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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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."

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

[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: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?

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

[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: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: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.

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. ;)

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.