Yahoo Helps Jail Chinese Writer 493
An anonymous reader writes "Internet giant Yahoo has been accused of supplying information to China which led to the jailing of journalist Shi Tao for "divulging state secrets". "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Yahoo Helps Jail Chinese Writer
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
Reporters without borders! (Score:2, Informative)
Is this the new definition of (Score:3, Funny)
Tune in, turn in, drop out of sight...
And it seems.. (Score:3, Interesting)
The motive (Score:5, Funny)
I don't believe it! (Score:5, Funny)
Inconceivable.
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a sense of morality, it's just warped. What is best for a larger group of people (Yahoo) is to gain the business and support of China. In Yahoo's perspective, they are cementing their business ties with China, and this connection will generate Yahoo revenue to grow and sustain their business model. This act alone will help EMPLOY people. It will feed people. Hell, turning over evidence on one man who will be picked up anyway? Not a problem!
Make
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:2)
Plenty of companies can afford to do things on principal: it's only the rich ones that do afford to do things on the interest. Seriously though, a lot of companies would probably make more in the long run if they acted on principle, but shareholders all seem to want money NOW as though they are just waiting to flee to the Bahamas or something.
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:5, Interesting)
But it's the interest that gets you. Oh, you meant "principle"?
That's why we need assassination politics. A few well-placed deaths amongs the boards of the worst corporations would stop them from committing horrific crimes. The Shi case is not particularly bad, but things like United Fruit in Guatemala in the 50s, or Shell in Nigeria in the 90s, where companies hire government troops or mercenaries to kill off inconvenient peasants demand substantive action. Tobacco companies still kill a third of their customers, and they do it with impunity in most of the world. If the Reynold's family name were a death sentence, that would change quickly. Even the Shi case might merit the ultimate penalty, considering that it represents participation in the brutal campaign of mass-murder that is the Chinese government.
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
The trouble is that revenge killings tend to beget more revenge killings. In the end only the most ruthless heartless thugs tend to be the only ones left standing. Good honest people need solid 'rule of law' to support their moral character. Assassination breaks down the rule of law.
Furthermore, the power vacuum after a violent and sudden transition of power is more likely to bring a 'bad actor' to the title than someone more 'palatable'.
Using the classic example of assassinating Hitler, does anyone believe that any of his likely successors would have been less evil?
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:4, Insightful)
That only works so long as the rule of law is just. Once the criminals have corrupted the law, then the rule of law fails because it is seen as just another tool of the oppressor.
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they can. Thousands of companies do, every day. (Google "ethical investment" if you don't believe me). As long as they're up front with their stockholders, companies can behave as ethically as the board members decide.
There are clothes companies that won't sell stuff made in sweat shops (hell, even Nike pretend this is the case), just as there are company's that only buy from Christian suppliers. On a smaller scale, my local liquor store refuses
Re:I don't believe it! (Score:2)
With gas prices going way up, I suspect biodiesel is much more cost effective to produce and sell. It is possible to do things that are good for the environment and consumers while still being profit driven. It's just much easier to make a profit by stealing.
Mmmm... accusations! (Score:4, Insightful)
Anything is possible, but an accusation is ceratinly easy to cook up.
The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Pro Google/Anti Yahoo stories continue (Score:2)
It's a fair point (Slashdot's love in with Google vs. rest-of-world), but I'd argue there's a world of difference between assisting a totalitarian regime to jail a dissident (Yahoo) and omiting search results that the intended audience can't see anyway (Google).
Disclaimer: I think both are disgusting and, sadly, totally to be expected. Both Google and Yahoo "owe" it to their shareholders to operate in a way that maximises profits. Not pissing off the largest potential market in the World falls into this c
So let's even it up. (Score:2)
Did you know Larry Page eats babies? It's true, I read it on Yahoo.
China... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China... (Score:5, Informative)
I guess reading the first paragraph of the article is too much work, before launching bold YELLING comment.
Yahoo could get sued... (Score:5, Funny)
English lesson (Score:3, Informative)
Note the portion that begins: "For speech within speech"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Blaming the victim (Score:2)
What a great attitude, the journalist should have known better! In other words, we need less independent journalism in China and the world, so these pesky journalist don't get in the way of the "state"!
OK Pinochet, great points there!
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of expression is a fundametal human right (Score:2)
I'm not talking about US law, but yes, Yahoo is a US based company and can't directly violate certain laws.
Please read a bit more, if a country decides that they don't believe in copyright, you think the US is going to do nothing about it?
What if a corporation goes to a country were they can employ slave labor or have sweatshops with subhuman conditions. Is this allowed? Aren't these US based companies liable back here in the states?
It's the same thing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Weak answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Yahoo is a US based corporation, thus they need to avoide by our law. A case can be made against them if they're found helping violate human rights in another country, and I really hope someone makes that case.
Also we can start imposing new laws on these corporations of our own whenever they do this, after all they have to "abide by our laws".
And look, it's great that you're making the argument for more US corporations being able to freely and with no worry help suppress other populations.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Weak answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh cant really blame them (Score:2)
That's one scary, fucked-up values system you've got yourself.
Yahoo doesn't HAVE to to business in China. Nor does google or MSN. None of them are based there, after all. They can all tell the Chinese government to fuck off, if they're willing to lose a bit of marketshare. A shareholder's right to profit doesn't trump a human being'
Re:Eh cant really blame them (Score:5, Informative)
Here we go again. Please know that communism and authoritarian government are not the same!
Re:Eh cant really blame them (Score:3, Insightful)
Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes) (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the thing -- the Hong Kong arm of yahoo lives in HONG KONG! They live in a communist country! How could anyone think that threatened with life in prison by a repressive government, a Chinese "Citizen" would possibly choose to not immediately capitulate to ANY request by the police? Just because an employee in China decided to NOT be Patrick Henry [wikipedia.org] doesn't mean Yahoo's in bed with the Reds.
Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes (Score:2)
This is especially true in Hong Kong, which is
Re:Better Read than Red (pronounce it so it rhymes (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, in a situation like this, we'll probably never know if Yahoo's employees knew what they were doing, whether this guy actually stole any "State Secrets" or if they just needed a phony charge to shut the guy up, or what the real truth is.
Vague Article (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Did yahoo violate any of their terms of service with the victim?
2. Did yahoo violate it's privacy policy?
If neither of the above is true, is the journalist not to blame for doing buisness with a service that would not protect him? In the alternative, are we now requiring that all major corporations take up the fight against oppression and censorship? I thought we had already decided that all corporations are evil, profit minded monsters. Why should Yahoo! be different?
Re:Vague Article (Score:2)
2. Did yahoo violate it's privacy policy?
I'm sure there is a clause buried in that TOS that Yahoo! will turn over information to aid law enforcement investigations. Its no crime here, but he did break Chinese law. By virtue of Chinese law, anything the government doesn't want known is considered a "state secret" by default of course.
They either play ball with the Reds or get locked out of a fast growing market.
Re:Vague Article (Score:2)
And that's the crux of it, folks. He broke a law in their country, their law enforcement agency requested/required Yahoo's cooperation, and Yahoo cooperated. The substance of the law is not relevant because Shi knew that he was doing something illegal. If you don't want to go to jail in China, don't be in China and do something that's against the law.
Re:Vague Article (Score:2)
It's a violation of Human Rights! Not local law! (Score:3, Insightful)
Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this rig
Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable. (Score:5, Interesting)
- We're just following Chinese law
- If we don't comply, are the Chinese people better off without Yahoo/Google/Cisco/MS?
Haven't we learnt a thing?
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ [ibmandtheholocaust.com]
I don't expect US corporations to impose US laws on foreign soil, but perhaps we can at least expect them to respect a basic set of human rights standards.
It's not acceptable that these US based coporations become collaborators in the persecution of dissidents in another country. It's not acceptable for them to concede to ridiculous demands of filtering workds like "Freedom" or "Taiwan". It's not acceptable at all.
If these corporations want to ignore these basic human rights standards, let them go and base their HQ in China instead. They're not doing anybody any favors by helping repress the Chinese people.
We were told that more trade and more interaction with China would bring greater freedom. We were lied to.
Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Don't operate in China
2) Refuse to cooperate with the police
3) Demand veto rights on cooperation with the police
4) Cooperate
In practice, 2 and 3 are identical to 1. And maybe 1 is what they should be doing. But it's not like they actively made a decision to violate X's human rights. (The censorship issues, on the other hand, really are overt decisions.)
We were told that more trade and more interaction with China would bring greater freedom. We were lied to.
Actually, I'm not sure that trade and interaction haven't contributed to what's certainly greater freedom since Mao's time. But, at any rate, it's useful to realize that not everything people predict that doesn't work out is LIES!!! There is a such a thing as difference of opinion in good faith.
What about "filtering" (Score:2)
Let's not have a narrow vision here, this is just another step in a series of circumstances were these corporations are helping China supress their citizens.
Cisco has been accussed of providing even more filtering and monitoring technology, and in that case, it's very hard to see your "we're just search
Re:What about "filtering" (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally, if you would Godwin around less frantically, it'd be easier to have a lucid discussion of how to treat China.
US Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable. (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot:
5) When operating in freedom-hostile countries, maintain a STRICT log rotation policy with a very short retention period. Or, for those countries that have minimum mandatory retention periods, store the logs on servers in a more sane country - China might have no problem quietly crushing a dissident, but would they even dare to ask when it would require formally requesting "extradition" of the relevant data?
And if the country in question has laws that would prevent even that... Well, #1 looks like a pretty good option. At some point, a company bears responsibility for its complicity in dealing with oppressive regimes.
Now, in this particular situation, I would say we don't have enough enformation to judge Yahoo's choice to cooperate. If they fail to correct whatever circumstances led to this cooperation in an atrocity on their part, then we can all shake our fingers and go "shame, shame, shame!". But for now, no.
Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't expect US corporations to impose US laws on foreign soil
So if that's the case, what did Yahoo do wrong? They handed over the name of a person who had committed a crime to the proper authorities.
The rights regarding freedom of speech that you are promoting are American law. You can argue all you want that they are universal human rights, but they're not. They're part of American culture and the American legal system
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (Score:2)
Here's a starting place, and it's not unreasonable by any measure:
"Universal Declaration of Human Rights"
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html [un.org]
Re:"Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that China has redefined 'state secret' to mean 'anything that might embarrass us'. In light of this modified definition, yes, you do have a right to publish state secrets.
Re:Unnaceptable, completely unnaceptable. (Score:2)
No morals! Welcome to slashbizarrodot.com (Score:2)
I just woke up in Bizarro world, were hoping corporations don't help supress political dissenters is seeing as amoral and indecent!
Unacceptable? Try scary (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't help but think that corporations, which are almost always defined as anti-democratic entities, prefer a totalitarian government, since a totalitarian government allows for easy limitations on the things that drive corporations nutty -- labor rights, environmental regulations, consumer protections, and freedom of speech.
No, but ... (Score:2)
Not really, but I do expect US based corporations to uphold a higher standard and not collaborate in human right violations.
If I take your view to the extreme, then there was no problem with IBM and the Nazis collaborating in the gas chambers, or the US wouldn't care if it's corporations employ child or slave labor. After all "Corporations don't exist to make the world a better place".
Bottom line (Score:2)
We remember th
What about the "Patriot Act" (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is the GLOBAL erosion of privacy, which our misguided government has provided great momemtum to. The fact that we invade and infrige upon previously protected privacy rights precludes us from preaching to other governments, and from faulting them.
Patriot Act vs. Communist China (Score:3, Insightful)
The Patriot Act grants only a few "new" powers, all still within the constitution. These "new" powers aren't new at all. They are the same power the feds and local police have when investigated trusts and the mafia and drug violations. In a nutshell, the law enforcement still has to get a warrant to do search and seizure. Now they can get a warrant against a suspected terrorist and ha
Re:What about the "Patriot Act" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about the "Patriot Act" (Score:4, Insightful)
The prison in Guantanamo (and Abu Garib, and the various other similar incidents) have made the US just another country with all sorts of blemishes on our Human Rights records. No longer can we speak from higher ground to any other country. Heck, we've even kidnapped detainees from other countries, and then sent them to places like Egypt to be tortured!!!
Yet another thing this administration can claim credit for!
Re:What about the "Patriot Act" (Score:3, Insightful)
Wounded Knee? My Lai? The internment of the issei and nissei? Slavery? Segregation? The support for anti-Communist death squads in Latin America? The supp
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
T
can I have whatever it is you're smoking? (Score:3, Informative)
When did Yahoo become China's judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this article before it was even posted on Slashdot (BBC RSS feeds are nice) and I can't really see why there's a big uproar about this, unless there's more to the story than the article mentions. Since when did complying with a government order amount to explicit consent and approval of government actions? Yahoo didn't convict/jail this guy, the Chinese government did.
Yahoo didn't actively seek to jail this Chinese writer. Nowhere in the article does it mention that Yahoo CONTACTED the police and said, "here is a guy you should arrest." While I come to expect this from slashdot, I'm somewhat disturbed that BBC is doing the same thing.
Maybe Yahoo did contact the police and tell them everything, but according to the article all they did was
Come on people, basic reading skills! Stop reading without thinking.No-reg link to IHT of Yahoo Help article (Score:5, Informative)
Schmidt on the Topic (Score:4, Insightful)
He made it very clear: they must follow local law wherever they do business. Otherwise they get squashed -- naturally.
That being said, perhaps they should choose not to do business in someplaces -- like Burma.
A New Low (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo must be insane to have allowed this to happen, especially when their main competitor has a published philosophy including the statement: "You can make money without doing evil".
BTW, just to highlight the difference between this and the usual /. chatter, a brave journalist is going to spend 10 years in brutal, frightening conditions, at the mercy of a system that would prefer him to be dead. He would not be in Jail if Yahoo had not crossed the line and given the authorities access to his email account.
Sure, Yahoo has to protect it's $1bn investment in Chinese Ecommerce firm Alibaba.com but other companies manage to keep the Chinese authorities happy by censoring bloggers etc (Yahoo already has a strong record of collaborating in censorship) but, so far, other companies have drawn the line at becoming police informants.
And, yes, I understand that companies must obey the laws of the countries they operate in but, you know what, sometimes you have to recognize the difference between pragmatism and evil.
Re:A New Low (Score:2)
You should try it sometime.
SO? Journalists still have to obey the law! (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd do better to rail against similar US laws, including the PATRIOT Act. Journalism borders on espionage, especially when done for a foreign organization. Moreso when it is done for no legitimate purpose.
Lamentably, China makes no pretense at democracy. So gathering political information cannot use the excuse of "informing the voters". Just what what would be done with the information? Used it to titillate and embarrass?
Journalists are not above the law. They are to observe and record, not spy and foment change. When they cross over, they imperil their colleagues everywhere.
well, d'uh! (Score:2)
Tomorrow if the FBI comes to Google or Yahoo or MSN with a warrant, guess what? They will comply with that too.
Expecting a corporation to not follow the laws of the country where they do business is asinine.
How would you like it if the Brits who come to the US started driving on the left side of the road? Hey, they don't like to drive on the right; let them drive on the left!
It is not as if Yahoo volunteered the informat
Sanity check time... (Score:2)
Yahoo is complying with local law enforcement, and is HELPING local law enforcement. In the eyes of their government, Yahoo is being a good citizen.
Yahoo, as a corporation, is not in a position to challenge the government about what is right and not right (especially considering what the Chinese government does in this case), but what is legal and illegal.
You know what? If I ran a services company, and the big-
Let's ask ourselves a quick question... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there was a news report today that Yahoo helped use the information on its network to bring someone that the U.S. Government considered to be, say, a terrorist, to justice, would people be complaining?
Let's be consistent here. It sounds like China considered this guy to be a terrorist of sorts. Doesn't that mean, according to popular fear-driven definitions of justice, that it was right to do whatever was necessary to find him?
I should note, for those who didn't pick it up before now, that I don't mean at all that Yahoo should've actually helped in this effort. On the contrary, I think this should be considered to be a good example of how relative the definition of Terrorist is, and how if we are going to be so indignant about other countries abusing privacy issues to find their so-called "terrorists", perhaps we in the U.S. should not be so complacent as to accept and support when our own country goes on a witch hunt in violation of ethical law.
Profit Motive (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh.. so that's what it boils down to. "There is money to be made there. We have to bend over for their government and/or police, it's our fiduciary responsibility".
Fuck Yahoo. Helping send a person to jail for 10 years for a petty "crime"? I'm sure this will not be lost on the Chinese market, and there goes your "world's biggest Internet market".
Help Me Abort Yahoo! from My Life (Score:3, Interesting)
And now I want out.
Can anyone provide some guidance on an easy way to export about 7 years worth of email out of Yahoo's system? I'm sticking with Google's customized homepage and my Gmail account from now on.
Companies that enable opression. (Score:5, Interesting)
But very few are ever particularly outraged when companies, based in the US, or Canada, or the UK, or some other country that pretend to love freedom and democracy enable these regiems, these dictatorships. That's called business nowadays, and I guess it's acceptable.
Is this the new deal? When do we stand up and boycott these companies in an effective way? Is it even possible anymore? Do enough people care?
Google and China (Score:3, Interesting)
I really wonder what local law means in Burma and Somalia -- is it "do what the local mafia running stuff says?"
In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese Law (Score:3, Interesting)
What a steaming pile of bullcrap! If the story had been that Yahoo! had complied with an investigation into a child molester in the US, then there would have been no story. Yahoo! was simply complying with the laws of a country that Yahoo! has operations in. Big deal.
Yahoo! is a publicly-traded company. Its shareholders want one thing: more money. For Yahoo! to pull out of the biggest growing economy in the world wold be suicide. If they want to operate in China, guess what? They have to abide by Chinese laws. Their only options if they don't are to follow the political process in China to change the laws or to pull out of China entirely. There is no special Most Favored Corporation status that magically protects Yahoo! and makes it so they don't have to follow the laws just because they're popular with a bunch of pimple-faced, 40 year old virgins.
You think China's bad, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Don't just sit here bitching about how someone else didn't.
Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese (Score:5, Interesting)
Yahoo being a "publicly traded company" doesn't absolve them of being complicit with dictatorships.
I don't mind buying Chinese manufactured goods, unless they are made by, for example, prisoners who are being used as slave labor.
Re:In the same news: Yahoo! Complies with Chinese (Score:3, Insightful)
The wishes of a corporation's shareholders does not give the corp a license to do whatever it wants. Also, even if the shareholders want money, that wish is not necessarily preclude them from having morals of their own.
Would Nike's shareholders agree to a plan to build a slave labor shoe manufacturing plant knowing it would translate into large devidends? Or to assassinate the entire board of Reebok?
Yahoo News (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
When in Rome... (Score:4, Insightful)
- Getting fingerprinted at the point of entry.
- Carrying identification papers with you all the time.
- Notifying the proper authorities of any address changes during your stay in the country.
While in US, a foreigner is also:
- Not allowed to be in possession of a firearm.
- Can be detained for about a month without any reason given.
- Does not get a lawyer if they can't afford one.
If you don't like this, well, then don't enter the country. If you are a foreigner, and you DO enter the country, then you agree to abide by the above rules. If you violate them, then you will be persecuted and/or deported.
So, getting back to China. If you are a foreign company working in China, and the authorities come to you and demand that you disclose information about a Chinese citizen, you are hard-pressed to refuse, since, well, you'd be in violation of the laws of the country. Since all corporations are interested in only one thing -- turning profit, -- it is not in their interest to go against direct orders issued by the local authorities, since otherwise they will be persecuted and/or their business license will be withdrawn.
It seems Yahoo did a logical thing. Don't like how the US witholds certain "unalienable rights" from non-citizens? Don't come to the US. Don't like how China witholds certain "unalienable rights" from both citizens and non-citizens? Don't do business with China.
Re:When in Rome... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are quite a few people concerned that freedom is giving way to a police state in the US.
Re:When in Rome... (Score:3, Interesting)
This bothers me because of the cross between politics and business. I understand "obeying the laws of the land" but there's a problem when it fundamentally conflicts with your own beliefs. For instance, in some cases it's illega
famous criminals who broke bad laws (Score:3, Informative)
and neither would:
It is better to break the law, than to enact a bad one.
Welcome to the modern day (Score:3, Insightful)
How can some of you defend Yahoo? (Score:3, Interesting)
More detail for you: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/globalvoices/2005/09/ 06/warning-yahoo-wont-protect-you/ [harvard.edu]
Officials from the Changsha security bureau detained Shi near his home in Taiyuan, Shanxi Province, on November 24, 2004, several months after he e-mailed notes detailing the propaganda ministry's instructions to the media about coverage of the anniversary of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square. Authorities confiscated his computer and other documents and warned his family to stay quiet about the matter.
On December 14, authorities issued a formal arrest order, charging Shi with "leaking state secrets." On April 27, 2005, the Changsha Intermediate People's Court found Shi guilty and sentenced him to a 10-year prison term.
I'm sorry, but what a shocker. China tosses a journalist in jail for 10 years for a mislabled "crime". Here is a picture of this Chinese James Bond http://www.cpj.org/news/2005/China25aug05na.html [cpj.org]
It should be of no suprise to anyone that Tao's appeal was rejected without reason nor public hearing. As is correctly pointed out at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884 [rsf.org] does Yahoo! simply state they are just following a countries law? When do they have ANY ethical considerations? Can the law in China stipulate that child labor is lawfull and Yahoo could practice this under the same defense?
Yahoo is the ONLY American search engine that has agreed to self sensor it's search results. They have invested heavily in China and as a result bow to their every request. "Just follwing the law" is not a defense for Yahoo in my opinion. Self censoring your search results is one thing, cooperating with Chinese security officials to track down an IP address is another.
Here is Mr. Tao's verdict http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Verdict_Shi_Tao.pdf [rsf.org]
Re:Let's invade (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, but they have something else we all can't live without, eh? Most consumer electronics, computers, tools, clothing, etc. There's even a China Motors in Capitola, CA and though I haven't dropped in to see what they're selling, I bet it's a chinese brand of car.
Re:Let's invade (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let's invade (Score:2)
I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did. The current Chinese regime doesn't force a single political party in all government positions, as the Iraqi regime did. The current Chinese regime does not murder anyone who questions government authority, as the Iraqi regime did. Of course, you can get your statistics from a website t
Re:Let's invade (Score:5, Informative)
I had to assume you were referring to Mao because the current Chinese regime has not murdered thousands of its own citizens, as the Iraqi regime did.
Depends on how narrowly you define murder, but the current Chinese regime has taken decisions that have killed hundreds of thousands. The flooding caused by ill advised dam projects, lack of even basic safety standards in major industries (particularily mining) and the low standard of healthcare despite a vast budget for military expenditure are examples of that.
As for not killing dissenters, they are sometimes killed, but the closed trials make it difficult to assess what they are charged with and how convincing the evidence is. Other dissenters are sent to labour camps, and some suffer the old Stalinist favourite of incarceration in mental hospitals - because you'd have to be mad to not want to live under a benevelent Communist party wouldn't you?
Re:Let's invade (Score:4, Funny)
How does that compare to a country that diverted money away from flood defences to the military, leading to thousands of deaths, and doesn't have a national health service despite having the largest economy and greatest military spending in the world?
Re:Let's invade (Score:2)
Re:Let's invade (Score:5, Informative)
Here is what the US State Department has to say about China's MODERN record:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.h
Oh and many ppl will be interested in a little ditty about the USA FROM CHINA:
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng2005030
If you would like an independent assessment, well... independent human rights monitoring organizations did not exist in China in 2002, so all relevant information after 1989, should be considered questionable/incomplete, at best. Good luck getting anything impartial regarding the last couple years. The great firewall has been particularly effective; no thanks to Yahoo.
Re:Let's invade (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.ht m [state.gov]
http://english.people.com.cn/200503/03/eng20050303 _175406.html [people.com.cn]
Re:show me the money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:show me the money (Score:2)
Just because something is a business decision, does not mean that it has no ethical implications.
If you believe it to be reprehensible, then it violates YOUR ethics. But the Chinese ethic (as the government defines it) is not violated here.
And since Yahoo, in China, needs to obey Chinese law, I must say that they did nothing improper. The media watchdog group that is
Re:Just a business decision. (Score:3)
'Nothing personal, it's just business'
Why is this moderated 4 , Interesting? (Score:2)
How's that "interesting"?
Re:Sad (Score:2)