backtop

Print 46 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Apr 24 at 2:08 PM

Yahoo cofounder and Chairman Jerry Yang ceded day-to-day control over Yahoo's China operations to a local management team in 1995 when his company invested $1 billion in Chinese Internet firm Alibaba.
The online giant could face sanctions for failing to protect dissenters' privacy.

Yahoo is again under fire for turning over Internet records to the Chinese government, action that resulted in the imprisonment and torture of political dissidents in that country, according to a human rights lawsuit filed this week. The World Organization for Human Rights USA is seeking unspecified damages and a court order to bar Yahoo from further cooperation with Chinese authorities.

Yahoo officials have acknowledged sharing user data with the Chinese government, arguing that Yahoo employees are required to obey local laws in China to avoid facing civil and criminal charges.

Officials for the Washington DC-based rights organization released a statement calling for U.S. companies to refrain from "participating actively in promoting and encouraging major human rights abuses." The lawsuit claims that Yahoo is in violation of federal and international laws against torture and other and other forms of political persecution.

Plaintiffs in the case include jailed Chinese dissident Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling. Fear of reprisals from the Chinese government has prevented other activists from joining the effort to curb Yahoo, according to the group.

According to Associated Press reports, a Yahoo spokesman declined to discuss specifics of the case, saying only that the issue should be resolved through diplomatic efforts rather than the courtroom.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
It's all about the $$...
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 5
Yahoo's only concern is the bottom line. Criminal action against its employees in China only hurt their bottom line. It's easier to just give the Chinese government the info, wipe their hands clean and continue doing business in that country. So what if people get tortured, not their problem...

Pretty sick, huh?




RE: It's all about the $$...
By rnnh on 4/20/2007 11:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
What if china wanted a company to build gas chambers?


RE: It's all about the $$...
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 11:38:23 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, I'm sure there would be a company willing to do it. Of course, for obvious reasons, they wouldn't make the request very public.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By 16nm on 4/20/2007 11:42:44 AM , Rating: 1
Gas chambers? Yeah, right. I'm sure they would much rather shove bamboo chutes up your toe nails then gas you any day. It's all about putting the hurt on to set an example.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By mindless1 on 4/23/2007 3:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
What if they already had enough chambers, but lacked a way to pick a few yahoos to fill them.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 11:47:45 AM , Rating: 3
> "Yahoo's only concern is the bottom line..."

As it should be. Companies exist to make money for their owners. Its the job of the people -- and their governments-- to pass or repeal laws.

Comparing this to profiting from the building of gas chambers is just silly. Yahoo was legally compelled to deliver this imformation...they didn't decide to sell it for a profit.

What if it was the US government that subpeonaed them for information-- then used it to arrest a person who wound up having his Miranda rights violated? Or even one who was sentenced, then wound up being tortured in prison? Is Yahoo responsible for every act of every government under the sun?

Companies abide by the law. If the laws are immoral, its up to people to change them.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By archermoo on 4/20/2007 12:11:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As it should be. Companies exist to make money for their owners. Its the job of the people -- and their governments-- to pass or repeal laws.


That is only true if greed is a replacement for morality. The desire to make money does not excuse the people running a company from the morality of their choices.

Whether or not they did anything immoral in this particular instance is another question. I'm just pointing out that the quest for money does not negate the need to take responsibility for your actions. So companies and the people who run them need to be concerned with more than just their bottom line. It certainly should be one of their major concerns, but it should not be their only one.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Total agreement. That was my point...


RE: It's all about the $$...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 1:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "That is only true if greed is a replacement for morality"

A company's manying money is not "greed". Its a prerequisite for them to stay in business. If all companies made no money, they would not exist...and they wouldn't pay salaries, employ people, or produce the products we need for modern society.

Plenty of nations have tried a model where companies should subordinate their profit motive to the "good of the people". They include the former Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and....China itself.

To demonstrate that Yahoo did the right thing here, lets take the "corporation" factor out, and all the anti-corporate emotional baggage that goes along with it. Let's say this was a one-man company, an ISP provider in Shanghai. The police show up at his front door one day demanding information. He can either a) give it, b) go to jail himself, or c) attempt to flee the country entirely.

Those choices above were Yahoo's choices. They didn't 'choose' to deliver this information. It was demanded of them, with the threat of force...a threat implicit in all government demands, regardless of the nation. Even had Yahoo decided instantly to shut down operations, they would have exposed their employees in China to legal retaliation and possible torture themselves.

When you're safe on a soapbox in America, its easy to condemn. But the fact is that Yahoo-- and every other ISP in China-- is doing good work there. They have to work within the legal framework of the country to do it though. If you don't like that framework, get the UN or some Chinese people itself to change it. Not vent your frustration on Yahoo.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By James Holden on 4/20/2007 1:27:45 PM , Rating: 3
All true, but companies like Yahoo do need to consider if the money is worth the negative PR and potential loss of sales in other countries.

Yahoo certainly could have refused China's request, and taken the hit in profit. Google or someone else would have filled their place, but it would be safe to say Yahoo would have been looked at in better light -- a PR move that could generate more revenue elsewhere.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 2:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "Yahoo certainly could have refused China's request, and taken the hit in profit."

Is that all you think would have happened? A "hit in profit? Government demands don't stop if you "just say no". It would have eventually culminated in armed officers inside Yahoo's China offices, arresting everyone they see, and going over the records themselves.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By Oregonian2 on 4/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's all about the $$...
By Oregonian2 on 4/20/2007 2:07:09 PM , Rating: 3
P.S. - The more proper way of doing things is not to keep records or for the records to somehow be missing (if required to be kept) -- rather than breaking the law and refusing to give it out. That's how it's done here. :-)


RE: It's all about the $$...
By redbone75 on 4/21/2007 5:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it interesting that many think that a company being lawful is a bad thing and that breaking the law is what a corporation should do whenever it wants to.

While I agree with your view in that sense I don't really think that's the point here. I think the problem people have is the country where the law was broken. It is the law in China that you cannot speak out against the government or you will be viewed as a dissident and arrested, fined, tortured, whatever the government sees fit to do with you. We are so comfortable with the laws we are accustomed to in the US and western countries that the actions of the Chinese government are always going to be viewed negatively by us. Yes, Yahoo! did obey the law of the land in China, but in doing so they put themselves in hot water with the rest of the world.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By Oregonian2 on 4/23/2007 8:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Having corporate headquarters in nice safe far away California directing their employees in China to do things that get those employees into jail (disobeying local laws) will make them look like a good company who looks out for people? Rest of the world will appreciate them sacrificing their Chinese employees, having them go into jail instead of, or perhaps in addition to the fellow being sought while they're sitting safe at a distance?

I agree with the sanctity of trying to protect the protester, I'd be nuts not to, but I don't think this is the proper forum (don't mean dailytech, I mean attacking the company for their business practices being legal when the world would prefer otherwise).

The problem is the laws there, not the companies following them. Attacks on those laws need to come from more appropriate directions, IMO. I stated in a previous follow up to my own posting (they don't allow editing here...) about what I think they should have done in practice to "wiggle" out of the problem (using common U.S. techniques).


RE: It's all about the $$...
By mindless1 on 4/23/2007 3:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that you twist the situation to suit your false argument, lumping all "lawful" and "breaking the law" into these broad categories instead of recognizing that governments are not innocent, and companies should have a little consideration for their patron's privacy even without a specific stipulation of such.

That doesn't mean Yahoo could resist, but it does mean your random assumptions of what "many think" are in error.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By Oregonian2 on 4/24/2007 2:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That doesn't mean Yahoo could resist, but it does mean your random assumptions of what "many think" are in error.


My assumptions are statement of the first paragraph of the article then attempting to make those people be consistent in application of their ideals. It was my very point that I think you object to. My point is that they would NOT be consistent. They demand Yahoo be a martyr and break the laws in some cases, but not in other cases. That's inconsistent and I pointed out by showing how silly it would be when applied to domestic lawbreaking. Subtle sarcasm of sorts. Maybe too subtle. :-)


RE: It's all about the $$...
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 2:31:41 PM , Rating: 2
The very fact that Yahoo is willing to do major business with a country that behaves this way, just for more business (which equals more profit), substantiates the use of the term "Greed". Of course, they aren't the only company or country that has practiced this.

It's just plain sad that American-born companies are supporting countries like this by bringing them business. On that note, it's also just plain sad that the US government has done the exact same thing.

I think Yahoo (among others) have clearly crossed the line from "staying in business" to greed.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 2:38:41 PM , Rating: 3
> "The very fact that Yahoo is willing to do major business with a country ..."

If no one did business with China, its people would have no Internet, no semi-capitalist endeavors, no thriving economy, and no publicity and diplomatic pressure from the rest of the world. In fact, they'd still be where there were in the 1950s-60s...near-starving, and under the thrall of the most repressive and brutal socialist regime in the world.

Mao killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined. His spirit lives on in North Korea, a nation that demonstrates quite clearly that "isolation" doesn't benefit the people of a nation whatsoever.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 2:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
And I'm sure that's exatly the reason why US companies are in business with China...


RE: It's all about the $$...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 3:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
No, they're in business to make money. Thats why capitalism works so well. They make money, reward their stockholders back home, and help to bring China out of its repressive socialist shell all at the same time.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 1:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
you cant single Yahoo out here... take some time to look at every single item in your house from your shoes, to your coffee maker to your electronics. 90% of it is made in China. It isnt all Yahoo.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By EidolWays on 4/20/2007 4:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. The salient point that needs to be made, and that is so often missed, is that a corporation is composed of people! It's not some massive monstrosity with a single will bent to the subjugation of people and markets. Corporations are run by people for the benefits of the shareholders or owners. By people, for people, if you will.

To state that Yahoo! should have refused the demands of the Chinese government would have, as masher2 points out, opened up their own people in China to litigation, imprisonment, and torture. Even if the American CEO's said "No way!", I doubt the employees in China would be so bold because, after all, it's their necks on the line. I'm sure a number of them even have families to support. Could they have refused the government's demands? Of course. Would it have ruined their lives? Also yes, of course. Would it have kept the Chinese government from getting the data it wanted? Very likely not. They would have paid a high price for little gain. Would Yahoo have looked better in the process? Sure. But who cares if no one will work for you because you leave your employees out to dry? Yahoo at least protected their own, and the process has obviously spurred litigation to keep something like this from happening in the future. The pressure is being put in the wrong place, though, because the Human Rights Org that is suing Yahoo is asking them to disobey the laws of the country in which they operate. That's an absolutely untenable position for a company. It's not the job of a company to change the world. Asking for Yahoo! to act with the solidarity of a military body ("We will not divulge the information you seek!") is asking a bit much of a civilian organization.

Then again, I suppose suing the pants off Yahoo! would be more useful than asking the U.N. to pass another of their useless resolutions, much less asking them to actually say "Bad China!"


RE: It's all about the $$...
By Decoy26517 on 4/20/2007 5:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the secret police a half century ago asked Yahoo where Anne Frank was hiding, would the correct answer be to hand over the information in order to comply with local laws?


RE: It's all about the $$...
By isaacmacdonald on 4/20/2007 4:36:39 PM , Rating: 2
While I disagree with the notion that corporate greed is somehow evil, I believe that valid criticism can be leveled against yahoo in this case. Yahoo has information that can be used by the Chinese government to unjustly (relative to western notions of justice and morality) abuse/torture those deemed politically threatening. When choosing to enter the chinese market, Yahoo had to have been aware that by agreeing to gov't stipulations and whatnot, it would likely find itself in the situation it is in now. I believe that makes them complicit.

So no, there's nothing inherently evil about seeking profit, but as outsiders assessing the moral shades of the situation we must weigh the benefits of western business influences, against the moral costs of operating businesses (particularly those that may be co-opted by the Gov't for nefarious purposes) within countries like china.

IMO this situation reflects very badly on yahoo. They have put themselves in the position of facilitating government abuse.


RE: It's all about the $$...
By goatfajitas on 4/21/2007 10:35:28 AM , Rating: 2
yup. LOL


Freedom
By Misty Dingos on 4/20/2007 11:55:17 AM , Rating: 3
I live in USA. The country that I believe has guaranteed the greatest amount of freedoms for the people. I also believe that everyone on the planet should be granted those same freedoms. I also understand that there are billions of people on this speck of cosmic dust that don’t have even close to my perception of what an acceptable level of human rights and freedoms are.

My heart goes out to them. Would I help deny people the same freedoms that I fight to guarantee myself? Many of us make a choice when we apply for employment with a company. How many of us add into that decision making process as to whether the company that we are seeking employment with deserves our support by adding my skills to their company? I am certain that there are many of you that would not even think of applying for a job at BP, CITGO, Walmart or CONSOL (they mine coal). You would you even think twice if offered a job at Microsoft, Google or Yahoo?

The goal of any company is to make money but when companies decide to make money at the cost of human lives then they do not deserve our support.

Before many of you make the counter argument that someone will fill that corporate void so why not make the money anyway. I will use the argument that my father used for me or my brothers when we would do something nonsensical. “If your friend ate crap in the middle of the road would you?” Just because someone or some company behaves in an unethical manner it doesn’t mean that you should too.

Is this a place for the courts? I don’t know. But I do know if the company I worked for asked me to do the things that was asked of these employees I would have quit.




RE: Freedom
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 12:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
> " do know if the company I worked for asked me to do the things that was asked of these employees I would have quit. "

The company didn't ask them, the Chinese government did. Actually, they didn't ask-- they demanded. Had everyone in Yahoo China refused the request, the government might have just issued a fine...or they might have just arrested them instead. Nations much friendlier than China have done just this before.


RE: Freedom
By Misty Dingos on 4/20/2007 1:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
I am well aware that any company that does business in China has to deal with extreme government control. This yet another reason not to business in China or with China.

If we wish to change China from the outside it will mean that at some level China and the people of China will be isolated. The companies that have made China the enormous economic power that it is have not done the people of China any favors.


RE: Freedom
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 1:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "This yet another reason not to business in China or with China..."

A person named Bill Clinton decided that a better policy than isolation was to extend relations, to do business with China, and the resultant effects would eventually open up their society and lead to more freedom for all.

I didn't neccesarily agree with it at the time, but by and large, his belief has been vindicated.


RE: Freedom
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 2:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but by and large, his belief has been vindicated.


A false sense of securtiy. The US is so fundimentally different than China at almost every level, there is no way his policy will truly work. It only leads to comprimise and that is a dangerous place to be with a government like theirs...

Then again, our country has comprimised so much that we've left our roots as a nation and became something completely different.


RE: Freedom
By bohhad on 4/20/2007 2:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
masher is right, look at iran... we cut them off, they get desperate and reckless. we open up to china, the people see what they are missing, and eventually the chinese citizens will demand the rights they feel they deserve


RE: Freedom
By vortmax on 4/20/2007 3:06:04 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe:

Iran's government becomes more and more desparate, while coveying the message that everthing is great to the public...until the government eventually folds and the people take control.

China's government is much different: continuing to bring in huge money, solidifying their power and control over the people even more.


RE: Freedom
By werepossum on 4/20/2007 6:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
<<A person named Bill Clinton decided that a better policy than isolation was to extend relations, to do business with China, and the resultant effects would eventually open up their society and lead to more freedom for all.
>>

Actually Richard Nixon made that decision, believing that interaction with Western freedoms and prosperity would necessarily drive China to relative freedom. Bill Clinton just removed the restrictions on what we would sell them - military hardware, advanced technology, that sort of thing. One can charitably assume he did it in the vane of Nixon, or churlishly decide it was for the large campaign donations he reaped, but certainly Nixon is the man who made the sea change in Sino-American relations. Nixon opened up China, although you could make the case that Clinton has fueled the recent technology explosion in China. (I should point out that the high-tech goods now produced mostly {sometimes exclusively} in China were until Clinton produced largely in Taiwan and South Korea - much friendlier nations to the USA - and in the USA itself.)

And I never would have believed it, but things look like that belief may yet be vindicated. As the current leadership nears the end of its reign, they are making numerous statements suggesting that a Swiss Socialist-type of democracy may be a good model for a limited Chinese Communist democracy. Definitely a good thing if it happens, although the price to the USA has been high.


Wrong avenue
By masher2 (blog) on 4/20/2007 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 5
If this group wants to take action against China, it needs to work through the UN, or via direct diplomacy.

Companies can't pick and choose which laws they want to observe. Had Yahoo not obeyed the law, it would have been subject to fines or criminal prosecution of its employees. Its not their fault the laws are unfair.




RE: Wrong avenue
By Decoy26517 on 4/20/2007 5:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Whose law should they obey? In the U.S. oppression is against the law. In February 2006, representatives of Yahoo!, Google, Cisco and Microsoft appeared before a congressional committee, accused of being accomplices of oppression.

It is beyond me how Cisco is able to do business with china as selling equipment for criminal prevention and detection to other countries is also against the law. Selling networking equipment for the use of criminal prevention and detection is what Cisco does.

If the U.S. continues to help oppress the people of other countries, it would be interesting to if the U.S. people will continue in their hypocrisy, or if the American people will actually take responsibility for their government.


RE: Wrong avenue
By eppenoire on 4/20/2007 7:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think too many people read the article that was associated with this because there are a couple of points that people are missing. First of all this isn't something like PETA calling a company out because their CEO wears fur and PETA thinks killing animals is bad. The World Organization for Human Rights is filing a legal action based upon US application of international law. It may come as a big suprise to American's but we have laws that dictate how a person or company abroad can represent the US. The WOHR is filing legal action against companies that signed the "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry" in 2002. This was a voluntary pledge by Corporations operating in China, that allowed the government to censor anything that might disrupt the social order.

The legal filings state that they are pursuing action against Yahoo for violating the Alien Tort Statue and the Torture Victim Protection Act. They are hoping for victory using the Alien Tort Statue, because it would broaden the scope of Statue to include corporations; currently it has only been applied to civil cases. The Torture Victim Protection Act, is an interesting application, because it would require that Yahoo gave this information with the knowledge that the man would be tortured. If Yahoo released information, with the knowledge that it would lead to the torture of another human being, Yahoo would be guilty.
Amnesty International and the US Congress are watching this case very closely, because both have called Yahoo and other companies who signed the "Public Pledge on Self-Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry" to task, but have not gone as far as filing legal action. The big issue here is not that a man was tortured because Yahoo released his ID, but whether or not US corportations are collaborating with foreign governments. While all companies operating abroad must comply with local laws, there is a line that needs to defined about when a company is operating in opposition to its native countries laws and principles.

An additional note, because several have mentioned cultural differences and "western ideals". China's government is a bastardized version of one of the only "western" forms of government. There is almost nothing Chinese in their government, Mao killed almost everything that was Chinese and replaced it with priciples and ideals that were drawn almost entirely from the West.


no
By sprockkets on 4/20/2007 11:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, sue Yahoo for failing to protect their privacy when they live in a country that doesn't respect it, where the government asked for it, yeah, not China's fault whatsoever.

If you don't like it, then perhaps we can start manufacturing our own socks, light bulbs, mixers, toasters, ceiling fans, vacuumes...




RE: no
By werepossum on 4/20/2007 6:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Lights of America still make light bulbs in the USA, including compact fluorescent, and oddly enough we bought some Wal-Mart "Great Value" incandescent bulbs made in the USA. And I believe Hoover still makes vaccuums in the USA - I know we were able to buy a Hoover carpet cleaner made in the USA several years ago. We paid a premium for American-made, but it was worth it to my wife and I. You can find alternatives in most categories, although some things are exclusively the province of China now.


RE: no
By Oregonian2 on 4/23/2007 9:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
Hoover was just bought out (or they who bought them was in turn just bought out), they were having financial difficulties I think. "Analysts" I read were criticizing them because of that very thing. Competition was making product cheaper than Hoover and were undercutting them in price -- and the buyers like low prices. They were having problems staying competitive (I buy for quality and both my regular vacuum and my "steam carpet cleaner" are Hoover because my analysis of how they were made made me like their the best even though theirs costed more (and I like buying US made goods whenever I can) -- but I don't know how many people think that way, and even then should the competition make some good stuff they'd really be in trouble).

P.S. - Speaking about "Lights of America", I still don't understand why the earth-day movement is so strongly for distributing mercury laden light bulbs to replace mercury-free incandescents. Seems odd to me.


It is ridiculour
By coldpinion on 4/20/2007 11:17:41 AM , Rating: 2
Different countryies have their laws differently and everybody in that country has to obey the local laws. I did not see anything wrong with the company.




RE: It is ridiculour
By PWNettle on 4/20/2007 4:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Yahoo! didn't torture and kill anybody - why don't these people go complain to China? Oh, yeah, they don't want to get slapped down and tortured themselves, so they come up with some BS instead.

Here's another thought - if you're going to be a rebel in a totalitarian country maybe it would be smart to not leave an electronic trail of your activities all over the internet.


By Cobra Commander on 4/20/2007 10:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
NPR was reporting yesterday Google and Microsoft were involved in this issue as well.?




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/20/2007 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to do business in that country, you will abide by that government's rules and regulations. It's really that simple, or don't do business there.

These groups need to realize that globalizaion has made this possible and there is nothing you can do about it.




Chairman Yang of the Human hive
By Runiteshark on 4/22/2007 2:36:17 AM , Rating: 2
I can't believe nobody else saw this. Can nobody remember Chairman Yang from Alpha Centauri? You guys should be ashamed .

I wonder if we have anyone in the Military who is named Colonel Santiago..




Not that simple...
By carage on 4/23/2007 4:14:09 AM , Rating: 2
It is hard to say who is wrong or right here.
Everyone has a different point of view and should be allowed one.
From what I stand, I believe Yahoo China didn’t do anything wrong.
Doing business in a country means you should comply with the local laws.
In my line of work, I have read a lot of international contracts, and almost all of them have some clause stating that the local operation has to comply with ALL relevant local laws, regulations, or government provisions.
A company cannot simply pick and choose which law(s) they wish to obey in this world. Of course, there was a time when it was different, but that era ended a long time ago along with colonialism.
The word sovereignty has a meaning. Wars can be started this way.
If the Chinese police start knocking on Yahoo’s doors, I doubt Yahoo really has much of a choice other than to comply. It is either hand out the information (and what the PRC government does with it is simply out of Yahoo’s control) or risk having their own employees experiment with the Chinese jail system, and that is not pretty. Oh yeah, Yahoo could also wrap up its business then come back to US like nothing ever happened, I doubt that would be considered good PR either. If they really want to act responsible, they should also obtain green cards or refuge status for every single employee who wants to come to US when they shutdown too. Now that would be an interesting sight on Capitol Hill and see if USA is still what it stands for.

Then on the other hand, the human rights guys also have a point. However, I think they are blaming the wrong people. If Yahoo does not comply, eventually someone else will. When no American companies comply, maybe European and Japanese companies will step up for the job. When no foreign country is willing to participate, eventually China will start developing their own complete with their own standards, and we have witnessed the creation of the world’s largest LAN. It is not impossible, remember China has the world’s largest population, so having a large wholly domestic network is not out of the question. Japan did the same with cellphones and PCs for decades. Now China is experimenting with cellphones and DVD replacements. Is this what the Politburo guys really want? I think it is possible. Is this what the human rights guys want? I don’t think so.




"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki