What a Bunch of Yahoos

Did Yahoo rat on a Chinese journalist for leaking state secrets? (By the way, the secrets turned out to be routine instructions on how officials should safeguard social stability during the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen democracy movement.) It's not really clear, but this line from a New York Times piece by Joseph Kahn makes you wonder: "The companies have often said that they must abide by laws and regulations of countries where they operate."

Really? Not breaking the law is one thing, but supplying information to make an arrest (if that's what happened here) is quite another. Since when is Yahoo, or any other Internet company, a law enforcement body? And how do Yahoo and Google justify censoring "sensitive" information from Chinese searches? Is it breaking Chinese law to merely link Web surfers to information they might be looking for? And what qualifies as sensitive? The companies have apparently crossed the line into self-censorship. Then again, no one is willing to be deleted from the Chinese market.

Comments

[Jennifer]

A company putting profits before human rights? Wow, talk about something utterly without historical precedent.

[quasibill]

funny how my reaction to this story differs from Mr. Young's and Jennifer's.

As I think about this possible story, I think how awful it is that the Chinese state forces private actors to conform to its wishes through its monopoly on coercive force. Yeah, if true, Yahoo is morally responsible for its action, but my true repulsion is not for Yahoo, who after all is just as much a victim of the state's bullying, but for the state.

And in an attempt to out-snark Jennifer:

A state, putting self-aggrandizement ahead of human rights? Wow, talk about something utterly without historical precedent...

[Jennifer]

Quasibill--

Yahoo could have made up some bullshit technical excuse as to why it couldn't be found. Or, if Internet companies had moral balls in regards to China, they could all get together and give the Chinese government an ultimatum: cut this bullshit or we'll ALL pull out and you can explain to your one billion citizens why they can no longer use this nifty Internet thing they've grown accustomed to.

And Yahoo is not "a victim of state bullying." Nobody forced them to go to China in the first place.

[eth4n]

You have a lot of reasonable questions but your dealing with communism, unreasonable.

[Dave W.]

Yeah, this is a really messy area.

I don't think the world has even yet sorted out how a modern person should feel about private companies that chose to do business with the Nazi's. Everyone has an opinion, but I get no feeling of moral consencus(es) when good companies abet bad gov'ts.

[quasibill]

"Yahoo could have made up some bullshit technical excuse as to why it couldn't be found. Or, if Internet companies had moral balls in regards to China, they could all get together and give the Chinese government an ultimatum: cut this bullshit or we'll ALL pull out and you can explain to your one billion citizens why they can no longer use this nifty Internet thing they've grown accustomed to."

Agreed, and I noted that Yahoo is responsible for not taking a stand. That said, I could say that you are responsible for the debacle in Iraq - after all, your taxes pay for it, and you could just refuse to pay your taxes and move to Mozambique. That is also true. However, it ignores the larger question of who is the initial aggressor and therefore who is ultimately responsible for the evil. In both cases, it is the state, and not the private individual who is forced to comply with the state.

"And Yahoo is not "a victim of state bullying." Nobody forced them to go to China in the first place."

Once again, noone forced you live in the U.S., or to take your current job. Yet I think you would still make certain arguments that the U.S. government and your boss can "force" you to do things. (While I would agree that the government can "force" you to do things, I would disagree about your boss - but I think I do remember you arguing that employees should be protected from their bosses. If I'm wrong on that recollection, I apologize)

[mobile]

I think Google's Sergey Brin gave a more than adequate justification of Google's Chinese business practices in Wired magazine a while ago:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html

If you believe that the good is the enemy of the perfect, your mileage may vary.

[Jennifer]

I noted that Yahoo is responsible for not taking a stand. That said, I could say that you are responsible for the debacle in Iraq - after all, your taxes pay for it, and you could just refuse to pay your taxes and move to Mozambique.

You're seriously arguing that I have as much control over our Iraq policy as Yahoo has control over its business practices in China?

"And Yahoo is not "a victim of state bullying." Nobody forced them to go to China in the first place." Once again, noone forced you live in the U.S.

And you're also seriously arguing that there is no difference between my being born and raised in the US, and Yahoo's being a United States company that chose to start business in China, even if it means serving in effect as a branch of their secret police?

[Dennis]

Reporters without borders got the verdict with the Yahoo! parts highlighted.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884

[Jigga Wha?]

I cannot fathom why people are hating so much on Yahoo for this.

While I see a point can be made, it's silly to expect a company not to cooperate. Oh certainly they could make a stand here, but then they could also make a stand against those who are trying to prosecute fraud.

----------

Yahoo: Oh, before we tell you this information, what, pray tell, did the offender do?

JingCha: We don't even have to tell you beyond that a crime has been committed, but okay: they revealed state secrets.

Yahoo: Uh, I don't think I'll give that to you then.

JingCha: No, wait! It was child pornography! How's that?

Yahoo: That's better. Here ya go!

[Jason Ligon]

jigga scores.

[Jennifer]

Oh certainly they could make a stand here, but then they could also make a stand against those who are trying to prosecute fraud.

Oh, bullshit. You may as well come out and say "All laws are created equal." Turning in child pornographers=turning in murderers=turning in pot smokers=turning in pro-democracy people to the Chinese government=turning Jews over to the Gestapo.

[quasibill]

Okay, Jennifer, how about this analogy.

You take a job at a company, making $30/hr. As you work, you notice that your supervisor sexually harasses the female administrative staff, and you feel it is a matter of time before he makes some sort of move on you, even though he hasn't yet. Down the street, Mega-Mart has job openings for $7/hr, and has a very public, zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment.

By your logic, staying at your current company makes you evil - you're placing personal profit over morality.

It's the same thing with Yahoo - they're trying to make more money for their employees and stockholders. Can you criticize them for their decisions? Yes. But are they the primary evil to be identified? Only if you agree that you are the primary evil (and not the harasser) in my example.

[Jennifer]

Actually, Quasibill, for your analogy to work, it's more like "My supervisor is looking for a female staff member to harass, and I pick one and turn her over to him."

[joe]

quasibill, I don't see anyone identifying Yahoo(!) as the "primary evil." Obviously, the Chinese police state is the primary evil.

Jennifer is criticizing them for being an accessory, a collaborator, with the primary evil.

[R C Dean]

You're seriously arguing that I have as much control over our Iraq policy as Yahoo has control over its business practices in China?

No, the analogy is that you have as much control over where you live and whether you pay taxes as yahoo does over its business practices in China.

You can question whether your choice of where to live and whether to pay taxes will have as much impact on US policy as Yahoo's choice of business practices would have on Chinese policy, I guess, but in your response above you are mixing apples and oranges.

And you're also seriously arguing that there is no difference between my being born and raised in the US, and Yahoo's being a United States company that chose to start business in China, even if it means serving in effect as a branch of their secret police?

That's a better question, because it raises the issue of the cost you would bear in attempting to influence US policy v. the cost Yahoo would bear in attempting to influence Chinese policy.

So, what if Yahoo exiting the China market costs its shareholders billions, and has no effect whatsoever on Chinese policy because a local 'entrepeneur' who is in the pocket of the Red Army takes over its slot?

[quasibill]

"Actually, Quasibill, for your analogy to work, it's more like "My supervisor is looking for a female staff member to harass, and I pick one and turn her over to him.""

No, an analogy doesn't have to be literal to be instructive. The point is that by working for that supervisor, you enable him to make money and continue harassing females. If everyone just refused to work for him (ala your suggestion about companies refusing to do business in China), he would lose his job and livelihood and power to harass pretty quickly. So the analogy is still valid, no matter how hard you try to avoid answering it.

Joe:

I'm not so sure. As I've pointed out repeatedly, I agree that Yahoo is open to criticism for not taking a stand. But criticizing Yahoo is akin to criticizing Jennifer in my example. Valid, but missing the big picture.

Yahoo is not the primary problem. It is the Chinese government. And if you misidentify the primary problem as capitalism (i.e. Yahoo's pursuit of profit despite its morality) instead of Chinese fascism, you're going to suggest inappropriate solutions.

[Jennifer]

RC and Quasibill, it sounds like you're saying there's nothing wrong with making a buck by collaborating with evil governments, because if you don't do it someone else will, anyway, so why not let YOUR stockholders be the ones to benefit from blood money?

[quasibill]

Keep ducking and juking, Jennifer. Throw up some straw-men while you're at it. Anything to avoid answering the question...

ONCE AGAIN - I agree that Yahoo can be criticized for its actions. However, it is NOT the primary problem here. And you can only criticize Yahoo if you admit that you are also free to take less money whenever your boss does something that you disagree with.

[Jennifer]

Quasibill--

Speaking of strawmen, when did I EVER say Yahoo was the primary problem? But I DO think they're slimy for turning in that man to the Chinese government.

[Jennifer]

Quasibill, again--

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're saying that, until the Chinese government fixes itself, companies may as well make money for their stockholders and just go along with whatever the government wants. And if that means turning pro-democracy people over to the tender mercies of the Chinese government, then so be it.

If I'm wrong, please explain what you really are saying.

[joe]

quasibill, might I interrupt your peformance of "Elegy for a Straw Man in D Minor" to point out that Jennifer didn't blame "capitalism." She blamed "Yahoo!"

It's a recurring problem that every self-interested decision someone with money makes is "capitalism," and must therefore be defended to the death on the grounds that "capitalism is good."

No, I don't believe working with evil to enrich your stockholders is a corporate management's duty. In Nuremburg, people were put in prison for that kind of thing.

(Oh no you di'int! Oh no he di'int!)

[quasibill]

Jennifer:

I started off by noting that my initial reaction was different from yours - that instead of blasting Yahoo, I would blast the Chinese government. You responded with, among others:

"Or, if Internet companies had moral balls in regards to China, they could all get together and give the Chinese government an ultimatum: cut this bullshit or we'll ALL pull out and you can explain to your one billion citizens why they can no longer use this nifty Internet thing they've grown accustomed to."

Once again, I made a comment that while Yahoo is in the wrong, the real problem is the Chinese government, and that Yahoo is also a victim of the coercive monopoly the Chinese government enjoys. You responded with all sorts of attacks surrounded with talk about Yahoo's freedom to choose. To which I responded, I agree, but then noted that if you want to be consistent in your belief that Yahoo is free to take less money by taking a moral stand, you must apply that same standard to yourself. And I'm pretty sure that I've seen you talk about being "forced" to do things by your employer because it is so hard for you to find high-paying jobs. You still haven't responded to that challenge. If you want to hold Yahoo accountable for its action in seeking money, you must also admit that you are free to take a job at Wal-Mart if your boss imposes a condition on employment that you disagree with. After all, the big difference between the jobs is - gasp - the profit you personally make from them.

[quasibill]

Wait, Joe's found Mr. Bolger himself!

"It's a recurring problem that every self-interested decision someone with money makes is "capitalism," and must therefore be defended to the death on the grounds that "capitalism is good.""

Never said that, nor even came close to making that defense. What I'm saying is 1) the primary problem isn't an evil corporation placing profits above human rights, it's an evil state placing self-aggrandizement above human rights; and 2) that if you want to justifiably hold Yahoo to task for placing profits above morality, be sure you apply the same standard to yourself - don't be caught complaining about conditions your boss places on your employment. You're as free to pursue a lower paying job as Yahoo is free to avoid making money in China.

"No, I don't believe working with evil to enrich your stockholders is a corporate management's duty. In Nuremburg, people were put in prison for that kind of thing."

Hmm. And here I thought that the people punished at Nuremberg were the people who used the state's power to commit atrocities. And now I find out that all the Nazi officers and officials were really evil corporate capitalists...

Again, I agree that morally, you can ding Yahoo. But to equate what they are doing with Nazis, or even the Maoists, is losing perspective to a degree that your position loses all credibility.

[Jennifer]

Quasibill--

Outside of my ex-teaching experience, when have I ever talked about doing evil things because I was paid to do so?

And I highly, HIGHLY doubt that my boss--or even that SOB principal I used to work for--would ever ask me to put a man into a Chinese concentration camp, so your example still doesn't hold water.

Furthermore, your examples assume that I already have a job and then--surprise!--my employer says I have to do something evil if I want to keep it. That was NOT the case with Yahoo--they knew, going in to this Chinese deal, that they'd have to toe the government line, and there's no way they can say they didn't know what that would be.

So I ask again--do you think that companies should just go along with the demands of an evil government until the government decides to fix itself?

[joe]

"Hmm. And here I thought that the people punished at Nuremberg were the people who used the state's power to commit atrocities."

Then you need to read more about Nuremburg.

[stubby]

Yahoo sucks. Yes, getting out of China could cost their shareholders - but they should do it anyway. And so should Google. Anyone remember South Africa?

I changed my nom de post over to a Hotmail account.

[quasibill]

Jennifer:

"until the Chinese government fixes itself, companies may as well make money for their stockholders and just go along with whatever the government wants."

For the umpteenth time - they (Yahoo) are morally wrong, IMHO. However, to focus on them as the problem is to lose all perspective on the problem. Absent the Chinese government's use of coercive force, would there even be a problem?

Talk of corporations ignoring human rights for profit misses the point. It's the state that is the problem, and yes, Yahoo is also a victim of that state. They wouldn't voluntarily imprison a peaceful customer absent the state's coercion.

And again, it's easy to rail about an evil corporation placing profits above all else - but make sure you look long and hard in the mirror when you say that. The day you work for a boss that does something you don't agree with because it will be hard to find a job that pays as well is the day you make exactly the same decision Yahoo made in this instance.

Morally wrong? Sure. Worthy of being compared to a Nazi or Maoist? I don't think so.

[Jennifer]

Quasibill--

I will ask AGAIN--Do you think companies should just go along with the demands of an evil government until the government decides to fix itself?

No need to bring up any hypotheticals about my own job. A simple "yes" or "no" will do, though an explained "yes" or "no" would be better.

[quasibill]

"Then you need to read more about Nuremburg.
"

enlighten me Joe. You might be surprised to find out what I know about Nuremberg.

Jennifer:

I believe I have seen you make comments disparaging libertarians thusly "Vote Libertarian, because your boss doesn't have enough power over your life!" If I'm wrong there, let me know. But that sentiment is DIRECTLY contradictory with your stand on Yahoo.

A libertarian believes that you have not only the freedom, but the moral duty, to not do business only with people you agree with. So if you think your boss's conditions of employment are overreaching, you have not only the freedom, but the duty to quit and take another job, or go into business for yourself. After all, all you are losing by quitting is -gasp- profits.

[Phil]

You know, there's another larger issue here, even outside of Jennifer's entirely legitimate concerns about making moral compromises to protect profit: The Internet in China, despite the continuing efforts of the government to completely filter and censor it, brings information about the world and about Western society and culture to the Chinese people that they might not otherwise get, and that kind of information flow is absolutely critical to political liberalization. To that extent, it would be not only unreasonably but the height of folly to want Western-based companies to get out of China completely.

Shorter: Sometimes you have to deal with the devil, and take the least-bad option. And two people who argued yesterday -- correctly -- that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein than under what they have now and their future theocratic state should know that.

[Jennifer]

Quasibill--

Yes, I made that comment, but it wasn't about a boss ordering an employee to do something evil. My boss ordering ME to sleep with him is vastly different from my boss ordering me to rape someone else.

So--do you think companies should go along with the demands of an evil government until the government stops being evil?

[quasibill]

Jennifer, I'm beginning to think you are purposefully avoiding this. I have answered your question at least three times over. Here's number 4:

No. Yahoo should not be doing business in China if the Chinese government forces it to do violates its morality. However, if by refusing to do business with China it actually harms more citizens (think about trading in grain or possibly oil), it can make a nuanced moral decision to continue trade.

Now, will you answer my challenge, or will you continue to duck it and ask me to supply my position for the 5th time?

Do you hold yourself to the same standard you are holding Yahoo? Do you violate your moral standards for mere lucre because you don't want to go into business for yourself, with all the risk and loss of profit that entails?

[Jennifer]

Sometimes you have to deal with the devil, and take the least-bad option. And two people who argued yesterday -- correctly -- that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein than under what they have now and their future theocratic state should know that.

Phil--
If this thread's topic were about Yahoo using filters to keep out ideas the Chinese government didn't like, I'd agree with you completely. But this is about Yahoo helping the Chinese government PUT A MAN IN PRISON. Big difference.

[Jennifer]

Do you hold yourself to the same standard you are holding Yahoo? Do you violate your moral standards for mere lucre because you don't want to go into business for yourself, with all the risk and loss of profit that entails?

I can honestly say that I have never helped a corrupt government --or anybody else--take away an innocent man's freedom. So yes, I'm holding Yahoo to the same standard I'm holding myself.

[Jennifer]

Do you hold yourself to the same standard you are holding Yahoo? Do you violate your moral standards for mere lucre because you don't want to go into business for yourself, with all the risk and loss of profit that entails?

I can honestly say that I have never helped a corrupt government --or anybody else--take away an innocent man's freedom. So yes, I'm holding Yahoo to the same standard I'm holding myself.

[quasibill]

"My boss ordering ME to sleep with him is vastly different from my boss ordering me to rape someone else."

But the underlying point is the same - you are free to quit. The only thing stopping you is the $$$$. If you don't accept that proposition, you can't say that Yahoo is free to pass up the chance at money either. Otherwise you're applying a higher standard of morality to Yahoo than you do to yourself.

[Phil]

If this thread's topic were about Yahoo using filters to keep out ideas the Chinese government didn't like, I'd agree with you completely. But this is about Yahoo helping the Chinese government PUT A MAN IN PRISON. Big difference.

Yes -- something to which your immediate reaction appears to have been, "Yahoo out of China now!" rather than, "Stop doing that, Yahoo."

[Lowdog]

phil, I also made a similar comment in the same thread you're referring to from yesterday.

I was saying how I used to be so pissed that China was our most-favoured nation in trade status because of their human rights abuses. I now realise that is a backwards attitude. We should be trading with China like a motherfucker...look what capitalism, or at least beginngin to embrace capitalism, as done for China. They've gotten much more wealthy, and as a result, they've liberalised somewhat.

Now I also realise that China still sucks and is highly oppressive, but just pulling out because they're oppressive is exactly the opposite of what we should do. If Yahoo and every other western-nation corp pulled out, would the Chinese people have as much chance to continue to increase their freedom? No, because it would reduce their wealth, and reduce their access to the western world, where they see that there is a better way than what they're living under now.

[joe]

quasibill,

Then perhaps you know about the owners and management mof Krupp, IG Farben, and others who were tried for crimes against humanity and sentenced for doing nothing more than operating their businesses according to the laws that were in effect in Nazi Germany? If Krupp had refused to utilize the slave labor provided to them, they would have been shut down and bankrupted, just as surely as Yahoo's Chinese division would be if they'd refused to turn in the suspect the Chinese government sought. Their executives got prison time.

[Anon]

Jennifer,

Wouldn't your position basically preclude any investment from democratic countries into China?

Anon

[Jigga Wha?]

Okay, this strange harrasment analogy is way over my head.

Jennifer,

Yes, if you believe the CCP is evil, and that any company investing in the country is evil, you've got a long list of companies to boycott. In fact, I'd say companies like Cisco and MS who actively sell to the government and aid in their censoring of the internet over here (yes, I'm currently behind the Great Firewall of China). Also note that this was the HK-listed Yahoo, and was probably a mainland office.

But if you read the verdict, the only thing that Yahoo provided (officially) was the IP address. They would have to do this anywhere. If the DEA requests they reveal information on a suspected pot-smoker, they'd have to do it. Do you think smoking pot is punishable while reporting isn't? Than you'd better divest from the USA.

Yes, it sucks that Yahoo provided the info. The honorable thing to do would have been to "lose" the info during a server crash. But there are plenty of Chinese working in Yahoo who support the CCP. This man's prison time is on their hands. But there are plently of other unfair laws in other countries (Nazism in Europe anyone?).

I'm not saying it's good that Yahoo did this. But I don't see how a local office obeying domestic law is outrageous. A company or citizen obeying a law is not outrageous. The fascist law is outrageous.

Your moral absolutism gives one little choice about what to do: we cannot support any company that is located in China. I do not think this is a good thing; not good for us, not good for Chinese citizens, and not even good for Chinese dissidents.

[Jennifer]

Anon--

There's a difference between investing in China, versus actively helping the Chinese government oppress its people.

And I don't know what the hell Quasibill is talking about, if he sees no difference between a boss who would oppress me, versus a boss who would force me to oppress someone else. The difference is: me possibly suffering, versus me making someone else suffer.

Phil--
Considering what Yahoo has done, I think they should pull out of China, or at the very least the Yahoo employees who made the decision to turn over that man's records should be fired without any severance or other benefits.

[Jigga Wha?]

Back to my original point, though: It's likely that Yahoo wasn't even informed of the charges brought against the man. The police probably just asked for the identity of one of their users, without needing to cite a specific crime. This is not America, the police can demand an awful lot without reason. (another tidbit: there is no right to remain silent in China; you don't tell the cops what they want, you go to jail). Is it morally reprehensible to cooperate with a totalitarian government, and you have no way of knowing whether the "crime" committed conforms to your ethics? (This was the source of my kiddy-porn/state secret comparison)

[Jigga Wha?]

Yikes, incomplete sentences, unrevised phrases, muddled reasoning... writing is hard! I'll go back to curt snark, thank you very much.

[Anon]

Jennifer,

If you invest in China you do so at the pleasure of the Chinese government. As Jigga points out, if that government asks you for information -- and they are not obligated to tell you what that information is for -- what are you to do? If they say it is for a murder investigation, do you ask for further evidence? Should Yahoo declare its own sovereign principles and refuse to participate in any government action (by any government) that it opposes? Suppose it decides not to provide any information towards drug arrests in the U.S., or suppose it decides not cooperate with any government that maintains a death penalty?

In the long run, I think the Chinese government's desire to control information is antithetical to Yahoo (and Google's) business model, which requires providing users with any and all of the information they might like. When that opposition becomes obvious, the Chinese government will always win -- that's what the government does. If Yahoo is too uncooperative it will get kicked out, and some other service will take its place. (While you advocate moral collective bargaining on the part of service providers, surely there is too great an incentive for one of those providers to defect.) In fact, kicking out multi-national providers might suit the Chinese strategy of creating a centralized Chinese information hub. I believe the best protection against that is for corporations to force themselves _into_ the Chinese market, even under compromised circumstances, so as to strain the government's filtering capacity. Yes, some of these companies will be feckless toadies for the government, but some will also work to undermine it. (Some will be feckless toadies who nonetheless end up undermining the government.)

That being said, I recognize the concern that companies like Yahoo and Google might become too obsequious/too complacent in their relationship with the Chinese government. And I do think one way to protect against this is to disseminate stories like this far and wide in order to bring upon the Chinese government the opprobrium it deserves and to provide cover/encouragement for those who might want to push the limits of Chinese government's tolerance of/filtering technology for search engines, chat rooms, blogs, etc.

All of which is to say that rather than shun the Chinese market, I would prefer that Yahoo/Google be more transparent about their dealings in it.

Anon

[Ed Walsh]

Next thing you know, Google and Yahoo employees in china will be having blood orgies with St. Bernards.

Those damn Chinese killing puppies! Why must they be so different from us?!?!?

Really, Google already censors itself. An example of its policy can be seen here. Copyright infringement not the same as divulging state secrets? Jigga Wha? said it better than I could.