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
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.
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?
Should Yahoo automatically refuse all requests for private account information from the government/police? The Hong Kong blogger EastSouthWestNorth has a nice post 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?
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.
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?
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.
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... 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. Not sure why you say that. Please explain how I am 'content with that.' 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.' 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.
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. 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. Bring up some journalism freedom news/issues in one of US allies in ME and lets talk. 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 **** 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.
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.
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.
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
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 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 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.
Another take from Reporters Without Borders (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.
