Yahoo Allegedly Sells Reporter Out to Chinese Authorities

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'."

China needs the RIAA

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!!!!

Re:China needs the RIAA

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 actual

Ordinary Criminals?

'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?

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

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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!

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

25-year-old woman reading out names of war dead at war memorial as protest against war: arrested and fined.

Large number of people with signs saying shit like HOORAY FOR 7/7 and SHEIKH OSAMA IS COMING TO GET YOU and BEHEAD THE DANISH KAFFIRS: left entirely unmolested.

The former has a chance of being taken seriously by the general public, in which case it would hinder the pro-war people. The latter has no chance of being taken seriously by the general public, and is likely to anger them, in which case it would aid the pro-war people.

The best way of manipulating the public is to supress your reasonable opponents and exaggerate the unreasonable opponents. It's a subtle variation on a straw-man argument. If the only people the public sees oppose you are lunatics, it makes it much easier for them to believe yours is the only reasonable course of action.

See also: "They hate our freedom" vs "They want us to stop interfering in their affairs".

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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...).

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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.

Re:Ordinary Criminals?

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 m [wikipedia.org]

You can't blame Yahoo!

After all, they are only following orders...

of the free market.

Re:You can't blame Yahoo!

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.

--

Re:You can't blame Yahoo!

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

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.

Re:This is to be expected

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 eve

Not what America used to be about

"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

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.

Who wants to take a bet that Reps. Lantos and Smith will have a field day with this? Btw, they are the real deal as they were in the minority that voted against renewing MFN for China [blindmindseye.com] the last time it came up, in 1999.

Like hell its your duty to always comply

So when the Nazis were rounding up the Jews, it was right for IBM to help them rather than stimy them? Since the US had almost no trade with the Warsaw Pact, we can't compare that, but you are dead wrong. There comes a point in which the company is no long

Re:Not what America used to be about

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

Double standard...

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]

Re:Double standard...

Somewhat offtopic, but dammit children's access to internet porn is NOT the same as child porn . Please stop perpetuating this misinformation. Thank you.

Doesn't Add Up?

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

Late breaking suddenly news!

"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

"The West" needs to make up its mind

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?

Re:"The West" needs to make up its mind

"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

Passing the buck...

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

"He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him AWAY!"

The regional governor of Yahoo didnt want any Empire entanglements.

Net zero.

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

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.

Re:The US constitution in Beijing

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

Slippery slope

'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...

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.

There's some impartial reporting for you ...

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?

Re:There's some impartial reporting for you ...

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

Long ago

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

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'

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.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

and I am sure that the Chinese government would allow that.

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

Well, I don't see anyone jailing the Danish cartoonists. Their leader affirmed the freedom of press while responding to his muslim counterparts. Bill Clinton and even Bush have a right to their own opinions as long as they don't force them on me. With a he

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

You really believe that christians would go on rampage, burn down buildings, call for the artists to be killed, and call on all christians to go on a jihad??
And worse things have been done then a cartoon to annoy christians. Take the "piss christ" (google

Re:Don't use Yahoo!

I browse at 0 and mod anything that has a moderation (including underrated and overrated) +1 and moderate ACs -6. This way I get to read every post (regardless of moderation) except ACs (again regardless of moderation). No more do I see GNAA posts, and whi

Global companies VS Local Laws

This is a deeper problem than it seems at first sight. From my point of view, Yahoo is not doing wrong as it surely is complying with petitions that the Chinese government asks.

A lot of people in slashdot think that just because they *believe* the type of

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

I'm sorry, I just don't see why this is insightful. It's common sense. The problem people have isn't that these businesses are complying for no-good-reason, it's that they're complying and helping a government stiffle contrary views. Is it allowing them do business in these countries? Absolutely. Do we give a flying fuck whether they do business in these countries? Fuck no.

Look, Yahoo and Google can do whatever the hell they want. If there is a country that allows corporations to place babies on spikes and plant them in the ground, and these corporations do it, so be it. We don't have a legal right to stop them, here, in America.

That doesn't mean we can't say "fuck you" and stop using their services. Of course, we also have to avoid the ubiquitous advertising services they both offer to all and sundry, but a quick configuration of ad block will fix that.

Is this going to change things? Probably not. But at least we know we did something, no matter how pathetically inconsequential, to say "we do not agree".

-------

It pained me to see Google agree to filter things for China. That was bad enough. But what Yahoo has done is take it one step farther. And that was one step entirely too far.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

An interesting proposition. Sometimes its the little things we CAN do that can make the biggest difference of all. Say suddenly 25% of America decided to humor you and adblock yahoo and boycott them.. they would change their stance pretty damn quickly.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

Right or wrong, the US does claim the power of law over its citizens when they are not in the country. If I can't go have sex with little girls in Asia, why should Yahoo be permitted to rape journalism there? Or are you going to go all double standard on me and tell me that sometimes it's ok for US law to apply outside its border, but only when you agree with it?

Multiple Sovereigns = Multiple Laws

See the problem is that Yahoo! is doing business in China as an American company. This means that they are operating under the control of multiple sovereigns and must tread carefully. To continue to do business in China they must obey Chinese laws, even if

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

Yahoo MUST comply with local laws if they want to make buisness there, there is no other choice, comply or go

Why isn't "go" an option on the table? To me, its a no-brainer.

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

This is a deeper problem than it seems at first sight. From my point of view, Yahoo is not doing wrong as it surely is complying with petitions that the Chinese government asks.

I think though this puts you outside the mainstream. Most people consider mora

Re:Global companies VS Local Laws

From my point of view, Yahoo is not doing wrong as it surely is complying with petitions that the Chinese government asks.

An entity calling itself "government" does not magically acquire a halo of moral legitimacy. It's not any more right to cooperate with

Re:But we all know...

I mean Google told the US Government that they wouldn't turn over search records!

To be a bit more accurate, Google has just challenged the order to turn over those records because they don't believe the order was legal. However, if a judge rules against