NYT Editorial Slams ISPs Over Online Freedom

Erris writes "The New York Times site is running an opinion piece from last weekend which lambasts Yahoo! (and other US ISPs) for cooperating with China and other repressive governments. 'Yahoo's collaboration is appalling, and Yahoo is not the only American company helping the Chinese government repress its people ... Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent.'"

Comments

No kidding?

[Nomad the Odd]

From TFA: "Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent. The bill would at least give American companies a solid reason to decline requests for data, but the big Internet companies do not support it. That shows how much they care about the power of information to liberate the world." Really? The companies don't support the law? Gee that's strange. Why wouldn't they want to be stuck between a legal order to hand over information, and a fine if they do? That law may be a good idea, but it drastically cripples American companies.

Re:No kidding?

[uffe_nordholm]

I think this law means the ISPs have a choice: either get fined in country X for not following the law, or get fined in USA for following the law in country X. Either way, it opens some interesting points for discussion: should anybody (person or company) really be punished for following the law of the country/state/area in which they are? If action Z is legal in country X but illegal in country Y, should I be punished in country Y for doing X in country Z? Suppose Z is "criticising the government", X is USA and Y is the Peoples Republic of China (= mainland/communist China). Should Li Wang, who lives in Beijing, be imprisoned in China after having criticised the Chinese government while on holiday in USA? And should an American business man on a short business trip to China be popped behind bars for fifteen years for speaking his mind while in USA?

Re:No kidding?

[uffe_nordholm]

I can agree with you in principle, but think the suggested law is the wrong way to go. You should not be punished for following the law in the places you are, whether it be as a person or as a company. If the law of a country demands that (for example) companies turn over certain information to the authorities the companies following the law should not be punished in another country for doing so.

If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem. You will also have cost the consumers in USA(1) a great deal, but that is another issue.

1: According to Wikipedia China is USAs second largest import supplier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#US_imports_of_goods_in_2004_by_country

Re:No kidding?

[Sunburnt]

That law may be a good idea, but it drastically cripples American companies' ability to profit from, and provide revenue to, oppressive violators of human rights. There, fixed that for you. Of course, if you want to make an argument that such is the legitimate business of American corporations...I'll probably just be unsurprised.

Re:No kidding?

[SL Baur]

You should not be punished for following the law in the places you are, whether it be as a person or as a company. This is the classic Catch-22. Just look at the signs inside the US Embassy next time you travel abroad. They promise absolutely no assistance if you should happen to run afoul of local law enforcement officials. Damned if you, damned if you don't. It is extraordinarily bad law especially since the US doesn't have exactly a stellar record itself on online freedom, though fortunately the Supreme Court keeps overturning the worst of the laws.

Re:No kidding?

[GoMMiX]

My question is - what the hell do we have TRADE AGREEMENTS with China for. They want to make it illegal for companies to produce this information to these governments, but this government itself is catering heavily to countries with low wage labor, like China. Pass that law, and let's throw some politicians in jail for treason while we are at it.

You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community service for not 'catching' pad product being exported - they ended his life. You know how much press that got in the US? Dick. Why? Because people and politicians don't WANT to recognize what we are supporting by doing business over there (not to mention the MILLIONS of factory jobs we've shipped off - GFG - wonder who THAT makes rich, aye?)

The irony of it all is, even the people of the countries we setup these trade agreements with don't want them. Wonder why.....

Re:No kidding?

[mabhatter654]

then the issue becomes will the US govt protect US citizen employees in other countries? Is the Congress willing to hire out the army out to ANY company following US law or just their favorites? That was the Yahoo issue. The Chinese govt had threatened Yahoo's Chinese employees with prison if Yahoo USA didn't cough up the info. Look at how the DOJ handled the Pirate Bay or UK citizen kidnapping trouble to see that the USA does EXACTLY the same thing when they want to enforce US laws in OTHER countries.

On another note, what happens when China does decide to kick somebody out and seize their assets..and wipe out all of Microsoft or GM's holdings in their country? see how that worked out for the Queen of Hawaii when businesses wanted her out, or how it worked out for Castro when he did kick US business out, or for Chavez..., except China is too big to threaten into submission like them and they can simply cut us off... or take back Taiwan.

Yes, but..

[Brian Ribbon]

The US ISPs also frequently co-operate with the US authorities, whose attitude towards people's online rights is hardly respectable.

When did Yahoo become an ISP??

[Richard Steiner]

Or Google?? Or Microsoft??

An ISP provides access to the net, not just web services.

Re:When did Yahoo become an ISP??

[QuickFox]

You know, that's odd, an Internet Service Provider is a company that provides access to the Internet. A company that provides an online service is not called an Internet Service Provider.

Why don't we say IAP, Internet Access Provider, instead of ISP?

Very illogical.

It's their right to choose to cooperate

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government. I believe it's perfectly fine for them to respect the local customs, even if we consider them repulsive over here. Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders, and I feel they have no obligation to initiate confrontation with different countries, all because they happen to be mimicking your morality where it doesn't (yet) fit. In fact, I would say they have just as much right to start censoring information in the US as they do subverting the Chinese censorship systems.

Of course, as a relativist, no-one respects my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate

[Thomas M Hughes]

As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government.

The word "right" is an absolutist word. Relativists coherently can't believe in rights, as the word "right" implies a standard of correctness outside of one's own perspective. The best you can do, as a relativist who wishes to remain coherent, is to say "I think Yahoo can do whatever it wants." And Congress can then reply "I don't think it can!" And because you're a relativist, you've got no way to mitigate these two claims, because you certainly don't have access to the language of "rights."

I suppose you could just have no desire to be coherent. But if you're incoherent, you shouldn't really be too surprised when people don't respect your opinions.

Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate

[dcollins]

"Corporations may be based in different countries, but they are truly international identities. They also possess no morality other than pleasing their shareholders..."

Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.

Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate

[bogjobber]

I would be completely, perfectly fine with companies having to choose whether they do business in China, or the U.S., and not both. That is, having laws that make companies serving China's government incompatible with business in the U.S is ok by me.

The only thing that would produce would be extreme isolationism and poverty for the US. If we essentially ended all trade with nations that have oppressive governments, we would cut off most of the world (including most of our oil suppliers, among other things). Even places like India or Brazil which are generally supportive of liberty do some terrible things and deprive people of human rights.

Could you imagine, on the other side, countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Indonesia refusing to trade with us because we are not Muslim? Or Latin American countries refusing to trade with us because we are not Catholic? Or Europe refusing to trade with us because we don't have national health care? That entire idea is ludicrous. It's a very naive and idealistic position to take that your views are correct and all other must adopt them or be shunned. The world doesn't work that way, nor should it.

It's necessary to trade with other nations, and most other nations are going to do things people from the US find objectionable. You just have to live with the fact that other people have different views than ours. If the Chinese people wanted complete liberty, they would overthrow the government. It's not our responsibility to force our ideas on those that don't want them.

No such thing

[Truekaiser]

No such thing as a $country company, they are trans-national. if the country where their headquarters passes a law they don't like dispite their lobbing efforts to stop it they will just move their headquaters to another country.

What online freedom?

[eebra82]

In Europe and the United States, we've seen the governments meddling with online freedom over and over again. For example, France is soon voting on a law that would force ISPs to shut down users who download copyrighted material. And then there's our own White House's Safe Port Act that forces financial institutions to shut down its operations to gambling sites. What's more bizarre is that some congressmen want the ISPs to regulate it; block "illegal" sites by banning the IP adresses. In Sweden they had party members who wanted ISPs to hand out IP adresses of users.

Re:The article is an opinion piece

[Grampaw Willie]

Freedom of Speech is the First Defense against Tyranny

Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.

when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )

I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.

the freedom of speech that has developed as a result of electronic communication over the last 15 years may be the best thing that has happened to humanity in the last 15 centuries

Good.

[headkase]

This is welcome in that it a step towards enforcing Universal Rights by our value system not rules to interpret of anothers. Universal Rights are something we fought hard for here and on principle alone we should not compromise them elsewhere because they aren't enlightened (from my perspective) enough yet.

You've just identified the problem

[Infonaut]

If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem.

Everybody knows China and America do massive trade together. Congress would rather throw stones at Yahoo!, et. al. while maintaining China's favored trade status, sending athletes to the Olympics, and doing nothing about Tibet. Frankly I think trade with China is ultimately more constructive than China-bashing, but the Congresscritters want to have it both ways.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[conlaw]

The real problem is that probably none of these "US companies" are doing business in or with China. AFIK, Yahoo and Google are working under separate Chinese corporations and the US cannot reach the Chinese subsidiaries of US corporations without "piercing the corporate veil." This would be equivalent to holding every Yahoo shareholder liable for anything that the US company does in the US. The entire body of the law of corporations depends on the rule that a shareholder is not responsible for the actions of the corporation and this includes US corporations who are shareholders of foreign corporations.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[wytcld]

Where else but China can we get lead toys for our kids? How else can we outsource pollution to a nation which believes it's its right to release carbon to make stuff for us? And what better than having all that junk shipped to us by fume-belching ships?

Seriously, ending trade with China would most likely do more to cut particulate pollution (25% of LA's comes from China), and cut global warming from coal burning. Sure, there'd be short-term disruption of American corporate manufacturing patterns. But what we've learned in the process of outsourcing industries to China is how to build new factories quickly. We could use that knowledge again here.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[mitgib]

Seriously, ending trade with China would most likely do more to cut particulate pollution (25% of LA's comes from China) You can make that choice yourself, why wait for the US Government to step in where it doesn't belong in the first place. If you make a personal choice that buying products of China do harm, do not purchase products from China.

My personal belief is that trading with countries will have and end positive result as the population eventually will see their Government for what it is and change will occur. I don't care how oppressive a government is, if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[ScrewMaster]

The real problem now is that, even if you could convince a significant number of Americans to only "buy American" ... they couldn't do it. There's are hardly any consumer goods on sale anywhere that aren't Made in China. The masses had a chance fifteen or twenty years ago to vote with their wallets, and they did. They voted for cheap imported goods from China. We're getting exactly what we wanted: cheap imports, at the expense of domestic manufacturing and national independence. The situation is, of course, untenable and is a disaster in the making.

Good job, America. Pull out that credit card and keep on voting.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[hackingbear]

Not only that, these Chinese subsidiaries are not really the real one operate in China either. Because China does not allow foreign or joint-venture companies to hold an Internet Content provider (ICP) license; so typically the foreign company and its subsidiaries would own the IPs and the domain name but delegate some trusted Chinese nationals to set up a shell company to hold the ICP and business licenses. There are plenty of lawyers helping you do that.

Re:You've just identified the problem

[CodeBuster]

if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.

Don't be so sure, it is all a matter of perspective. If what you say is true then why are the old men of the Chinese politburo and even worse, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, still in power after decades of people not liking them (even within their own countries where they are to afraid to say anything publicly)? If one is willing, as a dictatorial ruler, to machine gun people in the streets for rising up against the government then one need only maintain a small elite around oneself (i.e. the army) to exercise a pretty good degree of control. Americans and Europeans forget that outside of the first world there is largely not a great tradition of personal freedom or self determination, those were ideas that came out of western philosophy and the enlightenment, not some oriental despotism. Thus, there are a lot of people in this world who would rather be alive than free and particularly so when things "aren't that bad" as they are in China right now (North Korea still uses more hard power to keep the populace in line). Combine that with all of the distractions of modern life and who in China would want to stand in front of a firing line for the chance that their children might be free? Probably not very many.

Screw China!

[db32]

Why can't we get a law passed that says companies can't do that here?! I mean seriously, not to be cold, but I don't give a crap about Yahoo or anyone turning over data on chinese dissidents to chinese authorities when there is nothing stoping them from turning over the data on US dissidents to US authorities. Christ, they are even trying to grant the telcos immunity for doing that here in the US while trying to prevent it in china. WTF? Can I please get a little more concern for the rights, privacy, and freedom of our own damned citizens before we go off pretending to be dudly do right elsewhere? This world police shit is what keeps getting us in trouble in the first place.

ThoughtCrime

[RickHunter]

But of course, American companies that hand over information about their customers to domestic governments that suppress online dissent are just doing their patriotic duty, and do not in any way, shape, or form need to be investigated or prosecuted. In fact, let's give them explicit legal protection!

I can has "double standard"?

Sure... if it's China. What about the U.S.?

[QCompson]

Where is the outcry when ISP's and the government restrict communication in the U.S.?

Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.

I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.

People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.

What counts as repressive?

[erroneus]

I mean, depending on how you look at it, I think "repressive" could also fit in the good ole USA...

Freedom Begins at Home

[Doc Ruby]

If only the NY Times were saying anything about the "SAFE Act", that the House just passed to force all ISPs to take responsibility for all content they host or transport, even if they don't moderate it, in direct contradiction of the landmark CDA which let ISPs be like telcos always have. Lots of child molesters trap children in telephone conversations, but the telco has no liability, because holding them responsible requires tapping every conversation, which is what the SAFE Act (not the one with the same name that sanely deregulated crypto export) now does: forces ISPs to monitor and analyze the content of your every Internet communication. But the Times has said nothing.