Yahoo helps PRC jail journalist

[HayesStreet]

I thought it would be interesting to see the reaction to this. Does Yahoo have a greater social responsibility or should corporations just mind the bottom line?

From the BBC

Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of a journalist for "divulging state secrets".
Reporters Without Borders said Yahoo's Hong Kong arm helped China link Shi Tao's e-mail account and computer to a message containing the information.

The media watchdog accused Yahoo of becoming a "police informant" in order to further its business ambitions.

A Yahoo spokeswoman said it had to operate within each country's laws.

"Just like any other global company, Yahoo must ensure that its local country sites must operate within the laws, regulations and customs of the country in which they are based," said Mary Osako.

Shi Tao, 37, worked for the Contemporary Business News in Hunan province, before he was arrested and sentenced in April to 10 years in prison.

According to a translation of his conviction, reproduced by Reporters Without Borders, he was found guilty of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message.

Reporters Without Borders said the message warned journalists of the dangers of social unrest resulting from the return of dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in June 2004.

Censorship fears

The media organisation accused Yahoo of providing Chinese investigating organs with information that helped link Shi Tao's personal e-mail account and the text of the message to his computer.

"We already knew that Yahoo! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.

Western internet companies have regularly been criticised for agreeing to China's strict rules governing the internet, which Communist Party leaders fear could be a tool to spread dissent.

Microsoft was criticised in June for censoring what bloggers write.

The companies say they have to abide by local regulations, and point out that since China is set to be the world's biggest internet market, they cannot ignore it.

"Microsoft works to bring our technology to people around the world to help them realise their full potential," said a Microsoft spokesperson.

"Like other global organisations we must abide by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which we operate."

Earlier this month Yahoo paid $1bn (£556m) for a stake in China's biggest e-commerce firm, Alibaba.com.

bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4221538.stm)

[wnes]

Long time no see, hayes. Did you just escape from Katrina?

[HayesStreet]

Long time no see, hayes. Did you just escape from Katrina?

Nah, just got really busy at work.

[wnes]

According to a translation of his conviction, reproduced by Reporters Without Borders, he was found guilty of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message.

If the "internal Communist Party message" was marked confidential or something of that nature, then the guy is probably guilty. Ten years imprisonment seems too harsh though, giving the impression of political persecution.

I agree with Yahoo that it should operate within the laws/rules of a foreign country if it is doing business there. You cannot apply US standards elsewhere, hayes, you know that.

[HayesStreet]

If the "internal Communist Party message" was marked confidential or something of that nature, then the guy is probably guilty. Ten years imprisonment seems too harsh though, giving the impression of political persecution.

I agree with Yahoo that it should operate within the laws/rules of a foreign country if it is doing business there. You cannot apply US standards elsewhere, hayes, you know that.

Well, I believe quite a few people on this board support so-called 'whistle blowers.' I'm curious what they think of this. Besides, I'm not sure that operating within the confines of local laws obligates you to become a defacto apparatus of the state.

[wnes]

Well, I believe quite a few people on this board support so-called 'whistle blowers.' I'm curious what they think of this. Besides, I'm not sure that operating within the confines of local laws obligates you to become a defacto apparatus of the state.

There are "whistleblower protection laws" in U.S., aren't there?

[HayesStreet]

There are "whistleblower protection laws" in U.S., aren't there?

Now, I believe so. It hasn't always been this way - with the Pentagon Papers, for example (IIRC). And I'm not sure your standard is a good one. Nazi Germany certainly wanted IBM to cooperate in the holocaust, and IBM did so for profits. Was that a good thing?

[hnjjz]

Should Yahoo automatically refuse all requests for private account information from the government/police? The Hong Kong blogger EastSouthWestNorth has a nice post (http://zonaeuropa.com/20050908_2.htm) on this subject


Let us say that you insist that a company like Yahoo! shall never ever provide the IP information of its email users to the Chinese government. NEVER EVER, and it is etched in stone and not to violated under any circumstances. I shall now construct a hypothetical case:

A certain Chinese middle-class couple has an 8-year-old daughter. One day while going to school, the little girl was kidnapped by unknown parties. Then an email was sent from youhaveaniceday@yahoo.com.cn to the father:

We have something of yours. Prepare to have 10 million RMB available within 24 hours or else we will give it back to you piece by piece.

The parents do not have anything like that kind of money, and this must have been a case of mistaken identity. The family contacts the police, who goes to yahoo.com.cn and ask for the IP of the sender. Yahoo! replies:

It is our company policy not to disclose that information in order to protect the privacy of our customers.

Twenty-four hours later, another email comes in from youhaveaniceday@yahoo.com.cn.

You can find the first piece in a box alley behind the McDonald's restaurant on Second Street. Prepare to have the funds or else we will give you another piece in 24 hours.

In that alley, the police finds the right arm of the little girl. The police goes back to yahoo.com.cn and asks for the IP for the sender. Yahoo! replies:

It is our company policy not to disclose that information in order to protect the privacy of our customers.

Twenty-four hours later, another email comes in from youhaveaniceday@yahoo.com.cn.

You can find the second piece in a box behind the alley behind the bus depot on Northern Street. Prepare to have the funds within 24 hours and this is our final statement.

In that alley, the police finds the left arm of the little girl. The police goes back to yahoo.com.cn and insists on getting the IP for the sender. Yahoo! replies again:

It is our company policy not to disclose that information in order to protect the privacy of our customers.

One day later, the police finds the head of the little girl in a box behind the police station and an armless, headless body of the little girl floating in a lake.

The news about what happened gets out. Three things may happen:

* The principals at Yahoo! are arrested for aiding and abetting in a heinous crime, and Yahoo! is shut down by the government. Do you think that the world will feel sorry for Yahoo!?
* If the preceding didn't happen quickly enough, a massive consumer boycott takes place and the Yahoo! brand will be dirt.
* But even before all that, a spontaneously organized mob shows up and burns the Yahoo! office building to the ground.

This is a purely hypothetical example, but I don't see anyone really defending the sacrosanctity of consumer privacy under this set of circumstances. Conclusion: There will be instances in which Yahoo! must provide that information on behalf of public interest. We are talking about moral depravity otherwise.

The next question is this: Under what circumstances must Yahoo! provide that information? On one hand, it is clear that they should do so if that information is critical to saving the life of a little girl. On the other hand, Yahoo! should not have provided the information to allow the persecution of people like Shi Tao. Who is to decide?

Most judicial warrants appear in a written document in a terse form. For example:

"Pursuant to Executive Order #14536 from the Public Prosecutor's Office of Beijing, People's Republic of China, on this 8th day of September in the year 2005, you are requested to provide the IP information for the sender email account haveaniceday@yahoo.com.cn on August 31, 2005 between the hours of 7pm to 11pm to the destination nothavinganicedayatall@sohu.com."

There is usually no other evidence involved, precisely because this is an investigation and there is no reason for the whole wide world to know that so-and-so is the subject of an investigation that may lead nowhere. You will not find the name of the subject nor what he/she may have done. The request is also very precise. A request such as "all IP addresses for haveaniceday@yahoo.com.cn between January 1, 2003 and September 8, 2005" is a fishing expedition and no judge should permit such a warrant, but of course such a request may be appropriate for a person such as Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 terrorists.

Do you believe that Yahoo! wishes or ought to be the judge? Do you think that their employees ought to demand the government provide all its evidence, consider those evidence fairly and in totality, and make a case-by-case decision as to whether Yahoo! shall provide that information? In a country with more than 100 million Internet users, Yahoo! may get dozens or hundreds of such judicial warrants per day, and these cases may be urgent matters of life-and-death. And this is not just Yahoo! but every company (e.g. MSN, Sohu.com, Sina.com, 263, etc) that provides email services. Consider the kidnapping case above. Even when shown the text of the emails, the Yahoo! employees may decide that the information is inconclusive (what is that 'piece' of something?) and decline; in retrospect, though, after the body shows up, it is clear that they misjudged. Who wants to deal with the consequences?

Therefore, Yahoo! should in fact submit to any judicial demand to produce that information, because a corporation is in no position to decide the legitimacy of any evidence.

[HayesStreet]

Should Yahoo automatically refuse all requests for private account information from the government/police? The Hong Kong blogger EastSouthWestNorth has a nice post (http://zonaeuropa.com/20050908_2.htm) on this subject

That is an interesting response. However I think the holocaust example is a good one. Was it IBM's responsibility to figure out what their products were being used for before selling to Nazi Germany? The IBM settlement seems to indicate so. Should Yahoo prevent the PRC from stiffling dissent, even at the cost of profits? Some think so. Seems strange all the 'free speech essential for democracy/whistleblowers good' advocates are silent in this thread. Guess they're busy bashing Bush for stiffling dissent...

But then again if you used Hong Kong's example, I would agree they should turn it over. Is there a middle ground that allows for corporate responsibility AND quick reaction for real emergencies?

[hnjjz]

That is an interesting response. However I think the holocaust example is a good one. Was it IBM's responsibility to figure out what their products were being used for before selling to Nazi Germany? The IBM settlement seems to indicate so. Should Yahoo prevent the PRC from stiffling dissent, even at the cost of profits? Some think so. Seems strange all the 'free speech essential for democracy/whistleblowers good' advocates are silent in this thread. Guess they're busy bashing Bush for stiffling dissent...

But then again if you used Hong Kong's example, I would agree they should turn it over. Is there a middle ground that allows for corporate responsibility AND quick reaction for real emergencies?

I'm not very familiar with the details of the IBM case, but IIRC, I thought in that case, employees at IBM's German subsidiaries provided accounting equipment to the German government knowing that they will be used in concentration camps.

For the Yahoo case, if the Chinese police had told Yahoo that they need the account information for the purposes of prosecuting the account owner for incorrect political speech and Yahoo still complied, then Yahoo should be condemned. But no one is saying that's what happened. In all likelihood, the police presented Yahoo with an request for information with no explanation why they needed it, and Yahoo complied with that request as you would expect. Does Yahoo, as a private business, have the responsibility to demand detailed explanation from the government and judge whether each government action is justified or not before deciding to comply? Do we even want a society where any business has the right to pass judgement on whether a government action is justified or not and can decide for itself whether to comply or not?

In the US, decisions and judgements in situations like this are not made by the businesses involved, they are made by the courts (e.g. police need court approval for wiretapping). We trust that our judges will make the right decision based on US law and the business involved does not bear responsibility for following the decision of the judge. In China, however, the laws are different and enforcement of the laws are spotty at best. This is a problem with the Chinese legal system and the Chinese government, not Yahoo.

[HayesStreet]

In the US, decisions and judgements in situations like this are not made by the businesses involved, they are made by the courts (e.g. police need court approval for wiretapping). We trust that our judges will make the right decision based on US law and the business involved does not bear responsibility for following the decision of the judge. In China, however, the laws are different and enforcement of the laws are spotty at best. This is a problem with the Chinese legal system and the Chinese government, not Yahoo.

I agree Yahoo is in a bad position. As I said before, is there a middle ground?

[wnes]

Hayes, are you the Jessie Jackson of foreign affairs? Linking Nazi Germany with Commie China, hmm, I don't know between SJC and I, who should be more outraged or amused? Is WWIII in order?

The report is freakin' scarce on details. For instance, it could be there is a law in China banning journalist (who may well be a Chicom memeber himself) disclosing Chicom's internal memo, regardless how ridiculous you or I think it is. If the law is broken, then there's going to be a consequence. There're lots of US companies doing business in Saudi, where the local laws are even more unacceptable by US/Western standards. I sense you are pretty content with that.

I am all for political transparency, and I think China is moving towards that direction, albeit (very) slowly. Does Yahoo have a double standard? I think so, in absolute term. I also think it's a shame that a journalist should go to jail for 10 years for a non-consequential offense. Interestingly, from a utilitarian point of view, the Chinese government may have done something good for the society. So, in a sense, what Yahoo did was opposite to what IBM did for Nazi Germany. The last thing China needs now is politically related social unrest. Although I don't endorse CCP's knee-jerking reaction, I can understand them being extra sensitive about it.

BTW, the guy works for a business news medium, why was he sticking his nose into politics?

[Invisible Fan]

But then again if you used Hong Kong's example, I would agree they should turn it over. Is there a middle ground that allows for corporate responsibility AND quick reaction for real emergencies?

That's a big dilemma for multinationals and most use a "when in Rome procedure" that fits in accordance to how lax the country's laws are. I'm cynical to how American businesses respond to corporate altruism as their total percentages spent on charity have shrunk for the past ten years.

There was the Bhopal disaster when Union Carbide/DuPont leaked all that toxic gas in India and never bothered to clean up the mess while killing thousands in the process. Furthermore, the initial compensation price as extremely low.

I also remember when GM would rather settle claims on one of their models rather than recalling because the cost effectiveness out trumped human responsibility.

As for Yahoo, if we have problems with this, then it's not Yahoo's burden to enforce our local morality upon Yahoo's relationship with the PRC, rather it's the customers to force their morality upon Yahoo by hitting Yahoo where it matters the most.

[HayesStreet]

Hayes, are you the Jessie Jackson of foreign affairs? Linking Nazi Germany with Commie China, hmm, I don't know between SJC and I, who should be more outraged or amused? Is WWIII in order?

Not sure what your problem is - my comparison was between two corporations acting purely for profit, not between Nazi Germany and the current PRC. If you're outraged maybe you should protest China cracking down on journalists...

The report is freakin' scarce on details. For instance, it could be there is a law in China banning journalist (who may well be a Chicom memeber himself) disclosing Chicom's internal memo, regardless how ridiculous you or I think it is. If the law is broken, then there's going to be a consequence.

Uh, yeah. But there is that small issue of whether or not its desirable to have the media delving into what the state wants to keep secret. Some say that's a good thing.

There're lots of US companies doing business in Saudi, where the local laws are even more unacceptable by US/Western standards. I sense you are pretty content with that.

Not sure why you say that. Please explain how I am 'content with that.'

I am all for political transparency, and I think China is moving towards that direction, albeit (very) slowly. Does Yahoo have a double standard? I think so, in absolute term. I also think it's a shame that a journalist should go to jail for 10 years for a non-consequential offense.

Hmmm, you don't seem to be for political transparency when you defend the PRC state.

Interestingly, from a utilitarian point of view, the Chinese government may have done something good for the society.

Uh, how's that?

So, in a sense, what Yahoo did was opposite to what IBM did for Nazi Germany. The last thing China needs now is politically related social unrest. Although I don't endorse CCP's knee-jerking reaction, I can understand them being extra sensitive about it.

Hmmm, last thing they need is an informed public? I dare say I might have to disagree with that. But maybe you're one of those who term the Tianamen protesters 'criminals.'

As for Yahoo, if we have problems with this, then it's not Yahoo's burden to enforce our local morality upon Yahoo's relationship with the PRC, rather it's the customers to force their morality upon Yahoo by hitting Yahoo where it matters the most.

Well we disagree on your first assertion, which is that this is about 'local morality.' Some people believe rights are universal. The question is not Yahoo enforcing morality on the Chinese state, rather whether or not Yahoo should become an extension of the state as they seek to crackdown on their populace. While I wouldn't contend that corporations are now, as a whole, bodies concerned with morality (as opposed to pure profit), a melding of the two might be a good thing. I agree with hnjjz that this is a very difficult issue - very hard to tell the difference between a inquiry for a dissident or a child molester.

[wnes]

Not sure what your problem is - my comparison was between two corporations acting purely for profit, not between Nazi Germany and the current PRC. If you're outraged maybe you should protest China cracking down on journalists...

The comparison is ridiculous in both scale and nature of the events. In China's case, it's an isolated incident where an individual journalist violated the state's law(s) for "devulging state/party secret" (heck, you are sure to be put into jail for revealing state secret in U.S., journalist or not, unless you are Karl Rove), Yahoo simply complied with the local authority. There is no conspiracy involving massive internment of any ethnic group, no concentration camp, and no ethnic cleansing, whereas in Hitler's Germany, it was a systemic act by IBM lending its technology to assist Nazi to filter out people belonging to certain ethnic groups who violated no laws whatsoever. Yahoo didn't make a penny from cooperating with the local government, on the other hand, IBM profited mightily.

Uh, yeah. But there is that small issue of whether or not its desirable to have the media delving into what the state wants to keep secret. Some say that's a good thing.

It is a good thing, but you can't ask too much, too soon in China. Unless you wish to see China turns into chaos, like one of those former Soviet Republics.

Not sure why you say that. Please explain how I am 'content with that.'

Bring up some journalism freedom news/issues in one of US allies in ME and lets talk.

Hmmm, you don't seem to be for political transparency when you defend the PRC state.

Uh, how's that?

Hmmm, last thing they need is an informed public? I dare say I might have to disagree with that. But maybe you're one of those who term the Tianamen protesters 'criminals.'

Perhaps you don't understand, to CCP, June 4th, 1989 in China is somewhat like September 11th, 2001 to U.S. It's a political taboo to talk about anything positive on the Tiananmen Square students' protest in China, because, like I already said, CCP doesn't want any major political unrest of that scale, which is bound to destroy the economic development and bring instability to the nation. Just like post 9/11 in U.S., it's either with or against CCP on this matter. If you are OK with the U.S. Patriot Act (which I think you are), you'd better live with the fact that CCP is not going to renounce what it did to the protesting students on 6/4/89 on TAM Square any time soon. If you are still indulgent in your fantasy of overnight democratizaton in China, let me give you a dose of reality: the majority of the Chinese nowadays care sh!t about "6.4", all they want is to make money. When CCP creates loads of opportunities for the hoi polloi to accumulate wealth, the people are behind CCP 100%. A political freedom seeking journalist may be a hero in the late 1980's, he/she may well be a goat now in the eyes of Chinese public as a trouble maker.

Did it say the guy sent "secret" memo to foreigners? He'd be lucky if the nationalistic Chinese don't call him a "traitor", regardless the Chinese government gets him or not.

This is by no means to imply I approve CCP's stance on freedom of expression, political transparency, and a host of other issues. China is not ready yet for full-fledged democracy. Like hnjjz pointed out, the law and order in China are not to the par with much of the developed nations. What China needs is evolution, not revolution.

[HayesStreet]

The comparison is ridiculous in both scale and nature of the events. .

Um, no....its not. I didn't compare the holocaust to a single journalist getting persecuted. I'm not drawing the comparison you assert I am. Try again.

In China's case, it's an isolated incident where an individual journalist violated the state's law(s) for "devulging state/party secret" (heck, you are sure to be put into jail for revealing state secret in U.S., journalist or not, unless you are Karl Rove), Yahoo simply complied with the local authority. There is no conspiracy involving massive internment of any ethnic group, no concentration camp, and no ethnic cleansing, whereas in Hitler's Germany, it was a systemic act by IBM lending its technology to assist Nazi to filter out people belonging to certain ethnic groups who violated no laws whatsoever. Yahoo didn't make a penny from cooperating with the local government, on the other hand, IBM profited mightily..

Not sure, first off, that its an isolated incident. Second, Yahoo certainly complied because of the massive profits entailed in having operations in China. Sorry, but you're analysis is just way off on this one.

It is a good thing, but you can't ask too much, too soon in China. Unless you wish to see China turns into chaos, like one of those former Soviet Republics..

Hmmm, last I checked the disintegration of the Soviet Union was, by most measures, peaceful. I know the Chinese (I guess you included) have the disintegration of the state as the worst possible case, but as the SU empirically proves, it ain't as bad as you think it is. Hey, autonomous decision making for the people may even be a GOOD thing.

Bring up some journalism freedom news/issues in one of US allies in ME and lets talk..

Not sure where I've said the state should persecute journalist for reporting events, the ME included. If I have, as you assert, please point it out. Otherwise please cease your false accusations.

Perhaps you don't understand, to CCP, June 4th, 1989 in China is somewhat like September 11th, 2001 to U.S. It's a political taboo to talk about anything positive on the Tiananmen Square students' protest in China, because, like I already said, CCP doesn't want any major political unrest of that scale, which is bound to destroy the economic development and bring instability to the nation. Just like post 9/11 in U.S., it's either with or against CCP on this matter. If you are OK with the U.S. Patriot Act (which I think you are), you'd better live with the fact that CCP is not going to renounce what it did to the protesting students on 6/4/89 on TAM Square any time soon. If you are still indulgent in your fantasy of overnight democratizaton in China, let me give you a dose of reality: the majority of the Chinese nowadays care sh!t about "6.4", all they want is to make money. When CCP creates loads of opportunities for the hoi polloi to accumulate wealth, the people are behind CCP 100%. A political freedom seeking journalist may be a hero in the late 1980's, he/she may well be a goat now in the eyes of Chinese public as a trouble maker..

Well, I think you're the one being ridiculous now. 9/11 compares to Tianamen? Wow, haven't you just bought the party line, hook - line - and sinker. Sorry, but if you think student building paper mache statues of liberty, getting gunned down by TANKS is just the great state taking care of 'troublemakers' then we just don't have ANY common ground. When China is truly free I hope you'll reconsider.

Did it say the guy sent "secret" memo to foreigners? He'd be lucky if the nationalistic Chinese don't call him a "traitor", regardless the Chinese government gets him or not..

We'll see. Right now we don't even know what the material concerned.

This is by no means to imply I approve CCP's stance on freedom of expression, political transparency, and a host of other issues. China is not ready yet for full-fledged democracy. Like hnjjz pointed out, the law and order in China are not to the par with much of the developed nations. What China needs is evolution, not revolution.

Stop hedging. Your responses fall right in with the party line. Tianamen students were 'troublemakers,' journalists revealing information are 'traitors.' Your stance that China needs evolution is completely at odds with the reality that those who challenge the system ARE the ones who spur evolution.

[Invisible Fan]

Well we disagree on your first assertion, which is that this is about 'local morality.' Some people believe rights are universal. The question is not Yahoo enforcing morality on the Chinese state, rather whether or not Yahoo should become an extension of the state as they seek to crackdown on their populace. While I wouldn't contend that corporations are now, as a whole, bodies concerned with morality (as opposed to pure profit), a melding of the two might be a good thing. I agree with hnjjz that this is a very difficult issue - very hard to tell the difference between a inquiry for a dissident or a child molester.

What I'm getting at is if consumers were so fervently against the PRC for humanitarian reasons, they could enact measures such as boycotting products from companies that become extensions of that state.

AOL released tons of logs from their chat rooms and messenger service to the US because of the Patriot Act. Besides the usual civil liberties crowd, not a lot of Americans minded because of the mood set by 9/11.

That general attitude could be applied to the Chinese who are more lenient on civil liberties restriction as long as the quality of life doesn't degrade for the public.

Therefore, Yahoo could be persuaded if its largest market had an adverse reaction to its foreign dealings as its foreign market doesn't carry the same moral obligations as we have.

[DaDakota]

Come on there are ways to hide your address, Yahoo should provide an area of that type of mail...where people can post annonymously.

DD

[HayesStreet]

Therefore, Yahoo could be persuaded if its largest market had an adverse reaction to its foreign dealings as its foreign market doesn't carry the same moral obligations as we have.

If I understand you correctly, then I agree. Yahoo users can affect change (possibly).

Here's another take that points out Yahoo does assert a set of 'values' itself, and hence does have a morality based criteria to live up to. Yahoo Value Statement (http://docs.yahoo.com/info/values/)


For example, Yahoo says - "We share a personal responsibility to maintain our customers' loyalty and trust." Now call me crazy but I'm pretty sure this guy who just got TEN YEARS in prison for posting to a democracy website probably DOES NOT consider Yahoo loyal nor trustworthy.

Fast Company article (http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/09/08/at_what_price_freedom.html?partner=rss)

September 08, 2005
At What Price Freedom?
It's already been reported that companies such as Microsoft and Google censor content of Internet users in China at the behest of the government there. Now comes a story of how Yahoo -- which also allows its content to be censored -- gave information about one of its users, a journalist, to the Chinese government that was used to convict him, according to news reports and court documents.

Shi Tao, 37, who works for Contemporary Business News, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for posting to Democracy Forum, a Chinese language Web site based in New York, a government document warning about potential activism on the 15th anniversary of the Tiannamen Square massacre. Here's the Reporters Without Borders take.

"Just like any other global company," read a statement in a New York Times article, "Yahoo must ensure that its local country sites must operate within the laws, regulations and customs of the country in which they are based." Especially when you've just purchased a 40 percent stake for $1 billion in the Chinese e-commerce site Alibaba.com. I wonder how this all fits in with Yahoo's self-proclaimed values.


To think that Yahoo, which was founded in a country that espouses freedom of the press, and whose stock and trade is the free flow of information, would give in to a repressive government, is disturbing, to say the least. There's a higher moral imperative here that companies should demand of themselves, and, that users should demand, too. I leave you with this little nugget from Yahoo's Guide to Business Conduct and Ethics: "If you wouldn't want your action to appear in the media, it's probably not the right thing to do." Well, Yahoo, it's in the media.

[HayesStreet]

Another take from Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884) (referenced in the Fast Company article above):

Information supplied by Yahoo ! helped journalist Shi Tao get 10 years in prison

The text of the verdict in the case of journalist Shi Tao - sentenced in April to 10 years in prison for “divulging state secrets abroad” - shows that Yahoo ! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided China’s state security authorities with details that helped to identify and convict him, Reporters Without Borders said today.

“We already knew that Yahoo ! collaborates enthusiastically with the Chinese regime in questions of censorship, and now we know it is a Chinese police informant as well,” the press freedom organisation said.

“Yahoo ! obviously complied with requests from the Chinese authorities to furnish information regarding an IP address that linked Shi Tao to materials posted online, and the company will yet again simply state that they just conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate,” the organisation said. “But does the fact that this corporation operates under Chinese law free it from all ethical considerations ? How far will it go to please Beijing ?”

Reporters Without Borders added : “Information supplied by Yahoo ! led to the conviction of a good journalist who has paid dearly for trying to get the news out. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the Chinese government’s abuses and it is quite another thing to collaborate.”

Translated into English by the Dui Hua Foundation (which works to document the cases of Chinese political prisoners), the verdict reveals that Yahoo ! Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd. provided the Chinese investigating organs with detailed information that apparently enabled them to link Shi’s personal e-mail account (huoyan-1989@yahoo.com.cn) and the specific message containing information treated as a “state secret” to the IP address of his computer.

Yahoo ! Holdings (Hong Kong) is subject to Hong Kong legislation, which does not spell out the responsibilities in this kind of situation of companies that provide e-mail services. Nonetheless, it is reportedly customary for e-mail service and Internet access providers to transmit information to the police about their clients when shown a court order.

Tests carried out by Reporters Without Borders seem to indicate that the servers used for the Yahoo.com.cn e-mail service, from which the information about Shi was extracted, are located on the Chinese mainland.

Shi Tao Aged 37, Shi worked for the daily Dangdai Shang Bao (Contemporary Business News). He was convicted on 30 April of sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal message which the authorities had sent to his newspaper warning journalists of the dangers of social destabilisation and risks resulting from the return of certain dissidents on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

Chinese state security insisted during the trial that the message was "Jue Mi" (top secret). Shi admitted sending it out by e-mail but disputed that it was a secret document. He is still being held in a prison in Changsha to which he was sent after his arrest in the northeastern city of Taiyuan on 24 November 2004.

Yahoo ! and Chinese censorship For years Yahoo ! has allowed the Chinese version of its search engine to be censored. In 2002, Yahoo ! voluntarily signed the "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the China Internet Industry", agreeing to abide by PRC censorship regulations. Searches deemed sensitive by the Chinese authorities such as “Taiwan independence” in Chinese into the Yahoo ! China search engine, retrieve only a limited and approved set of results.

A US-based multinational, Yahoo ! Appears to be willing to go to any lengths to gain shares of the Chinese market and it is investing heavily in local companies. In 2003, it spent 120 million dollars to buy the search engine 3721.com. More recently Yahoo ! acquired a large stake in the Internet giant Alibaba in an operation that reportedly cost nearly a billion dollars. Reporters Without Borders has written several times to Yahoo ! executives in an attempt to alert it to the ethical issues raised by its Chinese investments. These letters have so far received no answer.

[wizkid83]

Here's my take, it sucks, I'm close to a Libertarian and believes in less gov't the better. But on the other hand, this is PRC we are talking about. We know they got a lot of things that they need to go to get better human rights. However, I'm more amazed at the limited amount of outcry for when state wants to intrude privacy based on 9/11 changed everything concepts. When you look at some of the jailings of suspected terroist held without trial and all the deportation of prisoners to get tortured overseas, you begin to wonder what's going on.


My views is PRC is bad when it comes to human rights, but I've seen signs of progress, while at the same time U.S. use to be the beacon of freedom, equality and protection of rights and now I'm seeing it going in an opposite direction.

[real_egal]

I am wondering how many times Reporters Without Borders wrote to US justice department or administration to inquire about that "Leak" incident, and whether they got answers. As far as I can remember, that the reporters were forced to give up source and threatened to put into jail.

I don't know about this case and all the facts behind it. Maybe my reading comprehension is poor, but my feelings is that the report implied or accused Yahoo! of supporting CCP violating human rights for profits. It's foreseeable but quite wrong. Yahoo! in China is supposed to comply with Chinese laws, which means if they were presented the order/request from court, they are supposed to provide the information, no matter whether they "think" the guy is a good guy. Please correct me if I am wrong, I believe it works that way in every other country. If Yahoo! in US provided some information of a person, who later was put in jail for "terrorism", they would probably be highly praised. But again, before Yahoo! would provide information, and the person would be prosecuted, Yahoo! wouldn't know whether that person is a terrorist, freedom fighter, undercover FBI, or just plain innocent, would they? I don't understand what's the outcry for Yahoo! here? They are supposed to make profit, and they are supposed to comply with local laws, why everything has to be treated differently, and spun endlessly, whenever the "commi china" is involved?

If people believe the guy is innocent (didn't violate Chinese law), they should seek legal means to help the guy to get decent lawyers etc. If people believe that specific law, which was applied to that person, was wrong and injustified, maybe they can write to their MPs, urge them to influence their party, to further infulence the administration, openly or privately to press Chinese law makers to change that wrong law.

Just leave Yahoo! out of this.

Disclaimer: Not a former or current employee or Yahoo!, no intent to apply for any position at Yahoo! in foreseeable future. Never owned any share of Yahoo! stocks:)

[real_egal]

Um, no....its not. I didn't compare the holocaust to a single journalist getting persecuted. I'm not drawing the comparison you assert I am. Try again.



Not sure, first off, that its an isolated incident. Second, Yahoo certainly complied because of the massive profits entailed in having operations in China. Sorry, but you're analysis is just way off on this one.



Hmmm, last I checked the disintegration of the Soviet Union was, by most measures, peaceful. I know the Chinese (I guess you included) have the disintegration of the state as the worst possible case, but as the SU empirically proves, it ain't as bad as you think it is. Hey, autonomous decision making for the people may even be a GOOD thing.



Not sure where I've said the state should persecute journalist for reporting events, the ME included. If I have, as you assert, please point it out. Otherwise please cease your false accusations.



Well, I think you're the one being ridiculous now. 9/11 compares to Tianamen? Wow, haven't you just bought the party line, hook - line - and sinker. Sorry, but if you think student building paper mache statues of liberty, getting gunned down by TANKS is just the great state taking care of 'troublemakers' then we just don't have ANY common ground. When China is truly free I hope you'll reconsider.



We'll see. Right now we don't even know what the material concerned.



Stop hedging. Your responses fall right in with the party line. Tianamen students were 'troublemakers,' journalists revealing information are 'traitors.' Your stance that China needs evolution is completely at odds with the reality that those who challenge the system ARE the ones who spur evolution.

First of all, yahoo! is supposed to comply, profitable or not. As a US based company, Yahoo! doesn't enjoy superority in any other countries. Arguing that they have profit in it, doesn't make them complying laws wrong. I don't know whether you will defend a US office of a foreign company to reject order or request from US court.

Talking about disintegration of state maybe a GOOD thing, you sound like Mrs. Bush talking about those "underprevilliged" evacuees. I agree with you, that may be a good thing for lots of people, but that's not something you or me, or any other country really have a say. The people in that state get to decide that. If you feel their true voice "wanting to be seperated from China" was unheard by most people, you can certainly do something to help, but not just assume what's good or bad for them.

You are putting words in wnes' mouth by implying that he agrees 9/11 is same to Tiananmen. He simply gave you an example to show you how "6.4" is absolute TABU for CCP. When I was a student in China, although not in Beijing, but still very much involved in the movement, as many others. However, as painfully as it is to recognize that, nowadays people in China, especially those youths, they don't care about democracy. wnes was right, people in China see those students involved in "6.4" as "troublemakers". Those people, the majority of Chinese people in China now, not wnes. Outraged? Yes, but I guess I have to accept that as a fact, that's what they think, although I strongly object the notion. Thanks to CCP propaganda, thanks to actions of some of the "democratic fighters" and "leaders" in that movement after they escaped to Western countries, thanks to people's selfishness and ego, thanks to improved economy etc etc. The students in "6.4" were forgotten or misunderstood or even falsely accused, but as a matter of fact, I still believe any small step the society and government takes towards democracy, consists of their contribution. Isn't that what's the whole movement was about? To make China a better place for Chinese people, it was never about to be remembered as Heros.

By the way, "Tiananmen massacre" is good for sound bit. But in reality, although hundreds people were killed on the streets of Beijing at the night of "6.4", most of them were average citizens, none of them were shot down in the Tainanmen Square. The imfamous official said that no one was dead in the Square, draw outrage worldwide. But theoretically, he didn't lie, he just told the partial truth (on the countrary, the famous or imfamous female student leader, who suggested that someone had to shed blood to wake up public and she's too important to do so, lied by saying she witnessed fellow students were smashed by tanks steps away. I believe she's now back in Beijing in some internet businesses after she got the US citizenship.) What he didn't tell was that hundreds people were gunned down elsewhere. Just another example of how partial truth could hurt people even worse than plain lies. Continue to call it "Tiananmen massacre" is not such a good idea, because the general Chinese public will have the perception that you are lying, which would prevent them from even listening to whatever you are trying to preach.

[wnes]

Took another look today at the reports on the imprisonment of this Chinese journalist for passing "top secret" to foreigners via Yahoo email account. The gist of all the hoopla is really about what is considered "top secret".

Incidentally, yesterday morning I heard a segment of National Public Radio program talking about something called the State Secret Privilege.

After 9/11, the U.S. government is classifying documents faster than ever before. At the same time the Bush administration is more often using the State Secret Privilege in cases involving "national security" in the War On Terror.

Actually there is a story behind the origin of the State Secret Privilege.

In 1948 an Air Force plane crashed in Georgia, nine men died, among them four civilians. Three of their widows sued to get the accident report. The government argued that releasing documents related to their deaths would threaten national security, and it won. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the government in what's known as "U.S. versus Reynolds".

Several years ago, the documents containing the information related to this accident investigation were declassified. The children of the dead finally had a look at those half century-old documents, and they say they can find nothing at all that relates to national security. They charge the government with a cover-up, and in so doing suggest that the case that underpins the government's right, aka the "State Secrets Privilege", to keep so many secrets, is based on a fraud.

Between 1953 and 1976, in the height of Cold War, the State Secrets Privilege was used sparingly - for a grand total of 4 times, however, after 9/11, it has been invoked mind-boggling 23 times. The courts sided with the Bush administration every single time.

Well, you see, every government, from the evil Chicom to the I-am-holier-than-thou U.S. government under GWB, has reasons to classify what it considers "state secrets" at any time, whether they deserve to be called state secrets or not, by the "objective" standards of some "interested" and political motivated journalists:
Chinese state security insisted during the trial that the message was "Jue Mi" (top secret).
If something is classified as "top secret", by divulging it to foreigners without authorization, the person violated the law, plain and simple. Even Mr. Shi Tao himself admitted it, according to Reporters Without Boarders:

Shi admitted sending it out by e-mail but disputed that it was a secret document.

If the U.S. government has legitimate reasons to charge and imprison someone who is deemed by the government as a threat (a terrorist, terrorist supporter, terrorist sympathizer, or whatever) to its national security in the name of WOT, so does the Chinese government, in the name of keeping social stability. As far as I am concerned, both U.S. and Chinese governments are a little bit of knee-jerking in their reactions/actions towards the "disobedient rebellions".

BTW, during 1989 student unrest in China, it was widely reported large sums of money was funneled from outside of China to the protesting student organizers. CCP didn't take it lightly - to them it was a conspiracy by foreign powers to overthrow the government in the name of "peaceful demonstrations". Put into the same situation, the U.S. government would not hesitate to use force to crush the unrest either.

[wnes]

For those who are interested, here's the link to the NPR site on "U.S. vs Reynolds" and "the State Secrets Privilege":

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4838701

[wnes]

Stop hedging. Your responses fall right in with the party line. Tianamen students were 'troublemakers,' journalists revealing information are 'traitors.' Your stance that China needs evolution is completely at odds with the reality that those who challenge the system ARE the ones who spur evolution.

Well hayes, more often than not, when my friends and I are discussing China, I am the one who is neutral or even on the "anti-chicom" side. However, after witnessing enough of your truly blatant anti-china hostility, I can hardly maintain any neutrality.

It takes two to tangle.

[Sishir Chang]

I've only skimmed this thread so might've missed something but here's my take on it.

I personally would hope that Yahoo would value freedom of speech and protect an informer's identity but at the same time if Yahoo doesn't cooperate with the PRC authorities they probably will not be doing business in the China. Right now China is a market of 1.2 Bil people and Yahoo needs the PRC more than the PRC needs Yahoo. So does Yahoo on principle take an action that shuts it off from the China market? If they did that while they might be politically brave but business foolish. Unfortunately Yahoo has an obligation to its stock holders to make a profit. In a case like this I don't see anything unethical about what Yahoo did but it is craven and cowardly.

The bottom line I guess is we shouldn't look to for profit corporations to be moral compasses.

[deepblue]

Does anyone else find it interesting that wnes, whom started 20000 different thread on how evil, corrupt, immoral, the bush administration is.

Yet the same wnes is now defending the PRC government, even trying to rationalize their tactics in Tiananmen square. :eek:

So next time when you start a thread on how evil the Patriot Act is, maybe we will refer you back to this thread.

BTW, I am guessing wnes was born in Mainland China, now lives in US?

[wnes]

Does anyone else find it interesting that wnes, whom started 20000 different thread on how evil, corrupt, immoral, the bush administration is.

Yet the same wnes is now defending the PRC government, even trying to rationalize their tactics in Tiananmen square. :eek:

The difference is, Bush has been moving from initially "good" (if we are kind enough to give him "benefits of the doubt") to "bad" to "worse" (not far from "worst"), while Chicom is slowly progressing (say, 1 step forward, half step backward).

So next time when you start a thread on how evil the Patriot Act is, maybe we will refer you back to this thread.

Any time.

BTW, I am guessing wnes was born in Mainland China, now lives in US?

Yep I am from the same city as Yao Ming. You've got a problem with that?

[HayesStreet]

Well hayes, more often than not, when my friends and I are discussing China, I am the one who is neutral or even on the "anti-chicom" side. However, after witnessing enough of your truly blatant anti-china hostility, I can hardly maintain any neutrality.

It takes two to tangle.

What 'blatant anti-China hostility?' Are you blatantly anti-US when you point out US government human rights violations? What the US does begs the question anyway, meaning that whatever the US government does is irrelevant to how we evaluate what the Chinese government does.

btw: its 'two to tango,' as in it takes two to dance the tango.

I've only skimmed this thread so might've missed something but here's my take on it.
The bottom line I guess is we shouldn't look to for profit corporations to be moral compasses.

Not sure I agree with you there, SC. Look at Enron, look at IBM/holocaust, look at Bhopal - just to name a few. We don't have to look to corporations to guide the people, but there is quite a lot of justification for corporations to act socially responsibly.

[Panda]

China's evolution is based on its economic development, much much more than a handful that challenge the system by sheer confrontation.

Let me tell briefly how it works:

1. More money means better education, better education leads to more awareness of civil rights and democratic decision process(such as the already in place elections on the village level).

2. More money means better education and more tools to make access to foreign stuff... by the means of travelling abroad, studying abroad, hiking on the internet ... without money those things are near impossible.

3. More money gives people more time and need to seek for civil rights. The bulging middle class of China will be a backbone of large scale social/political evolution in the future, which is already slowly taking place.

4. In seeking more money one must do business, and to do business one must be familiar with the business laws, such legal education puts many Chinese into a mindset that's not present before, including knowing what is legal rights, what is legal reponsibilities, what is legal procedures... such mindset puts the attention of the society moving towards discussion of the laws and legal process, with or without the government. People are getting more rational, rather than total obedience to a regime.

5. In seeking money laws must be refined and improved to an extent that promotes economic progress. Such change usually means involvement of legal transparency, as opinions of people must be reflected in the legislature process to make laws better. The prime example is the draft of the "Property Rights Law", which collected more than 5 thousands opinions from the public.

6. In acquiring wealth people cares much more about securing their properties, it's a great driving force towards democratization for the simple truth that a more transparent political framework protects individual rights better than a government operating in black box.

7. In process of making money, the state owned media is paying more attention to making money and less on just focusing on party lines. In fact, the slight progress of the Chinese media on government transparency is not done by the challenge of dissidents, but by the Chinese state media themselves. They want to make money, they want attention from the public, the best way is to meet the need of the people. There is competition between the state owned media. For example, there is usually several state owned newspapers in one city, and they need to test the limits and boundaries to attract more viewers. It doesn't mean they are going to actively/confrontationally/apparently express such need, but they will do what they can to squeeze a little leeway from the existing policies.

8. With all the above combined, there is first time a need on the people's side to sue the government for misconducting regulations, and there is first time a need for the government to admit that some branches can be legally challeged, as the authority of the government now partially lies whether it's capable of developing economy and maintain social stability, while before it lies exclusively whether the iron wrist can stifle dissents. Cases have been filed by people against government and won. Although the allowed legal area for such things is still limited, it's a good start.

China has already undergone a social/political evolution, spurred and maintained by its economical development. Some day China will need some dissidents to challenge the system and the government in order to make a landmark improvement, but when that day comes, it's because the evolution now taking place has accumulated enough changes to enable the social/political framework understaking the social unrest created by such dissidents. That day will come, as long as now China maintains its course.

Things are quietly going under the surface. It's a great honor for me to witness such evolution.

[Sishir Chang]

Not sure I agree with you there, SC. Look at Enron, look at IBM/holocaust, look at Bhopal - just to name a few. We don't have to look to corporations to guide the people, but there is quite a lot of justification for corporations to act socially responsibly.

There is an interest in corporations in acting socially responsible but I think you're missing the difference between behaving socially responsible and behaving ethically / morally. Social responsibility is something that goes above and beyond standard practices and yes I agree that Yahoo isn't behaving socially responsibly. OTOH behaving ethically or morally is when the corporation involves whether the corporation is doing something outright illegal, negligent or something that would be widely considered very morally offensive to most people. Enron behaved unethically in terms that it was ripping its shareholders off. It violated the very first rule of corporate ethics by not fulfilling its duty to generate revenue for its stockholders but instead ripping them off. Union Carbide was criminally negligent in Bhopal. While IBM working with Nazi Germany was engaged in a practice that was morally offensize to most people. From what I see of this story I don't see Yahoo's actions approaching anywhere near those levels.

As I said I'm not praising Yahoo and I don't agree with this but at the same time I don't expect Yahoo to undertake an action that in and of itself isn't unethical because it doesn't violate any laws, isn't negligent and while it does offend some people in terms of scope isn't comparable tio something like working with Nazi Germany, unless your contention is that he PRC is as bad as the Nazis. At the sametime though if Yahoo didn't take this action it would shut them off from the China market. At that point Yahoo is failing in its duty to its shareholders.

Unfortunatley such conflicts in regards to doing a duty to shareholders to make a profit and social responsibility are common to business which is why I said we shouldn't necessarily be looking to corporations as moral compasses. If it isn't illegal, negligent, or immoral a corporation has a duty to make a profit even if many of us find it repugnant.

[deepblue]

The difference is, Bush has been moving from initially "good" (if we are kind enough to give him "benefits of the doubt") to "bad" to "worse" (not far from "worst"), while Chicom is slowly progressing (say, 1 step forward, half step backward).



Any time.



Yep I am from the same city as Yao Ming. You've got a problem with that?

I have no problem, but it does explain your position on PRC a bit.

Next time when you claim US is "Not far from the worst", just remember if you were in China and blasting the Government the way you are doing to the bush administration, you'd probably be in jail.

[wnes]

I have no problem, but it does explain your position on PRC a bit.

Next time when you claim US is "Not far from the worst", just remember if you were in China and blasting the Government the way you are doing to the bush administration, you'd probably be in jail.

That you and others haven't seen me blast the PRC government in this forum doesn't not establish one bit of the notion that I approve everything it does. Contrary to your belief, criticizing the government in China nowsdays in itself does not land one in jail. But conspiring with some foreign entity, be it an innocent-looking and "truth-seeking" news medium, a "good-hearted" religious organization, or a "democracy-spreading" country, may well spell trouble for one. As it has been pointed out by several posters here, hollow democracy, especially when being forced upon from outside of China, doesn't not resonate well with the Chinese.

BTW deepblue, what do these two characters, 深蓝, mean to you?

'blatant anti-China hostility?'

Yes, that is my opinion based on your "liberal" reference to Nazi Germany, and the uninhibited eagerness for a chaotic disintegration of China for the sake of "democracy", knowing full well many lives could be forever ruined in such process.

What the US does begs the question anyway, meaning that whatever the US government does is irrelevant to how we evaluate what the Chinese government does.

Of course it's relevant. The gaping differences between the history (and other significant aspects) of China and the Western nations are sufficient reasons for not imposing an immediate Western style democracy in China. Ironically, China today is an envy of many former Soviet Republics, whether you like it or not.

btw: its 'two to tango,' as in it takes two to dance the tango.

Thanks for spotting it. I clearly mistyped, and was too obtuse to get it corrected myself in subsequent reviews.

[HayesStreet]

China's evolution is based on its economic development, much much more than a handful that challenge the system by sheer confrontation.

Things are quietly going under the surface. It's a great honor for me to witness such evolution.

Don't disagree with any of this. Its the reason successive administrations have adopted 'constructive engagement' in dealing with China.

There is an interest in corporations in acting socially responsible but I think you're missing the difference between behaving socially responsible and behaving ethically / morally. Unfortunatley such conflicts in regards to doing a duty to shareholders to make a profit and social responsibility are common to business which is why I said we shouldn't necessarily be looking to corporations as moral compasses. If it isn't illegal, negligent, or immoral a corporation has a duty to make a profit even if many of us find it repugnant.

I don't really know if we're that far apart. Remember I have asked since the beginning of the thread - 'is there a middle ground for yahoo?' OTOH, look at your last sentence - if its immoral then the corporation has some other duty besides profit creation. Is it immoral to become a defacto apparatus of an oppressive state? Compare this thread to all those threads that rip corporations for doing business with oppressive regimes elsewhere (from Latin America to Central Asia) and I wonder why any situation involving the PRC gets a free pass.


Yes, that is my opinion based on your "liberal" reference to Nazi Germany, and the uninhibited eagerness for a chaotic disintegration of China for the sake of "democracy", knowing full well many lives could be forever ruined in such process.

Hmmm, I already said above that the comparison wasn't equating the PRC with Nazi Germany, but with corporations acting unethically. Get over it. And I'm not exactly sure where I advocated the 'chaotic disintegration of China' at all, lol. Please point that out to me. I understand that 'order/stability' is higher on the value chain than individual rights. I disagree because that premise has been used by EVERY oppressive regime in history. If you look at the Soviet Union's 'disintegration' it was actually pretty orderly. If the people in China want the country to remain whole, as you indicate the everyman in China does, then what does it hurt to actually give them a choice? IF you are right about what they want, then there would be no disintegration, right?

Of course it's relevant. The gaping differences between the history (and other significant aspects) of China and the Western nations are sufficient reasons for not imposing an immediate Western style democracy in China.

No, its not relevant. If I say 'the Chinese government does x and that's bad,' you saying 'the US government does y' does not affect in any way, shape, or form the statement about the Chinese government. Hence, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Ironically, China today is an envy of many former Soviet Republics, whether you like it or not.

Whether I like it or not? What are you talking about? And I don't really see how ex-Soviet envy is relevant either, lol.

Thanks for spotting it. I clearly mistyped, and was too obtuse to get it corrected myself in subsequent reviews.

I wasn't calling you out, I thought you just had the phrase wrong. My bad, didn't realize it was a typo.

[wnes]

Hmmm, I already said above that the comparison wasn't equating the PRC with Nazi Germany, but with corporations acting unethically. Get over it.

I already stated your comparison of Yahoo doing business in China to IBM helping Nazi Germany filter out Jews among its residents is a horrendous twist of logic and facts. If you merely want to point out possible implication of a private company acting unethically on behalf of government, there are plenty of examples to go around without the reference of Nazi Germany. As bad as PRC did to its own people during much of the last five-and-half decades, and as much as you want to see China via red lenses, speaking PRC and the brutal Nazi Germany in the same breath is as ridiculous as it gets, no matter how you spin it.

You are entitled to sticking to your eskewed view of PRC, so am I having an opinion about you.

And I'm not exactly sure where I advocated the 'chaotic disintegration of China' at all, lol. Please point that out to me. I understand that 'order/stability' is higher on the value chain than individual rights. I disagree because that premise has been used by EVERY oppressive regime in history. If you look at the Soviet Union's 'disintegration' it was actually pretty orderly. If the people in China want the country to remain whole, as you indicate the everyman in China does, then what does it hurt to actually give them a choice? IF you are right about what they want, then there would be no disintegration, right?

Next time you are in China, try print on the T-shirt you wear or the business cards you distribute a Chinese translation of this: "Disintegration of China is not as bad as you think, as the Soviet Unions empirically proves. Hey, autonomous decision making for the people may even be a GOOD thing." Maybe I have been out of touch with what's going on in China for too long. Maybe there are many Chinese who think China would be better off if it were splitted into pieces. You tell me.

No, its not relevant. If I say 'the Chinese government does x and that's bad,' you saying 'the US government does y' does not affect in any way, shape, or form the statement about the Chinese government. Hence, it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Perhaps you need to (re)read my post in this thread talking about "U.S. versus Reynolds". What PRC did to this journalist is no different from U.S. government invoking "State Secrets Privilege" to cover its ass in misdeeds. Both are pathetic and paranoid, however somewhat understandable (for lack of a better word) when put into context. Per your grave concern, the individual rights were trampled in favor for "nation's rights" in both cases. Irrelevant? Don't you want China to have the American-style freedom of speech in the first place? Or do you have something better in mind?

I wasn't calling you out, I thought you just had the phrase wrong. My bad, didn't realize it was a typo.

No apology necessary. I genuinely appreciated it. Usually I am pretty alert to my own mistakes in English, however I missed this one badly. Credit to where credit is due.

[HayesStreet]

I already stated your comparison of Yahoo doing business in China to IBM helping Nazi Germany filter out Jews among its residents is a horrendous twist of logic and facts. If you merely want to point out possible implication of a private company acting unethically on behalf of government, there are plenty of examples to go around without the reference of Nazi Germany.

The IBM case is one recently in the public eye, which is why I picked it. Not because China purposely exterminated millions of people. That's what I've said several times. There is nothing illogical or ridiculous about the comparison I made, and truth be told I'm not even sure the comparison you assert I made is wrong. Its just not the comparison I made. Company A did X for profit and it was bad, Company B did X for profit and that was bad.

Next time you are in China, try print on the T-shirt you wear or the business cards you distribute a Chinese translation of this: "Disintegration of China is not as bad as you think, as the Soviet Unions empirically proves. Hey, autonomous decision making for the people may even be a GOOD thing." Maybe I have been out of touch with what's going on in China for too long. Maybe there are many Chinese who think China would be better off if it were splitted into pieces. You tell me.

IF there aren't any Chinese who want to split, then there isn't a danger of splitting, is there? Your argument makes no sense. You say no Chinese want to split, so if you gave them a choice (democratize) they wouldn't split, right? According to you there is no chance they will split, therefore there is no danger that giving them a choice will lead to the disintegration of the PRC. Its either a red herring thrown out by the government so they can continue to keep power for themselves, OR it is a lie that no Chinese want to split. You can't have it both ways, so choose and get back to me.

Perhaps you need to (re)read my post in this thread talking about "U.S. versus Reynolds". What PRC did to this journalist is no different from U.S. government invoking "State Secrets Privilege" to cover its ass in misdeeds. Both are pathetic and paranoid, however somewhat understandable (for lack of a better word) when put into context. Per your grave concern, the individual rights were trampled in favor for "nation's rights" in both cases. Irrelevant? Don't you want China to have the American-style freedom of speech in the first place? Or do you have something better in mind?


Again, when I point out that the PRC has taken a wrong action - you pointing out a wrong action by the US doesn't in any way affect that determination. The Chinese action is not wrong only if they are the only ones doing it. Similar poor analysis happens when we discuss Islam. Someone says Islam is violent and someone responds 'oh yeah, well Christianity was violent in the Middle Ages.' OK, maybe that's true - but Christians being violent does not deny that Islam is violent. There is no tension between the two arguments. One does not contradict the other. Both can be true. So similarly when I say China has done X and that is wrong - you saying the US has done something wrong does NOT contradict or disprove my point. If you want to start another thread about Reynolds or whatever, go ahead. But it isn't relevant to THIS thread unless your position is that 'all governments do it and so its ok.'

[real_egal]

IF there aren't any Chinese who want to split, then there isn't a danger of splitting, is there? Your argument makes no sense. You say no Chinese want to split, so if you gave them a choice (democratize) they wouldn't split, right? According to you there is no chance they will split, therefore there is no danger that giving them a choice will lead to the disintegration of the PRC. Its either a red herring thrown out by the government so they can continue to keep power for themselves, OR it is a lie that no Chinese want to split. You can't have it both ways, so choose and get back to me.


No one can be certain that no one among Chinese wants to split China. I am pretty sure that some people in China would want their province and area to be independent, for whatever reasons. But to invite them to a poll to vote whether China should be split, is to introduce the idea that a country needs to be disintegrated. I don't see any government is doing that willingly. I am pretty sure that most people in Texas DON'T want Texas to be an independent country, but I heard there might be a few who hold that idea. The same question can be asked, since there is no real danger, why didn't US goverment give Texans the choice to choose? But the real question is, why would any goverment voluntarily to offer citizens the option to split the country?

It's not ok, that Chinese government did something terrible, meanwhile some other goverments did similar things. It's not ok at all. However, from numerous posts of yours regarding China, I somehow get the feeling that you almost single out China for some common "bad practice" around the world. I would like to ask you again, whether you would praise a Chinese company in US refuse to cooperate and reject the court order from US, if the order says that the person they inquire about was suspicious of leaking secret information to foreigners, and the Chinese company simply based their rejection on their own judgement that the guy was a good guy. Would you praise that the Chinese company has high moral standard? Or you would rather say that they support "terrorism"?

Again, there is a Chinese old saying says, if you don't want something to be done to you, don't do it to others.

[HayesStreet]

No one can be certain that no one among Chinese wants to split China. I am pretty sure that some people in China would want their province and area to be independent, for whatever reasons. But to invite them to a poll to vote whether China should be split, is to introduce the idea that a country needs to be disintegrated. I don't see any government is doing that willingly. I am pretty sure that most people in Texas DON'T want Texas to be an independent country, but I heard there might be a few who hold that idea. The same question can be asked, since there is no real danger, why didn't US goverment give Texans the choice to choose? But the real question is, why would any goverment voluntarily to offer citizens the option to split the country?

Oops. Actually we do have that choice, fyi.

It's not ok, that Chinese government did something terrible, meanwhile some other goverments did similar things. It's not ok at all. However, from numerous posts of yours regarding China, I somehow get the feeling that you almost single out China for some common "bad practice" around the world. I would like to ask you again, whether you would praise a Chinese company in US refuse to cooperate and reject the court order from US, if the order says that the person they inquire about was suspicious of leaking secret information to foreigners, and the Chinese company simply based their rejection on their own judgement that the guy was a good guy. Would you praise that the Chinese company has high moral standard? Or you would rather say that they support "terrorism"?

To be fair, I have asked repeatedly if there was a middle ground for Yahoo. I see the PRC as a dinosaur of an age past. I understand that disintegration is historically a larger concern in China, more at the front of the people's mind, than in other places. I understand the current economic liberalization is good, and that is leads to more political liberalization - which is also good. Remember though that Deng was ostracized originally for his stance on reforms. Only later when he returned to power did he start the economic liberalization. In the same way he was denounced as a threat to stability, so were the Tianamen protesters. In the same way they are the vanguard of change - positive we hope. In fact, it was the fall of the totalitarian regimes in '89 that led to the crackdown in Tianamen. The CCP feared losing power if a swift movement started as it had earlier in the year in Eastern Europe. That had nothing to do with stability, because most of Eastern Europe tranisitioned peacefully - it was to maintain their own power. I don't agree with that. I understand totalitarian regimes often use stability as the excuse to continue in power and to continue doing the bad things totalitarian regimes do. If the US was a totalitarian state I would at least hesitate to endorse a Chinese company giving dissidents names to that state - for them to be persecuted.

Again, there is a Chinese old saying says, if you don't want something to be done to you, don't do it to others.

Good saying. If I was living UNDER a totalitarian regime, I would WANT the outside world to try and help and change that. I do not think the Chinese people are bad, or that the officials in the state are necessarily bad. But the system is, imo. I think you can trust the Chinese people with the decisions about China.

[real_egal]

<B>Oops. Actually we do have that choice, fyi. </B>

I am not very clear about that, please elaborate more, when was it that public opinions are asked in poll, how many pieces US is supposed to split to, how the population, territories, and national treasures should be distributed.

<B>
To be fair, I have asked repeatedly if there was a middle ground for Yahoo. I see the PRC as a dinosaur of an age past. I understand that disintegration is historically a larger concern in China, more at the front of the people's mind, than in other places. I understand the current economic liberalization is good, and that is leads to more political liberalization - which is also good. Remember though that Deng was ostracized originally for his stance on reforms. Only later when he returned to power did he start the economic liberalization. In the same way he was denounced as a threat to stability, so were the Tianamen protesters. In the same way they are the vanguard of change - positive we hope. In fact, it was the fall of the totalitarian regimes in '89 that led to the crackdown in Tianamen. The CCP feared losing power if a swift movement started as it had earlier in the year in Eastern Europe. That had nothing to do with stability, because most of Eastern Europe tranisitioned peacefully - it was to maintain their own power. I don't agree with that. I understand totalitarian regimes often use stability as the excuse to continue in power and to continue doing the bad things totalitarian regimes do. If the US was a totalitarian state I would at least hesitate to endorse a Chinese company giving dissidents names to that state - for them to be persecuted.
</B>

So in other words, if you are doing business with a totalitarian country, you don't follow any law and order, just make your decision based on your own judgement. You don't need to comply with laws, as long as you feel you are doing the right thing, because the court is wrong all the time anyways. If you are in a democratic country, you have to follow the laws and all the orders without asking any question, because you know that the court is always right. It would be a wonder if you can do any business that way. That leads to the conclusion, one should never do business with a totalitarian country.

<B>
Good saying. If I was living UNDER a totalitarian regime, I would WANT the outside world to try and help and change that. I do not think the Chinese people are bad, or that the officials in the state are necessarily bad. But the system is, imo. I think you can trust the Chinese people with the decisions about China.</B>

Exactly, I can trust the Chinese people with the decisions about China, and I think you can and you should too. They decide what's good or bad for them, without us telling them whether China should be disintegrated or not, whether split the country into several pieces a good thing or not. You are right, people living UNDER a totalitarian regime WANT the outside world to HELP them to change it. But if I was one of them, I would NOT want outside people to lecture me what kind of life I have to have, I would not want those people to tell me in how many pieces my country must be splited to. If I lived under Sadam's regime, I would blame Sadam and US at the same time. For US supported Sadam to get in power at the first place, Sadam dictated my life and brutally treated my neighbours. But I would also blame the sanction led by Western countries, for I was the direct victim of the sanction. If Sadam had 10 dollars before, he spent 4 dollars on his army and his own trusted people, another 6 dollars in the general population. After the sanction, he only got 5 dollars, he still spent those 4 dollars on his military and his people, but only had 1 dollar left for us general public.

I strongly agree with your last paragraph, that people should and can trust others with the decision about themselves and their countries.

[wnes]

The IBM case is one recently in the public eye, which is why I picked it.

Oh is that the only reason? Not sure if I can give you "benefits of the doubt" though, your perchant for China-bashing is too easy to be ignored.

There is nothing illogical or ridiculous about the comparison I made, and truth be told I'm not even sure the comparison you assert I made is wrong. Its just not the comparison I made. Company A did X for profit and it was bad, Company B did X for profit and that was bad.

Wrong and wrong again.

IBM formed strategic alliance with Nazi Germany, starting in 1933 immediately following Hitler's control of power and continuing well into WWII. The massive and complex task of identifying and locating millions of European Jews was so monumental that it could not be possibily done efficiently without the IBM's Hollerith punch card technology - the equivalent of a computer in the 1930's. IBM and its German subsidiary custom-designed complex algorithms and constantly updated and automated their systems to anticipate every need of the Third Reich to eliminate Jews, from the identification of the Jews in censuses, registrations, and ancestral tracing programs to the running of railroads and organizing of concentration camp slave labor, and ultimately, the annihilation of their entire race.

What has Yahoo done? Did it form strategic alliance with PRC to identify and locate the leakers of "state secrets"? Did Yahoo custom-design solutions for PRC to automate the persecution of political dissidents? Did Yahoo foresee it will make profits in China because it would be used by PRC as a political tool?

Blast PRC at every possible turn if you wish. Resorting to perverted logic and rhetorical exaggeration to advance your political agenda isn't particularly helpful to convince people.

IF there aren't any Chinese who want to split, then there isn't a danger of splitting, is there? Your argument makes no sense. You say no Chinese want to split, so if you gave them a choice (democratize) they wouldn't split, right? According to you there is no chance they will split, therefore there is no danger that giving them a choice will lead to the disintegration of the PRC. Its either a red herring thrown out by the government so they can continue to keep power for themselves, OR it is a lie that no Chinese want to split. You can't have it both ways, so choose and get back to me.

Printing some Chinese characters on T-shirts and/or business cards isn't a difficult thing to do. I am sure you can find plenty of cheap Chinese laborers out there, in UK, US, or better, in China. You can also bribe some local Chinese officials so they won't ask cops to bother you when you are doing your little investigation or polling. When you come back, simply tell us you were greeted by how many thumbs-up and how many middle fingers. More importantly, you'll have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to witness both capitalism and democracy in action in China, in one trip.

Again, when I point out that the PRC has taken a wrong action - you pointing out a wrong action by the US doesn't in any way affect that determination. The Chinese action is not wrong only if they are the only ones doing it. Similar poor analysis happens when we discuss Islam. Someone says Islam is violent and someone responds 'oh yeah, well Christianity was violent in the Middle Ages.' OK, maybe that's true - but Christians being violent does not deny that Islam is violent. There is no tension between the two arguments. One does not contradict the other. Both can be true. So similarly when I say China has done X and that is wrong - you saying the US has done something wrong does NOT contradict or disprove my point. If you want to start another thread about Reynolds or whatever, go ahead. But it isn't relevant to THIS thread unless your position is that 'all governments do it and so its ok.'

Look, I asked you if you have any ideal case of freedom of speech in the real world, but you couldn't even conjure up one. Unless you want to talk about utopian, this out-of-context discussion is really meanless.

BTW hayes, the current PRC may be an Authoritarian country, but by no means a Totalitarian regime. Your confusion of these two important yet distinct political concepts coupled with your lack of real-life experience in China may explain your tendency of mixing PRC and Nazi Germany (a clear-cut example of Totalitarianism) from time to time.

[Sishir Chang]

I don't really know if we're that far apart. Remember I have asked since the beginning of the thread - 'is there a middle ground for yahoo?' OTOH, look at your last sentence - if its immoral then the corporation has some other duty besides profit creation. Is it immoral to become a defacto apparatus of an oppressive state? Compare this thread to all those threads that rip corporations for doing business with oppressive regimes elsewhere (from Latin America to Central Asia) and I wonder why any situation involving the PRC gets a free pass.

Sorry I've only had a chance to skim this thread as I'm pretty busy with work and other things so I didn't see your middle ground point.

In general a for profit corporation as an entity has no moral obligation beyond making a profit for its share holders. It has societal and legal obligations to conduct its business in a way that isn't illegal or negligent. To the point that it does do something that most peopel find morally reprehensible the negative publicity hurting sales is the punishment they fear rather than a guilty conscious. For profit corporations are what they are and if a for profit corporation wants to do business in China that means working with the CCP. As I said its not something I'm going to uphold them for but but at the sametime as a small businessman who's the CEO of a small corporation I can't fault them for wanting to do business in potentially the largest market to ever exists. That's why I said a for profit corporation isn't going to be a moral compass and its a mistake to look to them to it.

I liken the situation to tobacco companies. I'm not a smoker and believe smoking is a bad and dangerous habit. That said tobacco companies are selling a legal product and I think that if people are really so concerned about big tobacco the solution is to outlaw tobacco rather than go around suing them for selling a legal product. Again I'm not defending tobacco corporations and feel they haven't acted socially responsibly or even in many cases morally but I'm not going to look to RJ Reynolds as a moral compass.

As for ripping companies that do business with repressive regimes personally I'm not someone who rips corporations for doing business in places like Libya or Nigeria. I think its socially irresponsible but at the same time believe that if people are so upset the solution is in boycotting their products and forcing them to change through their bottom line rather than just ripping them and expecting them to change out of their goodness of their heart. I mean you can't expect Walmart not to do business with the PRC if you shop at Walmart for their low prices. That other people do that's their own right as for this specific case I morally disagree with it but I understand why Yahoo did it and overall don't find it to be reprehensible enough to make me boycott Yahoo.

Is that what you're asking for?

[HayesStreet]

Is that what you're asking for?

Nope. Thought it was a development worth discussing. I am a little troubled by your interpretation of what a corporation 'should' do, though. Corporations ARE run by people - not machines. As such those people 'should' do what they can to be socially responsible just as their consumers should. That doesn't mean that they do no business otherwise - like you I understand decisions aren't black/white - but they CAN exert pressure on suppliers, just as consumers can exert pressure on them. If we affirm that a corporation's ONLY guide is profit then we encourage that outlook. That dooms us to a cycle of corporate misconduct (suprisingly that's what we call it - misconduct) whether it takes the form of dumping hazardous waste on the roadside because its cheaper than proper disposal or rigging your earnings reports like in Enron. In this case, no - I don't expect Yahoo to say 'forget it we're out of here.' But I don't think it is right to help the state imprison the guy for what he did - hence what 'could' Yahoo do (the question of a middle ground).

[Sishir Chang]

Hayes;

Though we consumers aren't helpless in this matter though. As I said we can vote with our dollars and if we don't feel a corporation isn't acting responsibly we don't have to shop at them. The whole concept of having a corporation is to maximize profit by limiting liability. So yes corporations are run by people but at the same time those people are their to make a profit for shareholders. If people are offended by what corporations do there are two solutions. One push for regulations preventing that behavior or don't buy from them. The surest way to change corporate behavior is to threaten their revenue.