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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government Businesses Google Microsoft The Internet Yahoo! Politics

Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies 243

Posted by Zonk from the easy-to-kvetch-from-3000-miles-away dept.
koweja writes "Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'. Most of the specific incidents have been covered on Slashdot already. Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies More

Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies

Comments Filter:
  • The Supreme Court has established worrying precedents of late, preferring international [vutorch.org] to domestic law in the interpretation of our Constitution; there is a point, perhaps, where globalism impinges upon national sovereignty.

    Likewise, as Eastern Europeans were forced to sing The International under the Bolsheviks on pain of death; our capitalist institutions seem hell-bent on destroying the last vestiges of provincial (domestic) accountability.

    It's bizarre how, at their limits, capitalism approaches Bolshev

    • Re:International Law (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well we just confirmed two SCOTUS justices who said explicitly in their confirmation hearings that they don't recognize international law, so I think we are definiately fixing that problem. As both Roberts and Alito recently pointed out, once you recognize international law, you get to pick and choose which laws you like and dislike as a judge, which is ridiculous.

    • Re:International Law (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I agree with you. Based on what I've read, capitalism is morphing into something similar to fascism or communism. I would suggest people check out the books:

      _When Corporations Rule the World_

      _The Best Democracy Money Can Buy_ ...as well as videos by Alex Jones at archive.org or infowars.com.

    • Re:International Law (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dbolger ( 161340 )
      It's bizarre how, at their limits, capitalism approaches Bolshevism.

      People tend to see "left" and "right" wing politics existing as alternate ends of a spectrum, getting more and more unlike each other as you travel in either direction. I think, though, that politics tends more towards a circular representation, with "center" parties being very alike, differing on relatively few issues, then party's politics diverging as one move's further in either direction, so that center-right and center-left were rough

    • Re:International Law (Score:3, Informative)

      by Politburo ( 640618 )
      Although this doesn't apply to the recent cites of foreign laws, international law is domestic law, if the Senate has ratified the treaty in question.
      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
  • And so it comes to it. While Democracy is a form of government and capitalism is a way to run your market system, these two are being compared in this issue. Which is more American.

    Obviously, there is a conflict of interest between these two ideals. On one hand, it's very American to be a capitalist. After all, what is the American dream? On the other hand, it's very American to cherish the freedoms that we are privileged to have. But is it American to push the ideals of Democracy on the rest of the world? Some people would say that it most certainly is, some people would wager to leave well enough alone.

    Depending on how you want to look at it, Google and Microsoft are more American than Thomas Jefferson.

    Because of the Cold War in the 80's, the worst thing you could call an American was a Communist. But Communism is only talking about the market--Socialism is how the government is run. So what do we value more as Americans, our market system or government? If you claim them to be inseparable, you're greatly mistaken.

    And now, Google and Microsoft are trying to bring out beloved capitalism to China. But they aren't also enforcing Democracy in their wheeling and dealing. Is this so wrong? Probably not if you believe every country has a right to govern itself as it so chooses. To quote Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill K.G.:
    Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
    So I encourage you to think twice before faulting Microsoft and Google for their entrance into China. One of the most revered and holy things the American people have is a free and open market system. Granted it's not perfect, we still value it to a great extent. With our corporations extending into China, perhaps they will change to full blown Capitalism also. This is also capital exported from China to America which benefits our economy in some small way.

    So remember, we elect our congressmen to represent us , not the people of China. I'd like to see them show more concern for the ebbing of Democracy in our own damn country before they start working on forcing the Chinese to accept our form of government. Perfect the system we have here and, as in the case of East and West Berlin, the people will vote with their feet.

    • Hypocricy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Did they condemn ebay for bowing to German bans against Nazi memorabilia?

      Did they condemn companies for continuing to do business with a mysogynistic France which denies an education to Muslim women who choose to follow their religion?

      Is it freedome of speech for all (including the whackos) or freedom of speech only for those opposed to countries that we fear?

      Is it freedom of religion for all or freedom of religion only for members of acceptable belief within the Southern Baptist Convention?

      • Re:Hypocricy (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kierthos ( 225954 )
        More hypocrisy:

        Has the U.S. officially recognized Taiwan as an independent country?

        Has the U.S. officially recognized Tibet as an illegally occupied country?

        Bitching about what Google or MSN are doing while sitting on those two questions... well, I'm inclined to ignore the bluster of our elected pompous asses.

        Kierthos
        • That may be because Taiwan has yet to recognize Taiwan as an indepent nation [wikipedia.org].

          Maybe there's a gray area surrounding Tibet (The section on status) [wikipedia.org] because tibet has not been a recognized independent nation for hundreds of years and even during their period of self governance the repeatedly sent representitves to the China's government to help draft laws which might give one the impression that they treated themselves as a self ruled portion of a larger empire. At worst they are a colony, and if America rea
        • Has the U.S. officially recognized Taiwan as an independent country?

          Has the U.S. officially recognized Tibet as an illegally occupied country?

          Has the U.S. officially recognized that Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory, which would include east Jerusalem?

          Oh wait, Hamas was democratically chosen to lead the Palestinians? Fuck em!

    • Re:More American: Capitalism or Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Znork ( 31774 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:04AM (#14625801)
      "One of the most revered and holy things the American people have is a free and open market system."

      With the amount of attacks against the free market in the form of intellectual monopoly 'property', that freedom of the market doesnt appear to be very revered or holy.

      In fact, a whole lot of the bigger players appear to be perfectly happy with state protected monopolies, as long as they get to own the monopolies.

      "I'd like to see them show more concern for the ebbing of Democracy in our own damn country"

      Sometimes it gets hard to see who's taking after whom. Unfortunately, instead of getting the best of all systems, it appears some are tempted to cherrypick the worst parts and putting them together.
      • With the amount of attacks against the free market in the form of intellectual monopoly 'property', that freedom of the market doesnt appear to be very revered or holy.

        For whatever reason, some Slashdotters seem to believe that "free market" means "no regulation at all."

        Events like the 1929 crash, Enron, and others have shown that capitalism can fail without a referree. In the case of Enron, the company had an agreement with the shareholders: you buy our shares, we give you dividends, voting power, an

    • I have seen so many articles here on China since I moved and have really been torm most times as to what I could uniquely add. Sometimes my silence was all I could add as I have been blocked from a couple articles/discussions - but not the front page.

      From what I have experienced the censorship is annoying. And that is it. Any information you _really_ need are out there and anyone who wants to find something given enough time in a haystack will. There have been a few stories that I have seen that at first se
    • The parent post is interensing and well written. Except that we need to be clear what we mean by capitalism.

      Do you-we mean by capitalism that profit maximization needs to be preserved and everything else is secondary ? If it is so you-we need to be clear about that, and the parent post makes perfect sense. But then it follows by using this definition that capitalism alone is a system that cannot survive long.

      In fact, even in the most capitalistic systems a corporation can't break the laws, so there ARE cons
    • So remember, we elect our congressmen to represent us , not the people of China. I'd like to see them show more concern for the ebbing of Democracy in our own damn country before they start working on forcing the Chinese to accept our form of government.

      Interestingly Wired is reporting 'Bush Keeps Privacy Posts Vacant [wired.com].'

      From the article:

      "The powerful Office of the Director of National Intelligence, created by the Intelligence Reform Act, must have a civil liberties protection officer who is charged with e

    • I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.

      China is a totalitarian state where
    • "Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'.

      But it is okay to gut the American economy by taking manufacturing and technology jobs, and exporting them overseas?

      But this position is criticised as protectionism. Sure, in a world with a limitation of certain resources, let everyone come in and kill the goos

  • Same jackasses that smashed Toshiba laptops... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R2.0 ( 532027 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:27AM (#14625416)
    on the Capitol steps when Toshiba sold advanced milling machines to the Soviets in the laet 80's.

    Generally, when Congressmen resort to theatrics, its a sure sign the actually plan to do nothing.
    • Of course they'll do something. Take large donations from the lobbyists for those companies to shut up.

      Until they propose legislation, all the grandstanding is really meaningless. Of course, the legislation would probably also be meaningless, since it would allow the corporations to do the same things with a token payment to the commerce department.

  • What? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 )
    Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."

    This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rikus ( 765448 )
      1. Google needs to find a way to get some exposure in China, rather than just being blocked out completely. Or do you not think that would happen?
        • Google is not "enslaving" anyone - just making it harder to use their private search engine effectively, which they are of course free to do. As far as I can tell, they are trying to prevent Google from becoming completely inaccessible to China's citizens, even if that means the Chinese version must be crippled. Why are you opposed to the idea of "something is be

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ibag ( 101144 )
      This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"

      I don't understand why Americans don't seem to grasp the concept of a middle ground. Sometimes, something in the middle can be better than any extreme view. In the case of search engines in China, the common American perspective seems to be that we have only two extreme choices. Google is EVIL for allowing any censorship and therefore must either pull out of the market entirely or must force the Chinese government to allow them to operate uncensored. Ignori
      • The problem with your reasoning is that Google is not doing this out of benevolence to the people of China. They are doing it because to get business. (read: $$$)
        • I had said ignoring issues of money. The thing is, it doesn't matter why they do what they do. There are situations where motives matter, but this is not one of them. When Bill gates gives a billion dollars for AIDS research, people might say "He's only doing it for the good press it will bring," but they never follow with "and since I don't believe that is a noble reason, he should take the money back." Likewise, when a company open sources a program in a move designed either for publicity or to get ot
        • It's called a Corporation [wikipedia.org]: (emphasis mine)

          Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, for-profit corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, including such areas as environmental protection, or the improvement of the welfare of the community.

          Google et al

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seanasy ( 21730 )
      This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      If they were literally saying "Slavery is Freedom" they would have said "Slavery is Freedom."

      • literally ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr--l) adv.
        3. Usage Problem. Really; actually: "There are people in the world who literally do not know how to boil water" Used as an intensive before a figurative expression.

        Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example "The 300,
    • They aren't saying, "Slavery is Freedom!" but rather that without the additional access, they'd be worse off in comparison to limited access. Freedom has to start somewhere, and it doesn't start with full-blown open access to everything.
    • This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"

      Why is it so hard for people to understand the proper usage of the word "literally?" For example, in this case, your usage is incorrect. The article was not "literally" saying "Slavery is Freedom." If it had, then you could have copied-and-pasted a direct quote from the article containing the words "Slavery is freedom."

      Figuratively != Literally

      "I was moving the refrigerator and I literally broke my back." This means the guy is not exaggerating about how hea
      • I realized that when using the word, and used it deliberately, specifically because most people will read it as a very high-level intensifier. Like in my reply above, the fact that the dictionary records it being used this way for over a hundred years means its pretty much a second definition now.

  • Yea! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:28AM (#14625426) Homepage Journal
    Thank God that Congress will never grant China "Most Favoured Nation" trade status...

  • Legal requirement (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:29AM (#14625448)
    And yet, they sustain the laws that basically force publicly traded companies to have profit maximization as their main goal.

    From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org]:

    Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, for-profit corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, including such areas as environmental protection, or the improvement of the welfare of the community. For example, when Henry Ford cut dividends and reduced car prices in order to increase the number of people who could afford to buy his cars, his brother-in-law, Mr. Dodge, a shareholder, sued him for having harmed profitability: Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 170 N.W 688 (Mich.S.C. 1919). Mr. Dodge succeeded and went on to form his own car company with the proceeds of the suit. Modern corporate law is settled and clear that corporate directors are only allowed to act in the best interests of the corporation, and that this means maximization of profits (see for example J.A. VanDuzer The Law of Partnerships and Corporations (Irwin Law: 2003, Toronto) at pp. 271-2). Corporations may be able to make charitable contributions to society, but only where this will enable profit maximization (e.g. if the public relations value of the contribution would boost profits more than any other potential use of the funds).

  • *Loud Laugh* (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gryle ( 933382 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:30AM (#14625458)
    The US might have more creidibility if our record on civil rights wasn't so shoddy right now.
    • How is our record on civil rights so shoddy?

      What country in the world would you say has a better record on civil rights? Or instead of a record, a better existing civil rights situation currently?

      • Re:*Loud Laugh* (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:49AM (#14626257) Journal
        How is our record on civil rights so shoddy?
        Native american indian extermination?

        Slavery?

        Institutionalized anti-black apartheid until the 1960's?

        Rampant unofficial (private) racism (property sales contract that say "you can't sell your house to niggers") and property values that go down because "some niggers moved in the neighb ourhood"?

        Guantanamo bay?

        A president that goes ballistic to change the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage?

        The most powerful superpower in the world discriminating against latino people because "they don't want to take our culture" - imagine that: a superpower that is scared shitless by some of the poorest people in the world!!!

        What country in the world would you say has a better record on civil rights? Or instead of a record, a better existing civil rights situation currently?
        Belgium? The Nederlands? Canada?
      • How is our record on civil rights so shoddy?

              Cough Guantanamo cough captial punishment cough illegal detentions cough wiretapping cough torture cough cough...
      • How is our record on civil rights so shoddy?

        Trollometer:
        [=========9=]
        _______________^

  • This is why they declined to attend the hearings. They knew it would turn out to be a combination of witch hunt and ass whupping.

    Oh, and some grandstanding, too.

    Chip H.

  • Stupid hypocrite lawmakers... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:32AM (#14625469)
    'putting profits before American principles of free speech'

    OMG.. No they didn't.. I can't believe they want to make money while sacrificing some American principles..

    Meanwhile, lawmakers are getting paid how much by tobacco, big media, defense contractor, corrupt unions, questionnable interest groups, etc?

    Maybe someone can help me out and post another few thousand ways Congress and the Senate are corrupt..

  • profits before free speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:32AM (#14625471) Homepage
    'putting profits before American principles of free speech'

    Well, a publicly traded company is supposed to put profits first. If your politicians want them to put some other principle over and above that, all they have to is change the law, making it mandatory.

    • "Well, a publicly traded company is supposed to put profits first."

      No, they are supposed to obey the law first, starting with the constitution. A company can not kill a person in order to boost profit. Yes, a publicly traded company has an obligation to the shareholders, but that obligation does not take priority over other laws.

      If you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US. Not sure what happens if you kill a


      • f you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US. Not sure what happens if you kill a local while you're there... So if you go to China and Google is censoring the net while you're using it that's illegal. I'm not sure about censoring the locals, but it still violates our principals.

        You're just making that up, really. If you go to this fantasy country that condones murder, you won't be legally accountable when you r

      • If you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US.

        would have to read:
        If you and a friend visit a country that has mandatory murder, and you kill your friend... would you still be held accountable?
        So, since murder is probably too vicious an example, let's try another one instead:
        If you have a liquor store chain, (since in your home district (the US) private corporations like yours sell alcohol). You wish to expand

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:32AM (#14625472)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • You've missed the point. The point is not about following the laws in a country where the firm does business. The point is that the firm should have the fortitude to say, "You know what? Even though we could make a killing helping the Chinese government with their 'needs', we simply aren't going to do business there until they clean up their act."

      I agree with the sentiment.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • While I am in favor of drug decriminalization, you're trivializing the issue when you compare America's laws against marijuana to China's laws against speaking out against its laws against marijuana. Follow?

          If a company comes here to do business, they have to abide by our rules against marijuana. If we go to China to do business, we have to abide by their rules against criticism of the Party. If we go to Morvikonia to do business, we have to agree to help them round up and execute women who have been unf
    • Clearly some brave Dutch company needs to stand up for our rights and deliver marijuana to the oppressed American people! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, Help, I'm being repressed!
  • Members of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus said four US firms were putting profits before American principles of free speech.

    And they will continue to do so unless it is no longer profitable to do so.

    "Corporate Ethics" is an oxymoron. The only real way to keep US firms from doing such unethical things is to make it unprofitable for them to do so. This can be done in any number of ways -- by fine or revocation of charter for repeat offenders. Remember that the fine must be >= the profit made from

  • Hypocritical? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:33AM (#14625479)
    We indirectly support the same Chinese Government that censors their internet with our huge international trade imports, but our Congress will criticize just the IT companies.

    Seems a bit hypocritical, if you want to stop the perception of helping a censoring government, then stop all trade with China, not just IT.

    I don't agree with the fact that these companies are helping censor the Chinese internet, but what about all the other companies that directly or indirectly help the same people profit through other means?
    And what about human rights/worker rights/environmental protections? Is censorship a greater problem than these?
    • It's not that hypocritical. We buy cheap TVs from China and in return we send them movies starring Carrot Top. Then the Chinese public see how much cooler democracy is without censorship and pretty soon we will have a revolution.
    • then stop all trade with China, not just IT.

            You're joking right? That's impossible.

  • Right, congress, that's the paragon of free speach (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maury Markowitz ( 452832 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:33AM (#14625482) Homepage
    Does anyone else find it ironic that the US govt is yelling at companies about free speach, while illegally (yes, that's the correct word) conducting spying operations on its own citizens?

    Maury
  • German law (article 130 of the German penal code) bans a great deal of internet sites dealing with historic revisionism, especially sites which arrive at the conclusion that the holocaust itself (holocaust meaning the systematic executions in the death camps) never happened or if it did happen then not in the numbers and dimensions which are found in the "official" schoolbooks. Sites that have been banned on Google Germany include sites such as http://www.stormfront.org/ [stormfront.org] and http://www.zundelsite.org/ [zundelsite.org] etc.

  • Wait a minute.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by turambar386 ( 254373 ) <turambar386@route[ ]d.com ['rgo' in gap]> on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:36AM (#14625512) Homepage
    Wasn't the US one of the first nations to lift economic sanctions after the Tiananmen massacure?

  • I understand the fact that these officials are unhappy that technology companies are aiding the oppressive Chinese government, but there's two things that need to be considered.

    First of all, if there's anything that's truly international, it's the internet. People in china need access to blogs, search, and all the rest just like we do. Most people are not going to blog about democracy or political freedom, they're going to blog about what they did or didn't do that day. They'll blog about girls or boys the

  • The main problem, as a poster pointed out here on /. yesterday, is that this issue with Microsoft and Google is a GOVERNMENT problem, NOT a corporation's problem. I agree whole-heartedly, and being a rather odd mix of Republican/Libertarian/(slightly Democrat) person that I am, I can say that I have been whole-heartedly disappointed with President Bush, his policies, and his party's policies during this term in office.

    Unfortunately, the only solution is to make sure the Senate, the House, and the Presidency

  • Lemme get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustASlashDotGuy ( 905444 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:43AM (#14625575)

    Microsoft and Google do business in another country. They follow that
    countries laws, and that makes them the bad guy?

    The law is the law. When doing business anywhere, you must obey the laws that
    that land, not just the laws you agree with.

    And moreover, if you want to put pressure on a foreign body to change their
    laws.... wouldn't that be the job of politicians (talking to other
    politicians) and not the job of some corporation?
    • Here's what I get from your post:

      1) These tech companies have no choice but to do business with China.

      2) There is no such thing as civil disobedience. A law is a law is a law, and if it says to throw live puppies in the mulcher then by God, that's what you do.

      3) Corporations have no responsibilities beyond their own bottom lines. Not to human decency, not to the environment, not to the quality of life of their customers or workers. The governments of the countries in which they do business are the corpor
    • And moreover, if you want to put pressure on a foreign body to change their
      laws.... wouldn't that be the job of politicians ... and not the job of some corporation?

      Actually it seems that more and more this is the job of the US Armed Forces, isn't it? Don't like said government then invade and replace it without ever issuing a formal declaration of war, from Grenada to Iraq. Terrorism has now provided a wonderful excuse. The UN and international law are ignored.

      Tell me, who is next on

  • LOL @ Congress (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nazmun ( 590998 )
    This is probably one of the most hypocritical (to the point of laughter) thing congress has been saying for a long time. If you truly don't agree with the conditions in china you shouldn't have opened trade with them.

    It's not like american and chinese manufacturers treat workers of sweatshops that well. Google's actions do zero harm to the chinese people. The government will only allow a censored google through the "great firewall." It's much better for the people to have a powerful search engine and in
  • ...With the likes of Diane Feinstein among their ranks. She and her husband have had close economic ties with China for years, megabucks involved. She never passes up an opportunity to suck up to them. One despicable came in 2001 when China tried to shoot down an unarmed survelience plane (yeah, a spy plane). See the article [worldnetdaily.com] on World Net Daily.
  • Might have been relevant to include a link to the organisation making the statements in the news snippet?

    Here it is:
    http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/ [house.gov]

    And here is their member list:
    http://lantos.house.gov/HoR/CA12/Human+Rights+Cauc us/Members/ [house.gov]

    Yeah we can all goggle but why not add a bit of value?
  • This all makes sense. It is the job of Congress to represent US interests. That is not the job of Google and Microsoft (nor do I think that it's reasonable to expect Google and MS to expend their resources fighting these wars, which have no benefit for either of them).

    The people in China lack certain rights and expectations that we have in the United States. If they get ticked off enough about it, they'll do something about it.

    For those not familiar with the history of cell communications in China, back
  • ... bows to no one, including the lesser God of Free Speech.

    You'd think that, of all places, they'd know this by now in Washinton D.C.; a city in which monopolists have nothing to fear and lobbyists have everything to gain (especially during the last five years).
  • The firms have said they will attend that process.

    That's good as debate may help. Remember though it's not a company that can restrict speech it's government that does.

    Not that I am supporting those companies decisions. They are just doing what the US government does. I think those who go before this panel they should ask questions themselves about policies that help countries like China.

  • From the House July 16, 2003 [house.gov]

    You borrowed $314 billion from foreign investors, and my buddy from Cuba will love this one, because you have borrowed $52.5 billion from Communist China. You have borrowed $122 billion from Japan. We now owe $1.3 trillion to foreign nations and investors, including $122 billion to Communist China. Tell me you are proud of that. Tell me the Republican majority is proud that we owe $122 billion to China and that $50 billion a year of American tax dollars go to pay interest on

  • Google Response (Score:5, Informative)

    by yEvb0 ( 904248 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:53AM (#14625695)
    Google's response [blogspot.com].
    My apologies if this has been posted already.

  • Sticks and Stones (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @09:57AM (#14625732)
    US Government:

    You are spying on your own citizens. Claiming a company is being un-american because they're abiding by other states' laws when you cannot follow your own is a little silly.

    You won't allow half a dozen four letter words on TV, and heaven forbid any boobies. Decrying censorship is hypocritical.

  • Pot. Kettle. Black. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dghcasp ( 459766 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:01AM (#14625770)
    Dear Congress:

    Please explain why the government granted China " most favoured nation [planetpapers.com]" trading status despite their repeated and unapologetic human rights abuses. How dare you betray the ideals of the American view of human rights?

    When you can answer this question without using the words "we make more money," then you can criticise others for their actions in China.

  • ... that european companies shouldn't obey America when it violates highly cherished european concepts like social welfare, lack of the death penalty, and the fact that you can't patent software?
  • How many of you complaining about Google/MSN/Yahoo! buy stuff that was made in China?

  • Pot calling Kettle... come in, Kettle... (Score:3, Informative)

    by kahei ( 466208 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:09AM (#14625851) Homepage

    1. Grant China Most Favored Nation trading status.

    2. Bend over backwards to ensure that US/China meetings are not harmed by any silly protests about Tibet (or Xinjiang, or anywhere else...)

    3. Move manufacturing to China.

    4. Deal with annoying 'pandering to China to make a short-term buck' image, by freaking out at US companies who obey local laws.

    5. Profit! Actually, profit at every step!

    Didn't need the ??? this time, cause it's all kind of straightforward.
    • I had no idea who Tom Lantos was before this, but I decided to investigate. Turned out he voted to block China's Most Favored Nation status in 1997 [vote-smart.org], and again in 1998 [vote-smart.org], and in 1999 [vote-smart.org], against the wishes of a Democratic president. He also voted against [vote-smart.org] the 2000 bill giving China permanent MFN status.

      So, allegations of hypocrisy are misplaced in this particular instance.

  • Again, better than not going there... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:15AM (#14625915)
    If everyone stood by their principles, no freedom-loving company would do business in China.

    What happens if they stay out? Then China uses its massive population to develop equivalent services, thereby reinforcing their monoculture. Staying out is NOT going to bully the Chinese government into changing laws. They have no incentive to do so.

    As long as there's SOME influence of foreign information services in China, there will be some leakage of outside ideas into China.

    Yes, we all wish that China would wake up and embrace democracy and freedom for its people. But we also wish that Pakistani Muslims would stop hating Hindus for being "idol worshipers", but that isn't going to happen any time soon either.
    • If everyone stood by their principles, no freedom-loving company would do business in China.

            If everyone stood by their principles, hardly anyone would make any profit at all. Profit will be sought regardless of principles so long as there is not a law that specifically forbids it - and even then in such a case a law against it means even _greater_ profit...
  • I'm amazed at the volume of posts here, defending the Chinese Communists, its oppression of its people, and the companies that support them.

    How easily these posters toss aside other people's civil rights. As Martin Luther King wrote, serving jail time to protect the rights of Americans reading this,

    ... I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride to

    • I'm amazed at the volume of posts here, defending the Chinese Communists

      Most posts aren't defending the Chinese government. They're criticizing the fact the the US Congress continues to defend the Chinese government by virtue of granting Most Favored Nation trade status (as well as financing much of the US budget with funds loaned by the Chinese), and then hypocritically turns around and hounds individual companies over their trade activities with China.

      It's the government's job to set policy, not indiv

  • China leaders blast Microsoft for bowing to US pressure to reduce monopoly status

    Slashdot readers expode trying to decide to defend Google and Microsoft or Free Speech and US Congressmen.

  • "Free Speech"? (Score:4, Informative)

    by AxelBoldt ( 1490 ) on Thursday February 02, 2006 @10:50AM (#14626267) Homepage
    Amazing that American lawmakers still dare to use the phrase "Free Speech" in public.

    Suppose you're a librarian and an FBI agent shows up and wants to know the complete list of books and websites this particular Muslim patron looked at. They don't have a court's warrant, but you still have to comply, of course. You're outraged, you want to scream, you want to protest, you want to blog, you want to write a letter to the editor, you want to call your congressman! Oops, nope, can't talk about that, sorry, it's illegal. That's freedom of speech for you, in these United States of America.

    The same is true for bank employees [projectcensored.org], by the way, and everyone working with financial records, including casinos, pawn shops, U.S. Postal Office, car dealerships etc.

  • Profit before principles is as American as penny stocks and get rich quick schemes.
  • If we are going to force companies to apply Freedom of Speech and other rights of America why not make them apply all of our laws like Minimum Wage laws....

Slashdot Top Deals

He keeps differentiating, flying off on a tangent.

Close