Slashdot Log In
NYT Editorial Slams ISPs Over Online Freedom
Journal written by Erris (531066) and posted by
Zonk
on Sat Dec 08, 2007 07:21 AM
from the the-goal-is-less-sharing dept.
from the the-goal-is-less-sharing dept.
Erris writes "The New York Times site is running an opinion piece from last weekend which lambasts Yahoo! (and other US ISPs) for cooperating with China and other repressive governments. 'Yahoo's collaboration is appalling, and Yahoo is not the only American company helping the Chinese government repress its people ... Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
No kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA
You've just identified the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem.
Everybody knows China and America do massive trade together. Congress would rather throw stones at Yahoo!, et. al. while maintaining China's favored trade status, sending athletes to the Olympics, and doing nothing about Tibet. Frankly I think trade with China is ultimately more constructive than China-bashing, but the Congresscritters want to have it both ways.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, ending trade with China would most likely do more to cut particulate pollution (25% of LA's comes from China [the-signal.com]), and cut global warming from coal burning [atimes.com]. Sure, there'd be short-term disruption of American corporate manufacturing patterns. But what we've learned in the process of outsourcing industries to China is how to build new factories quickly. We could use that knowledge again here.
Parent
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
My personal belief is that trading with countries will have and end positive result as the population eventually will see their Government for what it is and change will occur. I don't care how oppressive a government is, if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I remember being told about peer p
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Good job, America. Pull out that credit card and keep on voting.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be so sure, it is all a matter of perspective. If what you say is true then why are the old men of the Chinese politburo and even worse, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, still in power after decades of people not liking them (even within their own countries where they are to afraid to say anything publicly)? If one is willing, as a dictatorial ruler, to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should not be punished for following the law in the places you are, whether it be as a person or as a company.
This is the classic Catch-22. Just look at the signs inside the US Embassy next time you travel abroad. They promise absolutely no assistance if you should happen to run afoul of local law enforcement officials. Damned if you, damned if you don't. It is extraordinarily bad law especially since the US doesn't have exactly a stellar record itself on online freedom, though fortunately the Supreme Court keeps overturning the worst of the laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community
Re: (Score:2)
You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community service for not 'catching' pad product being exported - they ended his life. You know how much press that got in the US? Dick. Why?
Yes, I do. I think you're wrong on the `why' part though. How popular of a decision do you think that was with US lawmakers (if they thought it might apply to them)?
...
We hold parents responsible for the death of their children if they use bad judgment that results in the child's death, government insists on becoming a parent to everyone, you connect the dots
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What about foreign companies? (Score:2)
Moral but counter-productive? (Score:2)
Trying to legislate against another country's laws sounds like a terrible idea on paper, and it doesn't promise much more in practice either.
When did Yahoo become an ISP?? (Score:5, Informative)
An ISP provides access to the net, not just web services.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we say IAP, Internet Access Provider, instead of ISP?
Very illogical.
Simple answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, as a relativist, no-one respects my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:4, Insightful)
The word "right" is an absolutist word. Relativists coherently can't believe in rights, as the word "right" implies a standard of correctness outside of one's own perspective. The best you can do, as a relativist who wishes to remain coherent, is to say "I think Yahoo can do whatever it wants." And Congress can then reply "I don't think it can!" And because you're a relativist, you've got no way to mitigate these two claims, because you certainly don't have access to the language of "rights."
I suppose you could just have no desire to be coherent. But if you're incoherent, you shouldn't really be too surprised when people don't respect your opinions.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.
Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that would produce would be extreme isolationism and poverty for the US. If we essentially ended all trade with nations that have oppressive governments, we would cut off most of the world (including most of our oil suppliers, among other thi
Re: (Score:2)
As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government.
Corporate charters in the U.S. are allegedly granted contingant on being in the public interest. If the public here doesn't believe that supporting the suppression of political dissent is in their best interests, do they not have a right to revoke the charter? If indeed, they may determine that Yahoo may not exist at all in the U.S. isn't it reasonable that they may also choose a lesser sancti
No such thing (Score:2, Insightful)
What did everyone expect globalization was? (Score:2)
No; it was about ultimate alignment of all of these other harder, more difficult and intangible things like values, whatever.
Economics may bring the pressure to do so, but no one said it is enough or that it won't be painful along the way.
When are those who pushed for loose, blind globalization going to have to eat their own dog food?
It has yet to be seen, but coming, I think.
double standard (Score:2)
So Yahoo et al are handing over information about people leaving the person open to persecution, and now the government is taking them to task over this.
I assume the same government will also be attacking ISPs who hand over people's information to corporations, leaving the people open to persecution. Or is there some corruption going on that would prevent this?
What online freedom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for copyright, pornography, surveillance, phone-home software, the US is a a beacon of online freedom.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Screw China! (Score:5, Insightful)
ThoughtCrime (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course, American companies that hand over information about their customers to domestic governments that suppress online dissent are just doing their patriotic duty, and do not in any way, shape, or form need to be investigated or prosecuted. In fact, let's give them explicit legal protection!
I can has "double standard"?
Sure... if it's China. What about the U.S.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.
I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.
People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.
What counts as repressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
brilliant! (Score:2)
Freedom Begins at Home (Score:5, Insightful)
Morality laws (Score:2)
Like Britain(India, Ireland), they are convinced that they know better then the rest of the world.
The US is happy legislating its morality. As long as you have the US as the only super power, it truly is the west against everyone else. In the US they arrested and jailed the owners of a 3 day old online-poker law.
The US decided that even Credit Card companies that are making payments to these 'scum of the earth' would be held liable. Even after
Yahoo is an ISP? (Score:2)
Do they actually provide internet access in the US?
Repression in Italy? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.
when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )
I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.
the freedom of speech that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how stupid it sounds that one random person speaks up against their government and then is executed for organ harvesting for someone important?
Whats the odds of a genetic enough match?
China worked with americans to get starving people out of north korea. Why? Because Americans don't look korean enough to do it themselves.
Tienanmen square. What was worse than that? What happened in Mexico the year the Olympics was ther
Re: (Score:2)
Probably depends on which stage of moral development (sensu KOHLBERG [plts.edu]) society tries to 'enforce'.
Summary
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, althou