It seems Yahoo and others have been "complying with local laws" in China and elsewhere by helping the Chinese government capture, prosecute and sentance (10+ years) those blogging, publishing differing views and criticizing local authorities.
Is it ok since if they did not Yahoo and others would not be allowed to operate there. obviously taking a great hit in the profit department.
See here and links on bottom of page as well: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/01/report_verdict_confi.html
Anyone have any idea why my question is halfway down the page?
I am German so the argument that a company just has to follow the rule of the land doesn’t strike me as an especially good one: A lot of companies in Germany profited from the incarceration and mass murder of Jews in the Third Reich (IG Farben, which was broken up after the war, was able to get a concentration camp build for them so they could use Jewish forced labor). In the Nuremburg trials after the war the argument of the allies against the war criminals was that following orders and laws that were against basic human rights is not a viable excuse. I would have to aggree with that one.
It seems this idea has fallen out of practice. Moral relativism rules the land – everybody has a right to their beliefs and rules, no matter how horrid (female circumstition seen as cultural heritage, "honor murders" accepted as a way to defend ones personal honor, unwillingness to consider anti-semitism as anything but one of many choices). Nowadays, any government and/or company seems to be using the argument that in order to keep in a "dialog" with whatever oppressive regime they just have to go along with what this regime wants.
So, where does it stop? If Yahoo "working with" the Chinese government is alright now, is it still allright if the Chinese execute some dissidents (as they have done in the past)? How far are we willing to cede human rights in order to stay "competitive"?
As you can tell from the tone of my posting, I am firmly against this practice. It seems for the allmighty profit we are perfectly willing to make a pact with the devil – any devil will do. Let’s just hope these devils never turn against us – as has happened in the past.
wooden french doors
rap halloween costumes
hip hop costume
chantix cost
When a company goes into another country with their business, they are subject to the local laws of that country. By doing business in China, Yahoo! must submit to the laws of that country or they could suffer legal reprocussions there.
While we may not agree with this practice ethically, it is someone elses ethics that is in control. The leaders of China have a totally different set of ethical ideals than that of we do as Americans. To them, Yahoo! is doing the right thing. As Americans, to us they are doing the wrong thing.
References :
I am German so the argument that a company just has to follow the rule of the land doesn’t strike me as an especially good one: A lot of companies in Germany profited from the incarceration and mass murder of Jews in the Third Reich (IG Farben, which was broken up after the war, was able to get a concentration camp build for them so they could use Jewish forced labor). In the Nuremburg trials after the war the argument of the allies against the war criminals was that following orders and laws that were against basic human rights is not a viable excuse. I would have to aggree with that one.
It seems this idea has fallen out of practice. Moral relativism rules the land – everybody has a right to their beliefs and rules, no matter how horrid (female circumstition seen as cultural heritage, "honor murders" accepted as a way to defend ones personal honor, unwillingness to consider anti-semitism as anything but one of many choices). Nowadays, any government and/or company seems to be using the argument that in order to keep in a "dialog" with whatever oppressive regime they just have to go along with what this regime wants.
So, where does it stop? If Yahoo "working with" the Chinese government is alright now, is it still allright if the Chinese execute some dissidents (as they have done in the past)? How far are we willing to cede human rights in order to stay "competitive"?
As you can tell from the tone of my posting, I am firmly against this practice. It seems for the allmighty profit we are perfectly willing to make a pact with the devil – any devil will do. Let’s just hope these devils never turn against us – as has happened in the past.
References :
Disgraceful. They care more about their bottom line. Wasn’t
this the same company that refused to help the FBI track down people using their computers for child pornographors?
They (Yahoo) certainly took the high road on that one didn’t they?
References :
Yahoo! has Terms of Service and Privacy Policies that all users agree to when they decide to use the site. If they choose not to read the terms, that does not release the user from the terms as it was their own responsibility to read and follow them.
Terms of Service #8
"SPECIAL ADMONITIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL USE
Recognizing the global nature of the Internet, you agree to comply with all local rules regarding online conduct and acceptable Content."
Anyone using Yahoo! agrees to follow the local laws, including those in China.
Yahoo! Privacy Policy concerning Information Sharing and Disclosure includes the following:
"We believe it is necessary to share information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud, situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person, violations of Yahoo!’s terms of use, or as otherwise required by law."
Yahoo! will cooperate with law enforcement in the even of illegal activities. In China, the persons who were arrested were engaged in activities that are illegal under Chinese law.
What if Yahoo! decided that the United States laws regarding sex with minors were wrong? Would they have the right to refuse to give law enforcement information about known pedophiles using Yahoo! to find victims? There are countries where sex with minors is allowed so who is the United States Governement to say that it is wrong.
Yahoo! has no obligation or right to question the laws of any nation. They MUST follow them if they are doing business in that nation.
References :
Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/
Hello! California Bear. IT IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE SEX WITH A MONOR. IT IS ALSO ILLEGAL TO RAPE IE HAVE SEX WITHOUT CONSENTUAL CONSENT!
Has nothing to do with other countries laws permitting sex with minors (if such laws in a civilized nation exist). Therefore, Yahoo WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CO-OPERATE WITH US AUTHORITIES.
ALSO-you said “Yahoo! has no obligation or right to question the laws of any nation. They MUST follow them if they are doing business in that nation.”
FINE…I AGREE…BUT as a US company, I would think they would support the very values that the company principals live under and AVOID DOING BUSINESS WITH-IN COUNTRIES THAT ARE HARMFUL TO THEIR CITIZENS. There are times when I would like to see corporations stand up to profit for moral fortitude.
Who has the balls to do that?
And who has the balls to stop doing business with corporations that surpass that moral thinking and do business anyway just for a quick buck.
BE A MAN! BE A GOOD MAN!