Comments

My, isn't it great that both these companies have the luxury of being based in the US, so they can have the freedom to make these stupid decisions. Makes me sick. I never use Yahoo for anything, and I would boycott Microsoft if I could. Better to be there than not be there? Better for who? What a load of crap.

Posted by Mike at January 17, 2006 1:38 PM

I think this happens all the time and should be avoided.

Another thing to think about: when we, inside our companies, help the bosses to fire people spying what they are doing.

Posted by Jônatas Gardin at January 17, 2006 1:58 PM

Steve, long time no speak !! Actually there is a roaring debate out there on this issue. MSFT has to tread carefully like any other company. The difference between Yahoo was that the server physcially resided in Chinese Terrotiry so therefore YAHOO had to comply with the law of the land.

However, with MSFT they turned off the UserPage on the server within the US.

Rebecca M
broke the Anti story and this caught like wildfire within blogsphere..

U.S. companies also have an obligation, as leaders in a global medium defined by open information, to protect basic rights of individuals to express themselves without censorship — within reason.

"Within reason" are the key words here. It is within reason for China to demand that U.S. companies comply with Chinese laws and regulations. What is not within reason is a Chinese demand for compliance with unwritten whims.

These issue are being faced in Saudia Arabia, Yeman, Jordan , Korea etc etc..

Demarcation of freedom and the right of speech is still a digtial divide on the internet..all companies are facing this problem...eg. why does not Google (n china) have anti chinese propoganda indexed and displayed in chinese -even though the farms is outside China ??

Posted by /pd at January 17, 2006 2:44 PM

Out of the question; a blatant disregard for what it is to be American (questionable under current Administration ruling) -- while this is largely a gray area, any corporation delving into this much dirt better start to question their own corporate values; and the managers, their personal beliefs.

Posted by Brady J. Fret at January 17, 2006 3:05 PM

> I would boycott Microsoft if I could

You can. What's stopping you? There ARE other options (Mac, Linux, etc) for most applications (heck, you could run a university or corporation on free software alone--try a full-featured LiveCD like Knoppix or Ubuntu Linux to get an idea of what's out there).

I'm not being a rabid anti-MS protester--I blush to admit that I use Windows still for gaming--but it's important to realize that you the end user DO have a choice about what OS and applications you choose to use. There are options besides Microsoft.

(well, unless your workplace dictates it, as mine does; I understand that situation well enough)

Posted by VPutz at January 17, 2006 3:06 PM

This is a real dilema. From the American perspective, I can understand the initial repulsive reaction. On the other hand I don't think it's a given that corporations have the right or moral responsibility to be above the law in the jurisdiction they are in. That's sort of what Enron, WorldCOM, and others did, isn't it? We are right to debate which jurisdiction applies. I don't know. I do know we are on one planet and someday we'll all act accordingly.

Posted by Rob Schneider at January 17, 2006 3:44 PM

Let's not be too naive here. Do you honestly think that ISP's in various countries never, ever work with their host government in the identification of various crimes? I suspect that most people would not object to this happening if it was to detect, punish or prevent the dissemination of child porn or material inciting religous or racial or political hatred. Where do you draw the line or should the web be a gigantic free-for-all?

If governments have legal power to do as they have in these cases, then should the criticism be directed at those companies that comply with the law - even if we think it is a patently unfair one - or should it be directed against those governments? And if it should be directed at the companies, then what about all the other Western companies not involved but who trade with a Government that takes actions we find anti-democratic? Do we boycott every company trades with China?

Posted by Mark J Foscoe at January 17, 2006 3:53 PM

Mark :"Do we boycott every company trades with China?" - All companies have a due dilgence process to follow, to ensure and sustain share holder values for business within China.

No campany will stop working with China- the cost of stopping is just too much, (global economy). Likewise, the Chinese regime, cant and will not permit a uprasing via digital speech, the ramifcations are huge !!

Posted by /pd at January 17, 2006 4:03 PM

VPutz: Yeah, I knew someone would point that out. Well, let's just say that the cost would be more than I can bear at this time, OK?

No corporation has the obligation to abide by laws that are in themselves corrupt and unjust. Do not ever (EVER) equate the actions of Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and others who toady up to these criminal gov'ts with the criminal actions of Enron. Apples and oranges for pity's sake!

Posted by Mike at January 17, 2006 5:16 PM

Hmmm. This seemed like an easy issue until I actually thought about it for a few minutes while reading through the comments.

Say you're Microsoft. Do you shut down the specific user page, or let China boycott all of your pages? Would shutting down the one page achieve more in the end for freedom of expression? And this of course doesn't even address the liability of shareholder lawsuits.

If I'm China, I have the upper hand. Microsoft wants me to crack down on a massive copyright infringement, so if I'm going to help them, they had better do something in return. I don't know enough about yahoo, other than that they've been in China for a long time and it is doubtless a critical market to their bottom line.

The sad part is that the Chinese government could very well be holding US companies hostage in order to access their market. I've been reading "One Billion Customers" and am mortified that they play by zero sum rules. They win, we lose? For now maybe.

Personally, I fall into the camp that it is better to be there than to not be there. Attitudes change considerably as an economy develops. One billion consumers = one billion jobs. That's a lot of promises that need to be delivered.

Posted by Paul Davidson at January 17, 2006 7:33 PM

I think you do your readers a disservice by linking only to a third hand source. There was a time when the Times did complete reporting but those days are long gone. For starters I would recommend sending readers to:
Rebecca McKinnon who broke the story originally and has been highly critical of Microsoft, Google and Yahoo over China - http://rconversation.blogs.com/rconversation/
Mike Torres who works for MSN - http://spaces.msn.com/members/mc The Times appears to be quoting Mike BTW.
You might even point people to a Chinese blogger who, believe it or not, thinks the Chinese government is the big problem here and that the Chinese people are the ones who need to fix the problem. http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/
All have several posts on the subject. You’re late to the conversation as it has been going on for two weeks. This means you have a responsibility to do a little research and provide a lot more data before opening the floor to questions.

Posted by Alfred Thompson at January 17, 2006 9:26 PM

Thanks to all for the extra links and comments.

Posted by Steve Yastrow at January 17, 2006 10:10 PM

Look at things from the dissidents' perspective. If you were a Chinese dissident, and you knew that Yahoo/Microsoft had a hand in putting you in jail or shutting down your blog, would you still consider America a protector of freedom? I think not.

So Microsoft's argument that it's better for them to be there, than not, is hypocritical. Imagine....all these great American companies give you tools to express yourself openly, and when you do, they help your government put you in jail.

I think China can legitimately do what it pleases, like putting dissidents in jail. That's their right. But we don't have to toe that line. There are some baseline ethics that we have (eg freedom of expression), that we shouldn't compromise on. We've got to make that clear to the Chinese government. I think the sad part is that American companies in China have betrayed the founding fathers of the United States. They didn't say that freedom was only for the Americans, other people be damned. If I were a Microsoft or Yahoo shareholder, I'd be happier with lower profits but a clear conscience - I wouldn't stay in China.

Posted by Chetan Dhruve at January 17, 2006 11:13 PM

Echoing what's been said - as there are alternatives to Microsoft and Yahoo! it only needs a few incidents like this to mobilise discontent and educate the arrogant "suits" that run these companies about the ultimate power of the (free to speak) consumer.

Posted by Mick Coleman at January 18, 2006 7:10 AM

***"You’re late to the conversation as it has been going on for two weeks. This means you have a responsibility to do a little research and provide a lot more data before opening the floor to questions."***

Of course, more research is always nice, but sometimes overly researched pieces can thwart a discussion (sure it's all covered); and I'm tiring of people demanding that every post on a blog is "hot", breaking news. The reality is, people are still having active debates on Roe vs. Wade and other dinosaur subjects. Banter is good, even if the news is old. A new audience makes it a new discussion. If we stopped discussing issues that were over 2 weeks old, our history would be very foggy. Like technology, there is an absorbtion curve that takes significant time to spread to the vast majority. And even longer to be expanded to its full potential.

Now, on topic (sort of) - I saw an interesting movie yesterday about the delicate nature of the First Amendment. The film was called "Deliberate Intent" with Timothy Hutton (made in 2000 by the way). In it, a staunch First Amendment advocate takes on a case to sue a publisher for selling a book that happens to be a manual for hit men. Apparently, it was used by one hit man in preparation for his 'job'. It was based on a true story, and it was the first time that a publisher lost a case defended by the First Amendment.

The first amendment, however, does not apply to China; and we cannot legally present it in an argument there. Many companies choose to do business in other parts of the world - and the political price of doing so is well known to them before they begin - concessions are made regularly. It gets even messier in multi-national settings. When I was working with NATO in Kosovo, many decisions and comprimises were reached that wouldn't have been necessarily applauded or supported on our own soil.

To use a quote from 'Barfly', "That's just the nature of the way things works."

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 18, 2006 7:22 AM

Should we boycott our own US Government for making concessions of diplomacy across the world? You might be shocked if you spent some time shadowing a US Ambassador, or any US representative on foreign soil.

Diplomacy is a tricky businesses, and it isn't only a governmental game - large corporations depend on good dimplomatic relations as much as governments do.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 18, 2006 7:33 AM

It's not up to us to impose our own morale / ethical and legal opinions on another country. MS or Yahoo want to do business in China then they have to play by THEIR rules.

Our opinion is immaterial.

Posted by Ed Byrne at January 18, 2006 9:09 AM

China is a merchantile fascist regime that can be reformed over coming years and decades - must stay engaged with them to do it.

They have been master theives of intellectual property, citizens' rights, ecological artifacts, product knock-offs, et al for decades - the new IT shines a bright laser light on their deviance and they'll have to reform to stay in tune with World-wide prosperity.

Posted by Sean at January 18, 2006 9:30 AM

"It's not up to us to impose our own moral / ethical and legal opinions on another country. MS or Yahoo want to do business in China then they have to play by THEIR rules."...

OH YES IT IS UP TO US - i'm afraid we do have a duty to impose basic human rights on whoever offends them, there are some things that are human, not national.. and being free to express yourself is one of them...

is this yet another case of big american corporations hearing cash registers ring? this time drowning out the screams of tortured chinese citizens? is it any wonder that a large part of the free world, in the last 4 or 5 years, has changed it's attitude towards american corporations (proxy for american govt?)... surely at some point you cannot ignore the morale imperative!

Posted by science consultant at January 18, 2006 11:41 AM

Corporations (companies in the UK) are made up of individuals. Everyone has their own opinion. None of us can hide behind the corporate view. Nazism was only defeated 60 years ago.

I couldn't sleep at night if my actions (inactions?) resulted in some poor person having to rot in a third world jail for ten years.

Posted by Stuart Jones at January 18, 2006 1:06 PM

Isn't it the action of the individual that is the cause for him being in jail...certainly he knew there was a risk of being caught. Did Yahoo ever claim to our friendly dissident that they would conceal his identity from the Chinese government?

Furthermore don't corporations have an obligation to work with in the laws of a country with which they do business?

Finally, isn't the presence of companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft more likely to result in political change in change (as opposed to those companies avoiding this market altogether in order due to this sort of controversy).

Posted by Bryan at January 18, 2006 2:17 PM

In the Texas, murder may result in the death penalty. Suppose a UK company has technology that helps law enforcement capture criminals. Should this company still do business in Texas given that back home the death penalty is considered morally wrong? Shoud the company do business but not comply with or sell to law enforcement...maybe even sabatoge the efforts with faulty product? If they do business and their product leads to an arrest and conviction there may be a backlash back on the island (UK)...the Texas market is large and lucrative, should this company care what people think at home?

Posted by Bryan at January 18, 2006 2:24 PM

> China is a merchantile fascist regime that can be reformed over coming years and decades - must stay engaged with them to do it.

well said.

> They have been master theives of intellectual property, citizens' rights, ecological artifacts, product knock-offs, et al for decades

same here.

> the new IT shines a bright laser light on their deviance and they'll have to reform to stay in tune with World-wide prosperity.

explain.?

Posted by mike at January 18, 2006 3:44 PM

I do have to chuckle a bit when I hear about American morality. I'm an American, and c'mon - we have legalized prostitution ranches in some states and strip clubs in most others. Promiscuity, glutony, greed, hatred, corruption and obesity are rife in our culture - we like to live large and party hard, and don't let anyone stand in our way when we do. There isn't too much that goes on in the world that doesn't happen in our own backyard - sanctioned or not. Let's not pretend that we are some monks living on a hilltop in search of peace over prosperity. We are capitalists, and we define wealth in our society almost exclusively by the amount of money that we have. Is anyone surprised that American companies have historically, and continually, turned a blind eye to unethical or immoral practices when a deal is about to close?

And when someone chooses to come into our house to play, we expect them to play by our rules. Well, I'm afraid that China, like 'em or not, have the same right to expect the same of us when we play in their house.

Anyone who thinks that large American corporations are more concerned about morality than the mighty dollar aren't in tune with American business, where profit is the bottomline. I think that there is a shift in this regard, but it will be years before anything comes before the greenback. And as consumers, we'll sleep with almost anyone, as long as they give us the best price. Does Nike still use child labor for their manufacturing? Even when they did, we bought them.

But we're free to talk about it, and that's the difference.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 18, 2006 4:32 PM

I agree Tom.

As the saying goes - When in Rome...

Let's look at it like this. Pretend you're visiting a foreign country and you get a speeding ticket for doing 25 in a residential zone, and it's posted 20mph is the limit. You can't argue that where you live you can do 25 so the ticket is not appropriate to be given. where to buy viagra in canada

Posted by Tony May / Mayday Media at January 18, 2006 9:31 PM

Profits over values. Thank goodness the founding fathers of America did not think like Microsoft or Yahoo. Imagine the great heroes of the world (Jesus Christ, The Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Vietnam War protestors)using this kind of logic. What kind of world would we live in? What we have to ask ourselves though is "What would I do if I were in that position?"

Posted by Thomas Alexander at January 19, 2006 12:49 AM

Tom ... strip clubs are as immoral as 10 years in jail for writing an email?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at January 19, 2006 3:16 AM

That's the point Steve. How do we define immorality? Who has the right to define it for us? If I was a staunch conservative religious extremist (like Pat Robertson for example - lol), then prostitution would be more immoral than going to jail for writing an email (because prostitution would be considered a carnal sin whereas the other is merely an injustice). Others of us would have no problem at all with prostitution, and actually support the business regularly. I'm not extreme in either way - sort of an agnostic on the issue, searching for truth in objective perspective.

As Bryan mentioned above, many people (even many within the US) would believe that killing someone for a crime (even murder) is harsh justice. But we don't leave America if we don't believe in it. If it affects us to any great degree, we do what we can to change it - we protest, we campaign, etc.

To say that a company should leave a country because there is injustice in that country would be hypocritical of any of us. There is injustice EVERYWHERE in the world, not just in China. Yes, there is even injustice in our good 'ole US of A. How many innocent people spent time incarcerated (or electrocuted) because of an innefective justice system. How many children died from abuse as a consequence of a non-responsive system? Injustice happens everywhere.

where to buy real viagra without prescription Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 19, 2006 6:44 AM

Dear Microsoft and Yahoo: "not only must you do things right, you must do the right things". Shame on you both.

Posted by Andrea Riccio at January 19, 2006 10:02 AM

There is a difference between complying with laws where companies are physically within a country's boundaries and when the servers are located somewhere else. Just like there is a difference between political commentary and child porn.

Companies have the responsibility to protect their employees from governments where they do business. I contend, however, that moral responsibility should trump the profit motive. But what do I know?

Posted by Tom Dillard at January 19, 2006 10:06 AM

Sure. Make excuses. Say that "we" don't have any right to impose our own standards of legality and morality on other sovereign nations. That doesn't cut it any more. Never shbould have. What's wrong is wrong and what's right is right whether you are in China or somewhere else.

And to say that it's OK because diplomats do it and the US gov't does it is just hogwash. Two wrongs and all that.

And what the heck does any of this have to do with prostitution and strip clubs? Apples and oranges, I think.

Why must people make excuses for the behavior of companies or countries? Profits are actually better for those companies that keep one thing in mind--to serve mankind. Henry Ford proved it decades ago. If these companies focus on serving humanity, as well as helping societies improve, the profits will flow like water.

Posted by Mike at January 19, 2006 5:00 PM

Mike, we can't impose our own standards of morality and legality. We can choose not to do business with nations, but we can't force them to change their methods of punishment because we punish differently (personally I think the death penalty is a joke)

Your take is somewhat utopian. The reality is that big business is cut throat. Microsoft, Yahoo and a host of other large US corporations bend to China or anyone else because they tally the tote at the end of the day. Very few shareholder decisions are made because of someone's moral compass. And as consumers, we're just as bad. Many people, for example, knew that Nike and other clothing manufacturers were using child labor, but many of us turned a blind eye because we liked the product and the price was right.

And we can't just go around the world imposing our view of morality on other nation states in the world. Well, we can, and perhaps Microsoft and Yahoo did - but the host nation has every right to say feck off - and the visiting company will make a decision, based on what? The balance sheet.

Diplomatic negotiation is a fact, and has been for ever - in governments and large corporations. Deals are made and compromises met. It might not be right, but it's the way that it's done - give and take.

Prostitution and strip clubs were only brought into the discussion to show how foggy morality can be. Your definition of morality may be very different to mine. And ours might be very different to China's. And China's might be very different from Ireland's. It's situational. And in this case a stiff jail term was imposed. If it was a beheading or an eye gouging it might be different. But wait, oh, we do business with Saudi Arabia where those things actually occur. Why? Because money talks in a capatalist society.

Wouldn't it be great if we all just loved each other and lived harmoniously. I'd be all for that, but I think we'd all need a large dose of opium for that to be our reality. Capatalists focus on money - we are capatalists.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 19, 2006 5:32 PM

One more point. We can't even agree what is considered moral behavior within our own society. How can we determine another nations moral liine? Have you ever passed by a 'family planning clinic' where abortions were being carried out, and witnessed the incensed debate? There is constant struggle in our own country about where the moral line should be drawn. Some protestors are so sure of their moral stance that they shoot to kill. Should they be able to impose their moral judgement on you? Should your neighbour be able to tell you what is moral and what isn't in your life and demand that changes be made?

This is a big world, with many different beliefs, religions and cultures. There is no one RIGHT religion. There is no one RIGHT belief. There is no one RIGHT culture.

The Buddhists on mountain tops in Tibet probably have the most harmonious existence among us. Should we all become Buddhists? Where there is an abundance of money, there is rarely an abundance of morality.

Here's a case of even greater injustice that what is happening in China - and it happened right here in our own back yard:

FLORIDA . The Cost Of The Three Strikes Law..
Judge Opposes $20 Life Sentence..
Three-Strikes Law Gives Court No Choice
WKMG-TV/DT Orlando | 7.16.03 --

A judge reluctantly gave a man life in prison after a $20 burglary, saying he had no choice under a state law that requires such terms for repeat offenders. Circuit Judge Bob Wattles called the punishment unjust and unfair. I don't have the authority or the power to not sentence you to life, Wattles told Maurice Leonard Reed, 37, of nearby Apopka, at his Tuesday sentencing.

Prosecutors had designated Reed a prison release re-offender under a state law that requires harsher penalties for some repeat offenders. Reed was charged in February with robbery and burglary from an attempted undercover drug buy. He had jumped into an undercover officer's car and offered to sell him drugs. When the deputy was distracted, Reed snatched a $20 bill from his hand, hit him in the face and jumped out of the car. He was convicted last month.

The Florida statute, in place since 1997, lets prosecutors seek enhanced sentences for people who commit certain felonies, such as burglary, within three years of release from prison. As of the end of May, 302 people have been sentenced statewide under the law this year, according to the Florida Department of Corrections.

Reed's attorney, Christopher Smith, said he will appeal, challenging the burglary conviction.
I just felt this was a little overzealous, Smith said.

During his sentencing hearing, Reed acknowledged that he had led a life of crime. He has had convictions ranging from aggravated battery with a deadly weapon to cocaine and heroin sales.

I know I've made some mistakes in my life, Reed told the judge. I don't think putting me away for life is going to bring on justice. I just come to the court for mercy.

The judge said his hands were tied and noted that the cost of Reed's incarceration will be $560,000 if he lives to be age 75. You might get an appellate review, the judge said. You might have one glimmer of hope. Good luck, Mr. Reed.

Should foreign investors stop doing business with the US?

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 19, 2006 6:19 PM

I think another big question that comes up is ' What would China have done if these companies had refused their request? Would they really have asked them to leave? Obviously this is pure postulation since no one knows what would have happened. Could not these guys at least put up a pretense of a fight for the sake of freedom? Even if they finally gave in to the demand the fact that they tried would have won points with me.

Posted by Thomas Alexander at January 20, 2006 1:09 AM

It is likely that there were discussions and negotiations Thomas. Large companies don't act on a cease and desist until all avenues are explored by their legal teams.

ISPs all over the world face this situation more regularly than many might think (especially since Spam became a serious issue), and a balance between client interests and the law must be met continually.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 20, 2006 2:39 AM

Sorry Tom, your equivocating isn't cutting it with me. I'm too set in my opinions to be swayed by the arguments you present. But, that's just me. I think "we" can certainly impose our own standards of morality and legality on other countries when it comes to the basic rights of mankind as put forth in the Bill of Rights. Right and wrong don't change when you cross a border. That's just the way I see it, nor does the argument that it should be OK because someone else did something wrong sway me either. My opinion: Yahoo and Microsoft did something wrong and should be held responsible for it. Their motivations were suspect (to me) and their excuses were lame.

Posted by Mike at January 20, 2006 3:16 PM

We'll agree to disagree Mike. The US Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to China, Japan, France, Canada or any other soil outside of the US. Yahoo and Microsoft didn't do anything wrong, they simply complied with officials to release the name of the party who infringed the laws of that country.

Should Google not comply with the US Government pressure being put on them as I write this? They haven't yet, but most other US search engines have. I wish that we could enjoy privacy when on the net - but those days are long gone. Our own government is tracking our every move in the same way that the Chinese government is tracking their citizens. We live in a paranoid world today, and that's the price that we are all paying.

My advice - Don't do anything illegal, and always have an alibi!

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 20, 2006 5:32 PM

Of course it’s better for these companies to be in China than not be in China. Corporations have no obligation to the larger world beyond delivering the product or service they have agreed to deliver and abiding by the local laws. Any silly talk about forcing corporations to take on other roles reeks of fascism. Business becomes a force of good in the world by doing business. Leave politics to the politicians.

Posted by John at January 21, 2006 12:52 AM

Tom, I just might be wrong here, but don't you think that the question over here is not about the laws of the US or of China? But rather of the "reason to be of the Internet?"

Left to the governments themselves, none of us in any country would be able to sign in into our Gmail accounts without getting a state approval 5 times a day.

I agree with all your logic, but I think a lot of people have given up a lot to keep the Net free. And the least we can do is stand up for it when required.

The least MS and Y! could have done is put up a fight. What do you think?

viagra united kingdom Posted by Sanjay Jain at January 23, 2006 2:42 PM

Well said Sanjay. Google is currently standing up for our privacy against the Feds. Let's hope that they aren't forced into submission. I actually created a couple of Google cartoons today for my blog, one related to the privacy issue.

viagra samples overnight http://messagingtimes.blogspot.com

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 23, 2006 6:14 PM

here's another angle for one to consider.

MS and Yahoo are MNCs. Now, let's say both companies have a country manager or 'Head of China' that is from native China.

So, does 'Head of China' pledge his loyalty to the company or the country first ?

One hand says company policy, the other says law.

Posted by yeksoon at January 24, 2006 8:38 AM

Nice twist Yeksoon! Still, I think that the bottomline will remain the bottomline, regardless. Ultimately, the shareholders will decide what action to pursue.

Posted by Tom O'Leary at January 24, 2006 11:37 AM