Vodafone Hands Data To Egyptian Police

Jack Spine writes "A Vodafone exec has admitted the company handed communications data to the Egyptian police following riots over food shortages last year, to aid the identification of suspects. Egyptian law enforcement has a habit of torturing and murdering detainees, or of having them 'disappear.' This is similar to Yahoo handing details of Chinese dissidents over to the authorities in 2005. It's nice to have it confirmed that multinational service providers shelve morals in the pursuit of cash."

Comments

Song

[Anonymous Coward]

Censor like an Egyption....

This is Government's Job, Not Corporations

[MightyYar]

I'm not sure it is productive to be looking towards these companies for moral behavior (Google, Yahoo, Vodafone). If we have a problem with the actions of the Egyptian government, then there are numerous ways for us to apply pressure.

Vodafone is based in England and operates just about everywhere in the world. If Egypt is acting poorly, then pressure your government to threaten sanctions on Vodafone (or any other company) for doing business there until the government wises up.

Frankly, if I were a Vodafone exec in a country with a reputation "of torturing and murdering detainies, or having them 'disappear'" I'd probably cough up information pretty readily, too. If you don't like that, then forbid Vodafone from operating there - don't complain that they are playing by the home field rules.

Re:This is Government's Job, Not Corporations

[MightyYar]

No, their ethics are not okay.

While it's fine to criticize the company, any effort directed at them is - IMHO - better directed at your national government. If a company does business in Egypt, this sort of thing is going to inevitably happen.

Re:This is Government's Job, Not Corporations

[sandysnowbeard]

So, you are saying that Vodafone's ethics are okay, "under the circumstances"? That seems to be what I get from your comments.

First thing, corporations don't have ethics, at best the people within those corporations have ethics.

The Vodafone exec would have a shitton of shareholders breathing down his neck and calling for his head if he pulled out of Egypt or sacrificed a large amount of shareholder money in order to withhold data from the government. What's really necessary if your assessing duty to the corporation is to look to the shareholders for responsibility. Some won't care, others might, but what if you stand to lose a significant amount of your invested personal wealth because you demanded Vodafone not hand over data at risk of being forced out of Egypt?

The moral territory is slippery. Social psychology phenomena such as the bystander effect imply that everyone is going to shift the responsibility or blame on to someone else. It's human nature. Another alternative would be to pressure the Egyptian government. But who should do that? Vodafone, other governments? Everyone has a variety of interests at stake, and it's often easier and safer to do nothing than to strive for change. I'd prefer a different ending than these people being betrayed by their service providers and Egypt's government screwing them, so isn't it more important to think of a solution than to get wishy-washy about 'vodafone's ethics.'

Re:This is Government's Job, Not Corporations

[MightyYar]

That's exactly the point. It isn't up to corporations to formulate our policy. If we don't like the local laws of Egypt, then we need to take action on the government level. Expecting a corporation to fulfill this function will drive you to madness!

They are supposed to follow the law and do their economic thing. I'd prefer that the people involved behaved ethically, but frankly that shouldn't be important. Things should be set up in such a way that if someone is unethical, they get caught. Also, we as a society get to decide which unethical things are also criminal and we can prosecute those people. If you don't want Vodafone operating in Egypt, get the government to say that any telecommunications company operating in Egypt will be subject to some sanction, or go all out and make it a criminal offense like in Cuba or Iran.

Re:This is Government's Job, Not Corporations

[zippthorne]

I think he's saying that Bob middle manager doesn't really fancy the possibility of being included in the list of dissidents to be tortured or disappeared, so to expect him not to comply is unreasonable.

The only way for Vodaphone to avoid having their hands dirty is not to have any employees in country with enough authority to be able to comply, which basically means they would have to get out entirely.

Similarly, the only way to avoid captains turning over cargoes to pirates when boarded would be to avoid the situation entirely. It's unreasonable to expect anyone on any crew to be willing to lay down their life for a box of stuffed animals or TVs, no matter how numerous.

eh?

[goldcd]

"It's nice to have it confirmed that multinational service providers shelve morals in the pursuit of cash."
Exactly which world are you living in, their entire remit is to make as much cash for their shareholders as possible - and board get a kicking (or even prosecuted) if they don't.
Exactly how many companies do you think had their share price rise on the news they sacrified some profits to do the moral thing?

Responsibility Diffused

[spun]

Why is it that corporations are expected, even encouraged, to act amorally, but we expect morality to be enforced by our government? It's like a sick dodge that lets us pretend that we are moral people, while acting amorally out of sheer greed. Sure, some people invest only in socially responsible, environmentally sound companies, but that is rare. Most people invest in companies that do things that those people themselves would never do. And they do so without feeling bad, or even slightly conflicted, because everyone is doing it, and what can they do, they're just one person. It wasn't their decision to poison whole villages and work people to death in unsafe conditions. They just profit from it, and they don't even have to know how that profit came about.

Re:Responsibility Diffused

[MyLongNickName]

Because I can vote for my government officials. Corporations exist to increase the public wealth. Government is supposed to set the boundaries that they can operate in. If Microsoft uses its monopoly position to stifle competition, it is the government who should step in. Saying "please be nice, Microsoft" would be rather unproductive.

Re:Responsibility Diffused

[spun]

Asking a corporation to be nice won't work, of course. But why do people continue to invest in companies that do things those people would never do? It seems that if we really wanted to end corporate injustice, rather than having our surrogates, the government, sanction the companies, we could do so ourselves by refusing to invest in them.

But we don't stop, because the diffusion of responsibility means that the investors will not feel badly about the actions the company takes on their behalf. Without ending that diffusion of responsibility, government measures will be simple stopgaps that never fully resolve the problem.

Re:Jesus Christ!

[MyLongNickName]

Thanks for you obviously well reasoned argument. No one thinks it is okay for Egypt to torture anyone. However, if you operate in a country, you better follow the laws there. If an ISP is required by a court order to turn someone in who is looking at naked 17-year olds, they better do so. Even if someone's opinion is that there is nothing wrong with this.

I don't want companies setting legal boundaries. If we don't like Egypt's was of running things, then we apply pressure on a governmental level, not through proxies because we are too big of wusses to address the issue ourselves.

For me, I figure we have enough problems to address here in the U.S. to keep us busy for a while.

Hmm...

[kabocox]

Some one in the US, or another somewhat free country complaining that multinational companies operating in not so nice countries abide by the not so nice countries' laws.

No duh. They don't want bad things to happen to their employees or such in that country. Sometimes the countries decide to "nationalize" "foreign" industries. I wouldn't want that if I were a multinational company. It's easy to complain about another country sitting here. Why don't you complain to the companies offices in said country for following the local laws. (Heck, the US has laws that basically say that companies and individuals have to turn over what the government whats when it says it needs it.)

As an example look at the previous slashdot article about a TX judge ordering topix to turn over trolls ID info so that they can be personally sued. There is no difference between the two requests to any multinational company. It's a legally valid request from the government. You other obey it or face the consequences.

Re:Jesus Christ!

[Jane Q. Public]

It was obviously not intended as a "well-reasoned" argument. It was an opinion, nothing more or less. I am perfectly capable of well-reasoned arguments when I wish, but I do have opinions too. Generally, it is easy to distinguish between them!

Corporations have choices about where they operate. It is NOT a valid argument to say "If we did not do this, someone else would." That does not change the ethics of the situation at all. For example, when Google said (as they very openly did) when deciding whether to censor Chinese internet, "If we don't do it, someone else will," Google did not thereby absolve themselves of the evil they are doing.

If they choose to operate in a country that has laws and ethics of its own, then that company is CHOOSING to adopt the ethics of that country. It is a clear and conscious choice, not some random happenstance. And they are responsible for that choice. Saying that "the law here requires us..." is not an excuse. They knew the nature of the laws when they decided to operate there. If they did not, then they are idiots... and I do not think they are idiots. Just unethical bastards.