I'm Ditchin Yahoo. Anyone With Me?

knew how the information would be used when they turned it over.

Anyways, I can't really boycott Yahoo since I'm already boycotting Google for their assistance to the propaganda arm of the CCP in the PRC.

Everyone involved in China must pressure them to respect human rights. The US government, the UN, multinational corporations, media outlets, human rights watchdog groups, religous leaders, etc.

Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Cisco et al must overlook their competitive differences to show the chinese govt a united front upholding minimal standards for freedom of access to information and communication. And Jennifer Love-Hewitt needs to call me back because I can't turn Halle Berry away forever.

They are a business, not a political agency. They have an obligation to make as much money as they can, and I have an obligation to carefully choose who I give my money to, based on their business practices.

... the responsibility to uphold certain ethical standards.

Actually, I'm not sure what you disagree with. You say you ''have an obligation to carefully choose who (you) give (your) money to, based on their business practices.'' I'm assuming that you make your decision to spend money based on your own personal concept of good, ethical business practices.

Private companies in a free market economy always have to balance the quest for profits with ethics and morality.

CEOs of companies may be in a better position to understand the intricacies of a situation than the shareholders. Its their responsibility to be objective, honest and up front with the public. Shareholders also have a responsibility to be informed by sources other than the executive board of the company, and to hold the CEOs accountable to uphold ethical standards.

Its always a balancing act, between seeking profits and yet doing it ethically. I still say that, despite a fair amount of reading reports about the Yahoo-China scandal, I have yet to hear a strong claim being made that Yahoo knew what the results of their actions would be.

Google, on the other hand, did know beforehand what would be the consequence of google.cn - i.e.: a public relations coup for the Propaganda Department of the CPCCC in the PRC - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Department

I've commented on Google blogs about my opposition to their decision to go ahead with google.cn. I've been vocal about my decision to boycott them. Its not much but its all I can do. If I had previously owned their stock I would've dumped it over that issue (if not for my speculation that its best value growth is in the past). I support politicians that are pressuring google to rethink google.cn.

I still don't see evidence that Yahoo KNOWINGLY caused oppression. For now, I think that their squirming is enough. If I ever become aware of evidence that Yahoo or Cisco or Microsoft or anyone else KNOWINGLY assists oppressive actions, I will treat them the way I treated Google.

And I do believe I've earned the right to BlTCH about Google, as I do the best I can to participate in the democracy of free markets where every dollar spent is a vote. I recently refinanced my mortgage. The company I felt the strongest loyalty to based on their ethical standards was not able to offer me the best possible deal, but I went with them anyways. Bottom line is it will cost me just over $2000, spread out over 15 years. And yes, I did let the other several competing mortgage loan companies know why I closed with the company that I chose.

That the USA is also violating freedoms.

...before I try to do somethings right.

I know that the US is far from perfect, and we have our own set of issues to deal with. The massacre in Haditha is far worse than Gitmo, and its a disgrace. Granted, we are not perfect.

But to draw a moral equivalency between US human rights abuses and Chinese rights abuses is ludicrous. I'm not saying that you are making that comparison, Oatmeal25.

On a personal level, I'm not going to demand absolute, total, complete perfection of myself before I comment on or work to eradicate criminal or immoral behavior from others. On a national level, I don't think we need to be 101% free of the shadow of suspiscion of alleged rights abuses before we can discuss obscene, flagrant and grossly evil human rights violations.

I say we lose the right to talk trash about China when Gitmo is used to do what China is doing at Sujiatun Camp. For the "crime" of practicing falun gong, chinese citizens are sent to nazi-like concentration camps where their organs are harvested for transplants.

I don't think we're exactly claiming to be "holier than thou" when we try to influence human rights in China. To wait until we are perfect and free from scandals and massacres like Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Haditha before we advocate for worse abuses around the world would be an abdication of our responsibilit to at least do what we can.

Just reminding those that are appauled by this incident that the US is doing the same on a bigger scale in Guantanemo. But just when looking at this one incident.

But I also just wanted to point out that one could be equally outraged about both situations, that is, Guantanamo prison and US corporations in China. One really has nothing to do with the other. A person could even be way more outraged about Gitmo, and then not even give it a thought when discussing China. So I guess that's my defense for making an assumption about your meaning or intent.

I have no defense for ranting, though.

it's way too easy to misunderstand the author's message and intent when reading fragmented forum posts. I tend to understand my point and what I want to say but it loses clarity en route to my fingertips.

We should be outraged at all the injustices of the world and the selective actions taken by the "have nations". It makes my head hurt.

Just keep in mind that when companies from other countries do business in the US, they have to follow our rules. So if Verizon or BellSouth or Earthlink some other large ISP were purchased by a foreign company, and the US required them to turn over records of Internet activity by passing a law forcing them to do so, they would have to do it. They could sue and delay until the Supreme Court rules on the issue but if they do all that and the law is upheld, then they have to comply. So why are we all up in arms about Yahoo and Google complying with local Chinese law? Just because their law is not our law does not mean that they are wrong. Of course the Chinese system is different and more repressive than the US system. That's not going to change overnight, just as slavery in the US didn't change overnight. And for all that we in the US decry human rights abuse in other countries, we seem to be able to turn a blind eye to the abuses undertaken by our own country in the name of security. If you're going to boycott anyone, boycott the politicians who demand more free rights in other countries with one side of their mouth while taking them away from certain people in our own country with the other. Regardless of whether you think the prisoners at Guantanimo Bay are terrorists or not, US law demands due process, fair and humane treatment, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

you said: "US law demands due process, fair and humane treatment, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty"

I always thought those applied to US Citizens, not to prisoners of war. I thought the Geneva Convention applied to prisoners of war.

Why sould the government of the US provide 'rights' to people who are not US citizens and who are involved in actions of war against that government and its people?

Why should the US treat prisoners of war humanely and fairly, when US prisoners are tortured, killed, and treated inhumanely?

But then again, I've never understood having rules for war ....


-Terry

You are correct, "prisoners of war" would be covered under the Geneva Convention and not US law. However, the basic rules of the Geneva Convention (of which the US is a signatory, therefor obligating us to follow our responsibilities as a signatory) are basically demanding humane treatment of POWs. Whether you use either convention, the point is that you agree to follow a set of rules so you follow the rules. In order for Yahoo and Google to operate in China, they agree to follow Chinese rules, just like GM and GE and Merck and every other US company that sets up business in China does. Why aren't our elected officials screaming about the fact that US companies are basically bootstrapping Chinese manufacturers into the 21st century (because Chinese law requires large amounts of knowledge transfer in order to gain permission to operate in the country)? US manufacturers are basically giving the Chinese a huge advantage when it comes to future growth.

If the US really wanted to protest Chinese laws and freedoms, they should forbid US companies from operating in China until the Chinese have better human rights. Of course that would basically mean that every US company would pack up shop and move their headquarters to another country that did allow direct investment in China, but at least you'd have a consistent position.

If we pull our business out of China, other countries would step in to inject capital, technology, management, etc. And in the countries that replace us, its extremely unlikely that there would even be a (mostly futile) debate about businesses and government pressuring China to improve their human rights record.

While the current situation in China seems pretty bad, believe it or not, it used to be worse. Many people don't know that in a three year period in the early '60s China killed 5 times as many of their own citizens, innocent civilians, than the number of Jews killed by the Nazis in the Holocaust. Many people don't know that in the mid and late '60s, thousands of people were tortured and killed. In one incident, an elementary school was emptied out and brought to the public square. The children were led to sing patriotic songs. Six men were brought up onto a stage, blindfolded and with hands tied behind their backs. A man with a machete came out and beheaded all six men.

The children freaked right the f* out, screaming, puking and passing out. The teachers tried to keep the children singing. Then a couple other men came out and cut out the executed victims' hearts and began eating them.

Not many people know that entire villages engaged in mass cannibalism.

Not many people know that in the '60s and '70s China was funding communist regimes throughout asia. The North Vietnamese forces were supported by China. North Vietnam won the war, and look at the country today. Worse human rights abuses were committed by the Chinese-supported Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, which set a record for largest percentage of its own population killed by the government: 25%.

I say all this just to show that until Nixon's breakthrough visit, there was very, very good reason for NOT having been involved with China on any level.

A lot has changed in 30 years. Things are getting better in China, and one can't ignore the effects of the decisions to withhold and then finally grant trading status with China. China knows that a big reason for their booming economy is due to trade with the US and US investment.

Recently, the Chinese government announced a crackdown on organ harvesting of political prisoners and other so-called ''criminals.'' Its nearly impossible to verify if the practice has been stopped. But at least now there's a dialogue and threats of inspections and investigations from foreign human rights groups.

Forty years ago the most wretchedly EVIL campaigns of slaughter, torture, rape and wanton desecration of life went totally unchecked. Now, its been reduced to things like aborting, murdering or abandoning millions of baby girls per year; few hundred people killed to harvest internal organs to be sold on the transplant market, etc.

Hey, its progress. Progress that would stop and reverse if we just pulled out completely, thereby eliminating any US influence whatsoever. And its pretty likely that China would go back to their old ways, making the Nazis look like Mother Teresa's Sisters of Mercy.

The Geneva Convention addresses UNIFORMED combatants POW's. Not the crossing dressing creeps that wear burkas to hide.

OK - I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

So, are there any 'rules' that cover the imprisonment of people like spies and terrorists?

Since they are not citizens of the US they are not criminals under our laws. Since they are not uniformed combatants they are not covered under the Geneva conventions of war.

If there is no internationally accepted body of rules to cover spies and foreign terrorists then I am OK with that. I would just think there is something out there.

So far no "New World Order." Let's hope it stays that way.

what people in the US dont seem to understand is that these companies are a guess in some else's house and when you are a guess you follow the host rules weather you like it or not. if you dont like it then you leave its as simple as that. what i find funny is that some people in this forum and in the us think they can tell other countries what they are doing right and wrong when you yourself are not perfect lets forget about chine and look and one of the biggest continent right know called africa where people are dieing of AIDS, malaria, hunger, and by the hand of rebels in a genocide. So before we start to B***H about china's policies let look at how US companies can help the world first ok.

Read "The Greatest Threat" by Richard Butler. Seriously, you really have to read it to understand my comment about you working at UN. If you're not banging your head by the end of the book, then also try "Tower of Babble" by Dore Gold. The second one really shows how your logic for world events is dominant in the UN. You're not the only one that thinks that's a good thing.

and please don't decide for me what I need