Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Yahoo! Businesses The Internet Government Censorship Privacy The Media Politics

Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities 379

Posted by Zonk from the watch-what-you-say dept.
truckaxle writes "Yahoo! has been accused, again, of providing information to Chinese authorities that resulted in the imprisonment of a Chinese journalist. Yahoo! apparently provided Chinese police with internet activity information in a case that resulted in the arrest of Li Zhi. His crime - trying to join the dissident China Democracy Party. Yahoo! says it simply responds to requests from the authorities and was just complying to local laws. A Reporters Without Borders post reported that 'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities More

Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities

Comments Filter:

  • China needs the RIAA (Score:5, Funny)

    by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:39AM (#14676485) Journal
    OK we need to send some RIAA lobbiests over to China to straighten that country out! Doesn't China realize that its corporations who are supposed to threaten and strong-arm the government, not the other way around!!!!
    • What happens over here is that corporate lobbyists convince the government to do things their way, so everybody can make money. China isn't much different, except for the fact that the one who dictates the rules is the chinese government. That would actually be a good thing if the government wasn't draconian and used such power to enforce an intellectual dictatorship.

      But... a place where the government enforces its laws for the greater good? Only when pigs start flying.
    • I don't understand it:

      Tyrans that threat the democratic and free world needs high-technologies
      to preserve their power.
      .
      Tyrans are hiring american high-tech companies to preserve their power.
      .
      American companies are getting lot of money from this contracts.
      .
      American taxation system is getting lot of money from high-tech companies.
      .
      American soldiers are paid from high-tech companies' taxes to die in the
      war against tyrans.

      Conclusion:
      1.
      Tyrans are paying the american soldiers to die in name of
      freedom and democrac

  • Ordinary Criminals? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pryonic ( 938155 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:40AM (#14676491)
    'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'

    But anyone who attempts to join this party is an oridinaty criminal in the eyes of the Chinese authorities. It's us in the west who do not see political dissidents (at least I hope we don't...) as criminals.

    I certainly don't condone what Yahoo has done or the policies of the Chinese Government, I'm just trying to point out a possible reason it was done. Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses.

    • Re:Ordinary Criminals? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by db32 ( 862117 )
      Uhm...you should reexamine that one. The west often does see political dissidents as criminals, and often treats them as such. Just recently everyones favorite anti-war mom was removed and from the State of the Union for wearing a Tshirt that they didn't agree with. She wasn't the only one removed, as a war supporter's tshirt got another woman removed...but the anti-war mom was the only one ARRESTED too. We just don't treat our criminals the same way the Chinese do, but to say political dissidents don'

      • Re:Ordinary Criminals? (Score:4, Informative)

        by pryonic ( 938155 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:51AM (#14676555)
        I do agree with you to be honest. I stated "I hope we don't" and these days this is false hope. I did read the story of the anti-war Mom and it shook me, but I'm a Brit and I have a similar tale from my side of the pond. An elderly gentleman [bbc.co.uk] was ejected from the Labour Party Conference last year and charged under terrorism(!) legislation for shouting "Nonsense!" during a speech by Jack Straw.

        Hewas released and charges dropped when it hit the news. But so much for freedom of speech and being able to speak out against the Government in both countries!

        • Just wait until you folks get the 'free speach zones'.
          • >'free speach zones'

            I am drooling at the thought of free juicy fruit.

      • Re:Ordinary Criminals? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:00AM (#14676603) Homepage Journal
        She wasn't the only one removed, as a war supporter's tshirt got another woman removed...but the anti-war mom was the only one ARRESTED too.

        As such, the charges were quickly dropped. This is a common tactic to silence people long enough to let an event take place. Much how the protestors for the 2004 RNC were swept up by NYPD, detained for duration of the RNC, and released with only a handful of the bunch being charged (many of which were later exonerated after videotape disproved the polices claims. Funny how police don't get charged with perjury...).
    • us in the west who do not see political dissidents (at least I hope we don't...) as criminals.

      Well, we are always told that such people are giving hope and support to the terrorists. Since any support to terrorits is a crime, strickly speaking they are criminals. Its just that Bush hasn't decided to lock anyone up for it (yet... at least that we've heard of).
    • "Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses."

      Do you think the guy that got arrested in China shares the beliefs of the government there?

      On a related note, is there an easy way to download all my Yahoo! emails (going back to 1998 I think) so that I may cut loose from them once and for all? Sooner or later, Yahoo! will be complicit in the murder of a Chinese citizen, if they aren't already.

    • Re:Ordinary Criminals? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by d3ac0n ( 715594 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:06AM (#14676632)
      Gentlemen,

      Above I present to you the NUMBER ONE reason why totalitarian regimes have been allowed to survive around the world. The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous. The lack of a belief in the desire of humans to be free, and the lack of a belief in Freedom, Liberty and Democracy as the greatest concepts and forms of government in human history.

      Somehow, despite centuries of evidence and libraries of books written on the concepts of the basic human yearning for Freedom and Liberty, there is a strain of thought that still survives. It hides in the shadows and mewls "Well, maybe they don't believe like we do, we shouldn't judge them, it's not our place...".

      Look, I know I'm not going to earn many mod points for this response, I'll probably get rated a Troll. But the OP is NOT insightful! Just the opposite, it's the LACK of insight and depth of thought that drives posts like that. Here we have a Chinese journalist that yearned for Freedom. As such he was trying to join a dissident party group. They aren't a Terrorist organization and have never been linked to violence. That journalist is going to probably be imprisoned for a long long time, and the OP has the gall to say, "Well, we shouldn't judge..."

      OF COURSE we should judge! It is not only the right, but the RESPONSIBILITY of every Freedom and Liberty loving person to hold any and all governments accountable for thier actions, thier laws, and the way they govern!

      To do anything less is nothing short of cowardice and collaboration with those who would steal our freedom for thier own power and enrichment.
      • While I, in principle, with what you have said, it is not necesarily "Liberal" thinking that puts this society in danger. It is the beliefs of BOTH extremes that put Freedom and Democracy in danger. Only true moderate thinking can keep this nation continuing as the majority of us wish it to be.

        The Conservatives, for instance, have been painting anyone who doesn't agree with that as Un-American and only those that agree with them as being "Patriots".

        If you look back to the fou
      • The number one reason why millions of innocent people have died and continue to die in lands without freedom, and the number one reason why Liberal thought is inherently dangerous.

        And you my friend are clearly brainwashed by the cold war bullshit thrown around. Liberal mentality is perfectly fine if all agree with it, just as every other idealism is. There is no perfect system and no matter how we try we'll never get one which has no flaws (Like you seem to be claiming your magic democracy is).

        No system is
      • This is a conundrum I recently solved (for myself anyway, I'm sure many have come upon the same solution).

        I do believe that everyone has the equal right to any belief they so desire. However everyone isn't given the equal right to do anything they want. The right to do something, well, it's fought by having the biggest guns. I wish I could say it wasn't, but the truth is, it is. In a better society it wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in that society.

        So yes, the Chinese government might believe other
      • This is an entirely confused post. In fact, Liberalism [wikipedia.org] is an ideology which holds liberty as the primary political value. This is what the phrase "liberal democracy" implies.

        You are using the word Liberal to refer to a modern, far left wing ideology of moral relativism [wikipedia.org].

        While the word "liberal" (little L) has commonly become associated in America with the Democratic party and a so-called "American liberal" [wikipedia.org] philosophy, this still has nothing whatsoever to do with moral relativism. In any case, it should te
    • Maybe we should take a step back and realise our beliefs aren't everyone's elses.

      So, if Yahoo is doing business in Pakistan and the government comes to them as says "We think this woman is committing adultery and we need her Yahoo emails to verify this so she can be gang-raped by the local elders" then Yahoo is obliged to turn them over? I mean, hey, our beliefs aren't everyone else's right?

      But, you know what, you're right. Our beliefs AREN'T everyone elses. Ours are BETTER. That's right, you heard me, all

  • You can't blame Yahoo! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vm146j2 ( 233075 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:41AM (#14676501)
    After all, they are only following orders...

    of the free market.

    • Re:You can't blame Yahoo! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ranton ( 36917 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:13AM (#14677191)
      You also cannot blame Yahoo until you have some reason to believe that they knew why this person was being arrested. Reporters without Borders is quoted in the article as saying that Yahoo knew he wasnt an ordinary criminal, but doesnt say why. For all anyone knows they simply said that because they felt like it; wouldnt be the first time that a reporter put a spin on a story to make it more interesting.

      I was an administrator at an ISP a few years back, and I was once subpoenaed to release information on our servers about web access. I had very little idea about what the information was being used for or what that person did wrong, I just knew what logs to pull from (although I believe it was a case of identity theft). I do not see anything that shows that Yahoo knew anything more than that. They may indeed have done something immoral, but it takes more than just blind accusations.

      --
    • Please explain how a government threatening a company to get it to perform some action constitutes a free market. By definition this is the exact opposite of a free market, it is a controlled market.

  • This is to be expected (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:44AM (#14676514)
    Yahoo! is a publicly traded corporation. Publicly traded corporations have one duty -- to make profit. If the Board of Directors thought that they'd make more money by turning in "dissident journalists", then they will do so. Similarly, if they could make more money (that is, after all penalties are levied against them for breaking any local laws/customs) by torturing children, they'd do it. In fact they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so.

    Corporate ethics is an oxymoron.
    • Publicly traded corporations have one duty -- to make profit.

      Personally I have no interest in investing in corporations that put profit above EVERYTHING else. Good luck to them. In the long run unethical behaviour will come back to haunt them and their shareholders.

      Besides the huge drive to always increase share prices has a lot more to do with upper management getting paid in stock options than tiny little shareholders like you and I. Once the stock is sold, who
    • Companies also have a duty to behave ethically. Under the circumstances, however, I believe that ethics diverged from morality. It is ethnical to obey the law. In this case, Yahoo was obeying Chinese law since that was the jurisdiction in which this event took place. Unfortunately, many will agree that the Chinese law in question is immoral. The ethical course of action led to immoral behaviour. Companies are, as you have suggested, amoral entities. Although codes of business ethics sometimes prompt m

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:46AM (#14676523)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "Yahoo is better than IBM in 1939 in shades and degree, not principle. There is nothing so craven as a man or men who value profit and wealth greater than liberty." Oh please. Google is operating a business in China. If the government asks you for your cooperation in an investigation, as is their legal right in THEIR country, you comply. If you don't comply, YOU go to jail and/or get shut down or fined. This is no different than a US company being served with a search warrant in the US and having the l

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • "So when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews"

          So when the cops show up with a warrant that says "give us XYZ" you should just refuse on moral grounds and go to prison. You do that. I doubt the Chinese government even told Google what the investigation was about. It must be so satisfying to sit back in the safety of your own country and criticize other people who are not running their business up to your "moral" standards and that they should risk their liberty so that you can sleep better at night....

      • Re:Not what America used to be about (Score:4, Insightful)

        by elrous0 ( 869638 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:18AM (#14676734)
        If the government asks you for your cooperation in an investigation, as is their legal right in THEIR country, you comply.

        Google/Yahoo have a responsibility to not do business in countries where they will be compelled to violate basic human rights. They also DAMN WELL have an obligation to honor *U.S.* law (you know, the fucking country where they're headquatered) where this sort of thing is not only a violation of law, but a violation of the very CONSTITUTION on which the entire country was founded and all our law is based.

        This "we're just following the law" dodge is just that--a dodge. They are just greedy fucks who are willing to sell their souls to get in on the rising Chinese market. Google's "do no evil" motto is the biggest bunch of obvious bullhit I've heard since George Bush's State of the Union address.

        -Eric

    • "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

      --Samuel Adams

      And we have forgotten them! The fact that we quote Samuel Adams more than two hundred years after the fact and nobody could even tell you the name of someone who advocated fo

  • Double standard... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by confusion ( 14388 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:47AM (#14676530) Homepage
    I'm no advocate of the Chinese government, but the US is applying a double standard to these companies. On the one hand, the US wants Google to roll over and give them what they want to stop something the US considers "bad", namely child porn. In the same breath, they want those same companies to stand up against foreign governments who are trying to prosecute something they consider "bad".

    "We want you to always do the 'right thing', unless we're the ones asking you."

    Jerry
    http://www.networkstrike.com/ [networkstrike.com]
    • "We want you to always do the 'right thing', unless we're the ones asking you."

      Of course. When the US government asks for information to help their struggle against dangerous evildoers, it is right and proper to hand it over. When the Chinese government asks for information to help their struggle against brave democratic agitators, it is right and proper to deny them that information. Similarly, four legs good, two legs bad; and evolution is an atheist lie, but the government should do more to protect us

    • Jerry,

      Tell us. Do you believe that universal moral standards exist? If so, where would you put both child porn and political dissent on that spectrum of standards.

    • Re:Double standard... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arrrrg ( 902404 )
      Somewhat offtopic, but dammit children's access to internet porn is NOT the same as child porn . Please stop perpetuating this misinformation. Thank you.
  • Accoring to the reported Yahoo! Hong Kong gave Chinese authorities info. Accorinding to Yahoo! Inc, Yahoo! Hong Kong does not have access to the info. It doesn't add up.

    I just love how reports don't get their facts straight. They are more interested in their name on the headline than getting us the truth.
  • "Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities"

    Now I'm the first one to rag on Google for being 'the good guy company' or to flame China's wonderful human rights, but before we all get too uppity, this could have easily happened in your country too. File this one under the "suddenly news department".
  • Finally the portal companies shed their idealism about changing the world and have become like every other corporation with power: willing to sell out ideals, ethics, and even people in the name of profit! /sark.

  • "The West" needs to make up its mind (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Paul Bristow ( 118584 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:55AM (#14676578) Homepage
    Is China now an accepted member of the World Community or not?

    It seems to me that everyone wants to do business in China while turning a blind eye to the simple fact that it is a one-party dictatorship with an extremely questionable human rights record.

    We can't have it both ways - either our businesses are allowed to to business in China - in which case they HAVE to comply with the local laws (assuming we still believe in the sovereign state) - or they are not.

    At this point we seem to want companies to do business in China under Western rules - sorry but that isn't how it works, any more than a company could come into Europe or the USA and only conform to Chinese laws.

    So, are we working with China or not?

    • Seconded - as one of my profs in high school in the days before the PC fad used to say: "Ya cannot clap with one hand and have your soul in paradise at the same time". The problem is that while you, me and everyone down the street do not want to see things like this happen none of us has the moral fiber to call our pension fund manager and in clear terms tell them to stop investing in any company that does business in China under the direct threat of taking your money elsewhere.
      • I agree completely. I saw a program on the BBC that said that only a 3-5% dip in revenue combined with an internet campaign was usually enough to make a multinational change their unethical habits.

        People should put their money where their mouths are. BTW I do.

    • "The West" as you say is made up of more then one person.
      and thus more then on view will be expressed, often these views will conflict.
      having trouble groking this concept?
      see /. [slashdot.org] for an example
  • much as we may not like some, or all, of the chinese government's policies on free speech the fact remains that they have laws, as do we.
    if we can all take a quick step back from our outrage, and believe me i share it, and pretend yahoo! were a chinese company who were asked to follow one of our laws and turn over information to catch a "terrorist." now here on /. we would probably still disapprove given what seems to be the popular opinion of "anti-terror" laws, but let's not forget that our laws are not t
    • "i agree yahoo! "should have done something,"

      Would leaking this news story and making the world body aware of China's continued suppression of free speech not count as 'something'?

      I mean, what can Yahoo! do? If they disobey, they'll get booted from China. But if they leak the story they can encourage other countries to apply political pressure, hope the message gets to civilians in China, and motivates people to bring about change.

      -Rick
    • Intresting truth is also that Reporters without Borders received a Sakharov prize for Freedom of Speech by the European Parliament just after the European Parliament voted in favour of data retention laws. And Reporters without Borders had no position, and voiced no protests at all.

      Information rights activists felt scared about Reporter sans Frontier. They knew the battle was lost but RWB had a strong position as they were to receive the prize. And RWB of course praised the EU Parliament when they took thei

  • Passing the buck... (Score:3, Informative)

    by faloi ( 738831 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @08:57AM (#14676586)
    Look for Yahoo to start passing the buck to their regional partner soon. Taken from this site [mercurynews.com].

    "In October, Yahoo formed a partnership with Alibaba.com, which has responsibility for complying with Chinese authorities' requests for information going forward"

  • Rebel Scum (Score:3, Funny)

    by Thrymm ( 662097 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:03AM (#14676616)
    "He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him AWAY!"

    The regional governor of Yahoo didnt want any Empire entanglements.

  • Money speaks loudest (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hodet ( 620484 )
    I think corporations will wrestle with situations like this in China for some time. On one hand we send trade missions with high ranking government officials to China to expand trade yet in order to make money on their soil you have to play by their rules. Governments aggressively seek to get a piece of the trade pie with China yet the public holds our corporations responsible for ensuring human rights are not abused? We can't have it both ways. The world over lends legitimacy to the Chinese political sy

  • over money??? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by slackaddict ( 950042 )
    I know that I'm totally being an idealist by saying this, but when are people going to stop selling out their brothers and sisters for a few dollars? Is the advertising revenue enough to counter the bad will/karma/fortune/juju? I'm a very firm believer in "reaping what you sow" and it gives me a sick feeling when I keep reading stories about companies repeatedly selling out journalists, demonstrators, activists, students and censoring the speech of others just to make some money. Unfortunately, as we hav
    • when are people going to stop selling out their brothers and sisters for a few dollars?

      When the American economy collapses and hyperinflation kicks in. Then people will sell out their brothers and sisters for a few euro, or a few yen, or a few trillion dollars.

  • Net zero. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Raven42rac ( 448205 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:06AM (#14676642)
    To me, they're netting zero, they're opening things up, but helping an extremely repressive regime keep a stranglehold on power. I don't know how the heads of these companies sleep at night. The great firewall, yahoo helping them jail dissidents, google blocking things. This could be us in a few years.

  • The US constitution in Beijing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BecomingLumberg ( 949374 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:07AM (#14676646)
    As much as I love free speech, we must remember that the US Constitution, and all that is wonderful about it, does not exist in China. As much as it appalls us, the fact is that this man broke Chinese law and is going to get punished for it.

    That sucks.

    But- it is also the law. Saying Yahoo is evil for obeying the laws in the country which they serve I think is short sighted. Were Yahoo to balk the Chinese, they could be told to pack up shop and leave, which would do nothing to promote free speech for the Chinese people. China is getting better, slowly. For now, they will have to rely on the tools of all freedom fighters: obfuscation and anonymity. It worked for the Apostle Paul and for Harriet Tubman.

    The war for free speech in China is good, but this battle isn't going to have a meaningful result.

    • The law is not just simply because it is the law - this is first. Apartheid was the law in South Africa, but many companies and governments decided, rightly so, that it was better to leave than be obliged to obey laws that are at odds with the behavior of civlized men. Second, the law in China is whatever the junta says it is. There is such a thing as the Chinese Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press, of speech, of religion, and a whole raft of rights that your or I would recognize. But ne
  • Don't worry, we'll get to the botton of their inconvenient exercise of "freedom of the press" just as soon as one of them does a search!

    -Eric

  • Slippery slope (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:11AM (#14676671) Homepage
    'Yahoo! certainly knew it was helping to arrest political dissidents and journalists, not just ordinary criminals'.

    Yahoo certainly would have discovered that in the course of collecting the information. This begs the question of how low US based corporations will stoop in accommodating the oppressive practices of foreign countries. We already know how low they'll stoop in accommodating the oppressive practices of our own government...er, well, at least we know some of it. I don't think we can expect corporations to respect the same type of moral compass an individual might use. Still there has to be a line somewhere in the sand that says this far and no farther. Otherwise the request will be for data that ends up getting a lot of people killed. Who knows, that may have already happened as well! No easy answers here.

    So, I'm an IT consultant and I've worked with Russian customers. The KGB calls up and wants information about my clients. What do I do? Personally, I tell them to go stuff it. Knowing I won't be able to work in Russia ever again. But that's just me. Yahoo might have a different perspective.

  • Devils Advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:13AM (#14676690)
    Why, when the Chinese government ask for information to enforce a law, is it wrong but when the American, or other Weston governments ask for information it isn't?

    You can call them political dissidents if you want to, but we here in the west have branded them terrorists and have all sorts of powers to stump down on them.

    Terrorism isn't just about violence, just look at what has become against the law since 2001 for evidence of that.
    • Why, when the Chinese government ask for information to enforce a law, is it wrong but when the American, or other Weston governments ask for information it isn't?

      Who ever said it wasn't wrong when Western governments do it? I don't care if it's to crack down on dangerous democratic activists or to protect us from the terrorist bogeyman, I don't want the government snooping on my emails.

  • There's some impartial reporting for you ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Keyslapper ( 852034 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:18AM (#14676735)
    This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governments by internet companies, these corporations are required to follow the laws of the countries in which they operate.

    In the United States, they are required by certain laws to protect their customers privacy, and therefore required to refuse blatantly opening their records to law enforcement without a specific warrant. Good for Google.

    In China, these companies don't have those laws to back them up in refusal to provide whatever information the government or law enforcement requests. Yahoo! is only following the law. As a corporation that is all they can do. It is unfortunate that the individual in question was victimized, but don't forget just who it is victimizing him - the Chinese government, not Yahoo!.

    Does this mean Yahoo! should pull out of China? Of course not. Aside from the fact they would be remiss in their duty as a corporation (maximizing shareholder profits), they would be robbing the Chinese people of a valuable tool - communication. Make no mistake, this incident is unfortunate, but do you really think everyone trying to join the dissident parties are getting caught? Don't be ridiculous.

    People with a technical bent will always find a way around these barriers, and there will be a good number of these people supporting the dissident movement. The government in China will change, simply because the government can't stop all the cross communication, and nobody rules a country with no support within the population, unless they do so behind an iron curtain. So regardless of these unfortunate events, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN are doing good there whether they like it or not.

    Freedom won't come to anyone simply because a corporation pushes for it, it will come when the people demand it and make it happen (hopefully through peaceful means, but by whatever means the people deem reasonable).

    Besides, any freedom given by a corporation will necessarily come at an unknown cost - it is a corporations primary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit after all. Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.

    Besides, isn't there enough of that going on in the US?
    • Personally, I would be very leery of any corporation that attempts to set a precedent by influencing any government in any way. That's the peoples job.

      Actually, corporations have no will and no intent. It's the people who comprise the corp that act. And since it is the people's job to act humanely, even if the people join together to form a corp, they are not thereby relieved of their morality.

      This is a very lopsided piece of journalism. As has been stated in past posts on compliance with national governm
  • A Reporters Without Borders post

    This demonstrates a major fallacy. Borders exists and journalists are subject to them whether the like it or not. Journalists operate in an idealized environment where they are free to investigate and advocate as they care to only when the local government *gives* them the right to do so.

    The pen is mightier than the sword only when those wielding the sword allows it to be.

    Yahoo! says it simply responds to requests from the authorities and was just complying to local
  • "We believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Yahoo!'s terms of use, or as otherwise required by law."

    http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/ [yahoo.com]

    "We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of ou

  • Long ago (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nephroth ( 586753 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @09:41AM (#14676918)
    I thought to myself that Western influence combined with booming economy would one day make China a relatively free country. Apparently I was incorrect. What is really happening is that the United States is learning that it can have free-market trade without giving freedom to its people.

    Naturally, I'm thrilled to get the opportunity to live under an oppressive regime. Why should Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia get to have all the fun? Well, gotta go or I'll be late for four minutes hate.

  • prison (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jacek Poplawski ( 223457 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:02AM (#14677081)
    Guys, we are talking about putting journalist in the PRISON.

    And you are making funny comments.

    I know that it is very fun to see how people dies on your tv screen when you are drinking beer and eating chips, but it's happen for real. People are thrown in prison for their words. People are being killed. And you are making jokes about them.

    Yahoo is just evil.
    Google is also evil, just less.

    There is no free speech in this world - you can't talk about scientology (comment has been removed by Slashdot administrator), you can't make cartoons about Mohammed, Moses or any Christian saints, liberalism is dying.

    And you think that's funny.

  • 'Rigorous Procedures' (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Thursday February 09, 2006 @10:17AM (#14677223) Homepage Journal
    Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako insisted that in its dealings with China, the company "only responded with what we were legally compelled to provide, and nothing more".

    So, if the secret police knock at your door, and they ask you for the location of any Jews, you lead them to Anne Frank's family in the attic, and "nothing more"?

    Yes, I realize I've initiated the inevitable Godwin's Law thread. But I fail to see any fundamental distinction here. This is where craven obedience leads.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close