Yahoo Sued for Giving User Information to China

taoman1 wrote with news of a CNN article about a suit brought against Yahoo! for alleged aiding in human rights violations. The World Organization for Human Rights USA has filed suit against the search company for (so the suit claims) assisting in torture by revealing information that led to the arrest of dissidents. "The lawsuit cites federal laws that govern torture and other violations of international law. Plaintiffs included jailed dissident Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling, who was visiting San Francisco this week as part of the group's campaign. Sklar said he knew of three other cases, but the dissidents were reluctant to join the complaint for fear of harm to their families living in China. Among those three dissidents is journalist Shi Tao, who was sentenced in 2005 to 10 years in jail."

Just visiting?

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

Plaintiffs included jailed dissident Wang Xiaoning and his wife, Yu Ling, who was visiting San Francisco this week as part of the group's campaign.

Something makes me think they're going to have a really shitty time when they get back to China.

Re:

[Mockylock (1087585)]

Concubine anyone?

Re:

[Mockylock (1087585)]

Before modding a post "off topic" (the parent to this), one may suggest looking up "CONCUBINE" somewhere to see that it is used in China to punish women in one way or another. Those who don't pay their taxes or have family issues MAY end up in a concubine. THIS is practice throughout the world, in Saudi and Turkey.. as well as other middle-eastern countries. How my comment is off topic as much as any above mine, is completely mind-blowing to me.

Re:

[uhlume (597871)]

Tell you what — since you're the one making this surprising and thusfar unsupported claim, why don't you share with us some of the supposed preponderence of evidence for this punitive practice in modern China?

I'm prepared to believe a lot of things about China when it comes to human rights violations, but the fact that I've never heard anything about this practice, coupled with my failure to turn up any support for your claim on a quick Google search tends to make me think you're probably trolling.

Re:

[uhlume (597871)]

There is a concubine which acts as a type of mall that you walk through.

Please, what the fuck are you talking about? Whatever it is, it's not a "concubine [reference.com]". You're using the word so utterly incorrectly that you have to be either making this up whole cloth, or garbling someone else's story. Either way, stop digging yourself deeper, and come clean with us.

When you enter, there are windows on each side from front to back, that house women. These women were put in this for several reasons. From what was describ

Re:

[unity100 (970058)]

she wont probably go back.

Re:

[unity100 (970058)]

political asylum request. even if u.s. doesnt grant, many european countries would.

Re:

[unity100 (970058)]

It would be overextending it too much i think.

Re:

[microbee (682094)]

Don't worry, they will by all means find support to stay in the USA due to "political oppression". Why do you think there is a lawsuit in the first place?

Yahoo can comply without screwing over dissenters

[andy314159pi (787550)]

Yahoo could just respond to requests to provide names of people who use online forums for political dissent with a standard response like, "The culprit you are looking for is a Mr. Chin."

Re:

[WinterSolstice (223271)]

Nah, it's Simon Jester :D

Re:

[Shiny One (983480)]

In other news today, everybody with the family name Chin disappeared mysteriously today.

Authorities were quoted as saying, "there never was a Chin family name."

Re:

[Khashishi (775369)]

My uncle's name is Chin. Well that's his personal name, not his family name.

Matter

[fireman sam (662213)]

So when will The World Organization for Human Rights USA bring suit against George W for allowing torture in the detention camps?

Re:

[Anonymous Cowpat (788193)]

They won't - it'll be The World Organization for Human Rights China that does that.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

International law doesn't apply to the country with the biggest army.

Re:Matter

[plasmacutter (901737)]

which would be china right?

(obligatory futurama)
in the korean war china realized the US soldiers had a preset kill limit, so they threw wave after wave of their own men at them until they stopped.

i forgot who it was who said it, but they were so buried in soldiers they weren't retreating, but "advancing in the other direction".

Re:Matter MOD Parent up

[wondercool (460316)]

Very good point

Check http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]

Where to begin??? Guantánamo Bay

USA is in violation of (at least):
Article 7.
            All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
            Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
            No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
            Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Re:

[superpulpsicle (533373)]

Dude nobody said US is completely clean. We never were 100% compliant with the constitution and other civil rights issues. Thats why I don't like it when we poke fun of other countries. It is a big propaganda cycle.

Re:

[Guppy06 (410832)]

We've already seen such cases dismissed by federal courts because the administration has cried "state secrets." While even a cursory glance at the groups website shows their displeasure with such measures, there's little that could be done in federal courts.

Cost of doing business

[Tofystedeth (1076755)]

in the Ars article they said Yahoo claims that it is simply following local law and that it has no choice but to comply with legal requests from the Chinese government if it wants to keep doing business in that country. If Yahoo had existed during WWII would they have ratted out Jews to Hitler? But I guess it's okay as long as they can turn a dime.

Re:

[Tofystedeth (1076755)]

Wow.... my quoting skills are apparently ftl.

Re:

[dwater (72834)]

I was under the impression that some/many US companies supported the Nazi party prior and even during WWII.

Re:

[syousef (465911)]

Well some claim IBM supplied the Nazis with machines to keep track of the Jews.

http://news.com.com/2009-1082-269157.html [com.com]

Re:

[jellie (949898)]

That's true, but Yahoo (their local branch, whatever it's called) is also based in Hong Kong. So they could challenge the request in Hong Kong courts. Or just tell China that they had no information.

Re:

[Tofystedeth (1076755)]

Also from Wikipedia

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime

Do you suppose any of they've done to this guy, or to anyone else they consider "subversive" or "destabilizing" might fit under "mainstays of the Nazi regime"?

Re:

[elrous0 (869638)]

I hate that "Godwin's Law" bullshit. It's basically an admonition against learning anything from the mistakes of the Nazi regime.

Re:

[swb (14022)]

What's ironic about it is that people advocating naughty behavior in the name of PC/left-wing causes are the ones most likely to use it; what I find amusing is that they invoke a rule prohibiting the Nazis to suppress discussion!

Re:

[syukton (256348)]

For the most part, any comparison to the Nazi regime is overkill. You have to form a police state and kill a lot of people for arbitrary reasons before the comparison really becomes valid.

Godwin's Law isn't an admonition against learning anything from the mistakes of the Nazi regime; Godwin's Law is an admonition against exaggerating the seriousness of a situation. In the case of China, however, I think the comparison is more valid than it really would be in any other circumstance I've seen it used, so I (p

Company Motto

[Clever7Devil (985356)]

Yahoo! needs to take a page from Google's "Do no evil"

I vote for Yahoo!'s new company slogan to be, "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."

Seriously, what did they think the totalitarian Chinese government was going to do with this personal information? Create some targeted advertising?

Dear political dissident:
                      Have you heard of our new state-run work-camps? Your advanced computer skills are needed by the government. If you reply within the next 24 hours we'll promote you from "Wikipedia Article Revision" to "Pornography Censorship".
      Love,
            China

Inexcusable.

Re:Company Motto

[Clever7Devil (985356)]

Not quite.

From http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=17&articleId=9017 182&intsrc=hm_topic/ [computerworld.com]:

According to the lawsuit, the Chinese court specifically relied on evidence supplied by Yahoo to identify and convict Xiaoning. The judgment noted that Yahoo HK informed investigators that a mainland China-based e-mail account ([e-mail]) was used to set up Xiaoning's "aaabbbccc" Yahoo Group, and that the e-mail address [e-mail], which Xiaoning used to post e-mails to that Yahoo Group, was also a mainland China-based account maintained by Xiaoning. The Chinese court said Yahoo was instrumental in causing Xiaoning's arrest and criminal prosecution, according to the lawsuit.

Looks like Yahoo knew exactly what he was doing and led the authorities to his doorstep. It doesn't matter what doublespeak was used in the request, Yahoo had the facts in front of them.

As for Google, they have refused to give out personal information before. I am disappointed in their actions regarding censorship, but I don't see how you can compare it negatively to the torture and imprisonment of a citizen.

This is why I'm not taking international clients

[by Anonymous Coward]

Until the world lawyers figure the new laws out. So they would have been banned, sued, and possibly extridited and tried in China if they didn't comply and sued if they didn't?

Well, not working directly for international clients anyway. My boss would have to deal with the headache then...

Issues with international companies

[ZorbaTHut (126196)]

It's interesting how it's essentially impossible to do business without breaking laws now. If they hadn't given away this information, they would now be having the Chinese government talk about how Yahoo must hate freedom and doesn't respect the laws of their country.

I know a lot of people must be thinking "well, the decision is obvious, they should have followed the American laws instead since ours are more free", but remember that Yahoo actually has workers in China. If Yahoo didn't conform to Chinese laws, they would undoubtedly be hit with some kind of penalties, likely trickling down to their employees. This is probably not an issue they thought of when they opened offices in China.

Of course, Google has offices in China also. It'll be interesting to see what their solution is if the Chinese government gets sufficiently pissed off at them.

Re:Issues with international companies

[Nasarius (593729)]

Then Yahoo simply shouldn't be doing business in China. Yes, it's impossible to conduct ethical business in a country with a horrific human rights record [hrw.org]. I don't see why this should come as a surprise to anyone.

This is probably not an issue they thought of when they opened offices in China.

Very funny. Of course they know, they just don't give a shit. That's why they handed over this information. Anything for the sake of making money.

Don't be evil

[LingNoi (1066278)]

When the news came out that Google was going to censor their search data but inform people they were being censored everyone went nuts.

Yahoo helps the Chinese government put people in prison for 10 years and no one says anything. The Yahoo employees had a choice they could have just said they didn't collect the data that the Chiense government needed. Instead they wasted their time digging out that data and handing it over to the government.

Would Google do the same? The Thai government asked Google for info

Complex issue

[jandersen (462034)]

The situation here is a lot more complex than what the media coverage suggests.

First of all, torture is always wrong and should never be ignored. This is the case whether the perpetrator is China, Russia or USA. Torture is 100% wrong and can only be condemned. The ones who commit that kind of atrocities are hardly worthy of the label 'human'.

Having said that, though, if you want to do business in a country, you have to follow the law of that country. The only other option is not to conduct business in a cou

Re:

[fuzz6y (240555)]

It's easy to have ideals ten miles high when they are never likely to be tested.

So, what, it's better to not have ideals so that you never have to live up to them? People with noble ideals don't always abide by them. People without them never do.

Is it really so hard to accept that people in another country can and will have another outlook?

They're not suing China. They're suing Yahoo. Those aren't "people in another country." Even if it's valid to judge them only on the terms of their society, we are t

Re:

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

Well, yahoo maps seems to normally outdo mapquest, but that's really about it. 8 years ago, I loved their directory services, which has now gone to utter crap.

Re:

[jeevesbond (1066726)]

Therefore, the defense rests.

That's Google you pillock.

Re:

[UbuntuDupe (970646)]

In fairness, the *full* statement is, "Don't be evil, unless necessary to advance the broader interests of the human race."

Re:Your Honor, Our Mission Statement is "Do No Evi

[countSudoku() (1047544)]

That's Google's tag-line. I guess Yahoo's is "Do lots of evil!" that and "We're #2!" and/or "At Yahoo, we're so closely tied to AT&T we thought it our duty to turn in anything any government asks for, warrant optional!" :P

Re:

[Dredd13 (14750)]

When I was an employee at BigY, it was not uncommon for engineers to cheer mock-enthusiastically about how psyched we were to have achieved second place.... yet again.

The engineers (at the time anyway, can't speak to now) definitely seemed to "get" that management was willing to settle for second way more often than we would have liked.

Re:

[plasmacutter (901737)]

yees, but these are two intrenched opponents, one has tons of money to throw at the case, the other has enough money and ethical convictions to see it through. there will be appeals going on for years.

Re:

[BillGatesLoveChild (1046184)]

Well yes, it is a troll. But only a troll for the Chinese Intelligence Services! ;-)

Re:

[sgt_doom (655561)]

Exactly so - and everytime an American dufus (people will soundly insult me for suggesting this, of course) buys from Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, Nordstrom's or Old Navy, they are enriching the Chinese Red Army, which is the owner of record of all those various factories.

Then the Chinese Red Army, via the Department of Public Security, rounds up those dissidents, tortures them to death, preserves their remains, and ships them to the USA and elsewhere, where those traitorous fools and half-wits, pay the Chinese g

Re:

[night_flyer (453866)]

must be a bunch of people feeling guilty sitting in their made in china pants wearing their made in china shoes typing on their made in china computers that sits on their made in china desks to mark this off topic...

Re:Just asking for clarification...

[Rocketship Underpant (804162)]

"Just want to know what the heck the standard should be... I guess it depends upon who you are..."

I can see why you're confused. You appear to be missing your moral compass.

The issue transcends government laws. Imprisoning and torturing someone for having a different point of view is despicable no matter what the law on one piece of dirt says. Assisting and participating in that incarceration makes one equally culpable. The managers and executives of Yahoo! went along with this crap just so they could avoid some legal hassles and, I suppose, make extra time for that golf game on Saturday.

That's why Yahoo sucks, and this lawsuit will hopefully succeed.

Re:

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

I think the idea is to scare international companies with lawsuits to stop them rolling over to totalitarian governments. E.g. if you look at WWII, lots of companies complied with local laws when they used slave labour. But that didn't stop them getting sued a long time after the governments that made the laws got obliterated.

So if you're an American company doing business in China now, you need to weigh up the benefits of complying with morally invalid laws made by a tiny ruling clique to screw the rest of

Re:

[Grishnakh (216268)]

The US would never (I hope) fight a war with China, since it would inevitably turn nuclear. Even if it didn't, the Chinese would fight, unlike the Iraqis, and make any military action too costly to contemplate.

I don't know about this. It would depend on what the war was over, and where it was being fought.

If the war was about China trying to invade the US, I think they'd fail miserably, with only a few conventional weapons used. China has lots of soldiers, but soldiers can't march across the Pacific Ocean

Re:

[Grishnakh (216268)]

One possibility I can see is a war over Taiwan. E.g. China threatens to invade, US carrier groups arrive, someone shoots and a war breaks out between the Chinese and American navies. The Chinese then panic and fire nukes at the US, some of which get shot down by ballistic missile defense systems, but some get through and destroy US cities. Then the US fires it's much larger stock of nukes and levels pretty much every city in China. Hopefully though, both the Chinese and Americans can see the danger of allow