backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by Blight AC.. on Sep 21 at 9:24 AM
Search company says they had no choice in aiding the Chinese government

Yahoo! has sought to dismiss a human rights lawsuit filed against it in late last August, in which the company stands accused of “aiding and abetting” the torture committed against Chinese dissidents on Chinese soil. The suit accuses Yahoo! Hong Kong of assisting the police investigation of “cyber-dissidents” by handing over the names and IP addresses of Wang Xiaoning, among three others, who used Yahoo!’s e-mail and groups services in their protests.

Mr. Xiaoning was ultimately convicted on the charge of “incitement to subvert state power” and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in September 2003, where he has allegedly endured torture and other human rights abuses.
 
Yahoo!’s 51-page response was filed in the San Francisco federal court. Mr. Xiaoning “assumed the risk of harm when [he] chose to use Yahoo! China email and group list services to engage in activity they knew violated Chinese law,” wrote Yahoo!, adding that the company was compelled to comply with the demands of the government over where they do business.
 
Filed by the World Organization for Human Rights, on behalf of Xiaoning and a few other dissidents, Yahoo! stands accused of violating the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1798 and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992; both have been occasionally successful in cases of foreign jurisdiction.
 
“Even if [Yahoo!] 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,” said Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights.
 
With China’s market potential, many businesses opening offices there have had to contradict their stated policies in order to remain in good standing with the Chinese government, which actively monitors and censors materials it does not agree with. Recently, Yahoo! and MSN China signed a “self-discipline” pact in China, where each company was “encouraged” to register the personal details of bloggers, self-police their networks for undesirable or treasonous messages and keep information on hand to assist police investigations.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 5
Oh I could hammer Yahoo for helping the Chinese torture and imprison people for the same thing that I am doing now (expressing freedom of speech) but I won’t. If they want to make a deal with the devil to make a few more dollars I say go right ahead Yahoo. But I will not knowingly use their services. And should they loose this case (I think they should) their company should be broken up and sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds should then be used to promote a free China.

I will on the other hand I do damn the Chinese government for the repressive nature of its regime. Freedom of speech, Freedom of assemble, Freedom of religion, Freedom from government repression, Freedom to form opposition parties. These are not negotiable. China Let Your People Free!

People are not a function of government. Government is a function of the people.




RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By gradoman on 9/20/2007 10:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well,

There are laws to follow and this guy broke 'em. Seems unfair to us, that his basic human right of freedom of speech was violated, but that's how it is over there. Yahoo has to obey the law and hand over this fellow.

People will pay the price for future generation's freedoms. Look to slavery and civil rights here in the USA -- wasn't too long ago that minorities & women didn't have basic rights either. Hopefully, in the not-to-distant future, the people of China will have transformed its govt and gain these human rights.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 11:23:09 AM , Rating: 5
Just because it is a law doesn't make it right. It was law in Germany that Jews had to wear yellow stars to identify them. Was that right? It was law in the US that people could buy and sell other people. Was that right? And in both of those cases brave people took it upon themselves to circumvent the law to do the right thing.

There are lots of laws that don't deserve any respect. And violation of those laws should be supported by people that can.

We in the free world should support and defend the denied rights of the Chinese people. That means when they jail and torture someone for speaking we should hold the Chinese government accountable and their accomplices also.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By gradoman on 9/20/2007 11:32:56 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, well who are you to tell them it is wrong? That's just like, in the Caribbean, where I'm from, corporal punishment is the norm in schools. Teachers are allowed to beat the kids. Do you find this to be "right"?

There are a lotta things that you probably would find "wrong" since your ideas as to what is right and wrong are one thing. You have been socialized into thinking that way.

Look at the laws for drugs in Indonesia. You will be effing killed if caught with drugs. Is this more "right" or "wrong" than in the USA -- where you will be sent to jail for a period of time..


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if people don't embrace moral absolutes, then the definition of 'right' and 'wrong' will never be agreed upon. I find that very disturbing...


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Adonlude on 9/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 3:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's horrible advice, but I think you already know that... :)


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Christopher1 on 9/20/2007 4:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why is that very disturbing? People are ALWAYS going to differ on 'morality', so I say as long as someone is not killing someone else or torturing someone else..... someone else's 'morality' can take a bullet to the head, because it doesn't belong in my business.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People are ALWAYS going to differ on 'morality', so I say as long as someone is not killing someone else or torturing someone else...

You answered your own question. It's very disturbing because someone's 'morals' may allow the killing and/or tortue of someone else.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "Just because it is a law doesn't make it right..."

But its up to the people to change laws. Businesses have to follow the law, like it or not.

> "That means when they jail and torture someone for speaking we should hold the Chinese government accountable "

How do you suggest we do that? Its rather hard to enforce your will upon a nuclear-armed adversary.

I don't like the Chinese government any more than you do (rather less so, in fact I suspect), but we have to be realistic about options. We can't use military force against China. We could cut off trade, sure. But that would destroy budding capitalism in the nation, and simply strengthen the rule of the Communists.

Doing business with China is the best way to subvert its government and help its people. It was one of the few things Clinton was right about.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
The people of China can not change their laws. And why do businesses have to follow laws anymore than people do? Pepsi smuggled sugar into the US during WW2 in direct violation of US law at the time. Their only goal was to remain in business. If they had been caught the company executives could have been imprisoned.

Yes it is very difficult to hold China directly responsible their internal policing. But we could proceed through diplomatic channels. If that were insufficient then we could deny them access to markets. Not all markets, as you said we do not want to cripple their capitalism. We could also limit their access to international banking. We could also deny US companies export licenses to China. We don’t need to threaten China militarily to achieve the improvement in human rights in China. The limits of our response is only curtailed by the boundaries of military adventurism on one end and ineffectual pandering on the other.

While we freely banter back and forth about the merits of the case against Yahoo here, I wonder how many of us would have the fortitude to do so if we knew that every post could lead to arrest, prison without trial and torture for years at a time. And only the prospect of slave labor as an improvement to the prison sentence.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
> "The people of China can not change their laws"

On the contrary. They're the only ones who can change their laws. US businesses can't do that, nor can a UN proclamation. The outside world can offer aid and encouragement...but China has to define its own legal code.

> "we could deny them access to markets. Not all markets, as you said we do not want to cripple their capitalism"

Deny them access to one market and you exert no pressure at all. Deny them access to many, and we cripple budding capitalist in the country. There's no easy solution, is there?

> "Pepsi smuggled sugar into the US during WW2 in direct violation of US law at the time."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course businesses can violate the law. But its not beneficial for them to do so. Corporations do not have the same rights as citizen. They cannot vote; they cannot change laws, and they do not have the moral right to engage in civil disobedience. If you work for a company and a law requires you to do something you find morally objectionable, the proper course of action is to resign...not to stay employed and refuse to do it.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 2:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Trade moratoriums would be more effective than pressure from the people. Crippling capitalism will harm the people but it can be just as likely to cause the people to take steps to change the government as creating a complacency though improving the private sector without first developing a more tolerant government.

The pressure on the government will be that it weakens the country. Prosperity doesn't cause change, it reinforces current behaviors.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Prosperity doesn't cause change, it reinforces current behaviors. "

What we're seeing in China is the exact opposite of this. Decades of poverty and hardship simply reinforced the government's strangehold on the people. Nascent capitalism is the first thing to change people's lives for the better.

Running Google and Yahoo out of China isn't going to convince the people to rise up and overthrow the government. It'll simply shut off what little access to the outside world they have, and roll back what advances have already been made.

Has pressure on North Korea made the goverment weaker? Quite the reverse. Government officials drive Mercedes, live in palatial homes, have access to the best medical care and luxury goods from all over the world. The average citizen doesn't even get enough to eat. They're far too busy rooting for roots and berries to even think about protest, much less armed overthrow of the government.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 5:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, there is now increased capitalism, not an increased state of poverty and hardship, and now they are still torturing people.

I never suggested Google or Yahoo should be ran out of China, access to information will have a strong influence on liberating the population.

North Korea has a different situation being much smaller, spending more of the GNP on their (relatively) huge military, and primary exports like labor, basic staples.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 5:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "there is now increased capitalism, not an increased state of poverty and hardship..."

Which is exactly what I said. That's a good thing, isn't it?

> "...and now they are still torturing people"

But they're doing so less than they used to. It wasn't that long ago that the PRC government was actively murdering tens of millions of innocent civilians, instead of just beating up a few dissidents. I call that an improvement.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
It is a good thing, but that the torturing continues then contradicts it being enough.

I'm not in the habit of thinking a country should be made more prosperous because they do "less" of a wrong thing than they used to. Draw a line and let them decide.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 2:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's unfortunately wrong on almost every account.

Prosperity has a strong track record of being accompanied by further democratization of countries. On the reverse, almost every time any world power has experienced economic calamity, the powers of fascism, communism or other extreme forms of authoritarianism rush in with amazing speed and effectiveness to fill the void of confidence. China has already proven this as it's current situation is much improved from just 20-30 years ago.

As far as starting a trade war.. that's be far more devastating to us than it would be to them -- for a multitude of reasons. Also, they'd like recover; the repercussions to America, though, and to the dollar in international markets, would cause such deep fundamental damage that we'd spend the rest of the first half of the century trying to claw our way back to the top ranks of the world eonomic ladder. All the while China would've simply exported to someone with less moral arrogance.

This kind of talk should strike everybody as similar to that of Iraq. We're there, now, to help the people with our own values. Now many human rights liberals get their panties in a wad over China. But we try to preserve them in Iraq and we get screwed and reviled.

There's over a billion Chinese. How many elite, ruling-class Party members are there? That's not "how many Party members are there" but how many elite, actually ruling class ones. Possibly a million? If they people give a sufficient damn, and decide that a damn shall be given, they would get what they want. Not. Our. Problem. I'm a conservative that has learned my Iraq lesson. ;)


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 5:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
We're not talking about vague ideas regarding smaller countries, this is modern day China. I'm not suggesting what we /should/ do, only what it would take for more immmediate changes instead of the gradual changes that are inevitable over the course of decades.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 8:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Large countries somehow follow a different set of economic laws?

I stick by the assertion that a crippling trade war would only strengthen the the Party's reign. You can hide behind the fact that the size of its population would make it an unprecedented case somehow different from Cuba but I don't see how it would matter. I don't believe there's a way to achieve the immediate goals you desire and you haven't laid out how you think they'd work either, not when the historical precedent for trade sanctions being one of total failure.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 8:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
What's left to understand? Simple policy changes to avoid a country-wide backlash from large export losses is fairly straightforward.

Naturally it's not immediate like flipping a light switch, but China has already resisted until now, and has no compelling reason to change if we just think in terms of helping them become more prosperous. This is basic human nature, they have to have an incentive, or penalty, in order to cause change. You're only suggesting that same trend that has already been occurring which has not worked. Yes they do it less, but it's not a matter of a number, it's a matter of the policy that allows it at all.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 8:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes they do it less, but it's not a matter of a number, it's a matter of the policy that allows it at all.


You speak in absolutes, then. Only Sith Lords speak in absolutes.

Anyway. In my other post, I strongly refute that they necessarily would be a huge back-lash; history doesn't support it very well when negative change occurs through the actions of a third party. Also, you make the assumption that communists would abruptly yield power to an angry mob. I don't view that as a foregone conclusion in the least.

We can see with their treatment of Hong Kong and slow constitutional and other law reforms that they're heading in the direction you desire. I would dare predict that within a couple decades they will be looking at us as the ones with less economic freedom. One could also ask if they're culturally prepared for democracy at this point... Patience!


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 3:16:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Trade moratoriums would be more effective than pressure from the people"

You have a basic misunderstanding of the factors involved. Trade sanctions don't directly affect government officials; they work indirectly. They're effective only when the economic harm they bring about compels the people to take action themselves. Saying "sanctions are more effective than pressure from the people" is an oxymoron.

Sanctions are often effective at compelling behavior from democratic nations. If you cut off the flow of new TVs, washing machines and designer clothes from the population of France or even Iran, you'll usually enrage enough of the population to engender action. But against nations like North Korea and China, they accomplish nothing.

Nothing positive, at least. Turn off trade, and the peasants leave the factories and return to the rice fields, where they're even easier to oppress. Is that really what you want here?


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 5:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
While you have a point, in that point the key factor is "trade sanctions... they work indirectly". They do have an influence and it doesn't matter if it seems an oxymoron that it still happens through the people because we are addressing an initiator of change NOW, not a slow progress over time. Yes it is about compelling the people to take action, and economic prosperity is not a compelling force (in having it, rather than wanting it or having lost it).

If the people leave the factories don't you think they are then more likely to be opposed to the government knowing the cause? What makes it easier to drag someone off and torture them if they are in a rice field instead of at a factory? This is backwards, the fellow the article was about is just one example.

The key to understanding this is realizing the amount of time it would take to effect a change. Claiming things would only revert back to the way they were is not entirely accurate because people have memory, become accustomed to good things and will make the required efforts to return their lives to the former state they enjoyed. For example, who is more likely to get a new job in the city, one who had a former job there or someone who never had? Who is more likely to work for change, one who has what they want, or one who does not?


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 8:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
I'll bring up a couple examples.

China itself, for starters. Conditions under Mao were far worse than they were previously; people knew what they were missing, rolled over, and accepted it. They also are probably aware that, if things continue as they have been for two decades now, within their lifetimes they were regain their historical status as the largest economy in the world. If we, an external force, start throwing sticks in their path to glory, I fail to see how it would be anything but something rally around the Party over.

Iran as well. We've tightened the screws on distillate imports; Iran has had to ration fuel. They've rolled over, accepted it -- and still support their nuclear ambitions.

Cuba at least once upon a time was disasterously poor, Havana in particular. Castro nationalized, according to Wiki, $25 billion worth of industries right off the bat, and Cuban nationals started pouring in to Miami. Now the country exists in a perpetual state of poverty, reliant to a degree of the charity of sympathetic dictators, and nobody inside seems willing enough to call for much change -- and this despite a total trade embargo.

In support of your thesis, you may be able to point at several locations in Eastern Europe that attempted rebellion after the Soviet's took ruthless control. Those had nothing to do, however, with trade embargo's, and everything to do with an external power wrecking their domestic lives -- exactly what we'd be attempting in a trade war with China over human rights.

If the EU, for example, banned Boeing imports for labor practices in America, I for one would not be angry at Boeing for not meeting socialist Europe labor standards, with a different culture than our own, even if they are in theory superior in some way or another. I'd be pissed at the EU for meddling in domestic affairs (just as American's were pissed when Chavez spoke ill of Bush in NYC), and wondering how long until we can start bombing the old world like the good ol' days of the 1940s for their unwelcome intervention.

It's perhaps true that if a pro-democracy George Washington of sorts exists in China then he may take advantage of a moment of weakness to rise up. Would the communist party simply yield power? I'd imagine hundreds of thousands could easily get killed. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions would rapidly be returning to abject poverty while two political ideologies fought for the second time across China in 70 years.

The people have to want it for themselves, and they have to slowly work with the government to make the transition as painless as possible over the long term. All other routes are fraught with danger -- and additional suffering. You don't think this is at all arrogant to try to force this on a sovereign nation? As you said in another post, we're not talking about a small country with a government easily not recognized, such as several in Africa; we are talking about a huge, stable, fast-growing country armed with nuclear weapons and the weight of thousands of years of mostly independent rule.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 3:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
The point I was making with the example of Pepsi is, businesses can and do violate the law all the time and it is often beneficial to them. If Yahoo, in this case, choose to destroy certain computer files or creatively loose them they it could be viewed as furthering change in China for the better. By allowing those dissidents to remain anonymous. But they didn't. I don’t buy the argument then that China could boot them into jail or out of the country. Ethically and morally there are risks that people or businesses take every day. How to manage risk is a top priority in business classes now days. Manage is not always minimize. Profits are not always found in the minimized risk column.

What is despicable about Yahoo’s behavior is that they are actively acting as an agent of the Chinese government. Every dissident they help put in a Chinese prison cell puts more blood on their corporate hands. There are plenty of people and business providing goods and services to the Chinese people that don’t further the repression in China.

If China becomes more free? How long do you think that the Chinese people will tolerate a company in their midst that helped to unfairly imprison free thinking citizens?

Civil disobedience has a long a storied history in the US. The Boston Tea Party was one such act. I feel it is in the US’s best interest to foster democratic change in China. And we should do all we can to support those who deify the Chinese government through nonviolent methods. Obviously it would be to everyone’s benefit if that change did not involve violent regime change.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "Civil disobedience has a long a storied history in the US. The Boston Tea Party was one such act."

The participants dressed up as Indians and snuck out at night. The next day, the protestors took off their disguises and went right back cooperating with the British government.

Had they not realized there is a time to cooperate and a time to resist, we might still be under British rule today.

> "How long do you think that the Chinese people will tolerate a company in their midst that helped to unfairly imprison free thinking citizens?"

Now you're just being silly. They've tolerated a brutal government for decades, one that's killed more than 50 million of its own citizens. You really think they're to be overly concerned about a business that was forced to turn over a name or two?

Face facts. Most of the Chinese population is more concerned about getting enough to eat than they are about freedom of speech. That's WHY their government finds it so easy to oppress them.

The only thing that will change that is prosperity and capitalism. Take away Western involvement in China, and you doom the Chinese to decades of further oppression.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By gradoman on 9/20/2007 6:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why I was rated down for my posts, but hey, Masher's posts are what I agree with.

We can only hope that more people in China take a stand against their oppressive govt.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By rsmech on 9/20/2007 11:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Businesses have to follow the law, like it or not.


They only have to fallow the laws if they CHOOSE to do business there. So if they choose there is nothing wrong with me disliking it or avoiding doing business with that company. And yes I understand the investor side of things or others not caring & myself being a minority, but that is what I can do for businesses who choose to have a blind eye.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By SeeManRun on 9/20/2007 2:08:23 PM , Rating: 1
What is right, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It is not up to the USA to determine what is right for other countries. They want freedom, they have to fight for it like all countries that now enjoy it. Imparting your beliefs on them will do nothing but harm them (Iraq) and there is no evidence the American system is the best (clearly it is not). Maybe the solution the Chinese come up with in 20 years will be the envy of the world.

Now, with that being said, it is rather unethical to condemn their behaviour but buy all their goods. If you want China to change, get everyone to stop buying Chinese made goods.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Christopher1 on 9/20/2007 4:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
"What is right, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder."

Not really. What is right is in the eye of the person doing the thing in question, and as long as they are not torturing or otherwise physically harming someone else....... what the 'beholders' think is right can take a long walk off a short pier.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Strunf on 9/20/2007 7:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well I find it quite wrong the whole... Guantanamo thing... and the death penalty...

But hey I'm not here to say what the Americans should do on their own country...

How easy it is to point fingers with out looking to yourself first.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By GlassHouse69 on 9/20/2007 9:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, we should take a bunch of them and put them in ovens after starving them, humiliating them, and mutilating them.

wait, who thought of that idea before me?

hm...


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Alexstarfire on 9/20/2007 11:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how any of this is Yahoo's fault. Sure they handed the names over, like they should have whether they really wanted to or not, and the guy ended up getting imprisoned and tortured. Did Yahoo imprison and torture him? NO. This lawsuit is bound to fail. The Tort Act might hold up if they sued the people that physically tortured the guy, but they aren't. They are basically suing the messenger for what the king did.

I agree that it's not right to imprison or torture someone who is being non-violent, but I also don't think it's right to sue the entity that has the most money just because they have the most money. If said entity is really at fault then it's just a matter of luck, but unfortunately most people are just looking to make a quick buck, or a couple million. The Chinese government sucks and will probably be that way for a while. For the most part as long as you don't stand out, or advocate against the government, they won't target you. I only know this cause I do have close friends who have family and friends in China. I'm not sure if they oppose the government or not, but I know they don't follow the law 100%.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By TechLuster on 9/20/2007 3:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And should they loose this case...

Jesus Christ, I've seen this flagrant error so many times on DT's forums. Generally, I'm not a spelling Nazi at all, but how the hell can you not know how to spell the word "lose?" Honestly, aren't you ashamed of yourself? (You probably aren't, since nobody seems to value basic education these days.)

At least upgrade to Firefox 2.0, which has built-in spell check (though it wouldn't catch the above error, which is why it was especially important to point out). Seriously, if you made an error like that when emailing, for example, a potential employer (and assuming that employer was at least mildly educated), it could kill your chances of getting the job.

And btw, before you all go modding me down, you should know that yes, correcting serious spelling (and grammatical) errors is a legitimate usage of the forums. If we don't correct people here, they may never be corrected and may continuously embarrass themselves, potentially compromising their careers in the process. Really, correction is the polite and considerate thing to do.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 3:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, easy trigger. It's pretty easy to double-type the same lettter...


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By VashHT on 9/20/2007 4:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad someone else posted about this cause it pisses me off too. It would be fine if they simply were typos but they aren't. Personally I think I see it spelled loose or looser like 90% of the time. I'm exaggerating some, but it actually seems rare to see it spelled correctly. So rare that I know some of these people think it is actually spelled loose instead of lose, or looser instead of loser. The comment that was quoted was obviously long and the author made an attempt to spell everything right, and he made the mistake twice. Obviously it's not going to show up in spell check because loose is a real word, but its pathetically sad how many people don't know the difference between spelling the words loose and lose.

And in response to you vortmax, if its a simple typo then why does it seem to only happen with the word lose, I hardly ever see typos like this with other words, its not like the o button has some magic properties to make it easier to hit it twice on accident.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
its not like the o button has some magic properties to make it easier to hit it twice on accident.

I guess you didn't hear about that big keyboard recall then...

...and who are you calling looser?? :)


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By pjs on 9/21/2007 2:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Chinese government's reputation in regards to civil rights stinks. Yahoo is in bed with said govenment, so Yahoo stinks, too. I avoid Yahoo and hope others do so also.

Yahoo, stop listening to your lawyers and marketing people and start doing the right thing. Get a clue, losers!!!

Paul


Set a precedent...
By oTAL (blog) on 9/20/2007 10:37:20 AM , Rating: 1
I hope they pay through the nose. They may have complied with the Chinese authorities but, in my opinion, they committed a crime agaisnt humanity and they should be punished for that.

What they did is OBVIOUSLY morally wrong. If it was not illegal then it should be made illegal!




RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 11:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
From a 'morals' perspective, they shouldn't be doing business in/with China in the first place. This goes for the bazillion other companies that outsource their work there. All they are doing is supporting & essentially encouraging the Chinese government. It's really sad if you think about it...


RE: Set a precedent...
By theapparition on 9/20/2007 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
I agree, and while were pointing the finger at the "bad" corporations, take a look at the three fingers pointing back at us. If "we" the consumer, want lowerer priced goods, cheap electroncis, right now china is one of the lowest labor rates out there.
The labor rate is low because workers are held in deplorable conditions, questionable materials, substandard saftey practices, no regulation for hazardous materials, etc.
So if you want companies to stop doing business with china, are you preparred to step up and pay more for everything?
Change begins with the consumer, it's the only way.

The lead paint and antifreeze toothpaste are a good start to get the consumer lemmings moving in the right direction. Will you step up?


RE: Set a precedent...
By Blight AC on 9/20/2007 12:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Shouldn't be doing business there? It's over 1/6th the worlds population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
That's a huge market just to write off.

Either way, in China, inciting a rebellion against the government is wrong, as it is in other countries. Yahoo! is merely obeying local law, I'm sure they don't want this bad press either, but what about all the Chinese residents who use Yahoo's services. Should all non-Chinese companies deny Chinese citizens their services, and leave China in the stone age, just because the government is heavy handed and governing in the stone age themselves.

If you don't like torture (and I'm not for it either), then we should be pointing to the UN to enforce or create world policy against torturing criminals.

Yahoo! was just obeying the laws, and I'm absolutely certain that the intent was not to turn in someone for torture, I'm sure the government didn't ask Yahoo! to turn over the records so they could torture the sh!t out of someone. They merely asked Yahoo! for the information, cut and dry, standard fare. Much like our ISP's and other companies turn over records to the RIAA so people can be prosecuted for illegal file sharing. Much like our government/law enforcement is able to demand information from companies (telephone, etc) to help fight terrorism.

The Chinese government is directly/solely responsible for the torture of their criminals. Yahoo! was just following local laws, much like we would expect Verizon to do if a terrorist used their service. This is the real world people, unfortunately, not everyone plays fair, or buy our own rules.


RE: Set a precedent...
By Muirgheasa on 9/20/2007 12:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Either way, in China, inciting a rebellion against the government is wrong, as it is in other countries.


How about when said government is abusing human rights? How about if said government doesn't actually have support from the majority of the state? If someone in China (like in any other country) doesn't like the government then they have a basic right to attempt to change it. If they gain more support than the government had then the government changes. In China this isn't allowed. The Chinese government isn't ruling for the people's good, but for its own. When a government no longer represents the people then the people need to change it. In China that's rather difficult, made all the more so by the fact that companies like Yahoo are helping put people who are guilty of no more than standing up for human rights behind bars.


RE: Set a precedent...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 1:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "How about when said government is abusing human rights?"

Then the people have a right to incite rebellion. Not businesses.

We don't allow corporations to vote for good reason. When you start giving ficititious legal entities the moral authority to engage in civil disobedience or lawbreaking in general, you're on very shaky ground indeed.


RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
But the businesses have a right to not do business in a country that clearly ignores basic human rights. Any business that chooses to do business there is clearly turning a blind eye to the people and opening that eye on money.

Let's not forget: there are people running the businesses...


RE: Set a precedent...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 3:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "But the businesses have a right to not do business in a country that clearly ignores basic human rights"

There isn't a government in the world that hasn't violated some citizens rights at some point. Should Yahoo withdraw from the US today, for fears that at some point in the future, the government might compel it to turn over private information against its customers will?

More to the point, what would the effect be of Yahoo -- and every other Western corporation -- withdrawing from China? Clearly it would return China to its old socialistic/dictatorial model, and ensure the Chinese people to the same brutal oppression they've seen since the days of Mao.

Far better to keep doing business with China, and allow capitalism to increase the wealth, education, and standard of living of the people to the point that oppression becomes difficult, if not impossible.


RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 3:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There isn't a government in the world that hasn't violated some citizens rights at some point.

We're not talking about some citizen rights at some point. It's much more than some rights and it's happening now. By your logic, we could go back to the beginning of every country's history and pull up some kind of dirt.

quote:
Far better to keep doing business with China, and allow capitalism to increase the wealth, education, and standard of living of the people to the point that oppression becomes difficult, if not impossible.

I just can't agree with any of this. Where did ethics go? What about morality? Let me ask you this: Are we just supposed to temporarily ignore the very principals we live our lives by just so capitolism has its chance to potentially better the people's lives? Or do we stand by the very morality our country was founded on and set an example for the people and government of China? If history is accurate, then the govenment in China (as it stands now) will not last forever.


RE: Set a precedent...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
> " Or do we stand by the very morality our country was founded on and set an example "

I'm more concerned with helping the Chinese people than I am with dramatic feel-good examples and knee-jerk reactionism. Standing on a soapbox and saying "don't do business with China" certainly gives one a warm moral glow. Good deed done for the day...time to go play some more CS.

But those of us who really want to help the Chinese people realize the situation is far more complex. To empower the people to resist authoritarianism, you have to give them the tools. First and foremost is enough wealth and prosperity so that starvation isn't a larger concern than human rights. More open access to information, especially information about the freedoms in other nations comes next.

Yahoo is fulfilling both those goals at present. They have to do so within the current legal framework, though, or they'll no longer exist. But you have to remember, they're not over there building tanks for the Chinese government to run over protestors with. They're in China, building a more open, capitalistic society for the Chinese people.

Certainly they're doing so for Yahoo's benefit, not the Chinese. But that's irrelevant. The point is the presence of Western nations and Western trade is the only hope the Chinese people have at this point. Let that influence work another couple decades, and you'll see a sea change in China.

Take it away, and you've reinforced Mao-style brutality for the foreseeable future.


RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm more concerned with helping the Chinese people than I am with dramatic feel-good examples and knee-jerk reactionism. Standing on a soapbox and saying "don't do business with China" certainly gives one a warm moral glow. Good deed done for the day...time to go play some more CS.

Do you want to know what the problem with our country is? It's that we've done just what you've stated. We stand on our soapbox and preach and preach and preach, but when the preaching is done, we settle back into our comfy sofas and do nothing. We don't practice what we preach. There is no power in that. It's all about walking the talk. I know this may seem a bit OT, but it's really the fundamental issue here. We need to get back to the basics and live our lives according to the morals this country was founded on. That's what made this country so great and helped make the world a better place.

quote:
Yahoo is fulfilling both those goals at present.

And I guess it was Yahoo's primary goal to help the people of China. That's mighty nice of them.

quote:
Certainly they're doing so for Yahoo's benefit, not the Chinese. But that's irrelevant.

It's only irrelevant if you could care less about morality. If we contradict the very belief system we live by, then there isn't much point in anything else.

quote:
Let that influence work another couple decades, and you'll see a sea change in China.

The only thing we are accomplishing by doing business in China is making the average Chinese citizen's life a bit more bearable while enforcing the current governments power over the people.


RE: Set a precedent...
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 4:56:12 PM , Rating: 2
> "And I guess it was Yahoo's primary goal to help the people of China. That's mighty nice of them"

You're missing the primary benefit of Capitalism. 999 times out of a thousand, when a company helps itself, it helps the people as well. That's why the system works so well.

As I already said, Yahoo is in China to help itself, not to bring prosperity and freedom to the Chinese people. But by helping itself, it help the people. Automatically. It can't help it.

People who, ten years ago, were working 12-hour days in rice paddies for a dime a day are now in offices, browsing web pages around the world. So the government blocks some of those sites? Are you really suggesting the alternative is better?

There are only two ways out for China. Either a bloody civil war that will kill tens of millions of people and just might result in an even more oppressive regime...or an increasing reliance on Capitalism, which will create a populace too educated, prosperous, and informed to be easily manipulated.

I'll take the latter approach any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. How about you?


RE: Set a precedent...
By Blight AC on 9/20/2007 4:19:55 PM , Rating: 2
You know some other people had the same opinion as you, "That our way is right and should be enforced".. like the folks who participated in the Salem Witch Trials, Crusades and many other religious zealots who force their god down the heathens throats, Nazi's, Mormons....

We are not all the same. The world has a variety of cultures, beliefs, ideals. We must respect the differences or you get what we have now.. Saddam Hussein was a bad man, no doubt about it, but look at the wreck that Iraq is in now. This is what happens when we force our ideals on other nations. You get wars like Vietnam, the current Iraq situation. If we tried the same with China, it would be far worse.

It's a far better idea to help them grow and become a global nation then to force our ways on them.


RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but there are moral absolutes that exist for all nations. Believing in them or not does not change the fact that they exist.


RE: Set a precedent...
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:36:51 PM , Rating: 2
...and the folks who participated in the Salem Witch Trials, Crusades and many other religious zealots who force their god down the heathens throats, Nazi's, Mormons... are not following them...


RE: Set a precedent...
By Blight AC on 9/20/2007 4:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, I also think he'd be hard pressed to find an international business that doesn't conduct business in China or some other nation that has questionable practices. Don't eat at McDonalds, don't use Microsoft products, don't play World of Warcraft!


RE: Set a precedent...
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 2:25:10 PM , Rating: 2
How would the UN creating and enforcing policies against torture, effect a change when the government already exempts themselves from it? Do you think China doesn't know the free world's stance on torture yet?

Unless you suggest they will invade China, what remains are trade sanctions.


RE: Set a precedent...
By Blight AC on 9/20/2007 3:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
China is a member of the UN, and the People Republic of China, not the Republic of China (Taiwan).

"Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations."
http://www.un.org/members/

Either way, my point is criticizing Yahoo! is not going to stop the Chinese government from torturing it's criminals, and it's pointless to put Yahoo! on trial for obeying local law.


RE: Set a precedent...
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 5:37:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Yahoo is just a victim of the climate in China. However, they did put themselves in the position of facilitation. As you might be required to keep others from conducting criminal operations on your property, so might yahoo need to police their services.


RE: Set a precedent...
By Blight AC on 9/21/2007 9:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Accessory to the crime, if they used Yahoo! service to commit the crime, then Yahoo! could be considered an accessory.

"A person with such knowledge may become an accessory by helping or encouraging the criminal in some way, or simply by failing to report the crime to proper authority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term...

Now, the folks who work at Yahoo! China are residents of China, people who understand the culture and laws, and that are also punishable under those laws. Knowing that they torture criminals, if you were in their shoes, would you refuse to give the government the information it demanded?


small question
By Screwballl on 9/20/2007 10:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
What happened to jurisdiction?
Since when can an American company be sued on American soil for something not even in this country such as this lawsuit?
Take it to Chinese courts (where it will likely fail)...
will be interesting to see where this goes.




RE: small question
By TomCorelis (blog) on 9/20/2007 11:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
True, but in certain circumstances jurisdiction seems to change. Weren't they trying to prosecute that guy who killed Jonbenet Ramsey on charges of statutory rape or somesuch because of his activities in Thailand?


Hypocrisy at its finest
By pnyffeler on 9/20/2007 12:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
While I might agree that if Yahoo really was concerned about human rights, it wouldn't have started business in China, there's a bigger issue hidden behind this case.

Nobody can deny that Yahoo's compliance with CHINESE law led to the CHINESE government to arrest and torture dissidents. While you might sit there and say that Yahoo crapped on people's human rights, the real culprit here is the actions of the Chinese government. They're the ones doing the torturing, robbing people of their human rights, and passing laws making foreign governments comply with their oppressive regime.

So if everybody's mad at Yahoo for consorting with the China, what have you done yourself? We live in a society filled with "Made in China" materials flooding are markets. Our trade deficit with China is embarrassingly high, to the point that there is no way to deny that the actions of probably every person on this blog has, in an indirect way, supported the very same human rights-denying oppressive government that Yahoo did.

I love our country, but wake up. We're just as guilty as Yahoo. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone..."




RE: Hypocrisy at its finest
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
If not for China, think our own economy would be so strong? Many of those dollars we "embarrassingly" send to China come right back to us in the form of mortgages that help you and I afford a home with lower interest rates and in the form of financing for corporate paper that allows you and I to have a job because a firm is able to get a decent IRR in an expansion that creates jobs for us. We both benefit immensely; just as a simple theories on free trade tell us we should.

Ask not what you have done for China, but what China has done for you! :P

Also look at how the Communist government in China, while oppressive by our standards, has performed an economic miracle (with capitalism) that basically is.. well.. amazing. I'm not sure a run-of-the-mill democratic country has sufficient foresight and strength of will to engage the sort of long-term planning that's allowed China to leave the stone age under Mao and raise hundreds of millions from poverty in much less than a lifetime. Does it suck? Yep. But there are nominally democratic states in Africa doing much worse. Lets pick our battles. Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran, Syria and Venezeula come to mind as places much more worthy of our ire. Even the French former surrender-monkeys (Sarkozy a descendent of Charlemagne, perhaps?) are saying we may have to go to war with Iran... that's when you know it's getting bad. Didn't a particular Chinese military theorist of high acclaim even suggest to choose ones battles?


China
By Alphafox78 on 9/20/2007 10:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
Sucks to be in china I guess...




I knew it!
By Screwuhippie on 9/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: I knew it!
By oTAL (blog) on 9/20/2007 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
Your post sucks...

I would be embarrassed if I worked for Yahoo and this story actually made me use Yahoo services less.

I can understand that sometimes it is hard to stand up for what you believe in and I can see why Goggle caved in when they did. Still, you MUST stand up for some things. Helping to capture a non-violent political dissident, knowing that would lead to his imprisonment and torture is a vile and disgusting action.


RE: I knew it!
By Screwuhippie on 9/20/2007 10:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
You are right ... I should read the article in full before I just post random crap. Sorry :(

Seriously that was lame of me. I was going off on other Chinese issues ... won't happen again.


RE: I knew it!
By oTAL (blog) on 9/20/2007 11:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
That was one of the best feedbacks I ever got from a post here on DT. Thanks =)


RE: I knew it!
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 12:04:19 PM , Rating: 3
Demonstrating moral outrage while sitting on a swivel chair is easy. Actually helping the Chinese people is much tougher.

What's your solution? Do you really believe that having all Western companies pull out of Chinese involvement will help the populace? Capitalism is the only chance they've got right now...other than another bloody civil war that will likely kill more than did WW2.


RE: I knew it!
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 8:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
You seem to think this is a hard thing, but it is not.

All they have to do is change policy about this and hold those who torture prisoners, accountable for their actions. It is not some grand goal that will only happen through capitalistic nirvana, all it takes is a realization of cause and effect, that they are better off not torturing prisoners than doing so. Making such a decision is no loss to these government officials, while it is inevitable that a large loss to their economy will have a trickle down effect.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki