Doubts On Yahoo's Human Rights Code of Conduct

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."

Middle Kingdom syndrome

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

The tendency to believe that all aspects of all cultures are equally "valid".

Re:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Indeed, how would westeners react if Yahoo!, Google, etc, were bought by China via the stock market and we were then stuck with China dictating the "code of conduct"? Not that I support China's stance but it's attitude toward censorship and human rights is not that different to the west during the 50's & 60's.

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:

You mean that capitalism only allows you to rip off your own citizens, not citizens of a rival? There seems to be a flaw in that plan, then...

Re:

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:

"So it's okay for China to shoot dissidents in cold blood? And build a firewall out their country that shields their citizens from such undesirable ideas as democracy and free speech?"

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:Middle Kingdom syndrome

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.

Re:

Nice list.

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...

How about

"That's like the AC calling the CowboyNeal fat."

Silver Lining

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

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

What would have happened to the individual employees of Yahoo China if they had denied access?

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.

C'mon, hypocrites

Goodbye western society, it was nice to have you around. Seriously, we're trying to force some corporation to have an ethical code of conduct while our own government officials take bribes, shoplift, and sleep around? I mean, really?

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:

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:

No matter what the details of the incident are, our (U.S.A.'s) response is what I was trying to call attention to. Our amazingly badly-engineered response has resulted in a HUGE chink in our armor, such that other nations need only mention Iraq and the discussion on American ethics and any sort of axis of evil is over.

If you can't do business ethically...

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

However, the Industry Standard notes that there's a fundamental flaw with such efforts: US law is not world law.

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.

Google/Gmail also compromised in China?

A few days ago I came across a story about one Taiwanese-born american's recent trip to Chinese-occupied Tibet [phayul.com] (using her Taiwanese passport, meaning no consular protection).

"It was scary because they (at the American embassy in Chengdu) warned me if I was low profile now, I will be high-profile, and I will be followed once I enter Tibetan regions. They told me to watch out for guys who look too comfortable smoking a cigarette. They told me to not trust anyone. They advised me to memorize the angle of my computer and cell phone when I leave my hotel room, so I can tell if they've been moved when I return. They said to be especially careful with my camera. The tech specialist at the Embassy said that she strongly suspects that Chinese intelligence has some kind of deal with Google because gmail appears not to be safe in China. They said, 'It's safe to assume that everything you do is being watched.'"

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?

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.

ethics from US corporations overseas? won't happen

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:

They're not doing it for good press, they're doing it for good profits. Whether that's share price, market share, or simply sales volume doesn't matter too much. Think about the times you've heard of US law being imposed on other countries via treaties or lobbying... to my mind, it's usually been about selling product into that country, and mostly mass-media products, or ensuring supply of product the US wants.

Re:

U.S law != world law

In any case, it's nothing a good, solid bombing campaign and some righteous propaganda can't fix.