Business At The Price Of Freedom

An anonymous reader writes "The TechZone has an article on how much technology companies setting up shops in China have to kowtow to the Chinese government. All the major search engines have given in to Chinese demands to throttle liberty in exchange for access to the Chinese market and Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms 'freedom,' 'democracy' and other concepts China has designated as dangerous. From the article: 'Most disconcerting are recent reports that Yahoo!'s Hong Kong operation is turning over emails which helped convict a reporter. Journalist Shi Tao was jailed and sentenced to 10 years in prison for "illegally sending state secrets abroad." The secrets that he revealed were information his newspaper received from the state propaganda department about how they could cover the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was identified because he had used Yahoo!'s free email service for which Yahoo! turned over log files to authorities that were later tracked back to his computer.'"

Yahoo does this crap.

[Tuxedo Jack (648130)]

If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know.

Re:Yahoo does this crap.

[Red Flayer (890720)]

" If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know."

Sure, we have that choice... for now. But what happens when all available choices are doing the same thing? The only reason a large company would not submit to China's demands is if doing so would make them lose more business elsewhere. The size of the Chinese market and the relative indifference of consumers preclude this.

Assuming that Chinese policy is wrong, wouldn't it be best for China to change their policy? As more and more companies give in to China's demands, their restrictions on free speech on the internet are becoming a foregone conclusion. Simply not using Yahoo isn't going to change Yahoo's policy, nor China's.

If you want change in China, be proactive. Don't just not use Yahoo -- pass the word to people who are unaware. Let Yahoo know how much business they are losing. Investigate who else bends to the Chinese government, boycott and spread the word.

You may feel like you're doing something by not using Yahoo, and you are. But it's not enough. Have you forwarded the article to your non-Slashdot reading friends who might be concerned about speech limitations in China, asking them to boycott Yahoo?

Have you contacted your legislators about this, to make them aware that you are concerned? Whether or not government can or will do anything about it, public officials need to know.

Here's contact info for US Congresspeople:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ [visi.com]

You should also contact your state legislators -- I could see Massachusetts (for example) disallowing Yahoo use in government offices if enough residents do so.

Have you written a letter to Yahoo demanding change, explaining why you are boycotting them and organizing others to do so?

Here's a link to Yahoo's management team bios:
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/index.htm l [yahoo.com]

Here's a link to Yahoo's board of directors:
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/pr/executives/board.htm l [yahoo.com]

Yahoo's address is:
701 First Ave Sunnyvale CA 97809

The scope..

[knightinshiningarmor (653332)]

The companies that are already in China know how to work with the government. They're not going to do anything stupid.

This seems like a warning message to companies like Google and Microsoft, who in recent events expressed interest in targeting China (in a marketing, not tactical, sense). Will these large corporations fall flat on their face when they move into China?

Totally different here in America

[by Anonymous Coward]

In America we don't kowtow to the government, we bend over and grab our ankles.

Merely a matter of degree

[fuzzy12345 (745891)]

Not to underplay the concessions that China forces out of businesses operating there, but...

How about US corporations cooperating with CALEA (all wiretaps, all the time), broadcasters knuckling down on popular entertainment figures for fear of reprisals from the FCC, and ISPs who almost always say "we are cooperating fully with authorities," code for "we're not going to challenge the dodgy search warrant (or the fact that there's none at all), but will turn over subscriber records at the drop of a hat to avoid abusive regulators getting tough on us over other issues if we don't play ball. Other examples, anyone?

China isn't a free country.

[ImaLamer (260199)]

I would be worried if China even acted like a "free country", but they don't. They are pretty open with the idea that they are restricting speech on the Internet, they aren't hiding it.

Now, OTOH, my country claims to be free - and it isn't. Your examples show this fact. So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America

"Why am I on the no-fly list?"

[falconwolf (725481)]

"Sorry sir, I couldn't tell you even if I knew."

If Kennedy can't find out why he's on the list they won't tell you either.

Faclon

Boycott Yahoo!

[brian0918 (638904)]

This is ridiculous. Surely the stockholders can't think highly of this incident.

There's Freenet and GPG on Free Operating Systems

[c0l0 (826165)]

...and virtually a million ways to cloak sensitive data from You Personal Government's eyes. It's sad those who could have saved their liberty by using those, often did not do so, obviously :(

The fine line

[brajesh (847246)]

There was a recent article [sfgate.com] on the same topic in SF chronicle.

One of the compelling argument was "If the Chinese custom is to make children work or to kill women, you wouldn't do it," said Julien Pain, head of the Internet Freedom Desk at Reporters Without Borders.

I wonder where should the line be drawn.

The proverbial canary.

[dominion (3153)]

If ever the US government took a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, we can assume that no large US corporation would take a stand against it. In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line, like the spineless Iraqi politicians who, while dissidents were being led out and shot by Hussein, responded by standing up and declaring their allegience.

IBM's role in the holocaust had nothing to do with a shared ideal with Nazism, and everything to do with the fact that dirty money spends just as well as anything.

And there's usually more of it.

This is new?

[Crixus (97721)]

Since when in this modern production age hasn't this been the case? China had almost always had "Most Favored Nation" trading status with us, even when their tank treads were rolling over protesting college students.

And while American corporations MAY want access to their markets now that they are growing as consumers, were that market not growing, corporations would be perfectly happy to only exploit the Chinese labor force to make cheaper widgets.

Once again showing that the US could give a RATS ASS about democracy. All ourt leaders care about is serving their corporate masters and opening foreign markets to exploitation.

Re:This is new?

[WilliamSChips (793741)]

This is the US Government Test for seeing if a nation is our friend or not:

Is the nation's leader anti-communist?
If yes, the nation is probably our friend.
If no, go to next question.

Does the nation allow US Corporations to help them exploit their citizens?
If yes, it is definitely our friend.
If no, then they are our evil commie terrorist enemy, and must be destroyed in the name of FREEDOM(of US corporations to make as much money as possible) and DEMOCRACY(of US corporations to decide on what the government should do).

Did they really have to comply - maybe not

[ctwxman (589366)]

There was an editorial piece in the New York Times which pointed out Yahoo's Hong Kong subsidiary responded to the Chinese government's request. Under the current law, Hong Kong is still autonomous in this regard. That subsidiary was under no more legal control of the Chinese than Yahoo's home office in the United States.

Here's another similar take [theepochtimes.com] from Guo Guoting, an attorney

Lawyer Guo has practiced law in China for over 20 years. He believes that, "Yahoo! Inc. is not under any legal obligation to 'conform to the laws of the countries in which they operate,' as was claimed by Jerry Yang." As a law expert, Guo explained that, "Yahoo! Inc. is obligated to first obey International Law. If the International Law happens to be in conflict with the laws in China or with the CCP's strategies, then the International Law should take precedence, which is an internationally acknowledged principle. China is a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and of the International Covenant on Human Rights. Shi Tao simply exercised his right to the freedom of expression by sending mail. In addition, he was legitimately practicing his profession, not committing a crime. Consequently, Yahoo! Inc. has no legal obligation to cooperate with the government. The legal entity of Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong) is not in China, so it is not obligated to operate within the laws of China or to cooperate with the Chinese police."

What About Google?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

I wonder how Google are operating in China. I think they'll have to change their slogan to, "Don't be Evil (may not apply in some jurisdictions)".

Who are we kidding. Private companies will gladly sell out and kowtow to anyone as long as it helps them rake in the cash. Companies don't care if China never becomes a democracy, in fact they probably prefer it the way things are.

Personally, I feel the Chinese model is so attractive to business that pretty soon people in western nations will begin to lose their rights as companies demand more and more harmonisation with the superior Chinese model.

It seems capitalism can achieve what the soviets could not.

Just Get Hip

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms 'freedom,' 'democracy'

Chinese users just have to learn how to start searching for fr33dom and dem0cr@cy. After all, that's only one step beyond searching for p0rn.

It's not only the government

[DrIdiot (816113)]

Half of it is the government, but half of it is the people.

I'm an American born Chinese whose parents are from Taiwan. I have friends who are Chinese from China who've moved here, and I'll be damned if all of them oppose the Chinese government.

Sure, you've got a large number of people in China who want democracy, who want elected officials and a say in government. But you've also got a large number of people that are either so caught up in nationalism to notice or sincerely don't believe it's that bad. For a change from totalitarianism to democracy to occur, the idea of change has to be internally ubiquitous.

When you've got a Chinese telling me that the Taiwanese form of government is worse than the Chinese form of government, we've got a problem here. Although the Taiwanese form of government may not be perfect, especially in its beginnings, at least officials are elected by the people, at least it's a multi-party system, and wow, there isn't this rampant totalitarian censorship and control exerted over the people.

When you've got people pointing to the Chinese legislature as a legitimate form of legislature, that's a problem. A one-party legislature is not legitimate, it's a pathetic excuse.

When you've got people saying that there should be a balance between control and freedom (which isn't false at all - for instance, you don't have the freedom to murder) and pointing to CHINA as an example of this, we have a problem. Especially when that same person cites the PATRIOT Act as a problem in the United States.

When you've got people failing to recognize that China is rampant with censorship and has a foreign policy that's worse as ours (Tibet, anyone?), that's a problem. They simply fail to recognize this as a human rights violation. Yet when we bomb Iraqi civilians, they're completely opposed to it, citing human rights. So when the United States kills people it's wrong but when China does it's not? Bullshit. Nationalism at it's peak.

These aren't conservative or totalitarianistic-thinking people either. In America's terms, they'd be considered liberal. It's just when it comes to the subject of China, they're automatically in support.

And it's so hard to show them how absurd this mode of thinking is.

Right now, I have little confidence in the Chinese people to change their government. I also have little confidence in foreign nations to have the ability to change the Chinese government. Not only that, I oppose any attempt by any nation other than China itself to change the Chinese government. Change must come from within. And it doesn't seem like it's coming anytime soon. Tienmen Square shut dissenters up pretty damn good.

You can't blame Yahoo or Google for complying with the Chinese government. If they don't comply, guess what? They're going to be blocked from China. Lot of good that'll do then, right? All those websites about democracy are going to do the Chinese real good if they can't even get there. At least with search query censorship, a clever search may yield good results. When blocking the entire search engine, that whole mode of finding information is lost.

Re:And nothing will change . . .

[dnoyeb (547705)]

What is so interesting is these businesses are operating in direct opposition to the position of the Presidend of the United States. His position is to forward democracy and democratic values. These businesses are supporting just the opposite. I wonder what the president will do about this.

This is the same ole shit. Just like when all these companies supported Apartheid in South Africa. And China supports oppresive regimes in Africa now.

Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of bargan

It's worse than you think!

[ImaLamer (260199)]

I wonder what the president will do about this.

Nothing, of course. Just like no one did anything when U.S. corporations set up shop in the newly formed Soviet Union. You don't challenge corporations - it doesn't work.

Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of barganing power does this give them over us while our economy is so fragile?

Our debt financed by China? It's worse than that. Did you know that during that housing boom we just had that the Chinese central banks sunk a lot of the national treasury into the American mortgage market? They sure don't believe in property rights in China, but over here it's another story.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm? story_id=4221685 [economist.com]

Not only has China played a role in holding down short-term interest rates, but the People's Bank of China has also supported America's mortgage market by buying vast amounts of mortgage-backed securities.

What does the breaking of the yuan's peg to the dollar mean for bond yields? American Treasury yields rose by 12 basis points after Beijing made its announcement last week. Having played a hand in inflating America's housing bubble, could China now prick it by pushing up mortgage rates, which are closely tied to long-term bond yields?

If abandoning its dollar peg causes China to reduce its purchases of T-bonds, then yields will rise. But this depends on several uncertainties. For instance, will last week's revaluation reduce inflows of speculative capital into China, and hence its need to intervene in the foreign-exchange market by buying dollars? A large chunk of China's foreign-exchange intervention over the past year has been to offset not its current-account surplus but inflows of hot money. Some economists believe that, in the short term, the small revaluation will intensify speculation of further revaluations and so attract even more capital inflows, forcing the People's Bank of China to buy more Treasury bonds to stabilise its currency. If so, bond yields will remain low.

On the other hand, the switch from a dollar peg to a currency basket may cause China to diversify its reserves away from dollars. It is unlikely to dump its dollars, but it could well reduce its new purchases of Treasury bonds in favour of other currencies. And, if China really has broken the yuan's link with the dollar, then this could be the trigger for another general slide in the greenback against the euro, the yen and other currencies, prompting investors to demand higher yields. The fate of American house prices could thus be determined by unelected bureaucrats in Beijing rather than the unelected central bankers of the West.

Re:And nothing will change . . .

[NoOneInParticular (221808)]

Are you that naive? Do you honestly believe that the Prez of the US of A has any more important mission than to progress the wealth of the corporations of that same US of A? Do they actually teach history where you come from? For the last century or so, the USA foreign policy has been primarily focussed on making sure that US corporations can make money. Why do you think that has changed?

To spell it out: democracy in prez-speak means freedom for corporations to make money. Democratic values is the value of being able to make money without being hampered too much. You see, those damn Arabs don't buy much of our stuff, so we need to bring democracy to them.

Okay, a bit over the top this, but the point is that from the US point of view, business comes first, democratic values come second. This has always been the case, and I don't see a change under the current administration. You don't think that the American benevolence towards Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is important for business? Unlike, say Sudan?

Re:Is capitalism soluble in comunism ?

[Red Flayer (890720)]

"Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case."

(1) Communism != totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a method of administering government, not economy. Here's a question for you: is it possible to have a communist economy with a democratic government?

(2) China does not have a purely communist economy; many reforms have occurred to foster (somewhat) free markets.

By accepted definition, capitalism cannot exist within communism -- they are two faces of a coin. Perhaps the subject of your post should have been, "Can capitalism exist under a totalitarian government?"

Or perhaps, "Can capitalism and communism co-exist in one political system?"

Re:Boycott Yahoo

[liangzai (837960)]

Right, Americans are dying everyday, but no one asked them to come. It is the same in China. Believe it or not, but most Chinese stand behind the government in principle.

There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.

Today, our goal is to tie China as tightly as we can to the rest of the world, so as to make it inevitable that democracy is on the roadma

Re:Boycott Yahoo

[TheGavster (774657)]

There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.

The point about companies like Yahoo restricting content and reporting dissent is that at some point, the Internet *won't* be able to assist in facilitating a regime shift. The American revolution was brought about, among other things, by people distributing inflamitory pamphlets. Guess what? Despotic regimes now tightly control printed media. The newspapers won't be bringing China to revolution any time soon, and if you don't watch out, the Internet will lose that capability as well.

Re:Boycott Yahoo

[superyanthrax (835242)]

Parent is not insightful at all. It's flamebait that the Slashdot audience agrees with, just like random anti-Microsoft bashing.

Not everyone wants the "freedom" that the American military is exporting. Look at Iraq now for example. The constitution that they came up with is certainly not at all what the Americans wanted. Pure and simple, Iraqis don't want the "freedom" the Americans have. They want to live by their Islamic law. So let them. If you force "freedom" on Iraq, it is becomes something far more

Re:Freedom comes from business

[mlgunner (219100)]

Freedom does NOT come from business. Business comes from freedom. At our countries founding, Big Business as we know it did not exist. The only big businesses there were at that time, were government sponsered oppressive colinization sceams like the East India Company which forced Indian's to do business with the English. Our country (the USA) was filled with small independant business people who grew their businesses by being able to freely and openly do business with anyone else that was able, without