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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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