Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Microsoft Politics

Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft 367

Posted by Zonk from the crackdown dept.
QuatermassX writes "The New York Times editorial page comments on the responsibilities of American technology companies doing business in China. From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. Some in the American Congress are talking about holding hearings. Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, 'We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there.' This is a false choice. China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft More

Beijing's New Enforcer - Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • Chill guys, it's cool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by biocute ( 936687 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:35PM (#14494144)
    Goo-do-no-evil-gle also has a stake in Baidu [baidu.com], which conveniently offers painless search for MP3 downloads.

    I guess it's better to be there (do a bit of evil) than not be there (no evil).

    From the article: "Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression."

    You mean like countless protests, threats of sanction on China's poor treatment to basic human rights, which result in nothing? Or do you mean North-Korea or Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries?

    I guess it's time for parents to wake up and realize that their children have grown up and are strong and indenpendant enough to ignore or repel parental guidance. These parents can either act nice in order to live peacefully with their children, or get kicked out of the house.

    • Re:Chill guys, it's cool (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dc29A ( 636871 )
      Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries

      Why is everyone so worried about Iran? Israel bombed Iraq in the early 80s for the same reasons, you think they will sit idle this time? Hell no. Let Israel take care of Iran. Their acting PM even said they will never allow Iran to go nuclear.
    • From the article: "Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression."

      You mean like countless protests, threats of sanction on China's poor treatment to basic human rights, which result in nothing? Or do you mean North-Korea or Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries?

      I'm sure you've read the Foundation books - if you recall the Foundation's

    • Re:Chill guys, it's cool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by undeadly ( 941339 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:17PM (#14494564)
      From the article: "Western technology companies could have a powerful case if they acted as a group in telling China that they are under tremendous consumer and political pressure to stick up for free expression."

      ... Or do you mean North-Korea or Iran's nucular plan despite pressures from western countries?

      With the current US administrations ultra-hardline "we're gonna wipe you off the map" stance, it's very understandable that they want nuclear weapons. This attitude, that US allies despise, has made the world less safe. It's is quite counter-productive. North-Korea is very afraid of USA, and Iran is certainly very apprehensive. The Iraq war, and the events leading up to it, has shown that they must negotiate from a position of strength. Very afraid enemies with nuclear weapons is something to fear.

      • With the current US administrations ultra-hardline "we're gonna wipe you off the map" stance, it's very understandable that they want nuclear weapons. This attitude, that US allies despise, has made the world less safe.

        Donald Rumsfelds interview with Der Spiegel would seem to belie that assumption, and as the US are in fact deferring to the EU to handle Iran:

        SPIEGEL: How concerned are you about Iran?

        Rumsfeld: All of us have to be concerned when a country that important, large and wealthy is disconnected fro

      • Re:Chill guys, it's cool (Score:4, Informative)

        by Stonehand ( 71085 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @07:10PM (#14495577) Homepage
        The clandestine Iranian nuclear program precedes the Bush administration.

        For that matter, it's Iran that's talked about wiping other nations from the map -- rather explicitly, not the United States. It's the rest of the world that's moderate here.
    • One thing is filtering search results, and a very different thing is shutting down your website. It's like building a wall to prevent people from getting EASILY to a library, versus burning down the library so NOBODY can read its contents EVER.

    • Re:Chill guys, it's cool (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @09:34PM (#14496317) Homepage
      "Iran's nucular plan"

      Nuclear.

      What plans? They stated they had a right to a nuclear energy program. CNN mistranslated "energy program" to "nuclear weapon" and lo! the Bushies were off to the races.

      CNN has apologized, but the damage is done.

      Bush is duplicating, step by step, the EXACT SAME GARBAGE he pumped out to hose Americans up into a war against Iraq. And he's getting away with it! Save us monkey Jesus! Lord, please kill everyone in the New CNN, MS-NBC, the New Right-Friendly NBC news with your Limbaugh-lovin' Brian Williams, Fox News, Disney's new ABC news for Dummies, the new "balanced" NPR, aah crap.

      We've no news here in the US. He's going to get away with another unprovoked invasion.

      Believe it or not, Red Staters, it's not against international law for a muslim nation to have a nuclear reactor. Really, it isn't. And the Brown People aren't plotting against you, really. Although they WILL IF YOU GOD-DAMNED ATTACK IRAN, YOU IMBECILES!!!

      This is crap. The Project for the New American Century is entering phase 2: Iran and those giant oil fields. Then, phase 3: Syria, to secure Israel, a main goal of the PNACers.

      Unbelievable. Bush and his crew are so insulated from real news, AMERICA is so insulated from real news, that he thinks Iraq is a success! He's going to try to launch an air war against Iran, and no one, no news organisation, is going to oppose him. We had bereted types sneaking around in Iran last year, scoping out targets on the ground. That alone was an act of war. Bush has declared yet another war; now remains the task of altering reality so that they are the enemy.

      I'm reactivating my Candian evac plan.

      • Re:Iran invasion scheduled long ago, pay attention (Score:4, Informative)

        by xiando ( 770382 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @09:53PM (#14496396) Homepage Journal
        "EXACT SAME GARBAGE". :-) I'm glad to see there's at least some people who are awake.

        When Craig Whitney on the Council on Foreign Relations admitted that the whole Weapons of Mass Destructions in Iraq deal was a scam and he, along with Charles Duelfer, announced that the USA would first attack Iran and then North Korea on May 24, 2005 in New York, he blurred out: "But we now know that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction to speak of in 2003, when we went to war. Does it matter to Americans that our country went to war on a false premise?"

        Guess not, because in the very same briefing, minutes later, Charles Duelfer said:

        "Secondly, and we describe this in some detail in the report, there was a greater concern than we could appreciate sitting here in Washington of the threat posed by Iran. And we just, you know, that our gut feeling for that was not the same as the gut feeling one would have sitting in Baghdad, where you had invaded and killed a lot of those people, and then every once in a while they were throwing rockets at you, so there was an ongoing conflict there. And Saddam was certainly aware of the WMD assessments of Iran and he created intentionally a certain ambiguity about what his capabilities were. So there were mixed motivations."

        http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8157 [cfr.org]

        (for those of you who haven't realized it, the Council on Foreign Relations is the primary political institution of the power elite in the USA and behind the facade controls both political parties)

  • Outsourcing Political Aid. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    " From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. "

    So what do you think outsourcing does then?
    • "From the article: 'Such obvious disregard for users' privacy and ethical standards may make it easier to do business in China, but it also aids a repressive regime. "

      So what do you think outsourcing does then?

      In the case of India, it aids the world's largest democracy.

  • What's Right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luke PiWalker ( 946528 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:40PM (#14494188) Homepage Journal
    There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".

    China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.

    That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". Microsoft is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
    • ... the citizens of a country carry their morals with them when they go abroad, no? It isn't so much China's behaviour, it's the behavious of my fellow Americans that disturbs me.

    • Re:What's Right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:57PM (#14494368) Journal
      The sad part about this is that all these Western companies going to China and bowing to the tyrants in Beijing are using nothing more than a "I was just following orders defense." If we didn't let human rights abusers get away with that defense after WWII, why are we letting these companies do it now?

      My recommendation is a 50% Tyrant Ass Kissing Tax, where 50% of Western corporations' revenues (not profits) get taken, and if they try to fib on how much money they're taking out of repressive regimes, we simply calculate an estimate, add 25% and take it out of their banks, or their assets if they attempt to hide the cash.

      If China wants to play at the tyrant game, then let them develop their own damn operating systems, servers and routers to do it, and if Western companies insist on bowing to pressure, we simply taken a massive chunk out of the cash flow and let their investors decide who is right and who is wrong.

      • My recommendation is a 50% Tyrant Ass Kissing Tax, where 50% of Western corporations' revenues (not profits) get taken, and if they try to fib on how much money they're taking out of repressive regimes, we simply calculate an estimate, add 25% and take it out of their banks, or their assets if they attempt to hide the cash.

        It's a great idea, but politically untenable, for the simple reason that every major corporation in the US and Europe would be liable for the tax. Actually, now that I think about it, it

      • Re:What's Right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by slashdotnickname ( 882178 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @06:07PM (#14495041)
        My recommendation is a 50% Tyrant Ass Kissing Tax, where 50% of Western corporations' revenues (not profits) get taken, and if they try to fib on how much money they're taking out of repressive regimes, we simply calculate an estimate, add 25% and take it out of their banks, or their assets if they attempt to hide the cash.

        How about you stop buying Chinese related goods/services instead of dictating punishments to others that don't follow-in-step with your crusade?

        Boycotting Chinese imports would send a stronger message than hurting American exports.

        • Re:What's Right (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @07:35PM (#14495751)
          I did try for a long time. I still don't shop at Wal-Mart, and try to avoid other stores that basically carry nothing but Chinese goods. But you can't avoid it.

          Remember after 9/11 that study that showed that no companies in the US still made US flags? If you bought a US flag, it came from China. Well, it's not just flags, it's millions of different products, some of which come embedded in other products. It's impossible to boycott China and still live a normal life.

        • Re:What's Right (Score:4, Insightful)

          by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @07:43PM (#14495808)
          How about you stop buying Chinese related goods/services

          Two problems:

          1. Boycotts don't work very well unless a significant number of people engage in them.
          2. We are now inextricably intertwined with China. A boycott against China would be very hard to maintain, while still upholding a reasonably modern lifestyle (let alone your stereotypical slashdotter lifestyle).

          instead of dictating punishments to others that don't follow-in-step with your crusade?

          Advocating human rights is not a "crusade". Don't try to confuse the issue with a loaded word.

          As for dictating (another loaded word) punishments, what MightyMartian is advocating is completely within the realm of legitimate governance. Governments exist to essentially do the things that either aren't done naturally, and shouldn't be trusted to the individual. Some things are done better when left to the initiative of the free individual, and some things are better done collectively as a society. That's just the way things work.

          Boycotting Chinese imports would send a stronger message than hurting American exports.

          Again, with the loaded words. You could have just as easily written: "Hurting Chinese imports would send a stronger message than regulating American exports," and not changed the factual content of your sentence.

          If corporations naturally act in ways which are considered morally wrong by the society under which they are allowed to exist, then how else to correct their behavior than to impose restrictions? That's what we do with actual people who do such things. Corporations are not people (humans), and I have no qualms about harming a corporation if it reasonably protects actual people.

          Yes, it will increase the cost of doing business. So what? That alone is not a valid reason. How much will it help the cause of human rights in China? How much will it hurt the US economy? And then, is the trade-off reasonable? Is it acceptable?

          We made a similar choice in the US almost a century and a half ago when we decided the rights of slaves as humans outweighed the economic hardships those rights would cause the slave-holders. Well, technically half of us decided it for the other half, and had a terrible war related to that choice, but in the end, it was the right choice.
    • There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".

      Rights have little to do with either laws or morality. But in the US, our government was formed on the provisio that respecting rights is a moral requirement.

    • Re:What's Right (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Decker-Mage ( 782424 )
      The removal of the blog contents was done by a Chinese MSN employee in China. The overall Microsoft was not involved in this and as a matter of fact seems to be scrambling in full damage control mode. However, since it was done by a MSN(China) employee in China under a legal request by the government of China, technically everything is kosher. The US Government makes similar requests all the time in the US of US corporations and US employees comply, except in this case we aren't talking about political s

  • China can get along just fine (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dannytaggart ( 835766 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:42PM (#14494209) Homepage
    China needs Internet companies as much as they need China.

    No it doesn't.

  • Freedom and Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famousNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:44PM (#14494219) Homepage Journal
    Helping the Chinese government to silence and jail dissidents is wrong, but, should Microsoft be singled out? Shouldn't the OSDL be ostracized by freedom loving people by letting Red Flag Linux [slashdot.org] join?

    A country that jails people for expressing opposing political viewpoints is in material violation of the spirit of the free software movement. IMO, there should be an anti-totalitarian variant of the GPL that denies repressive states and their institutions any license under which they can legally run the software or use the source. And the FSF should be suing these states at the Hague daily.

    Why should the burden of trying to use software as a lever to lift state oppression fall on the shoulders of Microsoft? If any group has a philosophical goal that is in line with lifting oppression, it is the Free Software movement. So why is Microsoft lambasted in the NYT while the OSDL gets cheered for admitting Red Flag Linux?

    - Greg

    • Erm... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:06PM (#14494433)
      And the FSF should be suing these states at the Hague daily.

      Precisely how would they go about that? As a non-state entity, the US Federal courts or the courts of the offending country are your only options. Unless you can get a state to bring the case to the ICJ/ICC, you're not going to get past the gate.

    • Re:Freedom and Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:36PM (#14494760)
      Microsoft should be particularly cautious, even accountable, for supporting Chinese repression for several reasons.

      1: They run several large network services, such as Hotmail and MSN, that can be used to track user behavior and messages.

      2: They insist on embedding a huge amount of tracking information in their software, ostensibly for technical reasons, but it can be and has been used to reveal editing histories or what machine was used to create MS-Word documents. Such tracking is frequent in Microsoft software, and is far too easily abused. Little consideration is actually given to user privacy or frequently security in writing Microsoft software. They're allegedly getting better, but it's still a problem.

      3: They're the main force behind the "Trusted Computing" initiative, an attempt to create motherboard-level encryption/decryption/authentication of software and documents. Such features are far too easily used to install backdoors for governments, identify otherwise anonymous documents by forcing the software to record identifying information, and due to the closed nature of Microsoft, allow governmental agencies far too much access to private citizen's documents.

      The US has just been revealed as using warrantless wiretaps on its own citizens: Microsoft can take a lead in protecting its clients from such misbehavior, or can as usual say "we wouldn't misuse such power!" and cooperate in any tracking efforts it wishes behind the scenes.

    • Re:Freedom and Free Software (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:37PM (#14494769)

      there should be an anti-totalitarian variant of the GPL that denies repressive states and their institutions any license under which they can legally run the software or use the source.

      I disagree. This would break with two of the best things about the GPL. Firstly, that you don't need to adhere to any licence to use software, only to copy and distribute it. The other is that the GPL does not discriminate against persons, groups, or fields of endeavor. Free software does not stipulate that it can't be used in commercial use, genetic research, munitions plants, gay porn web sites, or any other area the software creator may have an axe to grind against.

      This does not mean that people who make free software endorse all the activities others may use it for, only that they make their software available to all on free and equal terms. Contrast this to Microsoft, who are not just making Windows available to the Chinese government, but actively helping them by closing down blogs, filtering out references to democracy, and so on.

      If Joe writes a text editor and some guy happens to download it and write a death threat with it, Joe isn't the one being unethical. On the other hand, if Joe tells the guy, "become business partners with me, and I'll write really good death threats for you" then his active participation makes him an accessory who is directly contributing to and facilitating what's going on.

      • Re:Freedom and Free Software (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Omnifarious ( 11933 ) * <eric-slashNO@SPAMomnifarious.org> on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @07:02PM (#14495513) Homepage Journal

        This is the best response illustrating the difference in behavior. Microsoft is actively helping the Chinese government enforce their laws, sometimes not even on their soil. Free Software just is, and if they use it for stupid purposes, that doesn't imply active complicity by the software author.

        Now if a Free Software developer were to decide to include or not include features based on what the Chinese government wanted when they weren't under the jurisdiction of that government, that would be another matter. But, it would be a negative thing about that particular developer, not about Free Software as a whole or China's participation in it.

  • Text of Editorial (Score:2, Informative)

    by joeyspqr ( 629639 )
    Editorial Beijing's New Enforcer: Microsoft Published: January 17, 2006

    Microsoft has silenced a well-known blogger in China for committing journalism. At the Chinese government's request, the company closed the blog of Zhao Jing on Dec. 30 after he criticized the government's firing of editors at a progressive newspaper. Microsoft, which also acknowledges that its MSN Internet portal in China censors searches and blogs, is far from alone. Recently Yahoo admitted that it had helped China sentence a diss

  • It's better this way (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TrappedByMyself ( 861094 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:48PM (#14494270)
    Picture another scenario.
    Companies such as Microsoft refuse to help China. China's government still sees the need for the technology, so they create a government branch to build the technology they need. Obviously, this branch would gravitate towards the use of free Open Source software, since the vendors won't support them. This new branch builds China's own IT infrastructure, and in doing so, has a much deeper knowledge of the technology. Now the Chinese government has full control, and the knowledge to go with it.

    I think it's better to have vendors holding the government's hand and selling them their insecure software. The experts in the country will be the individuals who use free software to find holes and workarounds to get the information and services they need.
  • By nature, the any corporation's sole obligation is to increase profits for its stock holders. The exposure of corporate misdeeds is not enough to curtail unethical behavior. Only when you hit them where it hurts(in the wallet) will they show accountability for their actions.

    http://stockmarketgarden.com/ [stockmarketgarden.com]

  • Here's a wholly double standard, Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:50PM (#14494296) Homepage
    Wow

    We're going to censure MS for abiding by Chinese law, while simultaneously maintaining MFN status with them?

    And what do you suppose we'd say if some company from another country set up shop here, and refused to abide by OSHA regs or US child labor laws?

    This is just...asinine. I can even see an argument that MS should voluntarily choose to not do business in China for ethical reasons, but I just can't see our government mandating it.
    • The market doesn't cure all ills. We should censure MS / Yahoo! for not maintaining American ethical standards while operating abroad. Sure a corporation exists to maximise shareholder value, but we should ALL operate with our ethics intact. To do otherwise implies what's good for Americans is ... flexible for others. While this may fly with our "guests" in Cuba and those nice people we fly around Europe and the Middle East for "talks" in non-US jails ... well ... this is all plainly wrong.

      • Re:Nike sweatshops = MS / Yahoo! violating privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:03PM (#14494420) Journal
        Here's the plain and simple. We're getting pissed at oil companies that operate unethically in places like Africa. We're getting down and dirty with diamond mining operations which covertly or at least tacitly are responsible for bloodshed in places like Africa. There is no difference between these activities and Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and all the rest (and I'm sure, at the end of the day, there must be dozens of Western companies bowing to the almighty tyrants of Beijing). It really is time to make these companies pay substantially for their complicity with China's human rights abuses. It's time to start making the investors feel real financial pain, and then we'll see these companies backpeddle.
        • There is no difference between these activities and Microsoft, Yahoo, Google and all the rest (and I'm sure, at the end of the day, there must be dozens of Western companies bowing to the almighty tyrants of Beijing).

          Agreed. The question is whether or not we should be cracking down on any of them. Insofar as we should be penalizing oil companies, then yes, we should also be penalizing Microsoft. No argument there. And if we should, then why should we at the same time maintain MFN status with the PRC?

          I'm mor
      • The market doesn't cure all ills

        I agree 100%.

        To do otherwise implies what's good for Americans is ... flexible for others

        Frankly, yes. That's exactly it. If that's not true, then the inverse must be:

        "What's good for Americans is good for everyone."

        Which is exactly the thinking that the sort of people who fly planes into buildings use to justify what they're doing.

        Regardless, we should be consistent. If we're going to shoulder the white man's burden around the world and dictate terms to sovereign nations, th
        • For the love of all that is good and decent, mod parent up.

          What this all seems like to me is a severe case of utopianism/"why can't someone else do it." When it comes to our role in extending our values, it always seems to come down to: Will it make other people like us? Which party will benefit politically (domestically)? Does somebody else - better, someone I don't like - have to bear the cost? And can we do it without getting our hands dirty?

    • What bothers me the most about this, is that by US companies providing the technology and supporting a regime that violates human rights, we are developing executives, software engineers, and support personel who start to think these technologies are okay and look at ways to apply them locally.

      From a long term view, I think these companies are making a deal with the devil. Any country as repressive as China or Iran will freeze out foreign businesses, perhaps even seize their assets, when they feel it suites

      • I'll agree with everything you just said.

        I'm of the opinion that MS (and an awful lot of other companies around the world, but MS is the focus of this article) should engage some business ethics, and elect to not do business with China.

        I just am stunned at the hypocrisy of the US government maintaining MFN status with the PRC while simultaneously condemning a US corporation from doing business with them.

        Or rather, I wish I were stunned. I think I'm really just more depressed about it than anything.

  • In advance of the expected responses... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @04:57PM (#14494374) Homepage Journal
    This goes back to a fundamental mistake made by many people... a company's purpose should not be to make money at any cost, legal or otherwise. Companies are not mindless entities that must suck as much money as possible from people to add value to its stock price. Companies wouldn't exist without the people that run and own them. Those people have basic moral obligations to society. And I believe those should translate into the corporations they own and run.

    In fact, corporations that follow basic morals can make as much or more than companies that do not, in the long run. And that's one of the problems... they often don't care about long term costs of acting unethically. Take Microsoft as an example [msversus.org]. If they acted better they'd have more community and corporate support long term. They'd have a much better image and not have to be so reactive to every threat to their bottom line.

    Ethics in corporations matter. And more people need to realize that.
    • I agree. A company's basic premise is to make a product and keep doing that, perhaps to make a better world, etc. This is easily summed (and somewhat incorrectly) into "A company's job is to make money".

      That is true. And an organism's job is to breed.

      But it is not supposed to be "at any cost". Sure, I could increase my chances of breeding by killing every other male I see. If I take out a large chunk of the local male population, then my changes of breeding HAVE TO go up. But that doesn't make it a smart

    • If Microsoft stopped acting like dicks and put their nose to the grindstone, they could crush OSS easily. As it is, they create their own enemies. Linux/BSD basically exists for four reasons: 1) fringe people and hobbyists (the same type of fine albeit irrelevant folk who keep CP/M alive), 2) it's free/open, 3) it is better in some ways for some things, and 4) it is Not Microsoft. Microsoft could knock out reasons 3 and 4 if they wanted, but they are too busy pissing off people with their predatory prac
    • I agree with you whole heartedly. Strangely enough I found most accurate and insightful trouncing of the modern corporation from a libertarian speaker. (I'm quite the libertarian, but I'm starting to become used to the knee-jerk "pro-business" reaction as the default response to the knee-jerk "anti-corp" so much it's painful.)

      Anyway, he said (I'm paraphrasing) that the core problem with corporations these days is this asinine idea of "limited liability ownership" in the form of publically traded companies
    • You're arguing with yourself. You first state that "a company's purpose should not be to make money at any cost, legal or otherwise." In the next paragraph, you argue that a company can make more money in the long-term by being ethical. I thought making money didn't matter.

      So, I shall help you.

      A public company has a fiduciary (read: legal) duty to the shareholders to maximize its profits and therefore the value of their investments. One of the best ways that they can do that over the long-term is to act

  • They are filling a market viod (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ravenwing_np ( 22379 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:00PM (#14494388)
    Microsoft very honestly see a market that they can provide with service. A smart CEO will notice that if Microsoft does not take that market, another business can. The morality of the service is not coming into play, only the profit. This could be a case where the Ethics Committee was not consulted. And yes, I'm being generous in assuming that Microsoft has one of those.
    • If I don't patent bubble-sort, somebody else will. If I don't sell arms to terrorists, somebody else will. If I don't sell crack to children, somebody else will.

      If I don't take the moral high ground, somebody else will. Or will they?
    • ... thus neatly illustrating exactly what's wrong with usual "the market will take care of it" argument. No, the market doesn't always take care of it; usually the market does take care of it, but often it doesn't, and sometimes it makes things worse. "Corporate citizenship" is apparently a dead idea, but it shouldn't be.

  • Did IBM Say the Same Thing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:01PM (#14494398) Homepage
    Microsoft has responded to criticism by saying, 'We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there.'

    I wonder if IBM said the same thing about working with Nazi Germany. [ibmandtheholocaust.com] Despite China's oppressive human rights record, you'd have to be a moron to equate the two countries. But there are clearly special ethical perils to supplying information technology solutions to repressive regimes.

  • The question, when you boil the article down, is whether or not we can hold a US based company, or any company that operates in the U.S. responsible for its activities in other countries? This is a really big can of worms that I'm uncertain most people would want to open... at least those that collect money from businesses and lobbyists.

    It would limit the amount of business that could be done in other countries depending on how you define standards. Furthermore, what about "turnabout"?

    Could this effective
  • that I've seen the The Corporation [thecorporation.tv] just today.

    Everyone should see it at least once.
  • Glad i live in the US where corporations are put in their place when they get out of line.. Remember the anti trust suit? Oh wait.... nevermind.. 'welcome to the club China'.

  • morality vs competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:16PM (#14494545) Journal
    In a competitive market, morality is defined by law. Companies will (and are supposed to) do whatever it takes to succeed. If one company decides not to do something on based personal morals, not determined by law, they'll be simply be pushed aside by a company that will, so that their restraint will have had no positive effect. Same goes for pollution. If the profitable choice is the polluting one, the companies that choose not to pollute will have no success in reducing pollution, but instead will simply be pushed out of the market by those that are willing to pollute for profit, unless the law steps in to make pollution an unprofitable choice.
  • More than obviously, the MS China isn't MS USA. Sure, there is some connection and MS China likely pays lots of money to MS USA for the right to sell MS products and services. But don't think for a moment that China would allow a US corporation to operate independently in China. It is a independent business unit that is very much subject to the whims of the Chinese government.

    MS could close the independent business unit down. Or not. And that is about it.
  • Perhaps we should have a law like we have on bribery. American corporations doing business overseas can NOT bribe the foreign officials even if that is the standard practice and what you have to do to get contracts there. Now some companies will argue that makes them unable to compete, but I don't see a problem with that because they are maintaining standards (and I think many people would agree with me).

    I think it would be a good idea if Congress, in these hearings, were to make a similar law that America

  • Old Anti-Communist tactic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:24PM (#14494642) Homepage
    Older geeks on /. will remember that it used to be a mantra in the West that if we only showed how good it could be to have our consumer goods and other material things to the citizens of repressive regimes, they would ultimately overthrow their Evil Overlords. It was due to this pattern of that the we actually wanted companies such as Coca-Cola and McDonald's to do business in totalitarian countries like the USSR.
    Flash forward to now, and suddenly it's a bad thing? I'm sure US companies in the Soviet republics had to do their fair share of blinking previously, and it's still the price to pay when dealing with a repressive oligarchy like the current Chinese regime.
    I guess the big difference now is that I don't think having Microsoft or Google in China is advancing American interests much. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  • You are all (mostly) hypocrites (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MikeMulligan ( 946677 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:24PM (#14494649)
    Giving sh-t to Microsoft for supporting China - an oppressive regime - is a cheap shot that only alleviates our guilt. Did any one of you refuse to purchase the componets from the computers you are using right now that were made in china? Fuelling money into this opressive regime? Did anyone complain about how cheap their latest gadget was because it was manufactured in China? Did you opt out of buying clothing that was made there? Are Microsoft's actions more politically vulnerable to attack? Yes. But lets not forget all the other companies that operate in China that we are all too happy to support. In my opinion, Microsoft getting their software in the door with restrictions is much better than an insulated China-made alternative. Anyone who thinks that it's the microsoft software that's keeping people from free expression, and not the people that are going to come knocking at your door, is crazy. Free expression in China will require people who can avoid detection and get around restrictions anyways - a word filter from Microsoft isn't going to stop them.
    • There's a slight difference between cutting off all contact with someone and refusing to do their dirty work for them. MS, Yahoo, and others (by censoring at China's behest, and more so by providing information about dissidents so they can be arrested) are doing China's dirty work.

  • No one cares about human rights in China! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2006 @05:47PM (#14494858)
    No one could care less about the people in China. "Human Rights" is an issue people bring up when they want an excuse to complain about Microsoft... or when they want some protectionist policy to save the local sock factory.

    Here is an example of the totaly inconsistant views that many people have about "human rights":

    1. Why did labor unions in the U.S. start worrying about human rights in China, only when China started winning jobs from the United States and kicking ass economicly? I don't remember labor unions upset about Maos Cultural Revolution back in the 60s the same way they railed on about the Tianemen Square massacre!

    2. Why is it bad that U.S. companies are NOT doing buisness in Cuba? Every anti-corporate crusader who thinks U.S. corporations should stop doing buisness in China because China censors the Internet is in love with Internet censoring Cuba and thinks the trade embargo on Cuba is some big horrible plot by the corporations.

    3. Why is it bad when the U.S. tries to stop advanced U.S. weapons from being sold to China? I think the Guardian newspaper called it "Imperialistic" that the U.S. didn't want advanced weapons sold to China via 3rd parties in Europe. I guess it is a human rights violation for Microsoft to help read people's emails, but not a human rights violation to blow people up?

    4. Why is it so bad when the U.S. doesn't want to turn over control of the root internet name servers to an organization dominated by countries like China? Why is it reasonable when China demands the U.N. give it the ability to censor the Internet , but the epitome of evil when Microsoft inside China aids censorship strictly inside China?

    5. Why are Europeans always carrying on about capital punishment in America being an affront to human rights not urging Mercedes, or LG, or Semens, or Shell Oil, or Nestle, or other European companies to stop doing buisness in the United States?

    I don't care what your political beliefs are, or what country you are from, I bet I can point out a whole bunch of inconsistant and hipocritical positions on "human rights"!

    Why are people's views on human rights so inconsistant? Because people don't care about human rights: People care about their own economic self interest or their own political agenda, and human rights is a rhetorical tool. If you look at people's views based on what benifits them economicly or politically, you will find their views are 100% rational and consistant.

    So, come to me with human rights issues when "human rights" means something more than a political slogan or economic tool.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close