NYT Editorial Slams ISPs Over Online Freedom 127
Erris writes "The New York Times site is running an opinion piece from last weekend which lambasts Yahoo! (and other US ISPs) for cooperating with China and other repressive governments. 'Yahoo's collaboration is appalling, and Yahoo is not the only American company helping the Chinese government repress its people ... Last January, Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey reintroduced the Global Online Freedom Act in the House. It would fine American companies that hand over information about their customers to foreign governments that suppress online dissent.'"
No kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA
You've just identified the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem.
Everybody knows China and America do massive trade together. Congress would rather throw stones at Yahoo!, et. al. while maintaining China's favored trade status, sending athletes to the Olympics, and doing nothing about Tibet. Frankly I think trade with China is ultimately more constructive than China-bashing, but the Congresscritters want to have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, ending trade with China would most likely do more to cut particulate pollution (25% of LA's comes from China [the-signal.com]), and cut global warming from coal burning [atimes.com]. Sure, there'd be short-term disruption of American corporate manufacturing patterns. But what we've learned in the process of outsourcing industries to China is how to build new factories quickly. We could use that knowledge again here.
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
My personal belief is that trading with countries will have and end positive result as the population eventually will see their Government for what it is and change will occur. I don't care how oppressive a government is, if you have 1,000,000,000+ people of your population rising against you, you'll be running for the exit while your head is still upon your shoulders.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember being told about peer p
Re:You've just identified the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Good job, America. Pull out that credit card and keep on voting.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a comple
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be so sure, it is all a matter of perspective. If what you say is true then why are the old men of the Chinese politburo and even worse, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, still in power after decades of people not liking them (even within their own countries where they are to afraid to say anything publicly)? If one is willing, as a dictatorial ruler, to ma
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Mexico?
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2007/11/29/mattel_destroys_leaden_toys_in_mexico/ [boston.com]
You realize that these fucked up goods are the result of American companies able to operate without restrictions in foreign countries? The factories are making everything according to spec, and it's Mattel who chooses to cut costs everywhere. Chinese companies are now suing [giftsanddec.com] Mattel for making them look bad.
I do think that these American i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Day late and a dollar short, my post is, but on the face of it, your statement is a complete falsehood. Chinese goods absolutely do go "through customs" (now Customs and Border Protection under Department of Homeland Security - [Benny Hill salute].)
Unless you are making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the copious quantities of counterfeit goods that are seized, I fail to understand your statement and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. China owns enough dollars to sink the US economy in a couple of hours [currencytrading.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should not be punished for following the law in the places you are, whether it be as a person or as a company.
This is the classic Catch-22. Just look at the signs inside the US Embassy next time you travel abroad. They promise absolutely no assistance if you should happen to run afoul of local law enforcement officials. Damned if you, damned if you don't. It is extraordinarily bad law especially since the US doesn't have exactly a stellar record itself on online freedom, though fortunately the Supreme Court keeps overturning the worst of the laws.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community
Re: (Score:2)
You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community service for not 'catching' pad product being exported - they ended his life. You know how much press that got in the US? Dick. Why?
Yes, I do. I think you're wrong on the `why' part though. How popular of a decision do you think that was with US lawmakers (if they thought it might apply to them)?
...
We hold parents responsible for the death of their children if they use bad judgment that results in the child's death, government insists on becoming a parent to everyone, you connect the dots
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You remember that whole toothpaste fiasco from China? They EXECUTED the official responsible for letting that slip by. Not fined, jailed, or sentenced to community service for not 'catching' pad product being exported - they ended his life. You know how much press that got in the US? Dick. Why? Because people and politicians don't WANT to recognize what we are supporting by doing business over there (not to mention the MILLIONS of factory jobs we've shipped off - GFG - wonder who THAT makes rich, aye?)
Actually, I think executing that guy was probably the only redeeming thing they've done over there in a while. We could do well to import a little more of that kind of "strict liability," instead of just the tons of plastic crap. There's quite a few people on this side of the pond I'd like to see with a rope around their neck for their incompetence.
I'm no fan of the PRC, but every time I hear about some embezzling official taking the quick way down from an office-tower window, my heart warms just a little
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That cat's already out of the bag. You can't criticize big businesses for trading in China, and then drive to your local chain store and buy a bunch of cheap crap made in China. Or maybe I have it wrong, and your the one guy who manages to completely avoid anything made in China.
China's government is terrible, but that's really not our problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On
Re:No kidding? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you misunderstand.. (Score:1)
I am not a hippie, nor am I living in the US. I am living in the UK, which is a clone of the US. I am attracted to children; many people in the UK (which has been heavily influenced by US law) who are attracted to children are imprisoned for viewing non-pornographic yet illegal images of children. So, I can't view even non-pornographic images o
Re: (Score:2)
What about foreign companies? (Score:2)
Moral but counter-productive? (Score:2)
Trying to legislate against another country's laws sounds like a terrible idea on paper, and it doesn't promise much more in practice either.
When did Yahoo become an ISP?? (Score:5, Informative)
An ISP provides access to the net, not just web services.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't we say IAP, Internet Access Provider, instead of ISP?
Very illogical.
Simple answer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, you mean like sendmail?
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't just "access" even in the early days.
Besides, ISP is an entrenched term with an established meaning, and it makes perfect sense if you take into account what the entities referred to as ISPs are actually providing, at least in the gener
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, as a relativist, no-one respects my opinions. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:4, Insightful)
The word "right" is an absolutist word. Relativists coherently can't believe in rights, as the word "right" implies a standard of correctness outside of one's own perspective. The best you can do, as a relativist who wishes to remain coherent, is to say "I think Yahoo can do whatever it wants." And Congress can then reply "I don't think it can!" And because you're a relativist, you've got no way to mitigate these two claims, because you certainly don't have access to the language of "rights."
I suppose you could just have no desire to be coherent. But if you're incoherent, you shouldn't really be too surprised when people don't respect your opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, does it really matter what jargon I used?
Re:It's their right to choose to cooperate (Score:5, Insightful)
Right there, you've constructed the perfect argument in favor of this law. If they have no morality, then we must pass laws forcing them to be constructive members of society in general. Only by levying massive fines, and leveraging their amoral need to "please their shareholders", can we force them to be good citizens.
Once upon a time, corporations were required, as part of their state charter, to serve the greater good; if they failed to do so, their corporate charter could be terminated. A series of legal judgements removed that as an option, but I would certainly be in favor of bringing that back. See references to H. Glasbeak and Noam Chomsky here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct about laws and regulations being the only way to influence the behavior of corporations, but how far are you willing to take that? China is a sovereign country. The US government has absolutely no right to determine how companies act under a separate, sovereign state's law. Yahoo, while working in China, is a Chinese company and must obey Chinese laws. I think it would be dangerous to set a precedent where corporations would be exerting the influence of their home government.
Would you b
Re: (Score:2)
I would be completely, perfectly fine with companies having to choose whether they do business in China, or the U.S., and not both. That is, having laws that make companies serving China's government incompatible with business in the U.S is ok by me.
As always, I would much rather have the U.S. electorate be able to vote on what corporate behavior they want in their country, than being at the mercy of either totalitarian foreign governmen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that would produce would be extreme isolationism and poverty for the US. If we essentially ended all trade with nations that have oppressive governments, we would cut off most of the world (including most of our oil suppliers, among other thi
Re: (Score:2)
All of that sounds absolutely excellent to me. Again, the alternative is to submit to a comple
Re: (Score:2)
But what's moral? Within any time in any particular culture, there may be a consensus on that question. But consensus varies within any culture over time, and varies from culture to culture. Criticism of someone else's morality is presumptive of a demonstrated capacity to do better -- to provide a guiding example. Otherwise
Re: (Score:2)
As a relativist, I believe it's Yahoo's right to choose whether or not to cooperate with the Chinese government.
Corporate charters in the U.S. are allegedly granted contingant on being in the public interest. If the public here doesn't believe that supporting the suppression of political dissent is in their best interests, do they not have a right to revoke the charter? If indeed, they may determine that Yahoo may not exist at all in the U.S. isn't it reasonable that they may also choose a lesser sancti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood me. They inherently possess no morality (other than the shareholders), but they can take on the morality imposed by law. They do it in western countries, and they do it in China. I'm saying that I think the companies shouldn't necessarily obey the westerners when they tell them to refuse t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing (Score:2, Insightful)
What did everyone expect globalization was? (Score:2)
No; it was about ultimate alignment of all of these other harder, more difficult and intangible things like values, whatever.
Economics may bring the pressure to do so, but no one said it is enough or that it won't be painful along the way.
When are those who pushed for loose, blind globalization going to have to eat their own dog food?
It has yet to be seen, but coming, I think.
The article is an opinion piece (Score:1)
To support genuine freedom of speech is to support anonymous remailers where such genuine information can be communicated with safety.
But such systems are then attacked by those who abuse such systems with spam, libel and other dishonest intents.
Everyone wants to limit spam, including China.
So who is really to blame for suppression here?
Those who are not honest and won't shut up with their
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tyranny is the unrestricted or arbitrary use of power and is preferred by thugs of every feather.
when people are arrested for simply saying they don't like their government, then that is a bad thing. especially if some of them are then executed so their organs can be "harvested" ( sold to selected "important" people )
I think the hardest part of defending freedom is in accepting the extent of evil that develops if unchecked.
the freedom of speech that ha
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know how stupid it sounds that one random person speaks up against their government and then is executed for organ harvesting for someone important?
Whats the odds of a genetic enough match?
China worked with americans to get starving people out of north korea. Why? Because Americans don't look korean enough to do it themselves.
Tienanmen square. What was worse than that? What happened in Mexico the year the Olympics was ther
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably depends on which stage of moral development (sensu KOHLBERG [plts.edu]) society tries to 'enforce'.
Summary
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, althou
double standard (Score:2)
So Yahoo et al are handing over information about people leaving the person open to persecution, and now the government is taking them to task over this.
I assume the same government will also be attacking ISPs who hand over people's information to corporations, leaving the people open to persecution. Or is there some corruption going on that would prevent this?
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed.
What online freedom? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except for copyright, pornography, surveillance, phone-home software, the US is a a beacon of online freedom.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but... what??
Screw China! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, it's a complete logical fallacy to claim that we shouldn't do X because Y isn't perfect. Nothing prevents both from happening, independent of each other.
Secondly, I'd like you to try that statement with other subjects, and see how good it sounds. eg. "Can I please get a little more food, before we go off sending aide to Africa?" "Can
Re: (Score:2)
1. Can I get more (something we are having a shortage of) before we sent it to (some other place). Is nowhere near the same as the two emotional examples you tried to equate what I said to.
2. That is funny. While I agree that what many US companies are doing overseas is abhorrent, I was pretty sure the bombing countries into the stone age on a "Crusade" with little justification and supporting terrorists and the like is what gave us the bad image. I mean, I always assumed the deals like Ira
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All of this, between the lead-based paints, tainted food, etc. is propaganda, ploys by the US government to divert attention from their own inadequacies, to divert our attention from their own wrongdoings by selling out to the highest bidder. It is the beginnings of the anti-China PR, preparation for when China surpasses the US as an economic powerhouse and rends the US irrelevant in the global community. This way, the US populace will agree
ThoughtCrime (Score:4, Insightful)
But of course, American companies that hand over information about their customers to domestic governments that suppress online dissent are just doing their patriotic duty, and do not in any way, shape, or form need to be investigated or prosecuted. In fact, let's give them explicit legal protection!
I can has "double standard"?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure... if it's China. What about the U.S.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is up in arms about Yahoo cooperating with the Chinese government, but Yahoo and other companies bend over backwards to help the U.S. Government, often with nary a question. The telecom's cooperation with the NSA with the warrantless wiretapping of citizens is an obvious example (and there the Times did an admirable job getting the word out), but as most on Slashdot realize, there are two magic phrases which suddenly causes First Amendment amnesia... terrorism and child pornography. Mention one of those terms and you'll have Yahoo employees jumping through hoops of fire to hand you customer records, regardless of how substantiated the claim may be.
I don't remember the NYTimes writing an editorial admonishing AT&T for deciding to "filter" their network for copyrighted material.
People often ignore freedom of speech abuses in the U.S. because we have the First Amendment. Therefore, freedom of speech is guaranteed... right? But China's constitution guarantees the freedom of speech as well (article 35). You can't just deny that your house is burning down because you have a piece of paper that guarantees it's fireproof.
What counts as repressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
brilliant! (Score:2)
Freedom Begins at Home (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that the SAFE Act doesn't require ISPs to monitor [slashdot.org]. It just says any monitoring that turns up child porn has to report it. Which is still anti-American, forcing neighbors to report on each other to the cops, but since these "neighbors" are ISPs which don't report stuff like this at the rate that real neighbors would do voluntarily, it's an ethical conundrum.
If the government investigated the reports by looking more carefully at the reported transactions, without disturbing an
Morality laws (Score:2)
Like Britain(India, Ireland), they are convinced that they know better then the rest of the world.
The US is happy legislating its morality. As long as you have the US as the only super power, it truly is the west against everyone else. In the US they arrested and jailed the owners of a 3 day old online-poker law.
The US decided that even Credit Card companies that are making payments to these 'scum of the earth' would be held liable. Even after
Yahoo is an ISP? (Score:2)
Do they actually provide internet access in the US?
Re: (Score:1)
Repression in Italy? (Score:2)
Why just online content providers? (Score:1)
Pot - kettle - dirty (Score:2)
This becomes a question of values, and how far to exert extraterritoriality. What freedoms are truly unalienable? Freedom from torture likely is, gun freedom likely is not. In between there is an area for individual and na
So let me get this straight: (Score:2)
Paying US workers less than a living wage: not okay. Paying other nation's workers less a living wage: okay.
what about following other laws outside the usa? (Score:1)
Hopefully that proposed law is forward-looking (Score:2)
Yea, but (Score:2)
"...Yahoo is not the only American company helping the Chinese government repress its people ..."
Don't we all do that as consumers when we buy Chinese products? If you think the living standards of most of the Chinese has improved, think again [cnn.com].
I think the fatal mistake made by the U.S. Government is to assume that as the fortunes of the country improve, so will the hunger for democracy. Couldn't be more wrong. There was a great article in Time that interviewed a few Chinese in their early 20's and for the most part, so long as they could keep consuming stuff, they could care less about their freedo
Re: (Score:2)
What to do about it (Score:2)