Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame 459
mjdroner writes "Cnet has a transcript of the House of Representatives hearing on net censorship with Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo reps. At one point, Rep. Tom Lantos asks if Microsoft is ashamed of their actions in China. Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.' Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'"
What about search history? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does Google maintain the same history of keyword searches by IP and by "cookie" at google.cn? If so, what are they going to do when the Chinese government demands they provide that information?
It's not hard to imagine a situation where that information would put a Chinese Google user in danger.
Heard it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they would have, if there was a profit in it. What Anne Frank was doing was illegal (Reich Criminal Code section 1775B: Breathing while Jewish), and if Yahoo wanted to do business in Germany at the time then they would certainly have had to comply with the demands of the lawfully appointed Gestapo. Not to do so would require them to forego the potential revenues to be had in Germany, which would clearly mean a failure to maximise shareholder value.
They're corporations. They're pure Lawful Evil by definition.
Power/Profit, or Ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the United States, where so many people are very committed to capitalism, it may rear its head more than in some other types of social or economic systems, but I see it everywhere I go.
"What pays best" and "What is best" simply aren't always the same thing, after all.
Personally, I've made choices on both sides of the divide, when there's been one. I got tired of picking things that paid well but made me feel dirty, after a while... but that's probably why I'm neither corporate nor congressional!
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2, Interesting)
The very fact that you call it the Red Dynasty shows an aversion to fact. I suggest you and the mods that modded you informative read wikipedia and find out WHY China has the government it has now, and why they see stability as more important than democracy. (Not that I see it that way, just why many Chinese people do)
Re:Interesting (Score:1, Interesting)
America is not perfect and most citizens know that. As for racism, that's a human condition. Should we talk about Japanese-Chinese relations. The movie Memoirs of a Geisha brought out alot of racist attitudes in China, demeaning Zhang Ziyi and calling Ken Watanabe and Japanese dog.
People's nationalism usually blinds them to the evils happening in their own country, American, Chinese, and everywhere alike.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? I quote:
"A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He's comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He is loath to break promises, and is therefore very cautious about giving his word unless a bargain is clearly in his favour."
Sounds pretty much like a typical corporation to me.
It continues:
"Many lawful evil characters use society and its laws for selfish advantages, exploiting the letter of the law over its spirit whenever it best suits their interests."
Now, tell me that's not Microsoft all over.
(quotations from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], although presumably originating in D&D sourcebooks - I recognise the text from NWN :-)
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Interesting)
It would appear that you're trying to let google off the hook, just because another organization (the government) has also dealt with the criminal regime. Sorry, morality doesn't work that way. Having company doesn't excuse a crime.
No, but it sure means that Congress doesn't have any business conducting this.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2, Interesting)
My company is trying to succeed in China. I wonder what ethical compromises we may have to consider...
Gee, I wonder (Score:1, Interesting)
Come on, this is China, not Cuba (Score:4, Interesting)
Typical Washington hypocrites.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
After the recent UN Human Rights condemnation of the Guantanamo prison camp, I was a bit shocked by the allusion to the 10 year prisoner when there are prisoners in Guantanamo for nearly 5 years without trial.
The problem that I have with this is in China the 10-year prisoner is incarcertated legally according to Chinese law (even if you don't agree with thoses laws), the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo are not there legally according to American law.
Fine, if they are terrorists, try them and lock them up or execute them, if that's what you want to do - but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about China acting under its own laws while having a blatant disregard for your own laws and the right to just and fair treatment under them.
It's do as I say, not as I do.
I can see where Tom Lantos is coming from with his background, and I like a good Microsoft roasting as much as the next man, but as a representive of the government of the United States, I wonder is he ashamed?
Re:Shit (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not like you've got to mortgage your house to get a Linux install CD, after all...
Within that context, there's a role for US activists to educate people on why they *should* care about Chinese activists -- perhaps not the least such reason being that a company who will assist in oppressing the Chinese will also assist in oppressing the US.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the AD&D Players' Handbook to define a personal code of mortality is kind of like using a Dvorak magazine article to define an global enterprise IT architecture...
Snappy answer to overboard question (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, Lantos has standing to invoke Nazi Germany on account of his personal and family history.
Re:Snappy answer to overboard question (Score:2, Interesting)
Our embargo against Japan may have irritated them, and provided some political cover (to them) for their actions, but they certainly didn't think we were going to end the embargo after Pearl Harbor, did they? Therefore, it's an impossible excuse. Japan's military dictatorship was simply trying to eliminate our influence in the Pacific. It was an pure act of unbridled agression, and there are no mitigating circumstances for it.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Interesting)
"Terrorism!" is the modern buzzword, but....
"Pinkoes!" - 1950s
"A Jap's a Jap!" - 1940s
"Over there!" - 1920s
"Rebels!" - 1860s
"Laissez-faire!" - mid-1800s
"Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" - 1790s
"For the Holy Land!" - 1200s
"Chivalry!" - 1000s
"Carthago delenda est!" - 100s BC
"The Mandate of Heaven!" - 900s BC
It isn't just the current administration of the United States. We've been abusing buzzwords to justify often-questionable actions, almost since the dawn of mankind.
Re:Snappy answer to overboard question (Score:2, Interesting)