Yahoo! - A Handy Scapegoat for Congress
By Erik Schmidt on 11.6.07
Today Yahoo Chief Executive Jerry Yang and General Counsel Michael Callahan were shamed in the House Committee on Foreign Relations. Yahoo was raked over the coals for turning over information to the Chinese government in 2004 which led to the incarceration of Chinese dissident Shi Tao. Callahan specifically was hammered for evading questions in a 2006 hearing about Yahoo’s knowledge of what the Chinese government was up to when it asked for information about Shi Tao’s online activities. The Chairman Lantos’ statement, Yahoo! Inc.’s Provision of False Information to Congress pulled no punches in condemning Yahoo:
Yahoo provided false information to Congress. Despite the sworn testimony before the Committee that Yahoo! did not know the nature of the investigation into the Shi Tao case, Yahoo! employees did know that the Chinese government wanted information related to Shi Tao because of a so-called “state secrets†investigation in order to imprison him.
Later in the Statement, Lantos asserts that Yahoo didn’t have to roll over for the Chinese government. After all, Yahoo is a big, powerful company and has been doing business with the Chinese government for some time:
A company of Yahoo!’s resources and sophistication operating in the Chinese milieu should have taken every conceivable step to prevent the automatic compliance with a request from the Chinese police apparatus.
The Representatives were angry with Yahoo’s evasiveness for good reason. But the issue of Internet companies doing business in China is broader than the Shi Tao case. It is well known that Yahoo is not alone in its complicity with the Chinese government’s censorship policies. When representatives of Cisco Systems, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo testified in the February, 2006 hearing, they pointed out that they have to abide by the laws of the countries in which they do business.
I’m not sure what “every conceivable step to prevent automatic compliance” means. Does that mean that big American companies should do business in China, but they should drag their heels in abiding by Chinese law? Ultimately dragging your heels becomes willful violation of the law. The Chinese government isn’t likely to blithely allow such violations. Companies either abide by Chinese law, or they won’t be allowed to do business in China.
According to the Congressional Research Service (PDF), U.S. companies exported $41.8 billion to China in 2005. The Chinese government is buying, and so are Chinese consumers. Is it realistic to believe that the leaders of a publicly-traded company are going to forgo doing business in the huge Chinese market on the basis of human rights concerns, even if the company “does no evil” or builds “The Human Network”? In the era of the Cult of Shareholder Value, no CEO who ditched the Chinese market would last long.
For years, American companies have been assisting the Chinese government in creating its own walled off SinoNet. Anyone in Congress who is startled by this news hasn’t been paying attention. Now Yahoo’s mistakes have raised Congressional hackles, but the U.S. government is still sending a decidedly mixed message to Silicon Valley companies that do business in China. So far, the message seems to be this: Make lots of money in China, but if you’re going to help the Chinese government, please be more discreet about it.
11.6.07 • Internet Policy/Net Law
4 responses to Yahoo! - A Handy Scapegoat for Congress
11.6.07 • Ben Kuo
I think one aspect is the whole political showpiece
thing. Members of Congress want to be shown doing something about free
trade and China is a good scapegoat. I don’t approve of the human
rights violations in China, but picking on the actions of companies is an easy
thing to do. Congress won’t actually do anything, but they want to look
like they’re doing something.
If Congress really wants to protect dissidents in China, then pass
legislation penalizing companies for this type of behavior. And I’m
not just talking about web companies. Fine or prosecute Walmart if
their suppliers are discovered using child labor. Establish mandatory
federal government oversight for the production practices of companies
that do business in the U.S. But none of these things will happen
because there’s too many people making money off cheap imports.
The reason why Yahoo and Google are so good at thumbing their nose at
U.S. authorities while catering to the Chinese authorities is because
of our system of laws and procedural protections. Here, even if you
violate federal law, the law can be changed or litigated. There, if
you’re not doing what some party official wants, your servers are
immediately sent to the Gobi Desert.
11.9.07 • Charles Liu
Has our Congress secured the electronic privacy rights of Americans? So much for moral high ground.
The fact is our own government also requires ISPs and telcos to release user information in criminal investigations, as recent PBS Frontline segment on domestic spying demonstrates:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
The NSA has 15-20 listening stations all over US - that’s just AT&T alone! We haven’t even touched stuff like National Security Letter, or the FBI’s project “Carnivorâ€, “Magic Lanternâ€.
So why is it okay for us to do it, but not other people? Is hypocrisy part of this “moral pygmie†characterization?
If Yahoo! is a “moral pygmie†for responding to criminal investigation required by law, then what is Blackwater USA?
11.13.07 • Steve
Ben and Charles have expressed well what I want to say. I should note that Dr. Lantos is prone to moralizing whenever the opportunity presents. He gets good press from it and loves to posture as a champion of moral piety. But he doesn’t apologize for the duplicity that his organization has been party to as has been pointed to in the comments above. Dr. Lantos should speak to his own hypocrisy before admonishing Yahoo’s Jerry Yang.
11.28.07 • Alvin
Tom Lantos is in my congressional district. I am perplexed about his position that Yahoo!, because it has money, should disobey local law in a forum where it has business, maintains an office, and employs a staff. I am unsure if I understand Lantos’ characterization that Yahoo! is a moral pygmie. Perhaps Mr. Lantos, safely sitting in his office in Washington DC, would think it moral for Yahoo! to risk its employee’s freedom, or lives, to directly confront a government that Lantos himself dare not challenge as a legislator because of his own interest.
By the way, Lantos’ words “moral pygmie” is a repugnant racist remark. Pygmies are a race of African people known for their short stature, but also known for their fierceness as warriors. On that front, Yahoo! should take pride in being called a warrior, and Lantos should be ashamed of himself for trying to use the name of an African people in a derogative context.