Yahoo Settles With Imprisoned Chinese Journalists 106
Terms of the deal are secret, but Yahoo has reached settlements with two Chinese journalists who were arrested based on information the company provided to the ruling Communist government. "[...] a source at Yahoo said the company has been 'working with the families, and we're working with them to provide them with financial, humanitarian and legal assistance.' Yahoo has also agreed to establish a global human rights fund to provide 'humanitarian relief' to support dissidents and their families. The source said that details still have to be worked out."
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This whole things sickens me. They bang on about other countries human rights violations, but apparently China has enough money to make corporations and governments not care.
Yeah, I know, hardly new, but it's still sickening.
Re:Well, (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod parent funny!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Please define "hooliganism" for us, if you would.
No, really - you said they knew up-front what the laws were. So please define for us, exactly, what a law based on a subjective and ever-changing term would be. Incidentally, China has thousands of such laws, its citizens have no real right to a decent trial, and "subversives" can be detained for the rest of their natural lives without so much as being read anything approaching a Miranda statement, let alone get a trial.
Idiot.
Re:Well, (Score:4, Interesting)
The winner = US government who continue to tax Yahoo. And the politician who insulted the CEO in public.
This is more like US government vs US corporation. China has had the same law since the founding of the communist government.
Re:Well, (Score:5, Interesting)
The very idea that you can equate breaking Chinese laws, particularly those designed to shield the leadership and the organs of state from any kind of oversight by the people they claim to serve, with breaking the laws in a liberal democracy is just daft. The Chinese leadership simply has an entirely different view which isn't by any means the statutory view that you'll find in Western nations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no real regularized judiciary in China, so saying that Chinese officials knocking on Yahoo China's door is the equivalent of the FBI
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
Your argument is rather like Burma's military junta defending their crackdown as simply a legalistic maneuver, and after all, Burma's a sovereign country, so why should we care? Say the same for Kosovo, for Darfur, for Apartheid-era South Africa? I mean, can any abuse of human beings be justified because "It's local law and custom"?
The US already goes after companies doing business in other parts of the world over activities like bribery, even when such activities are deemed as acceptable in the place the American companies are doing business. There's a key notion here that just because you head abroad doesn't suddenly mean you no longer can be scrutinized by the US government.
And besides, when did something being a law mean that it was unassailable? Heck, laws [wikipedia.org] banning interracial marriage were found in a number of states. Would you have been going up to Mildred and Richard Loving [wikipedia.org] and scolding them for violating local laws?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe there was some help from Yahoo US in locating the data in US servers. Here's the deal, how is this morally different from Big Box retailers propping up China's govt by paying their legal share of chinese taxes for the police that arrested these guys? Or for providing commerce to the regime?
How about when an airline provides a passenger list including pass
Re:Well, (Score:5, Insightful)
As I've said, if China wishes to continue suppressing basic human freedoms, and the people of China want or have no choice but to go along with it, then that's fine. But I don't think an American company has any business helping them, whether it's Yahoo, Google and Microsoft selling out dissidents and journalists, or it's Cisco providing the hardware and support for the Great Firewall. Let China do its own dirty work.
Oh, and I thought "We were just following orders" had been dispensed with as a defense for violation of human rights and dignity some sixty years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but this was an ILLEGAL action in China and Yahoo China provided the legally required data under rules very similar to the USA PATRIOT Act here.
The level of abuse in China pales in comparison to even the worst parts of the PATRIOT Act. The comparison doesn't hold water. I'm no fan of some recent American legislation, but there are different shades of "bad", and China is very, very much further on the scale than even the most heinous of American laws.
Not to mention that "we were just following orders" was deemed a non-defense at the Nuremberg trials. Somebody writing a decree on a piece of paper does not absolve you of your personal responsibili
Re: (Score:2)
no law, of any nation (Score:4, Interesting)
therefore, if the country is not democratic, anything goes: you as a citizen should not respect any law of your country
authority is not to be respected if authority is not accountable to the common citizen
if a government is accountable to theocrats, royals, despots, autocrats, or technocrats, that government is not to be respected, by its citizens, or the international community
because those governments certainly don't respect their citizens
only in a democracy are the will of the citizens respected, via the vote, so only in a democracy is the government accountable to its citizens, and only democratically elected governments are to be respected by its citizens and the international community
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Populations of large democratic nations are way to big for the ancient greek democratic model to work. I am not saying scrap democracy but the way it's carried out needs to be revised.
The current model still has too much emphesis on majority rule and allows for minorities to still be repressed. Anti-descrimination laws only go so far. A major
that's incredibly retarded (Score:2)
and please, don't for once try to equate that bullshi
yes, gw bush was reelected (Score:2)
but i respect that that is the will of the american people
i ALSO respect the fact that he did not win the popular vote in 2000. that without the retarded electoral college, al gore would have been president in 2000, and the last 8 years under gw bush would have never happened, IF the will of the people was unfiltered
Re: (Score:1)
not revised (Score:2)
and go to borda or approval voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bord [wikipedia.org]
You forgot the best voting system: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The will of the people will never be unfiltered 100%, another reason why I think democracy needs to revised.
After reading a bit of Heinlein, I came across a description of law-making that I liked. It's been a while, but goes something like this:
ANY citizen can submit a bill to enact a law, or repeal one. It matters not just HOW loony it might seem; every citizen has a shot, barring criminals or the clinically insane. You can go out to vote, or do it at home with state-issued voting boxes. Picture a list of the "laws of the day/week/month" being listed on screen/paper, with three {mayhaps four} choices: Yes, No
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
2 things (Score:1, Troll)
2. in cases where the majority is intent on killing a racial or religious minority, why do you think a government besides democracy will protect citizens from that? more likely, it will inflame the persecution further (jews in the u
Re: (Score:1)
that.is.fucking.hilarious. (Score:2)
you call it "proletarian dictatorship"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
that's like "dry water" or "bright darkness"
i can't even begin to put into words how out of touch you are
let's just put it this way: list all the problems you have with democracy. now look at every other government type. conclusion: EVERY OTHER GOVT TYPE IS WORSE
get to work on the space ship there bub
or, accept that the great moderate middle is not on the cutting edge of fringe issues. nor ever they will be. b
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, the democracy you are speaking so heavily in favor of (not just in the parent post, but throughout this thread), sounds like simple majority rule, which is perhaps why someone else threw the phrase "proletarian dictatorship" at you. Simple majority rule can easily take the form of tyranny, wh
Re:Well, (Score:4, Interesting)
I couldn't find that video, but here is another.. http://youtube.com/watch?v=kxUZIG0Eea4 [youtube.com]
Or perhaps we should look at how China kills more people a year then every other country in the world combined. Especially their treatment of Falun Gong [wikipedia.org] worshippers. They beat them to death and tell people they committed suicide. Then they take the dead body to the hospital for organ harvesting.
I found a video on that here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fkf2u1Umzi4 [youtube.com] It's got nothing to do with hating china and when you use that line you sound like you're working for the Chinese government, because that is EXACTLY what their defence is to any allegations of abuse against its citizens.
Although America is a crap country in my opinion that I'd never want to visit, at least they don't bulldoze down people's houses and give them almost nothing in return. They don't round up the religious people they don't like, beat them to death, tell the families they killed themselves and then take their heart, lungs, liver and then cremate the body to hide any evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First you said...
Re: (Score:2)
When I mean crap I am talking about the laws and typical government stuff. I have many American friends and they're all nice people and the culture is nice too.
There is one really big gripe I have and that is with the "us vs. them" mentality towards politics where people try to place you into a left or right wing box depending on your views on a particular subject matter so they can then easily ignore anything you say if you're not on "their side". It feels like
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Counter-revolutionary article removed (Score:4, Insightful)
What I would like to know: have they reached a "deal" to stop cooperating with totalitarian censors in suppressing freedom of speech and political opposition?
Re:Counter-revolutionary article removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Only if you get caught and brought up before congress... nice save, but yahoo still sucks and this just goes to show you that they are more interested in getting some traction in a new market rather than being good human beings. "Screw the dissidents, we see dollar signs!!!" -- yahoo.org
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad thing is that it doesn't matter what Yahoo! (or any other American company) does to gain market share in China, it can all swiftly be taken away should they anger the wrong person [news.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In China, there seems to be a trend that financial compensation to the victims will mitigate punishment in criminal cases. This is not common in the US, except for restitution-based payments for property crimes.
See here for an extreme example [atimes.com]
My analogy does not directly apply, since presumably any recovery by the workers would be had in US court rather than Chinese court. I just chime in to say that financial compensation might seem more appropriate to people from a different legal system.
Maybe I can put
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Two cents at a time. (Score:5, Funny)
Has one of your loved ones been shot for treason? Disappeared for thoughtcrime? Or just had one of those spur-of-the-moment fits of altruism and volunteered to donate any and all needed organs to help a wealthy Party official?
Well, Yahoo! is here to help! Yahoo! has set up a humanitarian relief fund that to fund the families' share of the burden. For every family member shot, Yahoo! will supply your family with two cents to cover the cost of the bullet, and for every organ harvested, Yahoo! will reimburse your family for the costs of the surgery.
It's all in this Little Red "Y". Yahoooooooooo!
Get them jailed, pay their family (Score:2)
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Otherwise, don't blame me if I assume that you're trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
Via Wikipedia, here's some of the various criticisms people have raised about the Gates Foundation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#Criticisms [wikipedia.org]
Promotion of abortion rights and contraception
Some social conservatives also criticize the foundation for its support of organizations that promote abortion rights and contraception, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Guttmacher Institute, the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organization.[citation needed]
Investment in oil companies and drug companies
According to a January 7 2007 Los Angeles Times article, the foundation invests large amounts of money in companies whose behavior counters the foundation's charitable goals.[31] Examples include oil companies such as Eni and drug companies who withhold medications from the developing world. According to the article, many other foundations behave similarly. In response, the foundation first announced a systematic review of all of its investments to determine whether it should consider divestment from some companies.[32] Later, it revoked this pledge[33] and said it would continue its current practices.[34]
In a May 4 story, the Los Angeles Times again reported a conflict between the foundation investment policies and charitable goals. [15] In this case the issue was Darfur and PetroChina, an oil company in which Gates trustee Warren Buffett owns a large stake via his Berkshire Hathaway company. PetroChina's parent companies is heavily invested in oil extraction in the Sudan.
Diversion of health care resources
In a January/February 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Laurie Garrett claims that many charitable organizations, among whom the Gates Foundation is prominent, harm global health by diverting resources from other important local health care services.[35] For example, by paying relatively high salaries at AIDS clinics, the foundation diverts medical professionals from other parts of developing nations' health care systems; the health care systems' ability to provide care diminishes (except in the area the foundation funds) and the charities may do more harm than good.
Re: (Score:2)
"Promotion of abortion rights and contraception"
uh-huh. Sure. Terrible.
"Investment in oil companies and drug companies"
The BMGF have $34b. It doesn't just sit around in a sack in Bill's house waiting to be given away. In fact, to try and make sure that that pile o' cash doesn't get ravaged by inflation, and to hopefully give more away, they invest it, just like (I hope) you do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
He's a very smart man. --Rape and pillage to gain your wealth, realize that your life-span is finite and that the world hates you. Hm.
Will Gates invest in anything which would minimize MS's returns? Will he promote openness in information and software and knowledge? Not likely. Gates might actually think that he suddenly cares about people, but I find that hard to believe. It seems more that he is trying to put his muddy name through the washer so that history will remember him with love rat
Re: (Score:2)
He's making money off software (not killing or maiming people, but writing pieces of code) and he's using that money to HELP people.
You know? Those things like curing AIDs and other diseases, finding ways of providing potable water etc?
He runs a business and he is a little ruthless about it, yes - but it's business.
Priorities man, priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, this is the man who, when he found out his partner was dying, didn't send flowers, but rather got into a gleeful debate with his other partner about how they were going to screw him over for his shares. That qualifies as something a little different than just ruthless business practice. It indicates a man who is missing essential human parts; who, to put it bluntly, cares more about himself than he does about human suffering, or curing disease, or finding potable water, etc.
I'm jus
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't using the money to help anyone but himself. Would you believe how great of a person I am if I opened an emergency gunshot treatment c
Working link to article (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, the real judge is how they decide to act next time something like this happens...
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1.) Retain power
2.) Increase power
There is no other real objective to power. Dissent can erode power. Dissent can be crushed by force, and if the rest of the world either fears you or needs you (and in China's case, it's both), they aren't going to do much to stop you. Sure, they'll spout empty rhetoric, but so what? They're still buying your goods, and they're still petrified of your military might.
Tin-pot dictators get away with oppression because nobody that can do an
Not by a longshot. (Score:2)
Emerging superpowers
You misspelled "Developing countries".
^W^WDeveloping countries like China get away with it because the only people that can do anything about it (the US, possibly Russia) need China intact and powerful to prop up their own economies, and even if they didn't they know they couldn't realistically win a war with China. War would be a disaster, and economic sanctions would harm our economy more than theirs, so they can do whatever the hell they please.
You horribly underestimate the US military. Also, there are ways of ignoring that part of the world while getting what we want domestically and enforcing our policies globally.
Sovereignty is why you don't let free trade go unchecked/unregulated.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's hard to get Iraq under control, imagine how difficult it would be to get China under control... (ask the CCP, they know how hard it is) 1.3 billion people, many of them strongly "patriotic" (mind you, the
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing. Dissent can be crushed by force but it never real works in the end. People will find a way to speak and all fascist states have fallen up till this point due to anger over oppression of freedom of speach.
The smart power mongers will find away so that dissent can be had, but changes nothing politically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's their goal. It's mostly to restrict the flow of information inside the country, so people can't orchestrate a violent uprising.
Re:Jailing Dissidents is Stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, even the dimmest rural Chinese citizen knows well the failings of the system (probably from bitter personal experience).
That requires them to have a basis for comparison (ie, what it's like elsewhere). Additionally, not knowing all of the things happening to other people across the country also helps the establishment.
The Chinese have historically done a very good job of censorship. When I was an undergrad I worked in a research group that was 80% Chinese, including a number of visiting scholars who were educated entirely in China. A bunch of us started talking about our respective countries once, and Tienman (sp?) Square came up. One of the Chinese scholars had never heard of it, and didn't believe it could have possibly occurred (understandably). A few of us found some articles on it, which he read. He was visibly shaken as he realized the things his country did while lying to the people. So believe me, they're very good propagandists.
Re: (Score:2)
That requires them to have a basis for comparison (ie, what it's like elsewhere). Additionally, not knowing all of the things happening to other people across the country also helps the establishment.
The Chinese have historically done a very good job of censorship. When I was an undergrad I worked in a research group that was 80% Chinese, including a number of visiting scholars who were educated entirely in China. A bunch of us started talking about our respective countries once, and Tienman (sp?) Square came up. One of the Chinese scholars had never heard of it, and didn't believe it could have possibly occurred (understandably). A few of us found some articles on it, which he read. He was visibly shaken as he realized the things his country did while lying to the people. So believe me, they're very good propagandists.
I have a lot of cousins there and visit frequently. They are aware they are being lied to but aren't aware what the lies exactly are. So it's very insidious. There is a prevailing cynicism but it's non specific. They assume every government does this as well. So they have a slightly skewed view of the world. Although I truly wish their cynicism was more widespread over here as well. The west is much better all around but some of the news sources are almost the same sort of editorial propaganda.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why someone who had suffered cruelly at the hands of Cultural Revolution hardliners and who did so much to push China on the path of liberalization should himself become a hardliner is not explained. Even less does anyone seem to have felt any need to check out just what actually happened in Tiananmen in 1989. Eyewitness accounts that say there was no massacre have been conveniently ignored. Blatantly anti-Beijing propaganda accounts have been unquestioningly accepted. Fortunately we now have a source whose sober impartiality cannot possibly be doubted, namely the de-classified reports from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing at the time (see Google under Tiananmen, Document 30 especially).
They confirm that there was no massacre in the square, that almost all the students who had been demonstrating there for two weeks had left the square quietly in the early hours of June 4, and that the real incident was panicky fighting triggered by crowds attacking troops, initially unarmed, as they headed for the square on June 3.
In the process a still indefinite number of troops, students and civilians were killed and many military vehicles were torched. Call it a mini civil war if you like, with troops eventually getting the upper hand over unarmed insurgents. But that is not a deliberate massacre of innocent students.
Curiously, the photo that most media use to illustrate the alleged student massacre shows a row of blazing army vehicles, some with crews trapped inside, in a long avenue that clearly is not part of Tiananmen Square. Indeed, the U.S. Embassy material speaks of troops only finally entering the square after some students attacked and killed a soldier in a vehicle at the entrance.
Most of the discussion you see here is doctrinaire (freedom, liberty, freedom, etc.) oligarch propaganda. The media-owning conglomerates/monopolists send their ready-made legislation and paid-for legislators to Washington, and what you see on TV is the party line that is to be toed.
"Oligarchy", now there is a label you basically never hear in the USA media even though it is the economic-political structure under which it operates. Journalists and acti
Re: (Score:2)
Happy Festivus! (Score:2)
Bad Precident (Score:2)
Not for China and Yahoo. (Score:2)
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Osama (Score:1)
one mans freedom fighter and all that...
Yahoo Apology: (Score:4, Funny)
We apologize sincerely for aiding in your arrest and torture. We at yahoo do not agree with reasons given for your arrest but they offered us a lot of money. Please accept this Yahoo branded T-shirt, coffee mug, nose plug, cyanide pill and Testicle NumCream TM. I hope they will make your incarceration more bearable. We have also made a small donation in your name to Amnesty International. We know you would appreciate that.
Regards
Jerry Yang
I listened to some of the hearings on CSPAN... (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:2)
Forced Labour Is Good For The Soul (Score:1)
Please Explain (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The first principles are:
#1 Anybody who sides with the Communists are evil
#2 Anybody who sides with the dissidents are heroes
The rest follows.
Due process? But no! -- you're supporting an evil, evil regime!!!
What's more, you're complying with law!! What a horrible, horrible thought!!
I mean, I never really sensed a high regard for the rule of law in America (not that there's any in China though),
Secret, eh? (Score:2, Funny)
I bet you'll find them on Google...
Not really the issue (Score:1, Informative)
The basic fact of the matter is Yahoo is an American company, operating multinationally. As an American company, or, as any non governmental individual or organization, Yahoo does not have the right, let alone the obligation, to act unilaterally in any matter concerning a foreign entity, state or otherwise. That is the responsibility of the State department.
Obviously, the State department does not have the resources to respond to every issue that
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know the nature of the settlement, so Yahoo is still not coming clean. They're just trying to keep Congress paci