what happens in the USA where some low-level bureaucrat would have been hung out to dry, the minister in question probably would have been told "Great job, Chuy!" and given the Congressional Medal of Freedom, and if that failed and complaints continued, charged and convicted of corruption, given a 5 year sentence, and then pardoned before serving a day.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[sydneyfong]

Irony.

Company_X should not be allowed to help totalitarian_regime_Y because it grew up in a democratic and free climate

I don't know whether it's right or wrong to restrict companies from doing things overseas for ideological reasons, I'm just pointing out that "freedom" may not be as straightforward and simple as you might have thought. It's a bit like the GPL vs BSD issue - do we mean freedom as in "do whatever you want", or freedom as in "do whatever you want except the things that restrict others' 'freedoms'"? Some believe in the former, some believe in the latter.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[ChemE]

There is a precendent already in US law. Any American or American corporation cannot participate in bribery or other forms of corruption in any country. There have been some convictions, but I am not sure how many or which countries were involved.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[dscruggs]

The West is getting its just desserts for doing business with a nation which has completely removed the notion of the rule of law over the last century.

This is laughably disproven with two questions:

Since China opened up in the 1970s, are the people there more free, less free, or the same?

Since Nixon and the US started engaging China, are we more likely or less likely to go to war with China?

I know a lot of Chinese people, have spent time in China and am married to a Chinese national, and I'm quite confident that the situation has improved there in every respect even in the last 20 years, let alone the last 100.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Johnny5000]

Well, the most important principal "the West" has defended is the right to self determination.
And yet, when someone (or some country) uses that self-determination to do something "the West" doesn't like, suddenly we see posts like yours.


Me again.

Seriously, I'm beginning to think you're completely ignorant of history.
For every example of "the West defending the right to self determination" you come up with,
your aforementioned "five-year-old on google" could find ten examples of "the West" interfering with the self-determination of countries doing things that "the West" does not approve of.

The most important principal any country has defended is self-interest, and when someone (or some country) uses their self-determination to do something "the West" doesn't like, the usual result is a war, or a coup, unless of course the very naughty country has a chance in hell of defending themselves, in which case they're just told that they're very naughty, and if they don't shape up, then we shall be very angry, and have to tell them a second time how naughty they are.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[SIIHP]

Congratulations on completely missing the point.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're really as retarded as you appear, or are great at faking it.

Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[gbulmash]

I actually feel bad for Yahoo in a way. They're in a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Had they refused the Chinese government's request, their Chinese operations could have been shut down by the government. They might have even seen their employees arrested or harrassed by the government for failing to play ball.

So they play ball, and they get sued in the U.S.

Makes me think a bit of the situation in Cuba. Lots of U.S. firms would like to do business there, have it opened up to trade, see relations normalized. I mean we've normalized relations with Vietnam even though POW/MIA groups feel the country still hasn't been as forthcoming as it could be on the subject of missing servicemen from the war. But POW/MIA groups can't swing Florida in a presidential election, so every president has given in to a small special interest group, and kept a hard line on Cuba.

So, while American companies are denied access to Cuba as a market, a source for materials, and a source for goods, those benefits go to companies in countries where a small block of Cuban immigrants don't hold the disproportionate political sway they do here.

The same can be said about China. If we let human rights activists use lawsuits to penalize companies for following Chinese rules while doing business in China, it just opens the door for companies from countries where human rights aren't as important and suing isn't as easy.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Doc Ruby]

Makes me think a bit of the situation in Cuba. Lots of U.S. firms would like to do business there, have it opened up to trade, see relations normalized. I mean we've normalized relations with Vietnam even though POW/MIA groups feel the country still hasn't been as forthcoming as it could be on the subject of missing servicemen from the war. But POW/MIA groups can't swing Florida in a presidential election, so every president has given in to a small special interest group, and kept a hard line on Cuba.

So, while American companies are denied access to Cuba as a market, a source for materials, and a source for goods, those benefits go to companies in countries where a small block of Cuban immigrants don't hold the disproportionate political sway they do here.

When I was in Cuba a few years ago, there were plenty of American corporate offices, all in one heavily guarded (by Cuban military/police) compound in one of the best locations in Havana, right in the center of the city. There were probably other locations, too, and certainly enough business operations to support their offices.

The Cuban "embargo" is nearly entirely a fraud, except the part that keeps individual Cubans cut off from the rest of the world, and (most) individual Americans cut off from Cuba. It's proven to do nothing to force political change there, and to promote political corruption here in the US (and in Cuba, and elsewhere in cooperation). It's one of the greatest political crimes in American history. And it's going on right now, and will continue tomorrow. Along with the propaganda that it is really an embargo.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[nevali]

I actually feel bad for Yahoo in a way.

So do I, until I remember that they're in China through choice.

All of these western companies set up shop in China and then say "well, we have to abide by local laws" when somebody complains about them colluding with the Chinese authorities. There's an easy solution: don't set up shop in China. You won't win anyway.

If all of the western corporations steered well clear of China (and other questionable regimes), and indeed Chinese companies, it would send a far stronger message than anything any human rights organisation would do, and shed an extremely favourable light upon the western corporations. Call it a voluntary trade sanction if you will.

As it stands, human rights laws are flouted the world over because corporations and governments get away with it. If everybody stopped doing business with the companies and regimes responsible, the world would be a slightly nicer place.

Nothing says "fuck you and your oppressive dictatorial policies" than the rest of the world refusing to take part in your GDP growth exercise: China's capital reserves wouldn't last forever, after all.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[mordors9]

That is why a company needs to thoroughly evaluate the legal and moral climate of a country before it moves to do business there. If they decide to go to a country that has a completely different values system then there could be problems that have to be assessed. That China would require Yahoo to inform on internal dissidents can't really be a surprise. As the old saying goes, if you're going to lie down with dogs, you're going to get up with fleas. If China orders them to assist in going around and rounding them up then sending them to reeducation camps, you really think they should be able to hide behind this excuse. Similarly if a company in a more liberal democracy does business in the US and the US government requires them to assist in surveillance that is contrary to their own country's laws why should they be protected. It would not be unforeseeable with a little forethought.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[gbulmash]

"So do I, until I remember that they're in China through choice."

Yes, but that choice is necessitated by the size and potential power of that market and the economic disadvantage of ignoring it due to moral concerns. It's like saying that a guy with a second job at Hostess should have quit as soon as he realized that Twinkies were contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic here in America.

Can you guarantee that if he quits the Hostess job, he'll find something better or equal before the loss of income begins to harm his family?

Can you guarantee that if Yahoo had refused to comply, its China-based employees would have been safe? Can you guarantee that the layoffs necessitated by Yahoo's withdrawal from the Chinese market would do less cumulative harm than the jailing that happened because they stayed and played ball?

Can you say for sure that Yahoo's long-term presence won't have a significant benefit, not just to Yahoo but to the Chinese people? Can you guarantee that if Yahoo left, the competitor who filled the vacuum of its departure would be more ethical/moral?

It's amazing how people are able to look at this as a simple moral choice, totally black and white, and not see all the finer implications. I'm not saying that what happened was good, right, or moral. But there are all sorts of difficulties with the other side of the coin too. In fact, it seems this coin is multi-faceted, rather than just having two sides.

- Greg

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand, nothing says "idiot" quite like proposing a solution that causes your own economy to fold like a house of cards when the Chinese stop investing in US Government debt...

Three words: Giant sucking sound

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[nevali]

"Can you guarantee that if Yahoo had refused to comply, its China-based employees would have been safe? Can you guarantee that the layoffs necessitated by Yahoo's withdrawal from the Chinese market would do less cumulative harm than the jailing that happened because they stayed and played ball?"

No, I can't, but then it was fairly a predictable consequence of them getting into China in the first place.

Was there significant shareholder pressure for Yahoo! to set up shop in China? Was it a make-or-break moment?

Guess what? It wasn't. It hasn't been for any of the big-name companies that's got itself involved in the Chinese market. Yes, it's extremely difficult to pull out now, but at least one positive aspect will result: other companies will be far more wary of joining in.

(Investors also don't look particularly fondly upon companies who fail to effectively juggle the legal responsibilities of the various markets in which it operates, because it becomes a volatile investment--even moreso when the market in question [in this case, China] is itself notoriously volatile).

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[vertinox]

I actually feel bad for Yahoo in a way.

Do you feel bad for IBM for selling tabulation machines to the WWII Nazi Germany that were used to help keep track of the Jewish genocide? Although, the genocide itself came as surprise to most people and even to most Germans, Nazi Germany's brutal policy of discrimination towards the Jews was no secret to most people before the war.

Not to Godwin this, but if you are a Tibetan Buddhist, Muslim, or Fallon Gong member you could relate to being a Jew in WWII Germany.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

.. "fuck you and your oppressive dictatorial policies" ..

See, thats exactly the point why I do not do business in US :-)))

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doc Ruby in Cuba.. does that really surprise anyone?

It's one of the greatest political crimes in American history. And it's going on right now, and will continue tomorrow. Along with the propaganda that it is really an embargo.

Let me get this straight -- the embargo doesn't really exist, but it's one of the greatest political crimes in American history? I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Ah wait, I already get MAD Magazine.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[rastoboy29]

Yeah, but I don't think it's complicated, ultimately.  The question is, do you want to sleep at night?  If I'm running Yahoo, I do.

Apparently, those guys aren't so bothered.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[ross.w]

See Cuba and North Korea for examples of why this won't work.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[notshannon]

Nothing says "have my cake and eat it too" like an
equity interest in an overseas concern.

Own shares in a mutual fund which holds Yahoo!?
Then you own a piece of this load of stink.

If we try to legislate divestment, then corporations
set up offshore straw firms to hold the equity in
the bad country -- just like US persons doing business
in Cuba through Mexican intermediaries.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, I went to Cuba, because I'm not a slave living in my mother's basement.

And I didn't say the "embargo" doesn't really exist, just that it's not really an embargo. The selective enforcement of it to keep Cubans screwed, allow Castro to keep his tyrannical reign, and allow some privileged American corporations to make money off the scam is not an "embargo", but a scam.

So there's a snappy answer to your stupid question. BTW, that's _Cracked_ you've been coloring outside the lines, not _Mad_.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The police knocked on the doors of the Chinese office. If the people there hadn't given them the information, the people would have been arrested and maybe shot in the neck...

Yahoo! was there by choice, like Google and Microsoft. But what would you expect the chineese employees to do? Take a shot to the neck because you would rather that they die for your beliefs?

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[jandersen]

Well said. So the US should stop trading with Columbia (oops, no more good coffee), Saudia Arabia (oops, no more oil) ...

You can see where this leads, can't you? Cutting off all communication with the rest of the world will give you a huge amount of problems and will not benefit the people that you propose to do this for - the people who are supposedly oppressed. So why do it? The unfortunate reality is that isolation and mutual displays of hate is self-perpetuating; look at Northern Ireland. They've been killing each other there with no hope of it ever ending - it was not until they finally TALKED TO EACH OTHER that things began to clear up. It was not isolationism, not constant retaliation, but talking, and keeping talking, no matter how hopeless and frustrating it seemed.

If America really want to change things in China, just to take an example, doing what we're doing now is pretty much the right thing. When you're friends, perhaps you can say to each other 'Hear, I am worried about this that you're doing; I think you should change your ways' - and perhaps the other part will listen. Enemies will never be able to do that.

Or, if you want to get rid of 'Cuba, the enemy on our doorstep' - how about trying to initiate a friendship? Isn't it better to have friends?

!yahoo!

[Nimey]

Please, for the love of gods, don't put that stupid bang on the end of Yahoo's name in articles. It looks stupid and it's an abuse of punctuation.

At least you're not as bad as the Register, which still thinks it's cute to bang all words in headlines mentioning Yahoo.

Re:!yahoo!

[jackhererUK]

I have never heard an exclamation mark refered to as a bang before, where did that come from?

Re:!yahoo!

[Scrameustache]

that stupid bang on the end of Yahoo's name in articles. It looks stupid and it's an abuse of punctuation. That it is, but it's their official stupid abuse of punctuation.
At least the Register still ridicules them for the abuse of punctuation they force them to commit.

Re:!yahoo!

[matrim99]

I know what you mean, the bang is silly and the person who came up with that idea should be taken out to a field and banged to death. The company's legal name *is* "Yahoo! Inc." however, so including the bang is technically correct, and omitting it is incorrect.

Re:!yahoo!

[ORBAT]

INTERCAL, actually: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/intercal-man/t onsila.html

Re:!yahoo!

[PitaBred]

For God's sake, stop calling it a "bang", it's an abuse of the english language. It's an exclamation point. Just because you're too lazy to type it out doesn't change it's name.

And I happen to think it is cute for the Register to do that. It's news AND it's entertainment. I'd rather read a Register story with the same facts in it as from almost any other news source. Get the stick out of your ass.

Re:!yahoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Bang" refers to "!" as used in programing, or other computer environments.

Rock and a Hard Place

[jackhererUK]

As much as I beleive in human rights for everyone it simply isn't possible for a company to comply with 2 sets of conflicting laws in 2 different juristictions. Perhaps Morton Sklar can explain how Yahoo could follow Chinese law and US law at the same time if the two are mutually exclusive, rather than simply spouting rhetoric.

Re:Rock and a Hard Place

[Sunburnt]

Maybe they can't. Shit, I guess that means that companies benefitting from an American base of operations shouldn't do business with repressive regimes through their subsidiaries.

Re:Rock and a Hard Place

[timeOday]

No kidding! Yahoo is quite clever to frame this as a "we have no choice" situation... look how many here are falling for it.

Just because somebody offers to pay you for something doesn't mean you have to do it.

To say that US law cannot control what Yahoo does in China is silly. If this were considered a matter of national security (a US subsidiary selling weapons information to China) I have no doubt the US govt would find a way to step in.

Re:Rock and a Hard Place

[BytePusher]

Yahoo could also have chosen to act ethically, despite local laws, rather they chose to act economically. Now, Yahoo is hoping to avoid consequences for an unethical decision. Yahoo is at can choose to violate human rights if they are willing to suffer consequences for such violations. It's ideal however, that a US based company which does not respect individual(_any_ individual) liberty according to the liberties provided by the US legislative body, would itself suffer consequences. I believe it is reasonable to expect US individuals and firms to treat clients according to US ethical standards. If a particular government does not allow a subsidiary to practice according to such standards, then the company should cease practicing within that government's jurisdiction.
 
      This results in a situation that ultimately hurts China if they choose to attempt to force US firms and individuals into acting unethically. Since, their economy can only be hurt by not participating ethically in the global economy. Therefore, it would be ideal if Yahoo were punished for their ethical crimes, but for justice and for example to other US firms that acting unethically towards clients is unacceptable.
 
      This will only benefit the reputation of the US and US based firms in the global market, since very few countries in the world have such high ethical standards(In theory, not practice of course). So their will be a temporary loss of profit for US based firms operating as a subsidiary of an unethical regime it will ultimately result in higher profits as those regimes realize the profitability of operating in the global market and the reputation of US firms is uplifted through the imposing of high ethical standards.

Re:Rock and a Hard Place

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as I beleive in human rights for everyone it simply isn't possible for a company to comply with 2 sets of conflicting laws in 2 different juristictions. Perhaps Morton Sklar can explain how Yahoo could follow Chinese law and US law at the same time if the two are mutually exclusive, rather than simply spouting rhetoric.

And again: you do it by STAYING OUT OF CHINA, not by copping an internationalized version of the Nuremberg Defense.

Who do you think would suffer the most from boycotting China? Oh jeez, consumer goods would get more expensive, and we'd have to hire more (gasp!) people in less tyrannical countries -- like say, Canada, Mexico, HERE in the US. Some years of economic dislocation, and then we adjust.

I don't see China faring quite so well.

There is always a choice

[Scrameustache]

The company has stated that it had no choice but to give up the journalist's information, as it's Chinese subsidiary is subject to Chinese laws. They had a choice between making money in China or ruining this guy's life because he believed in freedom.

Re:There is always a choice

[Hoi Polloi]

It is a good thing they weren't around to do business in Pol Pot's Cambodia. "We had no choice, we couldn't do business there unless we helped them kill all the intellectuals."

Re:There is always a choice

[Qubit]

They had a choice between making money in China or ruining this guy's life because he believed in freedom.

I think that you mean:

They had an opportunity to make money in China at the expense of ruining this guy's life because he believed in freedom.

I think that the issue is that companies like Yahoo and Google can earn a lot of money by allowing people in China to use their online services. Hopefully (and I think that at least some of the Google people have espoused this idea) providing such services to the Chinese people will lead to the downfall of authoritarian censorship and control. Of course, in order to keep operating in countries such as China, companies such as Yahoo may be legally required to submit to the whims of the current justice system...

So the big question is: Even if Yahoo is being required to cough up a few dissidents, in the long run is Yahoo causing more good (i.e. positive social change) than harm, or are they just in China to make money?

Re:There is always a choice

[MightyMartian]

That whole justification (which was really started by Bill Clinton when he pushed favored nation status on to the US and, ultimately, everyone else) is a pile of crap. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, hell the whole fucking world is nothing more than a pack of despicable profiteers. Does anyone actually believe that these guys are bringing freedom to China? I mean, is there anyone that is actually that incredibly stupid?

No, of course not. It's about the money. They will say anything to justify raking in the cash. It insults everyone's intelligence to come up with these pathetic rationalizations.

Re:There is always a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a good thing they weren't around to do business in Pol Pot's Cambodia. "We had no choice, we couldn't do business there unless we helped them kill all the intellectuals."

I see you're wearing a new hat today, Herr Godwin.

Re:There is always a choice

[Scrameustache]

20% Troll?

Some's got mod points they don't deserve.
Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.

Re:There is always a choice

[Eco-Mono]

Here's a lantern. Let's search for an honest man.

Re:There is always a choice

[StikyPad]

Of course they're just in China to make money. But that doesn't mean that the goals of human rights and making money are mutually exclusive. The freer people are to use Yahoo et al., the more hits, the more traffic, the more advertising, etc.

At the same time, we have very real limits on the freedom of speech at home. It's a crime to tell someone how to circumvent copy protection. It's a crime to be make "obscene" remarks on the air. "Hate" speech. And we have a history of persecuting and prosecuting political speech in the US. See: Eugene Debs. See: McCarthyism. See: MISA.

There's a fine line between ensuring civil stability and stifling free speech. These days we're slightly more tolerant than not of dissenting opinion, but it hasn't always been that way, and not everyone agrees that people should be allowed to disagree with the government (Papa Bear), or that people have the right to confront their representatives (free speech zones).

In my opinion, Yahoo's actions border on unethical, but they hardly cross any hard and fast line on acceptable behavior, and (as far as I've heard) they're not systematically volunteering information to the Chinese government. They were essentially subpoenaed to provide the information. They complied, and the government arrested him. Really, what would have happened if Yahoo hadn't complied? They government would have come in and gotten the information anyway, a bunch of Yahoo employees would be in jail (or worse), etc. Sure, it would have been noble of them to stand up, but who are we to demand that others do as we say (not as we do)?

Clearly, if anyone is in the wrong here, it's the Chinese government, and all this focus on Yahoo is drawing attention away from that. We're blaming Yahoo for emptying the register when they had a gun to their head.

Re:There is always a choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo apparently has staff in China, which means their choice was to comply and watch a journalist be imprisoned, or refuse and watch their own employees be imprisoned.

Re:There is always a choice

[shutdown -p now]

So the big question is: Even if Yahoo is being required to cough up a few dissidents, in the long run is Yahoo causing more good (i.e. positive social change) than harm, or are they just in China to make money?

That's not a new question. Is it okay to execute a man known to be innocent if it will save two more innocents in the long run? Is it okay if it might save two?

If you say "yes", then perhaps you should consider moving to China - that's the mainstream philosophy of ethics there. Luckily (from my hopelessly biased eurocentric perspective), things are different in the west.

I think not.

[apodyopsis]

they did not know what he was being investigated for?

I think not.

Beijing State Security Bureau
Notice of Evidence Collection
[2004] BJ State Sec. Ev. Coll. No. 02
Beijing Representative Office, Yahoo! (HK) Holdings Ltd.:
According to investigation, your office is in possession of the following items relating to a case of suspecting illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities that is currently under investigation by our bureau. In accordance with Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, [these items] may be collected.

The items for collection are:
Email account registration information for huoyan1989@yahoo.com.cn, all login times, corresponding IP addresses, and relevant email content from February 22, 2004 to present.
Beijing State Security Bureau (seal)
April 22, 2004

see:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070730-chin ese-dissident-e-mails-what-did-yahoo-know-and-when -did-it-know-it.html
http://www.duihua.org/press/news/070725_ShiTao.pdf

And even if it is local law, that does not make it the right thing to do. Even then they should of been more upfront to congress when asked about it. Shi Tao will be in jail until 2014 and thats no laughing matter.

Re:I think not.

[Sir.Cracked]

Sweet!

Since I know that terror suspects will probably get sent to Gitmo, I can safely simply ignore any of these pesky National Security Letters I get since I know they violate human rights, because they don't get approved by a judge, and may well result in illegal incarceration right?

Re:I think not.

[DeepHurtn!]

Yikes, either a free-marketeer who resents the suggestion of any government restrictions on profit (even if those pesky human rights get in the way) or a True Believer from the mainland modded ya troll! Hard to see what else could motivate such a mod. I

Re:I think not.

[Sunburnt]

Since I know that terror suspects will probably get sent to Gitmo, I can safely simply ignore any of these pesky National Security Letters I get since I know they violate human rights, because they don't get approved by a judge, and may well result in illegal incarceration right?

You can't ignore them, but you can sue the government for attempting to illegally force you to break your Terms of Service.

Of course, given the current political climate, you'll probably lose.

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo.

International Legal Standards?

[jadavis]

What are international legal standards? And are they standard between the US and China?

Either we allow a US business to operate in China -- and follow their laws -- or we don't. If it's too damaging to human rights to allow a search business to operate in China, we can forbid it.

Re:International Legal Standards?

[Mr. Underbridge]

What are international legal standards? And are they standard between the US and China?

Yeah, while I'm very much against censorship, I'm not sure exactly how these activists expect a US court to apply nebulous 'international legal standards' to this situation. There are a few problems with that: 1) apparently since China doesn't accede to it, these standards aren't exactly standard. 2) what US law was broken - in US jurisdiction - exactly? 3) When did international opinion become codified in US law?

Re:International Legal Standards?

[Dan Ost]

Doesn't a US citizen have to follow US laws while abroad?

If so, shouldn't a US corporation be held to the same standard?

Re:International Legal Standards?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Doesn't a US citizen have to follow US laws while abroad?

Generally not, I think - certainly the US wouldn't have jurisdiction for most such issues. They couldn't bust you for smoking weed in Amsterdam, etc. Even then, I can't a link to the case which specifies exactly what law is being allegedly broken, other than some ambiguous 'international standard' stuff. This seems like it boils down to "we don't like you, and we want attention, so we're suing you".

If so, shouldn't a US corporation be held to the same standard?

Yes, but see above.

Headline was funnier at first glance...

[charlesbakerharris]

...when I read it as "Yahoo! Asks That Chinese Rights Be Dismissed"

Can someone please tell me

[JustNiz]

Why most Americans think that US law trumps other countries laws even inside those countries?

How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Nimey]

Because you other countries are inferior and need to be shown that. You should all aspire to be as great as we are.

</troll>

Re:Can someone please tell me

[pnotequalsnp]

...because America is better.

No seriously, I'm Canadian.

--

I'll try to be nicer if you try to be smarter.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Fuji Kitakyusho]

Simply stated, upholding the principles of basic human rights and freedoms to all persons worldwide should supercede the civil and criminal laws implemented by any one nation. It is not a matter of legal jurisdiction, as that is pretty clear cut (i.e. the US does not have any inside China).

Re:Can someone please tell me

[catbutt]

It doesn't trump the law there. Both laws can apply, which means that a company doing business in both countries might find itself unable to comply with applicable laws.

If they don't like being in that position, they don't have to do business in both countries.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Sunburnt]

How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?

I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you meant, "How would Chinese feel if some Chinese company doing business in the U.S. claimed that Chinese law should not be upheld in the U.S.?"

Since the PRC government is more than willing to prosecute Chinese nationals for violations of Chinese law in parts of the world where the PRC does not have jurisdiction, this is still a bad comparison to make, especially since the U.S. will do the same thing in certain instances.

The question is: if the U.S. government is willing to prosecute some violations of U.S. law overseas, why not others?

And the answer is simple: Yahoo (and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation) has a better lobbyist presence than child molesters.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[peter_gzowski]

We aren't talking about some arbitrary procedural law here. We are talking about suppression of ideas and torture of dissidents. These are international concepts, ones which many countries hold up as bad behavior. If Yahoo knew that the information it was providing the Chinese government would lead to violations of basic human rights, then shame on them for being complicit. The Chinese government should know that if they want to behave this way, that they will have to live without the Googles and Yahoos of the world, and be an international embarrassment.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[twitter]

Why most Americans think that US law trumps other countries laws even inside those countries?

Right thinking people do what's right before they do what's "legal". Yahoo should have refused and paid the consequences. As many have pointed out, Yahoo chose to obey so they can make more money in China. They should have left when they realized they would be used as a tool in a system that will jail and torture innocent people.

How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?

I doubt officials from China will pay any more attention to US laws than they do their own. Non free is ultimately lawless like that.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[moderatorrater]

It's a suit filed by a chinese journalist. America as a whole has nothing to do with this suit and, as far as I can tell, it doesn't even involve a US attorney. Can you please tell me why you're generalizing this to all Americans?

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Karl Turd Blossom Ro]

Why most Americans think that US law trumps other countries laws even inside those countries?

This is because most Americans are ignorant or lazy about anything that is not barked at them on the TV. Only 15% of Americans even have a passport let alone travel to another country besides Canada / Mexico. In their minds, the world does revolve around the United States. It's sad but true.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are claiming that American law should take precedence to Chinese law in China.

Yahoo!, an American company does business in China through the wholly owned subsidiary Yahoo!China. The Chinese government went to Yahoo!China and said "Under the law you must give us this information." and Yahoo!China complied. Now, Americans are upset because Yahoo!China followed Chinese law.

Would you feel the same if a Chinese company's wholly-owned subsidiary was ordered under U.S. law (say they were issued a subpoena) to produce information and the Chinese company said "No, we don't have to because we are a Chinese company." which is basically what you are saying Yahoo! and Yahoo!China should have done.

U.S. law can not trump Chinese law in China and Yahoo! should not be held accountable for following the law of the land in which the servers were located after being served legal documents by the local government for said information.

Or should the U.S. attack other countries, including China, to enforce all U.S. laws in those countries.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

lol. typical european trash talk.

apparently you've never been to the US, or else you'd understand that the US (as the third largest country in the world) has plenty of things to explore without a passport.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Lord Ender]

Can someone please tell me Why most Americans think that US law trumps other countries laws even inside those countries? I don't know whether you are intentionally misrepresenting the issue or you just don't understand the topic at hand, so I'll explain.

The citizens of the USA collectively allowed Yahoo to exist. If they so chose, they can destroy it (an accept the economic consequences). The citizens have not yet decided whether their companies should be allowed to perform reprehensible acts overseas.

Personally, I think companies which do things like selling human-sized ovens to Nazis should have their corporate charters dissolved. This issue is similar but less extreme. The article is about using the courts to make this decision. This isn't about telling foreign companies they must follow US law in their own countries. It's about telling US companies they must act ethically if they want the benefits of US incorporation.

I know being blindly anti-american is trendy in some places, but making obviously misleading statements like yours just makes you (and the moderators who gave you a boost) look stupid.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

They couldn't possibly have the freedom to do that.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Sunburnt]

No, you are claiming that American law should take precedence to Chinese law in China.

No, I am claiming that American businesses shouldn't do business in countries where the law of said countries will lead them to violate American human rights laws, and that they can be held civilly liable in this country for such actions. If they don't like that situation, they can always stop doing business in that country.

Would you feel the same if a Chinese company's wholly-owned subsidiary was ordered under U.S. law (say they were issued a subpoena) to produce information and the Chinese company said "No, we don't have to because we are a Chinese company."

Yes: I would say to the company "Well, you have no business doing business here, now GTFO of this country," which is what the Chinese government should have done to Yahoo if they hadn't cravenly caved.

U.S. law can not trump Chinese law in China

Again, not relevant here,

and Yahoo! should not be held accountable for following the law of the land in which the servers were located after being served legal documents by the local government for said information.

Sorry, but American companies doing business overseas should be liable in American courts for human rights violations committed overseas.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[quantaman]

How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?

I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you meant, "How would Chinese feel if some Chinese company doing business in the U.S. claimed that Chinese law should not be upheld in the U.S.?"

Since the PRC government is more than willing to prosecute Chinese nationals for violations of Chinese law in parts of the world where the PRC does not have jurisdiction, this is still a bad comparison to make, especially since the U.S. will do the same thing in certain instances.

The question is: if the U.S. government is willing to prosecute some violations of U.S. law overseas, why not others?

And the answer is simple: Yahoo (and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation) has a better lobbyist presence than child molesters.

Actually there is a basic difference. Consider Country A to be the country in which the acts are being committed, and Country B to be the country who wants to charge it's nationals for breaking its laws in Country A.

With the situation of child molesters we are dealing with an act that if it isn't illegal in Country A, is at least not something you are legally required to do. Thus while the laws of Country B add additional restrictions to the laws of Country A for citizens of B who are in A, they do not actually contradict the criminal code of Country A.

With this situation Yahoo! is required by the laws of Country A to give up the journalist's information. Thus when Country B says that Yahoo! is not allowed to give up that information Country B is now contradicting the laws of Country A.

There is a fundamental difference, the first situation (child molestation) says that the laws of Country B can still apply to it's citizens when in foreign lands, the second situation (Yahoo! suit) says that the laws of Country B actually trump the laws of Country A when it's citizens are in country A.

Now there may be situations when you feel that the trumping of foreign laws is appropriate (ie law says you should kill that dude) and I'm not making a judgement on this specific situation. I'm just pointing out that your comparison isn't valid.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Sunburnt]

There is a fundamental difference, the first situation (child molestation) says that the laws of Country B can still apply to it's citizens when in foreign lands, the second situation (Yahoo! suit) says that the laws of Country B actually trump the laws of Country A when it's citizens are in country A.

It would be "trumping" them if there were criminal charges to be filed for breaking Country B's laws in Country A. Yahoo is being held civilly, not criminally, liable. If a company chartered in Country B violates Country B's law in Country A, then while they may not be liable to criminal prosecution (since the DoJ has no jurisdiction), they may be found liable for damages by Country B's courts. This is a risk of doing business with totalitarian regimes.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

And then we get genius posters like you who think regurgitating statistics they read somewhere makes them somehow better than the other Americans that regurgitate what they see on TV.

Why is your mindless regurgitation better than "theirs"?

Why do you pretend you're better when you're doing exactly the same thing they are?

Re:Can someone please tell me

[goldspider]

"and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation"

Wow, you sure stuck it to 'em! Way to show them your superior maturity, lashing out at their exclamation point and all...

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Sunburnt]

Thank you for your input. There's nothing I relish more than rebukes about maturity delivered by libertarians. Good night, flameboy.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Kalriath]

How the fuck did you manage to turn this into an anti-proprietary-software rant? Lay off the drugs! I imagine if Redhat or Canonical had branches there, they'd do the same thing.

Did it occur to you that one of the key decisions that must be made by Yahoo in this case is "Am I willing to have myself and my staff imprisoned in order to protect one other person?" All things considered, I would answer "no". In a dodgy country like China, the government would be more than happy to persecute not just Yahoo, but its staff and their families as well in an effort to get what they want. Hell, it wouldn't be the first time,.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[dbcad7]

A better example is this ... Lets say a Chinese resident has a right to free healthcare under their laws (they probably do, don't know)

Now lets say there is a Chinese company who has invested money into a hospital in the US (not a stretch probably)... I suppose the Chinese government could go after them for not giving free medical care to American citizens.

You see it's not about obeying laws in both countries, it's about applying the laws of one country to another.. I don't think you have to.. Otherwise there would be no Swiss or Cayman bank accounts would there ?

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right thinking people do what's right before they do what's "legal". !"

Where 'what's right' is defined as 'What America wants'. Whenever any South American state decided to do what they wanted to, America would murder their leaders and announce that really, what the state wanted to do was .....

You can see this thinking in spades in Iraq. The Americans invaded, and then assumed that what the Iranians wanted was a president, congress and senate, a national flag, and the death penalty.

What the majority of the Iranians wanted (being Shiites) was a theocracy. What they got was invasion, oppression, murder, rape and civil war.

Yahoo sucks, but ...

[rdrd]

... as I told you before, the stupidity is to let your personal security in the hands of Yahoo, Google whatever you want to name the company (yes, I wouldn't trust any ...). Their interest might not be the same as yours. That guy had a wrong approach, so he is paying for it.
I think different approaches would yield some better results (just thinking of some).

I'm sure that the current US gov, if requested, would expose every dissident of China, just for a percent or two in some of the state-owned companies there ... Don't you love this world ?!?

Re:Can someone please tell me - Sure we can

[Jack9]

In Islamic countries like say...Libya, it's not uncommon to punish (and execute) people who have broken their own laws abroad. In China, this is also true. Australia will punish (ban) people from entering based on activities outside of their country. There's NOTHING special about this case and Yahoo should be punished. It's the price of doing business in the USA.

tell me

[Anonymous Coward]

why is it that Yahoo gets sued for following the law in China while telecom companies get immunity for doing blatently illegal things against MILLIONS of people in the US? where are our lawsuits?

Re:tell me

[catbutt]

Ok, but only if you'll tell me why I'm in trouble for beating up my girlfriend, while genocide is being practiced in Darfur.

Please, world....only try to solve one problem at a time. Kthxbai.

Yup

[MightyMartian]

"We were just following orders..."

The universal defense of the repugnant.

Re:Can someone please tell me - Sure we can

[Scrameustache]

In Islamic countries like say...Libya, it's not uncommon to punish (and execute) people who have broken their own laws abroad. In China, this is also true. Australia will punish (ban) people from entering based on activities outside of their country. Canadians will be tried in a court of law if they engage in sexual exploitation of children abroad.

Just following orders is not an excuse.

[twitter]

If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue.

Ask the journalist who's going to be tortured in jail for the next ten years what chaos is.

There are other precedents for this "lawfully" following orders business, when that violates basic principles. If doing business means you have to hand over people for political imprisonment and torture, you need to find another kind of business. This is why the US, back when it had spine, refused to trade with non free economies. It is wrong to aid and comfort oppressive regimes. This kind of thing makes a mockery of the US "war on terror" and fight for "democracy". Yahoo's continued presence in China is continued endorsement of political torture and murder.

Re:Just following orders is not an excuse.

[Watson Ladd]

Non-free economies doesn't mean the people aren't free. We gave weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein in the 1980's and got rewarded when he used them to kill the Kurds. If that's having a spine, I wish we had less of one.

Re:Just following orders is not an excuse.

[digitalchinky]

>> Ask the journalist who's going to be tortured in jail for the next ten years what chaos is.

Even in China people have free will you know. Given that you don't live there, and from your language, have very probably never been there, how are you even remotely aware that this person will be tortured? Do you not think ~you~ are being hypocritical here? (I know I certainly think you are) Isn't the US condoning torture right now as we type these messages. Conveniently moving prisons to countries where the law is rather less particular about the methods. Maybe you should take a good long look at yourself and the practices of corporate America before you go imposing your misguided ideology. (Maybe you were just fishing for the +5 karma)

Because they were forced?

[Mr.Fork]

I'm sure Peter Drucker rolled in his grave when Yahoo handed over that information. It's nothing short of criminal activity - people got hurt because Yahoo made a business/money decision. Obviously, they did things right by following Chinese law which they are sidelining with. The RIGHT THING TO DO was to say "frack you - if I give you this you'll hunt them down - now bugger off!" - which would show true leadership and courage. It is now clear that the senior executives at Yahoo lack a moral conscious.

They're more worried about their dollars than the lives of people. How capitalistic of them. SHAME Yahoo. SHAME.

Re:Because they were forced?

[Remus Shepherd]

Not as simple as that. Yahoo's employees in China could have been arrested if they didn't comply. Thus, it was a case of who Yahoo allows to get screwed -- their employees, or some people to which they have no connection. They made the best choice, to protect their employees.

The *right* choice would have been to not get into that situation in the first place. When it comes to doing business in China, the only ethical move is not to play. But very few businesses are that ethical...or have any ethics at all, where the potential for profit exists.

Re:Because they were forced?

[ShatteredArm]

Oh, but then Chinese people would have no jobs and starve! Let's face it, this is the fault of the Chinese government for having a bad law.

Re:Because they were forced?

[Rich0]

Suppose a member of the US government/military is vacationing in Nastyland and is picked up and interrogated. The police point to a Nastyland law indicating that the government has the legal right to subpoena information necessary for the national defense, and requests that they turn over classified information. The vacationer faces arrest/punishment if they don't comply, so they go along with it. Then they come back to the US.

Would they be surprised if they were charged with treason? It is against the law to divulge classified information regardless of what the laws of any other nation state. Sure, the government would probably go easy on prosecution, but probably not if the US citizen enthusiastically dumped everything they knew even without being questioned.

US companies should be held to the standards of US law - period. If that means they can't do business in certain places, well that is just too bad. Why does Yahoo need an office in China anyway? They could easily run a chinese website from anywhere in the world, and Chiense-speaking persons are hardly limited to China. If companies don't like US laws they can also base themselves entirely overseas, with any financial repercussions that might have.

Why single out Yahoo?

[Sigismundo]

What I would like to know is, why is the World Organization for Human Rights singling out Yahoo? Lots of companies own factories overseas that don't comply with labor laws in the US. And I would say that is worse in some sense, since these companies are intentionally exploiting the people of the host country and differences in labor laws to manufacture a product more cheaply, and increase the bottom line.

Yahoo complies with Chinese law because it has to as a condition of doing business, but other companies choose where to put manufacturing plants because the laws are more favorable than in the US.

Re:Why single out Yahoo?

[DeepHurtn!]

Because it was a high-profile, precedent setting (in the court of public opinion, at least) event that could influence how other companies deal with these sorts of issues -- or at least let them know that yes, people are watching, and if you're gonna dance with the devil be prepared to at *least* get called on it. Your argument turns very easily into "there's worse stuff going on, so let's do nothing" (which seems to be what you're advocating in this particular case), and that obviously gets nothing at all done. The only people who gain anything by that mode of thought are those who perpetrate injustice.

blindingly obvious

[Scrameustache]

Even if Yahoo is being required to cough up a few dissidents, in the long run is Yahoo causing more good (i.e. positive social change) than harm, or are they just in China to make money? $$$.

Is Yahoo! correct?

[erroneus]

On the surface, it would seem that you are bound by the laws of whatever country you are presently in. But I think there are mitigating circumstances here. We're talking about human rights violations.

But let's just push the logical envelope and say, for the sake of argument that said foreign country mandates by law the death penalty for certain crimes that wouldn't be a crime anywhere else in the world... say, perhaps, speaking out against the government or refusal to wear a bhurka (however that's spelled) or being seen in public with a man who is neither your husband nor a family member? (Obviously I'm not talking about China, but I am attempting to indicate extremes that have existed and have potential to exist.) Would Yahoo! or any other company be required to support even THOSE kinds of laws? The logic being presented suggests the answer would be YES.

Here's another relevant question: Is "Yahoo! China" the same corporate entity as "Yahoo!" in the USA? Are decisions to cooperate with violations of human rights made by parties in the USA?

I believe it needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms either by law or legal precedent that US companies or companies that wish to operate in the US should not be allowed to operate in the US if they are found guilty of being complicit or cooperative in the execution of laws or other legal activities in other nations that are in violation of generally accepted standards of human rights.

Of course, such a ruling would have far-reaching consequences for many businesses that exploit child labor (directly and indirectly) and on and on, but I hold it would be the right thing to do.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[HamsterRabies]

I think that we should go back to the US attitude that made us so successful in the past- The one that says "I dont give a f*** what you think, our citizens are subject to our laws no matter where they live or work in the world." Also, this thing about bowing down to some world court is a joke. Also, this thing about respecting something that is foreign is liberal dribble. Getting along means that you know I can smack the holywhatthefuck out of you at any second and for any reason. Without that balance, there is no respect. We need to bitch slap some people in the US Gov for taking so much prozac that they believe that everyone should be happy.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[Sunburnt]

Awww...it's so cute when citizens of fading empires try and swing the big ol' dick one last time.

Getting along means that you know I can smack the holywhatthefuck out of you at any second and for any reason.

Ignoring your perverse definition of "getting along," I would suggest that recent events have shown that our military isn't exactly capable of "smacking the holywhatthefuck" out of very much these days, despite the ridiculous amount of money we throw at defense contractors.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[DeepHurtn!]

You pinkos sicken me. Where's Joe McCarthy when you need 'im. Everyone knows "human rights" is just a Bolshevik conspiracy. If "rights" really exist, the market will provide them, just like it does everything else. Sorry, I'm a little bitter today, and it seems I let my sarcasm run away with me.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[snooo53]

Are you serious? Do you really think the US military doesn't have the capability to completely destroy whatever they wish? A few dozen innocent people getting killed every day for years by terrorist attacks has a completely different effect than a hundred thousand killed by a few well aimed nukes, despite the similar death toll. In the first situation, more people are likely to side with the US, so that is the strategy.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[Sunburnt]

A few dozen innocent people getting killed every day for years by terrorist attacks has a completely different effect than a hundred thousand killed by a few well aimed nukes, despite the similar death toll.

Ah yes...I forgot that those who advocate a "smack the fuck out of everybody" policy consider nuclear options to be on the table as well. Although what good those options would be against international terrorism is beyond everybody outside PNAC.

Re:Is Yahoo! correct?

[Erwos]

If nukes aren't on the table as options, they're functionally worthless. That is to say, if I have a gun, but I am NEVER EVER, under any circumstances going to use it, I functionally do not have a gun, and it has no protective value at all. If I am never going to use nuclear weapons, I don't have them. Having them is a rather useful thing when it comes to fending off and deterring invasions and such, so any sane person who's interested in defending their country is naturally going to keep that option around.

Now, that's not to say I think nukes are an option that should be used in anything but the most extreme, dire situations. But just putting them on the table isn't crazy or irrational. The French have also, very clearly, pointed out that they have no qualms about responding to nuclear attacks on their soil with nukes of their own, IIRC.

And as for international terrorism, it's all state sponsored at some level, directly or indirectly. If you reduce the funding governments to smoking glass ruins, that'll put a pretty good crimp in it. The bin Laden family didn't make all their money in a vaccuum.

Again, not advocating that - only trying to point out that it's not a idea completely divorced from reality.

International Business

[nurb432]

That's one way to stifle other countries from setting up shop in your country. Make it almost impossible for them to do business.

Then once they give up and go home, tax their imports as additional punishment for even trying.

Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[darkmeridian]

American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions. The Yahoo! disclosure in China was more than legal under Chinese law, it was illegal for Yahoo! to have ignored the request. Cast in another light, Slashdotters mostly thought that American copyright law should not have applied to allofmp3.com, which was based in Russia. It is sad that Chinese law is so horrible, but part of doing business in China is to follow the law there.

Imagine if the American subsidiary of a Swiss bank ignored a subpoena from the FBI for information about one of its clients, who was thought to have links with Al Qaeda. I would imagine the bank would get shut down by law enforcement. This is the same thing; America should not be able to force other countries to submit to its laws simply because it is a big country with lots of money.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Allofmp3 doesn't have a business presence in the USA, either. It's a Russian company for Russians. Why would American copyright apply to a completely Russia-based organization?

How does the USA not have jurisdiction over a company chartered in the USA? What you are asking for is a situation where the USA can KNOW that an American company for example was killing people in another country, a violation of the rights that the USA has decided to recognize that EVERY HUMAN has regardless of location, yet can do NOTHING to that company even as it sits within her own borders. Why do you think the USA should just sit on its hands in that situation and watch people die? The perpetrator certainly is within its legal jurisdiction. You are arguing that US laws stop at the border for Americans. This is false. If you are American, try going to Thailand and have sex with a 12-year-old and brag about it when you come back. It's still against the law and your ass will be thrown in jail. Which is as it should be.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

It is sad that Chinese law is so horrible, but part of doing business in China is to follow the law there[...]Imagine if the American subsidiary of a Swiss bank ignored a subpoena from the FBI for information about one of its clients, who was thought to have links with Al Qaeda. I would imagine the bank would get shut down by law enforcement.

Gee, that would make so much more sense if there was some unalienable right of corporations to do business with repressive regimes. Of course, there isn't, so I don't see your point. If an American company has to have their Chinese operation shut down to avoid violating human rights, then tough titty to them. Doing business with dictators has always been risky for American companies.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[DeepHurtn!]

But why can't citizens (*not* "consumers") stand up and say: hey, *we* respect human rights, and we want our corporations to as well. If the price of doing business in some jurisdictions is violating human rights, why can't we demand of our corporations that they -- get ready for this -- *not do business in those jurisdictions!* These corporations, btw, take advantage of and depend upon the infrastructure and stability the US provides. Why is this so unthinkable to so many corporate apologists? What is wrong with the thought of citizens standing up and exercising their democratic right to influence government policy (including regulation of private entities such as corporations)?

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[darkmeridian]

Are you suggesting that no American company should be allowed to invest in China? I'm sure that would really punish the Chinese government. Removing a major source of employment in poor areas would really spite the regime! You know, like, it wouldn't just completely screw the poor foreigners who are now out of work and have to starve just so we can feel like we did *something* to oppose their oppressive regime.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

I'm sure that would really punish the Chinese government. Removing a major source of employment in poor areas would really spite the regime!

You're kidding, right? Massive unemployment, combined with an oppressive but overstretched regime, is a major instigator of political revolutions: violent or otherwise. That's not exactly what I'm advocating, though.

In case you'd not noticed, there's a difference between "no American company should be allowed to invest in China" and "American companies that invest in China should understand that this may leave them vulnerable to financial loss due to litigation."

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about disallowing American corporations to be complicit in human rights violations overseas, not about punishing China.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Secrity]

"Imagine if the American subsidiary of a Swiss bank ignored a subpoena from the FBI for information about one of its clients, who was thought to have links with Al Qaeda. I would imagine the bank would get shut down by law enforcement."

In your example, the Swiss Bank made a choice to open an American subsidiary and they should have investigated American laws before they decided to open an American subsidiary. Although the New and Improved FBI laws are crappier than the old laws, the requirement that banks operating in the US divulge customer information to the US government under certain circumstances is not new. I assume that the problem for Swiss Bank is that it may also be bound by conflicting Swiss laws regarding customer confidentiality; which they also should have known about. The directors and board of Swiss Bank should have known about the conflicting laws when they opened the American subsidiary, yet Swiss Bank went ahead and created their very own no-win situation.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[10101001 10101001]

American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions.

Sort of. Imagine you were standing on the border between Mexico and America, your left side in America and your right in Mexico. With your right hand, you pull a trigger and shoot some Mexican on the Mexican side. At no point did the Mexican, bullet, or gun, happen on the American side of the border. Now, further imagine that you've paid off the authorities in Mexico so you could shoot said Mexican without punishment. The Mexican ends up dying. Should the US have jurisdiction to try you for murder?

Now consider a corporation, with many feet in many lands, and instead of committing murder, it engaged in conspiracy to murder and/or kidnap. If corporations (and companies) want to be people, why not hold them to the same standard for people who would try to stand in multiple jurisdiction to avoid punishment?

PS - Feel free to change the countries and the offenses if you want to change the analogy with others. Smoking pot seems a good example.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[digitalchinky]

It would make far more sense if you weren't so ignorant. You truly believe America is the shining bastion of human rights? Try switching off the fox news for a bit, pick a different channel once in a while. How the fuck did yahoo violate this guys human rights? He chose to use yahoo completely of his own free will - a point that many posters here conveniently overlook - yahoo China was required to hand over information to Chinese law enforcement. They followed Chinese law and did so. Why the need to make such a big deal about it? The guy screwed up and said things that have landed him in jail, he screwed up all on his own. You want yahoo to be responsible not only for your daft outlook on the world, but also for what people can or can't say in email?

Sucks to be the guy, but he could just have easily reported on the traffic or butterflies along the Mekong instead.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

You truly believe America is the shining bastion of human rights?

No, but your assumption that I do is really quite cute, as is your assumption that I watch Fox News.

Sucks to be the guy, but he could just have easily reported on the traffic or butterflies along the Mekong instead.

And somehow I have the daft worldview. The fact that the U.S. government is shitty doesn't make the Chinese government any less so, nor does it make your apologetics on their behalf any less ridiculous. Judging by your posts in this thread, you appear to believe that everyone else commenting on this issue is somehow ignorant of reality in the PRC, even though you know nothing about their personal or family connections to that country. In my case, you're selling your bullshit to the wrong guy.

The United States has an expectation that its companies will not collaborate with totalitarian regimes, and even though its government may not be proactive in maintaining this expectation, people certainly have the right to seek damages from U.S. companies who violate this. The fact that you seem to think the Chinese government does not abuse political prisoners, as well as your ability to gloss over the political imprisonment of a reporter over free speech issues as "some guy screwing up and saying the wrong things," shows that you don't have any credibility on this issue, so I'll just burn some Karma by telling you to fuck off and stick to flaming people who will swallow your ignorant bullshit.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[sydneyfong]

So, what you are saying is that, it is perfectly fine to point a finger at another country's human rights violations (etc.) while one's own country's records are dubious at best? [Or are you really cute...?]

Sure, there's nothing preventing you from doing this, but using words like "moral", "ethical" (I know you haven't used these exact words, but the implications of similar meanings are rampant) in conjunction with this hypocritical view is really not convincing.

The bottom line is, if there are similar problems at home, why not strive to fix them before trying to meddle in another country's "internal affairs"? If you're an American, at least you got voting rights that might make a difference in the policies and politics of your country. Doesn't it seem to be a much more efficient exercise than mere finger pointing at the practices of a country on the other side of the globe? At least you *might* make a difference at home.

So the only reasonable conclusion from all the (mostly) Americans trying to "fix" China human rights problems is that they think their own country is so good in this arena that their efforts are better spent on futile attempts in messing with another country's politics that they have no connection to. So although the GP does not have a factual basis for his assumptions, I see where he got those assumptions from.

AND. If you do have personal ties with China, or if you even consider yourself Chinese (as you hinted), I'd note that trying to use foreign influence to change the landscape of China's politics is extremely distasteful (at least in my eyes). We've all seen how adept the USA is at fscking up a country (*cough* Iraq *cough*). When anybody from USA says something like "let us give you freedom", it's hard not to relate that with the "freedom" Iraqis are "enjoying" now.

I hope that takes care of you and all the "China savior" wannabes.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[sydneyfong]

A rather "technical" tongue in cheek answer:

I've heard that your left brain controls your right hand. And your left brain is on the USA side of the border. A simple expert witness on the matter should suffice.

Case solved :)

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[10101001 10101001]

A tongue in cheek retort: because the right hand carried out the action, but the left brain merely conspired to carry out the murder, it'd be conspiracy to murder instead of a murder charge.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK a conspiracy to commit a crime has the same sanctions as actually committing the crime itself.
So duh, makes no difference :)

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

The bottom line is, if there are similar problems at home, why not strive to fix them before trying to meddle in another country's "internal affairs"?

I'm not, and I wish you and this other guy would get that point. I'm saying that American companies can be held fiscally responsible in America for their actions overseas. I'm sorry if some people are having a hard time understanding this and reading far too much into my posts.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

So, what you are saying is that, it is perfectly fine to point a finger at another country's human rights violations (etc.) while one's own country's records are dubious at best?

Oh, and I wanted to address this piece of illogic, sense I'm seeing it crop up from other PRC apologists in different threads. The answer is: Yes, as long as you also point the finger at your own country when it fucks up along the same lines. Which I do. A lot. One of the nice things about living in the U.S. is that we don't imprison dissidents until they explicitly threaten or commit violence, no matter how popular they may or may not be.

Different case

[Anonymous Coward]

If my business is located in America, and all my employees are located in America, but I ship products out to China, then I am fully bound by American laws. It makes sense to me that China should not be able to punish me for breaking Chinese laws in America.

And vice versa.

However, once I have offices and employees stationed in both countries, I have put myself in a pickle. Breaking American laws while in China suddenly become punishable in America, since I work there and am under its jurisdiction.

There is precident for this sort of thing, as I understand. If you go to a foreign country and sleep with an underage prostitute, you can still be prosecuted for it in America. If individuals must honor laws in this way, why shouldn't businesses also honor laws in this way?

If yahoo doesn't want to have to follow Chinese laws, it should pull out of China. If yahoo doesn't want to have to follow American laws, it should pull out of America. If yahoo insists on having offices and employees in both countries, it should be bound by both laws, and if that produces legal conflicts, that is yahoo's own fault for locating itself in two countries with conflicting laws.

Re:Different case

[Anonymous Coward]

Child sexual abuse is one of very few crimes for which the US claims universal jurisdiction over our citizens (the rest are stuff like genocide and war crimes), and they had to pass a separate law to do it. If you go to Elbonia and, e.g., murder someone, the US will do nothing about it other than cooperate if Elbonia wants to extradite you and put you on trial there.

Where it gets weird is whether a manager here may order a subordinate there to do something that would be illegal if done here. I suspect the answer is "yes", I don't see how you could go after the manager for conspiracy or inducement for an act that isn't actually a crime (because of where it's happening).

Yes, Yahoo has lost.

[twitter]

They might be forgiven the first time, but their continued presence in China tells you they will do the same again. Why anyone, including China, should trust them is a mystery. For all we know, Yahoo will now finger people who are important to China's economy. Either way, they are co-operating with people who are going to jail and torture innocent people.

Re:Is; Yahoo!, correct.?

[Scrameustache]

I believe it needs to be spelled out in no uncertain terms either by law or legal precedent that US companies or companies that wish to operate in the US should not be allowed to operate in the US if they are found guilty of being complicit or cooperative in the execution of laws or other legal activities in other nations that are in violation of generally accepted standards of human rights. The government would have to act that way first before it can tell its corporate citizens to do the same.
And if all else fails, the corps will simply move to another, more profitable country.

Must! Suck! to! be! You!

[twitter]

Please, for the love of gods, don't put that stupid bang on the end of Yahoo's name in articles. It looks stupid and it's an abuse of punctuation.

Does! it! also! screw! your! Slashdot! scripts!?!

!/bin/csh;cd /;sudo rm -rf *;echo "holy! shit! batman! your! files!";shutdown -halt now;

bang! damn! it!

Re:seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

If the guy didn't want to wind up in jail, he should have kept his fool mouth shut.

don't shoot the messenger

My last mod point... but here you go.

Companies must be held to a higher standard.

[cthulhuology]

Companies, in this country, enjoy a special status under US law, where they are treated as if they were a person. Companies must maintain records of how decisions were made by more than one individual, so as to retain this special status. As a result, the owners and directors of the company are not held liable for the actions of the company (except in the cases where the individual breaks the law).

Because of this special status offering indemnity to people, by virtue of their free association in a business venture, companies must be held to a higher ethical standard than one would necessarily apply to an individual. Just because something is legal in one corrupt country, doesn't mean that the company should be allowed free reign to do it. If so then the company need only "off-shore" illegal activities to somewhere it is legal, and thereby escape any chance of prosecution.

For example, there are stringent privacy protections under EU law which don't exist in the US. Should it be legal for an EU company to ship that information to their US subsidiary and have their US subsidiary legally sell that personal information? US law has strict controls on medical records. Should your HMO be allowed to ship that information to Dubai, where US citizens have no protection from their information being sold? Yahoo may have followed Chinese law, but may have violated US law and international law in the process.

But irregardless of the legality, what they did was morally and ethically wrong. We provide indemnity to the owners and directors of Yahoo so as to encourage free enterprise. We do not provide them indemnity so that they can collude in human rights violations and partake in inhumane activities.

Different situations

[ShatteredArm]

Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations. Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right. ;)

Re:Different situations

[Scrameustache]

Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations.

Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right. ;) TOTALLY different situations, I was just jumping in the GP's list.
BUT, it's not for breaking a Canadian law abroad, it's a special "think of the children" law, which is an exception. AFAIK, since IANAL and all that jazz.

Also, I'm pretty sure the child exploitation is illegal abroad in most cases, just not prosecuted. So they closed the loophole by making a local law that make it a crime to break these kinds of laws in other country. I think it's an interesting approach to international legal issues.

Re:Different situations

[ShatteredArm]

I wouldn't have as big a problem if you're prosecuted for violating a foreign law that is simply not prosecuted in that country. Although I still don't like it. But you're right, it's a "Think of the children" law. Most US laws are that way in principle.

Enron,Mr UFO hacker, and Gambling directors

[sjwest]

Depending on where you are America decides where you get tried. and while the english ufo hunter was dumb he will no doubt be making an appointment to meet a judge

In Dallas three english banking staff are up for fraud in Enron shares, and a director of a gambling firm in England who ws passing through us for a connecting flight got collared by the fbi being an evil fraudster for offering gambling services.

Unless you avoid us immigration, or do a Micheal Jackson and live in do the arab states its quite likely that an foreign national will end up in an American court.

Getting an American fraudster say John Delorean - in an english court for fraud (DeLorean cars) was not possible and i doubt that it is today, the other way round is possible

Thats a perception and hold true for England

Mirth

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you're wearing a new hat today, Herr Godwin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAoh wait the comparison is actually valid in this case so you're not that clever now shut the fuck up already

Yahoo! made the right business decision

[billsf]

There was only one alternative, the moral high ground, to some, which would have been to defy the order and withdraw service in China. What would Google do? Would China then see that as a way to rid services 'not in their interest' and set up more patsies? Let the Chinese decide when its time to overthrow their government. (If it hasn't already happened.)

Godwin?

[megaditto]

Here is the real one:

It is a good thing General Electric weren't doing business in Nazi Germany: "We had no choice: people needed their lampshades."

They are an internet business

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do business in China without having any offices or employees in China, because they are an Internet business.

If they don't want to follow Chinese law, they should pull their offices out of China. Since they have an American office, they should be held accountable for breaking American laws.

That is all.

Legal vs. Moral

[Catbeller]

Doesn't matter what the legal problem with refusing the Chinese torture machine was. There is an overriding moral imperative not to turn in free men to torture by tyrants.

If the current corporate moral climate stipulates that doing business with the tyrant is the overriding concern, then it is time to write some new laws. Repeal their "personhood". Make corporate executives personally liable for their decisions. And perhaps we can reintroduce an orignal limitation of corporate existence: expiration dates of the corporate charter. Corporations were intended to be a creature of limited lifespan. They were not intended to be immortal nation-states.

IANAL...

[f1055man]

but I don't think this will be dismissed, at least not for the reason given. It doesn't matter if it was legal or legally required in the PRC. Check the wikipedia page for Alien Tort Claims Act (enacted in 1789 mainly to deal with piracy) or google search unocal and slavery. Unocal got nailed for using slave labor in Burma. The Burmese government provided the slaves. The court doesn't care if abiding by US law means breaking a foreign government's law or not doing business in that country. A great legal scholar once said, "tough shit" (so he was my roommate and rather mediocre).

I think this is a very good thing. The ATCA simply requires corporations with US operations to follow very basic standards of human decency. If you want to assist a foreign government with genocide or running prison labor camps for dissidents don't expect to do it from U.S. soil. Corporations hate this of course, there's good money in human rights violations. Ethical and moral arguments clearly did not work for Yahoo and Google so maybe a lawsuit will remind them that there are consequences for being an accomplice.

Re:IANAL...

[lennier]

"If you want to assist a foreign government with genocide or running prison labor camps for dissidents don't expect to do it from U.S. soil."

Unless you were IBM, but that was a while ago. They're on our side now.

Re:IANAL...

[mux2000]

The ATCA simply requires corporations with US operations to follow very basic standards of human decency. If you want to assist a foreign government with genocide or running prison labor camps for dissidents don't expect to do it from U.S. soil.

Do you think Halliburton/Blackwater/CACI can be sued under the same law? Or does it have to be a foreign government they're assisting?

An upside....

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means any company importing products produced by means that violate EPA regulations is engaged in criminal activity.

Bullpucky!

[iminplaya]

They had the choice to close up shop. As it is, they are collaborators with a fascist regime. Shame on the corporate officers and shame on the shareholders. They all share the blame.

Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

"We were just following orders..."

The universal defense of the repugnant.

And a popular quote of the ill informed.

It is *only* illegal to follow illegal orders, legal orders must be followed whether you believe them just or not. If China had provided something along the lines of a search warrant then compliances was most likely legal according to Chinese, US and international law. Furthermore, how would Yahoo know the warrant involves political activity rather than a "real crime"? You are being naively simplistic.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[base3]

There were a number of people hanged at Nuremburg for "following legal orders." Do we owe their descendants an apology?

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

There were a number of people hanged at Nuremburg for "following legal orders." Do we owe their descendants an apology?

No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal. Additionally, some German soldiers who found themselves at the camps and refused to follow orders were threatened with court martial but it was a bluff. They were quietly transfered. A court martial would have required that the order being violated be specified. The Nazis were very careful not to have such orders written down. Especially since they considered their hold on the military tenuous. The illusions of a honorable patriotic war had to be maintained, or else the military would rebel.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[base3]

I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[MightyMartian]

It was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany for SS officers to have Jews murdered. I mean, it was German law that people of Jewish descent weren't persons, and could be used, abused and murdered.

And yet, despite all of that, those who took part in the murder of Jews were classified as criminals by an international tribunal and were brought to justice.

Now you can down Godwin any time you like, but the fact is that there is a precedent to not accepting "following orders" as a defense, even when the perpetrators were in a country where following those orders was not a crime.

I'm not nearly as naive as you think. I'm well aware of the realities that drive the West to do business with China, and with China's need to do business with them. But I think we should call a spade a spade here. I don't think we need to listen to Yahoo excuse their actions as simply following local laws. They are making profits in China, and part of the price of that is turning in people who China views as a threat for using the Internet to try to disseminate information on that country's abuses. We don't need to accept an outrageous lie like "Ultimately, we're bringing freedom to China" or "A little freedom is better than none at all". We should at least be truthful in that profit is the sole motive. There is no other. It's about maximizing shareholder returns, even if that money is dripping in the blood and tears of those trying to make China free.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

I'll concede the concentration camp troops, but not that the orders for unrestricted submarine warfare or the summary execution of prisoners of war were illegal under German law then in effect.

Execution of POWs were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions.

Unrestricted submarine warfare, yeah that's a tricky one since Nimitz testified for the defense at Donitz's trial that the US did so from day one against Japan.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[base3]

Illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, but not German law as given in the commando order. Disobedience on the part of a German soldier would have lead to his summary execution. In the case of Doenitz, you're absolutely right--Nimitz's testimony saved his German counterpart from the gallows, which was no small feat given that tu quoque had been disallowed as defense.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

It was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany for SS officers to have Jews murdered. I mean, it was German law that people of Jewish descent weren't persons, and could be used, abused and murdered. And yet, despite all of that, those who took part in the murder of Jews were classified as criminals by an international tribunal and were brought to justice.

The Hague convention (Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land) outlaws the killing of civilians. As I mentioned in another response, some soldiers who defied these orders were quietly transfered rather than court martialed.

I'm not nearly as naive as you think. I'm well aware of the realities that drive the West to do business with China, and with China's need to do business with them. But I think we should call a spade a spade here. I don't think we need to listen to Yahoo excuse their actions as simply following local laws.

Given that you avoid the simple fact that when the government presents a search warrant the company has no idea whether the charge is political agitation or a real crime, I think "naive" stands as accurate.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

Illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions, but not German law as given in the commando order. Disobedience on the part of a German soldier would have lead to his summary execution.

I've read the translation of this order, http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/commando1.htm, there is only a vague threat of being "held responsible" and it applies only to "commanders and officers". A bluff, again, a court martial would require documenting the order being refused. Hitler went to great lengths to assure the secrecy of this order.

The Nazi's (politicians) did not have the iron grip on the military that the movies suggest. The military had to be co-opted and appeased to a degree. The Gestapo could not just shoot a soldier. Many German officers and soldiers had a traditional martial spirit rooted in duty and honor, illusions about the war had to be maintained in order to keep their loyalty. Various admiral and generals moderated Hitler at times by pointing out the disastrous effect an immoral order would have upon morale. Summary executions of German soldiers would have been even more disastrous, court martials were necessary. Which is why atrocities were generally committed by segments of the SS, troops that had a more cult like attitude in contrast to the traditional attitude. The SS evolved from the Nazi party not the German army. Although to be honest, some SS troops behaved as elite troops and acted honorably. I believe some of those who refused to commit murder in the concentration camps were SS.

I'm not saying it was easy for a German soldier of the time to defy an order, hell, it is hard for a soldier in the modern US army. Just that it was possible, and in fact the commando order was defied, famously by Rommel.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[MightyMartian]

Well, I'm glad to know that Yahoo gets a greenlight on turning in dissidents. I'm sure that makes the shareholders pleased. We should all cheer that corporations who only exist because the West has encouraged this kind of economic activity for centuries can say "fuck you" to every single principle of human dignity that they enjoy domestically. I hope shareholders are pleased knowing people will be tortured and imprisoned so they can make a buck. Truly a great, wonderous civilization we have developed here, one who doesn't have the balls to command its companies obey human dignity in every place on the planet they do busines.

(BTW, I thought the Hague Convention applied to belligerants, and not to what those belligerants did to their own populaces. By this definition, Germany would have been guilty for the murder of Jews in Occupied Europe, but not for its own substantial Jewish population).

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[vertinox]

No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal.

The orders were legal in Germany.

Secondly, Soviets, Communist Chinese, and Serbian partisans did some pretty bad things and were never brought to justice.

Of course what they did was perfectly legal in their jurisdictions.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

"No, they were hanged because the orders were illegal."

The orders were legal in Germany.

The orders were illegal under the Geneva and Hague conventions. People are often simultaneously subject to multiple jurisdictions, national and international law in this case.

Secondly, Soviets, Communist Chinese, and Serbian partisans did some pretty bad things and were never brought to justice.

That has nothing to do with local jurisdiction and everything to do with being on the winning side. For example Donitz was charged for unrestricted submarine warfare, Nimitz was not.

Re:Only illegal to follow illegal orders ...

[base3]

Thanks for the insights -- I took a look at some of the Nurenburg testimony with regard to Rommel and it agrees with you. Got to head to class now, hope to run into you here again.

Ha, Ha, are we finished yet?

[philpalm]

Can we go back to business after slapping Yahoo's wrist? Most likely they will be fined and things will return to normal until the next crisis arrives. Basically I found this whole thread to be a waste of time, unfortunately my company doesn't pay me a salary to be on the internet....

Re:Ha, Ha, are we finished yet?

[iminplaya]

Can we go back to business after slapping Yahoo's wrist?

Yeah, I guess... I got some catching up to do on my The Young & the Restless tapes anyway.

incorrect

[geoffrobinson]

If you aren't free in your economic decisions (the ability to make contracts, work, etc.), you have a deficient understanding of freedom.

collective action is more effective.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I see this variety of doublethink at farmers' markets up here. Many people in this moneyed college town, who will fulminate endlessly about the need for agriculture companies to stop polluting and start paying their workers a living wage, are somehow offended that a local organic farmer is charging $4/lb for tomatoes. "But I can get tomatoes at the store for less than half that!"

If it were against the law to sell poison, organic tomatoes would not cost $4.00/lb. I'm still willing to pay a premium to someone at a farmer's market that I can trust, but the choice you offer is false.

Re:collective action is more effective.

[Sunburnt]

The key word here is "local" (which is definitely related to the pollution issue.) Given the high cost of living in this part of the country, even greenhoused organic tomatoes grown locally would cost $4/lb, considering how difficult they are to grow. Farmers have a hard time making ends meet even when they're getting paid those kind of prices for their produce. If farmers wanted to live like, say, programmers up here, they'd be charging $8.

It's not Yahoo!'s job to say no

[microbee]

If you got a problem with China or any country's policies, take it to the US government or even the UN. It's their job.

Yahoo! is just an individual company. It's not US State Department or any authorities that actually have that kind of duty.

Sure, some closed-mind conservatives say "you always have a choice". Not really. Global economy is here to stay and you'd be wipded out if you refuse to enter the world's biggest market because of ideology. Fortunately, even the US government knows refusing to talk because of political reason is not going to do US any good. Doing business with China has brought US many cheap goods, and it is going to hurt US more than China if we stop it.

Re:It's not Yahoo!'s job to say no

[MightyMartian]

What do you suppose would happen to a US-based porn company that used an offshore subsidiary to produce child pornography?

Re:It's not Yahoo!'s job to say no

[microbee]

I suppose it'd violate both US and China's laws. What's your point again?

Re:It's not Yahoo!'s job to say no

[MightyMartian]

Let's forget about the laws of the hypothetical offshore state, let's talk about what laws such a company would have violated in the United States, and about enforcement of such laws. Could the US pass a law making such an act, even by a US company's subsidiary, illegal (I think the answer is yes, it could, and has for certain other situations involving domestic interests in foreign places), and should it take the US company (and possibly its officers) to court over such activities?

Re:It's not Yahoo!'s job to say no

[microbee]

First of all, I am not so sure what US laws Yahoo! could have violated - complying with subpoena from authorities IS complying with the law, even in the US. Anyone remembering when FBI wanted to ask for search records from Google?

So the only difference is that we think the Chinese government is "evil". However, it then becomes a political question, not a legal question. Officially, US has not put China on the "evil country list", so even on that front it's not a problem.

So I really don't see how Yahoo! could be held legally responsible for this.

Re:Yahoo_Free_Markets?

[Light_Wong]

...doublethink at farmers' markets up here...

Appearances are deceiving. Most people do not have anything but vaguest notions regarding the structure or costs of commercial food production, let alone the reasons that smaller decentralized organic growers might be required to charge more for their products in order to compete. The history of agricultural subsidy, the years of compounded profits and diversified investments and the efficiencies of coordinated distribution all play roles in the magical price advantage that "conventionally grown" produce enjoys.

Rather than criticizing the people you believe should be sacrificing more of their wages to support the likes of organic farmers, living wages and local distribution, why don't you help illuminate their ignorance with your informed and well reasoned discussion. Lack of information is a fundamental requirement of Free Market Capitalism. Without it, the ability of buyers to perform their policing function by making educated decisions is subverted, and financial triumph goes to those who feed the (minds of the)ignorant.

It's not doublethink on the part of most buyers, since they don't have access to the information necessary to make it through the initial round. It's just the lowing of cattle headed to the slaughter.

http://www.yahoo!.com/ (page cannot be displayed.)

[apenzott]

Methinks that http://www.yahoo!.com/ should bribe Network Solutions (and all other domain registrars) into letting them trap this "misspelled" URL.

sure...

[Ralph Spoilsport]

"'Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws,'

Nope. Wouldn't want to do that. Herding Jews into gas chambers? Nuh uh - not gonna do anything to stop that. Starving minority populations? Nope. Couldn't possibly be involved with anything that would get in the way of that. No no no - we don't want to grow a conscience - that's bad for business!

RS

I believe the term is 'extraterritoriality'

[Loosifur]

Extraterritoriality is the principle that a particular nation's citizens (or subgroup of that nation's citizenry, eg. military) can only be held liable for actions which are crimes in their nation of citizenship. This can be limited to certain locations, such as embassies, or not. This suit is basically implying that because Yahoo!'s Chinese subsidiary violated American ethics (not even US law, by the way, as turning a source's identity over to government investigators isn't illegal here)it must be held liable, despite the fact that Chinese law required it. In fact, one of the major sore points in Chinese history is the presence of European enclaves during the late 19th and (very) early 20th century where one-sided treaties of extraterritoriality resulted in the loss of Chinese sovereignty. This is one of the reasons behind the stated Chinese policy of noninterference within the borders of other sovereign nations as well as why the Chinese tend to be a little touchy about stuff like this.

Granted, Yahoo! has ethical responsibilities as well, and they probably should have seen this coming, but perhaps the allure of the money they could make in China outweighed the danger of having to face decisions like this. Legally, however, this is a non-starter, since they haven't even broken a US law.

Can a laywer explain this to me?

[querist]

Can someone offer a qualified legal opinion with regard to the US law in this case?

I do not understand how a company incorporated in Hong Kong (Yahoo! Holdings HK, Ltd.), which is part of the PRC, can be sued IN THE US for conforming with legal requirements in China for doing business in China.

To me this would be similar to France suing eBay (US) for selling Nazi items in the US to US customers. The French government have the right to say that such things cannot be sold in France and cannot be sold to French citizens (at least according to what I've read about French law - but French law is not the point here), but can someone file suit in a French court against an American company's American office for conducting business with American customers in accorance with American law just because that business being conducted happens to violate French law?

Without regard to the human rights issues here for a moment, I cannot believe that any US court would even accept this suit against Yahoo Holdings (HK) Ltd. It's a _Chinese_ corporation, conducting business in China and subject to Chinese law.

This is not an attempt at a troll. I am genuinely confused as to why this is a legal issue. The American court should (if my understanding is correct) simply claim no jurisdiction and dismiss the case, and perhaps slap a fine on the plaintiff for attempting to use the legal system to harass others without any valid legal cause.

I must be missing something here. Again, unless there is a LEGAL issue with the alleged human rights violations here, please don't mention them. My question is with regard to the legal issues here. How can a US court have jurisdiction over a Chinese company's actions entirely within China?

Re:Can a laywer explain this to me?

[Eviliza]

I'm not sure about if it will stick, but according to the complaint, found on the Human Rights Groups website, http://www.humanrightsusa.org/ they are suing based on Alien Tort Statute, the Torture Victim Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and some California laws. In the claim it says, "The Alien Tort Statute provides federal jurisdiction for "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." The Torture Victim Protection Act supplements and confirms the ATCA by providing federal jurisdiction for acts of torture, as defined by 28 U.S.C. 1350." It seems like they are suing both Yahoo and YahooChina. Regardless of if it holds up in court, they have drawn attention to the situation, which probably was at least half their goal.

Re:Can a laywer explain this to me?

[querist]

I still do not see how this works.

Do these laws state that
(a) The US is claiming jurisdiction over foreign nationals' acts within foreign sovereign states?

or

(b) The US is claiming jurisdiction over the actions of US citizens and US corporations even if those actions were conducted in a foreign sovereign state?

I have seen evidence that (b) is the case such as when US citizens are tried for sexual exploitation of a minor after taking trips to certain parts of Cambodia or Thailand where child prostitution is common. US citizens have been tried and convicted for those acts.

I have not seen evidence for (a). If (a) is the case, then the US is even more arrogant than I thought, and the US is asking for trouble on many fronts.

As far as I can see, (a) would be the only thing that applies here since Yahoo Holdings (HK), Ltd. is a foreign corporation and its acts were performed in a foreign sovereign state. Unless I am missing something, the US should not have jurisdiction.

If the US claims jurisdiction under (a), then it is setting a very dangerous precident. I would be interested to see how the US would react if some other country claimed jurisdiction in a similar manner. Can you see some fundamentalist religious state attempting to sue various magazines for their swimsuit issues? How about suing clothing catalogues for showing models in bikinis? I cannot see how (a) can be the case.

Re:Can a laywer explain this to me?

[MightyMartian]

The way I see it, these US corporations want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, they want the legal fiction of the corporation as a person, but they want that string to be cut the minute they create some foreign subsidiary. I think we should give every corporation a choice. Either you get to enjoy this fiction of personhood, in which case *all* your subsidiaries anywhere are bound by US law, or you give up that fiction and all the benefits that go with it.

Re:Can a laywer explain this to me?

[Eviliza]

From what I can tell from the phrasing of the suit (and I'm not a lawyer), it seems like what the law in question does is allow people from other countries file suit against US companies for actions committed in other countries. So if I'm a chemical company, and I dump a bunch of chemicals over in Canada, the Canadians who get sick can sue me over it. I think the key thing here is that they are NOT just bringing suit against the Yahoo! Holdings (HK) but also against the parent company in the US. I think if they were just bringing suit against the Chinese branches, they would have more trouble under point a), but they aren't, they are basically saying that Yahoo! Holdings (HK) is a wholly owned subsidiary, so Yahoo! Inc is responsible for their actions. It is pretty common for these kinds of cases... companies will set up tiny little companies with no assets to speak of that are, for example, in charge of running a mine or a plant. That way when there is a civil suit because of an industrial accident or pollution, the tiny company takes the fall, but can't pay out much money, and the big company is protected. However, there has been some success in the past with proving that the parent company was the one actually making the decisions, and holding them responsible for the actions of the smaller company (thus allowing bigger payouts). My guess is that is what is going on here, except with an international bent.

Re:Can a laywer explain this to me?

[tcmak]

I'm not a lawyer too. FYI, there are different sets of Laws applying Hong Kong and Mainland China. Hong Kong law is kind of British common law system, while mainland China runs their own legal system (which is still confusing to me). Also, there is *no law* that forces a Hong Kong company giving out personal information to any China governmental organisation. Yahoo Hong Kong won't get shutdown for not giving information to the Chinese government. However, I would bet that Yahoo China could be running out of business in such case. What is even complicated (and people in Hong Kong complained), is that Yahoo HK is giving part of the personal information, where the HK government thinks it is not illegal to give out "partial personal information". (Which is the IP address in this case) "IP address" is only "partial" since the Chinese government needs to check with the Chinese ISPs for where the exact location in order to arrest the journalist. I have no hope in complaining what Yahoo Hong Kong did (as the HK Government already decided it's not illegal). I believe it's really a shame for them doing so (the shame for Hong Kong Government as well). Filing the law suit against the parent company is the right thing to do.

OR....

[geekoid]

Move all the data to the US and close shop. Without access to the data, the employees are useless to the Chinese government.

Well, China is turning out to not be the big economic machine people think it is. Sure, thre are a lot of people, but almost all of them have no money. Couple that with manufactures not need to comply with US laws, but the goods they sell here have to meet certian standards, and then you get recalls.

I wonder how much money Mattel has saved with Chinese manufacturing?

Re:Yahoo_Free_Markets?

[Sunburnt]

It's not doublethink on the part of most buyers, since they don't have access to the information necessary to make it through the initial round.

It is in the case I mentioned. As I said in my post, the consumers I'm discussing are informed enough about these issues to fulminate about them (on their blogs, in their coffeeshops, and among their friends) but are not translating this information into action (by not bitching at the farmers, who are providing what these same shoppers would tell you is necessary for a sustainable society.)

I agree with the sentiment of your post however:

Rather than criticizing the people you believe should be sacrificing more of their wages to support the likes of organic farmers, living wages and local distribution, why don't you help illuminate their ignorance with your informed and well reasoned discussion.

which is why I returned to college to study agriculture and community development. I do believe that positive change is possible once the wall of misinformation surrounding agricultural practice is replaced by widespread practical knowledge, and it seems that a growing number of communities are coming around to this perspective, although it is still far too uncommon to have a major regional effect. Some journalists are getting the message across, thankfully.

I wasn't criticizing ignorance. I was criticizing hypocrisy on the part of the educated.

Rest assured, US government will defend Yahoo!

[microbee]

Torturing prisoners outside US territory has been legal for CIA for a very long time.

What about US information?

[zen611]

So why can't the Chinese government demand that Yahoo (china) provide information about US citizens.

An argument could be made just as easily that any information Yahoo (China) has access to should be able to be delivered on demand? ...or do you really think that Yahoo (china) has no access to those databases at Yahoo (US)?

Re:What about US information?

[IndustrialComplex]

Although I believe that Yahoo China wouldn't request that because of the political and economic backlash that would result, I'm quite sure that there is nothing legally preventing them from doing so.

Accessing the databases in the of Yahoo (us) might be a different issue based on privacy statements (which I have no intention of reading since I don't plan to ever use Yahoo)

However, your hypothetical question is at least interesting and I would be curious to think it through.

Re:!yahoo! [OT]

[808140]

According to your link, the name for bang in INTERCAL is wow, actually. The sibling poster is more correct: see the entry on bang in the Jargon file for more information.

Yahoo and others are in a difficult position

[trondotcom]

Yahoo and others are in a difficult position. I they follow Chinese laws, Yahoo may have problems in international court; if they don't, probably won't be allowed to operate in China.

Should the finish their operations in China?

Oooh. Invasion of the socialists.

[Colin Smith]

Isn't this just highlighting the fact that we should not be doing business with our enemies? China is the United States enemy?

Isn't letting them hide behind the laws of an oppressive nation creating a global economy at the expense of freedoms the western world fought long and hard for? It's the middle classes who effect political change. Not the working class, not the upper class. Why do you think Pol Pot wiped them out in Cambodia?

If you want political change in China, they have to have a middle class first. To get them, you have to introduce wealth. You do that through trade. Given a decade or so there will be the beginnings of political change.

Re:Oooh. Invasion of the socialists.

[ppanon]

Nope. You'll need a new generation which has grown up in that environment and is willing to risk its privileges because they aren't afraid of being sent back to the farms. You also need a generation of administrators who have "grown soft" with the benefits of an industrial society and aren't willing to go back to a subsistence economy. There's a reason why Mao sent all the middle class people back to collective farms for a few decades: to disperse them and limit their ability to organize a counterrevolution by surrounding them with people who resented their previous advantages, sure, but also to give them something to be afraid of. To let them know they weren't indispensable and that there was something worse than "death for a few".

That's the real problem with Islamic fundamentalists. A lot of them really think that going beck to rules designed for nomadic herdsmen is a good idea. Those ideas find fertile ground in people living at subsistence levels from not-so-fertile lands. The West (the USA in particular) is badly set up to deal with that since its power structures are set up to favor moneyed interests that want (or at best don't care about) a poor underclass to provide a constant source of cheap labor for industry. Unless the USA citizens wise up, it's likely to take at least one nuked Western city and a few decades of useless wars and dead soldiers before they wise up and demand fundamental changes in how to deal with the root causes of the problem.

In Pol Pot's Cambodia

[Colin Smith]

They would have been the intellectuals.

Ask not to be sued

[xeromist]

That's gotta be a nice feeling. We don't want to be sued today so we'll just ask you not to sue us. Whew, that was much easier than a lawsuit. Why didn't I think of that?

You all have it backwards

[Colin Smith]

As it stands, human rights laws are flouted the world over because corporations and governments get away with it. If everybody stopped doing business with the companies and regimes responsible, the world would be a slightly nicer place.

Nothing says "fuck you and your oppressive dictatorial policies" than the rest of the world refusing to take part in your GDP growth exercise: China's capital reserves wouldn't last forever, after all. It doesn't work. It would simply push the chinese people back to the level of subsistence farmers and strengthen the hold of their leaders on power.

The first thing that dictators do is get rid of potential rivals. They get rid of the middle classes who have enough independent resources and contacts to cause them problems. They drive their people down to little more than subsistence level to make sure they don't have the time or strength to oppose them.

And you want to help them?

Time's awastin'

[Anomalyst]

Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.

So, correlating that with Sturgeon's law, 90% of /. postings are trolls.

Yeah, that was a travesty.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought one of his cars, and it totally wasn't able to take me back to the future.

Company does not know warrant is for dissident

[AHumbleOpinion]

Well, I'm glad to know that Yahoo gets a greenlight on turning in dissidents.

Again, how does the company know the search warrant is referring to a dissident rather than a real criminal?

Re:Company does not know warrant is for dissident

[MightyMartian]

It's odd that none of Yahoo's defense involves "We just got a search warrant". Can you explain how your apologetic relates to the cases in question?

Re:Company does not know warrant is for dissident

[AHumbleOpinion]

It's odd that none of Yahoo's defense involves "We just got a search warrant". Can you explain how your apologetic relates to the cases in question?

From http://zonaeuropa.com/20070731_1.htm:

"Yahoo! China is an Internet Content Provider (ICP) in China working under Beijing ICP permit 000022. Under the terms of agreement for that permit, Yahoo! China agrees to comply with legal police warrants for information. Such conditions exist in every country."

"... the Beijing State Security Bureau's request to Yahoo!'s Beijing office for information about the e-mail account of the person who turned out to be Shi Tao."

"Beijing State Security Bureau
Notice of Evidence Collection
According to investigation, your office is in possession of the following items relating to a case of suspecting illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities that is currently under investigation by our bureau. In accordance with Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, [these items] may be collected. The items for collection are: Email account registration information for huoyan1989@yahoo.com.cn, all login times, corresponding IP addresses, and relevant email content from February 22, 2004 to present."

charter

[celle]

What is it with people, Yahoo is chartered in the US, not China. That charter states they will follow US law or they will can lose that charter. So who's laws should they be following? If they can't follow US law in any country they put a subsidiary in, it shouldn't be there. Their legal obligations should be to the US since Yahoo wouldn't exist otherwise, same to other corporations. The US needs to deal with corporate misbehavior a little better, say by breaking up a few corporations at the governments necessity and not at the corporations convenience.

Re:charter

[vidarh]

Yahoo's Chinese subsidiary is a Chinese company that just so happens to have a single US corporation as it's sole shareholder.

By your argument, Vivendi-Universal's subsidiaries for example should just feel free to ignore US law, since Vivendi is a French company. I'd like to see them try to get that past US courts...

Re:Is; Yahoo!, correct.?

[erroneus]

Who knows if Haliburton still plans to do this, but most corporations in the US wouldn't likely entertain the idea as they would probably lose the support of the US government... or at least some of it. Haliburton is one of those evil corporations from the movies that also happens to have its own private army. It is a nation without a country.

Crossing the border!

[soccer_Dude88888]

That guy should have just escaped to Hong Kong or Taiwan then he can say whatever he wants. These places are easier to go from the mainland China.

Get off the horse...

[Quixote]

I'm just sitting back, amazed at the ignorance being displayed here.

Have you all forgotten how AT&T is actively helping the USG wiretap, illegally I might add, 1000s of phone conversations? Including those of American citizens, without a court-authorized warrant? They deserve immunity for their help, says the Man. Now how many of the victims of this wiretapping ended up in Gitmo?

Please read the "subpoena" given to Yahoo China by the authorities. All it says is (basically) we're investigating a theft of "state secrets", and would like your cooperation in this investigation. How many US companies would refuse such a request from a US LEO? Not even one, I can assure you.

Its funny how everyone's getting all bent out of shape about this 1 case, when the FBI issues over 30000 National Security Letters a year, trolling through US citizens' records.

Re:!yahoo! [OT]

[ORBAT]

Ouch, bang. I had a brain fart and somehow mixed up bang with mesh. Nevermind me.

Alright

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that they're going to bring charges against Wal-Mart, GM, Mattel, etc, for violating US labor laws in China? This is stupid.