http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6966116.stm

Quote :

" Yahoo plea over China rights case Yahoo logo on top of a tour bus in Beijing (file photo) Yahoo is one of many firms vying for China's lucrative internet market Internet giant Yahoo has asked a US court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing it of complicity in rights abuses and acts of torture in China. The firm filed a motion for dismissal saying its Chinese subsidiary had no choice but to comply with local laws. Yahoo is being sued by the World Organization for Human Rights for sharing information about its users with the Chinese government. The information has led to the arrests of writers and dissidents. One journalist cited in the case was tracked down and jailed for 10 years for subversion after Yahoo passed on his e-mail and IP address to officials. Ethical responsibilities In its 40-page response to the lawsuit, filed with a federal court in San Francisco, Yahoo acknowledged releasing information to the Chinese government. Even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow... US law and international legal standards as well, Morton Sklar World Organization for Human Rights But it argued that there was little connection between the information the firm gave and the ensuing arrests and imprisonment of its users. Yahoo said that while it did not condone the suppression of people's liberties, the firm had been compelled by local laws to hand over the information that was requested. "Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws," the company said in its filing. But Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights said the company had failed to meet its ethical responsibilities. "Even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but US law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad," he said. De-listed sites The human rights group brought the case on behalf of several plaintiffs, including the Chinese journalist, Shi Tao, and another named Wang Xiaoning. Shi Tao, who worked for the Contemporary Business News in China, was jailed for 10 years in 2005 for "divulging state secrets". Internet users in China Whole websites, including media sources, are eliminated from Yahoo He is believed to have posted an internal Communist Party message warning journalists about the dangers of social unrest resulting from the return of dissidents for the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising. Wang Xiaoning was also given a 10 year sentence for "incitement to subvert state power" after publishing pro-democracy material online. The BBC's David Willis in California says the case has prompted debate about the responsibility of US internet companies to protect the anonymity of users in the countries in which they operate. Yahoo is not the only internet company accused of collaborating with the Chinese authorities, which operate strict laws to regulate the internet. Rival Google freely admits to blocking politically sensitive items on their China website. Whole websites - including media sources - are eliminated from Yahoo and Google in China. De-listed sites are skipped over when the search engine trawls the web for results. The internet firms argue it is better to offer Chinese users some information than none at all. "

Is this simply the cost of doing business or is yahoo unfairly shirking responsability?

Could they have better been prepared by simply not keeping IP specific data on file?

Does this scare the everliving shit out of anyone else in it's implications?

(feel free to lock this if it's already been posted, or move it to techtalk or soapbox. I'm just used to more sane conversation in The lounge)

8/28/2007 6:59:30 PM

they have no right to do business in china if they will knowingly violate Chinese law. Yahoo did the right thing. Those journalists arrested know their own countries laws and broke them willingly.

8/29/2007 10:38:32 PM

Quote :

"they have no right to do business in china if they will knowingly violate Chinese law. Yahoo did the right thing. Those journalists arrested know their own countries laws and broke them willingly."

What a load of shit.

Fuck Yahoo and Google.

8/29/2007 11:24:54 PM

yeah ok. is that all you have to contribute? What tune will you be singing if a Chinese internet company opened a branch in the US and some of its users posted some anti-American pro terrorism ideology online and the US courts demanded the usernames and ip addresses so they can round them up and ship them off to Camp Delta

8/29/2007 11:41:10 PM

What are you smoking? What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't even make sense.

People are free to post "anti-American pro terrorism ideology" from American ips. They do it now. What's your point? What does that have to do with not supporting Yahoo and Google?

Yeah, the have no right to do business in China. But they sure as fuck didn't do the right thing.

Sorry if I don't condone companies putting profit above freedom of speech. What the fuck was I thinking.

8/29/2007 11:51:55 PM

You know what you oughta do?

Start a drum circle.

That'll show all those evil corporations!

8/30/2007 12:00:30 AM

^^coming from the Mother Teresa hater? lol I don't know if i can take anything you say seriously but here goes.

If you really think you have complete freedom of speech here then you need to remove your blindfold.

8/30/2007 12:05:43 AM

in almost every circumstance, i think "engagement" will always give better results than "isolation". whether it's China, Korea, Iran, Cuba, whoever...

so we can either engage china or isolate them.

yahoo can either do business with them or not. if they don't, surely someone else will. perhaps a local chinese or an indian or a russian technology company will step up to fill the void that yahoo would leave.

if anyone wants to do business with china, in china, they're going to have to play by china's laws.

chinese dissidents need to be more careful than using publicly available, unencrypted and unsecure emails to engage in subversive activities.

still, it sucks.

im glad i'm not chinese.

8/30/2007 1:48:00 AM

Quote :

"If you really think you have complete freedom of speech here then you need to remove your blindfold."

Almost without exception. We can criticize whoever or whatever we want too. Compared to any other country in the world, US freedom of speech is second to none. Even most European countries have stricter speech laws than the US.

Yahoo and Google can do what they want, but they are still subject to US laws. There are laws saying how US companies can operate internationally. Now if they violated any of these I have no clue.

Saying Google and Yahoo did the right thing is fucked up. Period. Was it a necessary evil in order to engage China or whatever? Maybe.

8/30/2007 10:23:51 AM

Quote :

"Almost without exception. We can criticize whoever or whatever we want too. Compared to any other country in the world, US freedom of speech is second to none. Even most European countries have stricter speech laws than the US. Yahoo and Google can do what they want, but they are still subject to US laws. There are laws saying how US companies can operate internationally. Now if they violated any of these I have no clue. Saying Google and Yahoo did the right thing is fucked up. Period. Was it a necessary evil in order to engage China or whatever? Maybe. "

Are you really that unexposed to this country and the world? To say that you have freedom of speech almost without exception in this country is truly ignorant.

Yes, yahoo and google are subject to US laws....in the US. I know bush is trying to be the world police and all and enforce his own laws on other countries...but last time i checked, China was free to govern its people any way they chose. Those journalists violated laws in their own country, and just as a court could demand a company to release information on its users in the US. The Chinese government can do the same thing although they have a different process I'm sure, and a much more efficient one. These are enemies of their state, not yours.

And no, it isn't fucked up. It is the right thing to do. The fucked up thing to do is break the law. If you knowingly break the law you should be prepared to pay the price.

8/30/2007 10:31:35 AM

Quote :

"And no, it isn't fucked up. It is the right thing to do. The fucked up thing to do is break the law. If you knowingly break the law you should be prepared to pay the price."

Breaking an unjust law isn't wrong. Saving people from torture/death/life imprisonment, isn't wrong. Handing over people to get tortured/killed because of something they say or write is wrong.

Quote :

"Are you really that unexposed to this country and the world? To say that you have freedom of speech almost without exception in this country is truly ignorant."

We do have freedom of speech. Sorry, I know you hate that.

Give an example of how we don't have freedom of speech in the USA.

In Germany you can't play video games with Nazi's. You can here.
In Britain you can't say Islam is a bad religion. (no joke.)
In <insert almost every Arab country> you can't have a picture of Mohamed.
In <insert almost every 3rd world country> you can't criticize the government.

Quote :

"Yes, yahoo and google are subject to US laws....in the US. I know bush is trying to be the world police and all and enforce his own laws on other countries...but last time i checked, China was free to govern its people any way they chose. Those journalists violated laws in their own country, and just as a court could demand a company to release information on its users in the US. The Chinese government can do the same thing although they have a different process I'm sure, and a much more efficient one. These are enemies of their state, not yours."

Hey guess what, we are free in the US to make laws governing how companies act in other countries. We have laws that make it illegal for a company involved in slavery to operate within the US. So we don't have to let them work here.

Oh, and US courts have usually ruled in favor of personal privacy in regards to mandating that ISPs turn over names. k thx.

China isn't free to govern their people anyway they choose because they aren't governed by their people. I don't give a shit what the Chinese government thinks.

Again, Fuck Google and Yahoo for doing this.

8/30/2007 11:12:38 AM

Quote :

"Give an example of how we don't have freedom of speech in the USA. "

If you really think that we have unrestricted free speech in the US, you are seriously more naive than a freshman girl at her first frat party.

do a ctrl+F for "unprotected" and "semi-protected" speech:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm

8/30/2007 11:46:14 AM

Quote :

"The fucked up thing to do is break the law."

This is the most superficial, stupid, inane, and potentially dangerous thing I've heard said by anyone this side of salisburyboy

8/30/2007 12:08:45 PM

Quote :

" If you really think that we have unrestricted free speech in the US, you are seriously more naive than a freshman girl at her first frat party. do a ctrl+F for "unprotected" and "semi-protected" speech:"

wtf are you stupid? Your own link cites the examples. ie: no shouting fire in a public place, no obscene words in a public place, no libel, etc etc. (almost all of which have minor penalties).

We are talking about Free Speech to express ideas, thoughts, criticism. Don't be a fucktard.

Oh and I said this:

Quote :

"Almost without exception"

You have to be fucking stupid not to appreciate that the US citizens have, by far, the most amount of freedom in regards to speech. We put up with a lot of shit that no other countries do.

8/30/2007 1:18:21 PM

This isn't a question about laws. This is an issue about ethics. The right to free speech is not something an American company should be helping a government reduce.

8/30/2007 1:28:39 PM

^Finally a sensible response.

It's an ethical dilemma. I actually agree with joe_schmoe, its better to give them some access and engage the country, than to isolate them. They cant operate within China and brazenly defy their laws. All that will accomplish is China deporting the non-citizens, seizing their operations and further implicating their national employees.

8/30/2007 1:38:26 PM

some of you people are well-intentioned but missing the point.

Yahoo has to abide by the Chinese govt's laws if they want to do business in China. Yahoo is not in the position to change Chinese laws.

Here's an analogy:

-- say there's another nation who has businesses that want to provide internet subscription service packages in the U.S.

-- this other nation happens to have less-strict laws about what constitutes child porn.

-- citizens of this other nation believe very strongly that have the "right" to buy/sell/trade any child pornography deemed "acceptable" by their standards.

Now these businesses tells the US Govt, that since it doesn't break *their* laws, that they don't have to give any information to US Law Enforcement about US citizens using their services to engage in the distribution of child porn.

...

They have two options. play by our rules, or GTFO. if they want to play the philosophical high road, then they need to pack their shit up and leave.

8/30/2007 1:43:51 PM

This joe_schmoe dude is so damn right.

8/30/2007 1:45:07 PM

Quote :

"Oh, and US courts have usually ruled in favor of personal privacy in regards to mandating that ISPs turn over names. k thx."

I guess that means its safe again to download mp3's on limewire...I must have been dreaming to think otherwise.

8/30/2007 2:41:29 PM

^ pretty much, unless you do it on a campus network

8/30/2007 2:42:30 PM

Quote :

"In Germany you can't play video games with Nazi's. You can here. In Britain you can't say Islam is a bad religion. (no joke.) In you can't have a picture of Mohamed. In you can't criticize the government."

meanwhile...in good ol USA, you can't drink a beer on the beach. You can't drink a beer until 21. You can, however, die for your country before you drink that beer. You can't drink in a bar after 2am in most places. You can't buy beer on Sunday in some places....etc etc etc. For a free country, they certainly take away such simple freedoms.

If you really want to test your freedom of speech then you should publish a website that talks about over throwing your government and bush. We'll see how long that lasts before its shut down and you are under investigation and imprisoned. This is pretty much what the Chinese Gov. is doing...just because you see the Chinese gov. as an evil doesn't mean they agree with you and won't defend their right to power.

Now, in countries where stability is an issue and governments can be over thrown with ease.......it makes perfect sense to revoke certain liberties especially when it helps keep the wrong people out of power.

Also, not having a picture of Mohamed is religious....you're comparing apples to oranges.


^^^^that was the point i was trying to come by...good analogy.

[Edited on August 30, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : fda]

[Edited on August 30, 2007 at 2:49 PM. Reason : ^^^]

8/30/2007 2:47:55 PM

^Right to become intoxicated has nothing to do with free speech

Quote :

"If you really want to test your freedom of speech then you should publish a website that talks about over throwing your government and bush. We'll see how long that lasts before its shut down and you are under investigation and imprisoned."

There are thousands of them. That have been in operation for years. This doesn't happen in the US. You may WELL be investigated, with good reason. But you will not be silenced without trial as a US citizen.

8/30/2007 2:51:18 PM

^i wasn't implying that it had anything to do with free speech. And its not a right to get intoxicated unless you are a dumb college student. its the right to drink what you want when you want.

8/30/2007 2:53:25 PM

Quote :

"Right to become intoxicated has nothing to do with free speech"

So... is that Free as in Speech, or Free as in Beer?

8/30/2007 2:53:27 PM