Slashdot Log In
Doubts On Yahoo's Human Rights Code of Conduct
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:48 AM
from the do-as-i-say dept.
from the do-as-i-say dept.
Ian Lamont writes "The US Senate has been pushing American technology companies to work with rights groups to develop a human rights code of conduct, which would help to guide their overseas activities. Yahoo now claims that it has established the 'core components' of a global code of conduct, and a more complete version will be ready this fall. However, the Industry Standard notes that there's a fundamental flaw with such efforts: US law is not world law. Following the local laws is a requirement of doing business in any country, and conflicts between corporate ethics and the law of the land in which these corporations do business are inevitable. The US Senate's push for such a code was prompted by a number of incidents, including Yahoo's complicity in the arrest of Chinese dissidents and a Chinese journalist."
Related Stories
[+]
Yahoo Sued for Giving User Information to China 114 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Middle Kingdrom syndrome is the tendency to believe that "our" culture is the best, and that "our" laws, customs, and culture should supercede all other laws, customs, and culture.
China is occasionally accused of Middle Kingdom syndrome by some Americans. Seems that the pot is still calling the kettle nasty names.
Moral relativism syndrome (Score:2, Insightful)
The tendency to believe that all aspects of all cultures are equally "valid".
Re: (Score:2)
Equally "valid"? First and foremost ... define "valid." Then kindly point out where I made any such suggestion. If you cannot do so, then kindly take your strawman and stuff him somewhere you'll always know where it's at.
I greatly prefer Western-style cultures, but that does not prevent me from seeing a double standard when such exists.
Re: (Score:2)
I would define "invalid" as burning women alive with their dead husbands, allowing child labor, forcing women to cover their entire bodies and not speak in public, not allowing women to be educated or work in the same way as men, disregarding basic human rights, and even disregarding basic property rights and respect for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding trying children as adults: it really depends. There's a big difference between a 4 year old shooting someone (they can barely speak properly, let alone make sense of what they're doing) and a 16 year old shooting someone.
Hope this helps and shows you that I'm not a barbaric American!! Mind if I ask from which co
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between a 4 year old shooting someone (they can barely speak properly, let alone make sense of what they're doing) and a 16 year old shooting someone.
Then why doesn't a 16 year old have different civil rights compared to a 4 year old? If someone is responsible enough for their actions to spend the rest of their life behind bars for a bad judgement that lasted for 5 minutes, they should be allowed the freedom to escape the circumstances that are driving them to such rage. For example, leave abusive parents, find a regular sexual partner of their choice, relax with a cigarette or a beer, stop going to school where the gang members congregate or move to ano
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you explain how you reached your conclusion without the premise of equal validity of culture? Without that premise I'm afraid I can't make any sense of your original post at all.
My conclusion has nothing to do with the morality of the situation--I am far too tied to my Western cultural roots to decide which side is "right" without my own biases affecting my decision. My argument is simply this: if the US government was in a situation where another country tried to dictate how a company was to behave within US borders, our government would throw a complete and total hissy-fit. Yet certain elements in our government feel that it's acceptable to do this to another sovereign country?
(You may also want to be careful with throwing that strawman word around. I don't remember anyone making the claims you are labeling as Middle Kingdom Syndrome.)
Pe
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
If the US company doesn't like it, it should stop being a US company.
A fair number of multinational companies set up complicated corporate structures to control their exposure to laws and regulations.
BUT, for many companies the US is still "The Market" for them, so if the USA says "heel", they will.
The US Gov doesn't have the right to tell a Chinese company in China what to do, but the US Gov can always ban all products from that Chinese company,
Re: (Score:2)
1. The US government tries to dictate how a US company behave in another country in accordance to the acceptable standard. What is not acceptable is if the US government tries to dictate how a foreign government behave (dictate, no; influence, yes).
Wrong. Foreign companies who wish to do business either in or with the US must abide by US law within US territories. By the same token, Yahoo must abide by Chinese law within Chinese territory.
Your argument that the US should not dictate how a company behaves in another country because the US should object if another country dictates how a company behaves in the US.
Actually, my argument is that the US would not submit to another country trying to do what it is doing. I happen to feel that the US Senate is morally correct in doing so, but that its actions will be ineffective at best.
In this case, a respect for human rights.
"Rights" do not exist extrinsic of the culture that reveres them. There is no God, no cosmic prin
Re: (Score:2)
Actually even this seemingly reasonable criterion isn't how things ac
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that the UN - of which China is a part - adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. China was even a member at the time the declaration was adopted.
Those rights are pretty much in line with our own Bill of Rights. While we may not have exactly the best track record (especially in the last decade) of upholding those ideals, we're far and away much less black in this regard then the kettle.
Saying that this is "our" culture and not something the C
Re: (Score:2)
Does the US, by virtue of being a member of the UN, agree that socialized medicine [wikipedia.org] is a natural right? I happen to think that it *is*, but the notion that this can be divorced from my west-coast, hippy-dippy culture is ludicrous.
Also, there is a question of the facts here. Is the US government actually doing something to protect the natural rights of Chinese citizens (which, FWIW, I agree that they have) - or is something else going on? The most likely explanation is just that the US Congress wants
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW: Don't panic, China would not be allowed to buy these companies, both the west and the east have laws against pure market forces and for very good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term comes from the Chinese themselves - the characters they use for themselves (can't post, thank you slashdot's lack of unicode) read "The Middle Kingdom". More poetically, "The Nail of the World" or "The Center of the World." More modernly, just "Zhong".
Re: (Score:2)
Do I believe it's OK? Hell, no! By the same token, I also don't believe that this measure (even if successfully passed into law) will change the actions of even a single Chinese government official. Heck, I don't think it's going to make a damn bit of difference with Yahoo, either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, but the bill of rights certainly hasn't helped any 'illegal combatants'. I believe the point the GP was trying to make is that senate involvement in this 'code of conduct' was just the US throwing stones in it's own glasshouse, yet again. When you start lecturing people/nations about what's "right" they will lo
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I am, the last time I paid attention was when David Hicks was having his butt reamed by a "kangaroo court". How many of the Gitmo crowd have recieved a jury trial so far?
Re: (Score:2)
/me points at the AC response below.
What country tries people captured during military operations anything like a normal criminal court? If this were Russia or China, you'd never hear from them again. The ones that'd return, would so with various crippling injuries or in body bags. Considering the US allowed any sort of coverage, exposing it's failures, is miles ahead of the conduct I've seen from most countries. I'm not saying it's your big friendly pal, Just that it's not exactly the worst thing out there
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an Aussie, and my own government was complicit in the
Re: (Score:2)
Haha I get flamebait moderation for pointing out the US doesn't have a national firewall, the OP was out dated on his FUD, and not putting people in jail for talking bad about the government.
All hail our new Chinese overlords! This is pretty strong evidence of the mindless hatred of the US on /. :)
Re:Middle Kingdom syndrome (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in the ideas outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I believe that all people are created equal and should have equal rights and protection under law. I believe...
I believe that you should vote in a government which shares some of these ideals enough to act on them and then perhaps those of us in the rest of the world might take you more seriously when you start to talk about morals.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is one oddity with it, none of them is known for being a democracy. (Including Servia at the time of the cleansing)
And YOU want to compare them with the USofA...
Re: (Score:2)
However there is one other important point to mention. The China, Zimbabwe, Serbia etc. and not attempting to foist their morals on the rest of the world as some sort of shining beacon of enlightenment and integrity. If you are going to do that you had better make damn sure that you really are beyond reproach and the current US gover
Re: (Score:2)
china DOES foist their morals on others-tibet. england spain, france, germany, russia (czarist and soviet and post soviet), portugal, etc- all did some foisting-colony wise.
China is not trying to make a moral argument in Tibet it is simply a territorial land grab as was colonialism. I have not heard Russia making moral claims recently: they talk in terms of defending Russian citizens not having superior morals.
i was objecting to the poster's gross generalizarion of the said government being a representation of all its peoples.
How about (Score:2)
"That's like the AC calling the CowboyNeal fat."
New rules for DMCA violations (Score:1)
Waterboarding has been okay'd!
Silver Lining (Score:5, Insightful)
This is certainly true. However, the silver lining here is that the law the Senate may want to push can provide a way for companies like Yahoo to not comply with a government like China. Yahoo can point the finger back at U.S law and claim that their hands are tied. China would then have to determine what is in it's best interests and whether or not to expel Yahoo.
Furthermore, if a company really did have a code of ethics and morality that it openly proclaimed it was following, why it would compromise to make a buck in a country that did not share their values? You would think there would be limits. I am certain that sounds incredibly cynical, yet there is mountains of evidence in every corner of business that supports this observation.
It is this reality that leads many to conclude there are no limits, no ethics, no principles in business. There is only the law, what influence a company can have on the laws that constrain it, what influence a company can have on laws that help it, and what a company can get away with in terms of net liability when violating the law.
I was never surprised by what Yahoo did in China. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Well in China, Yahoo has to operate according to Chinese laws and cultural values. If the U.S Senators are really that upset about it then pass a law and Yahoo will have no choice. It is a bit hypocritical though considering that there are many countries in the world abhor how corporations in the US get to treat their customers.
In the end, I suspect this will mostly be hot air. As long as their are profits to be made in China, US companies will be there regardless of how they have to "bend" their values to operate.
Re:Silver Lining (Score:4, Funny)
That is a good darn question. Executives in the US face penalties for compliance, and executives in China face penalties for non-compliance. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.
The most intelligent thing to do in my opinion is to treat them as two separate entities. If the U.S has a serious problem with the way China acts and treats it's citizens or U.S citizens then it sounds like an embargo is required.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt the WTO would go along with an embargo of any sort.
Then, with the way that people currently respect US law within the US, there would be all sorts of black market folks selling Chinese goods and US Customs would just continue passing the stuff as they do today. For an example, it is against US law to import unlicensed DVD players that the manufacturer is not paying license fees on. Since the fee is $5 per unit, how can anyone sell a licensed DVD player for $30 (retail)? Answer: they can
C'mon, hypocrites (Score:2, Insightful)
Check out the sentiments we'll be facing at the feet of our enemes soon. We've got angry Russians tearing through one of our minion-states, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dy1b34Ehdg [youtube.com]
You know what he's saying? He's saying "we're living like bums, they're living lik
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact you can say it already happened, with 9/11, etc.
No, you can't. No matter how you slice it, there's a large difference between 9/11 and a true military assault like what happened at Pearl Harbor. 9/11, depending on how you look at it, was either the depraved act of a few individuals bent on making a political statement, or else something far more sinister cooked up by the government to scare people into accepting the loss of the rights. And read what I wrote before you call me a crackpot.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't do business ethically... (Score:2)
don't do business at all. And before you say "who decides what's ethical" I'd say my fellow countrymen get to decide what's ethical for those within our country as well as what's ethical for Australian corporations. I'd say Americans should have the same right. That way they can hold Yahoo to a higher standard then they would hold some random Chinese company.
Morality is funadamental (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. It's about "morality", "codes of conduct". Not "law". Obviously companies have to follow the laws of the land or suffer penalties. Similar laws exist to prevent American companies using bribery overseas regardless of the laws in the foreign country. If it's an American company doing business overseas, they have to work with two regimes. If they can't, too bad. Stay at home.
Everything is not just about the bottom line. If a company's actions can send a person to jail, if the only calculation they make is "Is it good for business?", well, they're assholes and they can deal with the bad karma and hopefully a massive PR disaster.
I hate these corporate apologists who say they have an "obligation to maximise profits regardless of morality". No, you don't. What you mean is you have a desire to get a bigger bonus. Obligations, even in business, go beyond that, if you're a human being.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I'm not American for a start. It's "human" morality. Though I despise many of the recent acts of the USA, this is one of the times they are doing the right thing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you count Tibetans as "their own citizens", which of course China does. Or how about supporting the Sudanese government with military equipment in its genocide in Darfur? http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/26.htm [hrw.org]
Google/Gmail also compromised in China? (Score:3, Interesting)
She later quotes a couple of totally weird "Gmail notifications" (written in broken english), purportedly coming from "The Gmail team".
It'd be interesting to see the full email headers, but there seems to be increasing evidence that despite Google has publically resisted the Chinese Communist Party's demands of cooperation (unlike Microsoft and Yahoo who both collaborated) the CCP regime is indeed able to intercept Gmail traffic.
Under CCP's rule, all personal encryption to which the CCP doesn't have keys has been declared illegal. This presumably includes the easily available HTTPS encryption used in browsers and which Google also uses for Gmail.
Whether the CCP has struck a deal with Google (or someone inside Google), they can read HTTPS traffic or it is simply a case of CCP keyloggers in all internet cafes, the issue should be thoroughly studied and the public be warned accordingly, if necessary. Especially when in China, and in particular in Tibet, the most innocuous messages can easily result in imprisonment, serious bodily harm or even death.
Some people will still be willing to take that risk in order get information out of China or Tibet, but all email users there should be prominently warned if there is any suspicion that the service may be compromised.
Re:Google/Gmail also compromised in China? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of _course_ they can intercept Gmail traffic! Much of it is over HTTP, not HTTPS, and communicating among the mail servers it's SMTP. Unless you're encrypting end-to-end, expect your email to be trivially monitored. Even if it were encrypted, passwords are trivial to steal in most environments.
Given that Google's servers are deployed worldwide in various data centers and portable data centers, it would be relatively inexpensive to hire an unappreciated Google employee to plant fiber optic taps in various of their data centers, intercepting the traffic there. And the Chinese have doubtless themselves pulled the stunt that AT&T did for the NSA, permitting backbone Internet taps on their core routers.
Parent
Yahoo and web Stalking (Score:2)
Let's not forget that Yahoo (or AT&T / Yahoo if AT&T happens to be your ISP) uses web-bugs, those invisible 1 pixel graphics, to stalk it's users. Of course they came up with their own cutsie name for them, "web beacons".
ethics from US corporations overseas? won't happen (Score:5, Insightful)
For an illustrative example, google Blackwater illegal prosecution [google.ca] and you'll see that they get away with murder. Literally.
Or for another example, google Chevron Chernobyl [google.ca].
The key feature of "Globalisation" as we know it is US corporations (and military) being able to break local and international law at will. Apparently in the US this isn't considered a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The key feature of "Globalisation" as we know it is US corporations (and military) being able to break local and international law at will. Apparently in the US this isn't considered a problem.
Governments have no one else but themselves to blame when someone breaks laws in their country. If they can't even enforce their own laws, that doesn't make them much of a government does it?
Ethics? What are those? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to do business in a country where the laws block you from operating within your ethical framework, whatever that is, you shouldn't do business there.
Companies that exploit cheap labor in foreign markets are not ethically against doing that; if they were, they wouldn't do that.
Government Not Yahoo (Score:2)
Asking companies to develop policies about ethics in foreign dealings is an insult. Our government may well be composed of craven cowards who refuse to stand up for right unless it is convenient or profitable but asking private companies to take a stand is absurd.
Color this: We have no business doing business with China or Russia who both flagrantly murder and violate the civil rights of innocents without cause.Allowing the Olympics to take place in China or sending Americans to com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
U.S law != world law
In any case, it's nothing a good, solid bombing campaign and some righteous propaganda can't fix.