Wednesday, November 14, 2007

An update on small victories

I really need to stop stealing stuff and do original content again in the near future, but this merits being stolen simply because it is an update to other stolen stuff.

 

Yahoo Settles With Chinese Families
Firm Gave Officials Dissidents' E-Mails

By Catherine Rampell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 14, 2007; D04

Yahoo settled yesterday with the families of two Chinese dissidents imprisoned after the company helped identify them to the Chinese government. The terms of the settlement are not being disclosed and Yahoo is not admitting fault, an attorney for the families said.

The announcement came a week after members of Congress criticized Yahoo executives for not assisting the families of Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning. The men were sentenced to 10-year prison terms for crimes against the state after Yahoo gave their e-mail records to Chinese officials. Their families sued Yahoo last April in U.S. District Court in Northern California.

"The pressures by Congress on [Yahoo chief executive] Jerry Yang were of tremendous importance to making this settlement happen," said Morton H. Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, which represents the Chinese families. He said a recent court decision requiring Yahoo to disclose information about its operations in China probably sped up the settlement, as did Yahoo's interest in being seen as a company that promotes human rights.

Yahoo said in a written statement that the company would start a fund "to provide humanitarian and legal aid to dissidents who have been imprisoned for expressing their views online."

In 2002, Wang, an engineer, was detained by Chinese officials for writing pro-democracy articles on a Yahoo Groups Web site. Shi, a journalist, was arrested in 2004 after he forwarded an e-mail directing him not to cover the Tiananmen Square anniversary to an overseas Web site.

Yahoo was asked to testify about its cooperation with Chinese officials in the arrests of the men at a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in February 2006. At the time, Michael J. Callahan, the company's general counsel, denied that Yahoo had any information about the nature of the case against Shi. Callahan and Yang were called back to testify last week because the subpoena-like demand Yahoo received for information about Shi specifically said that he was being investigated for a state-secrets violation, a charge frequently made against dissidents.

At last week's hearing, Yang apologized to relatives of the prisoners, who were sitting behind him. He later met with the families privately.

Yahoo "admitted this is wrong and would not happen again," said Laogai Research Foundation executive director Harry Wu, who translated for the families during their visit to the United States. Wu said the families were returning to China but that the two imprisoned dissidents were not yet aware of the settlement.

Human rights advocates said other companies operating in China are likely to tread more carefully because of Yahoo's experience. "I think Cisco, Microsoft and Google are probably taking careful notes," said Sophie Richardson, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.

Some lawmakers hope to prohibit U.S. companies from giving information about their customers to foreign governments. The bill proposed by Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), the Global Online Freedom Act, would forbid sharing such information without permission from the Justice Department.

"Convening a congressional hearing every time a U.S. company helps put a human rights activist in jail should not be their only means of securing justice," Smith said. "For that reason, today's settlement underscores a million times over why it is important to give the families of victims like Shi Tao standing in U.S. courts. The Global Online Freedom Act will ensure that right."

7 comments:

  1. I'm a little confused on this, so I'll have to come back and re-read when I have a bit more time. I'm not fully understanding why Yahoo has to pay out settlements for turning over information on people that were under investigation for "crimes against the state"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Because the "crimes" consisted of one man posting comments on a yahoo groups site, the other forwarded an email saying he wasn't to cover an event, hardly that which most of us would consider crimes and Yahoo was complicit in turning over information regarding them to the Chinese govenment so they could be imprisoned. Add to that the fact that Yahoo originally lied to Congress when testifying, and that is why they felt compelled to pay some sort of settlement to the families of those that Yahoo helped imprison to begin with, thouigh if it were me, I am not sure any check cut by them would pay for the damage they have wrought to my family.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe I can re-coup just a little faith in justice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wont argue that the so called crimes seem not only petty but their own individual opinions, but what the law states as being a "crime against the state" isnt Yahoo's fault. Thats solely on the shoulders of that countrys government. Bottom line seems to be that 2 people were under investigation by the government for crimes against their country, hmm "crimes against the state" isnt that the same as treason? Yahoo had information that seemly supported the governments claim, if they were issued a subpoena to turn over all the records and information what choice would they have but to comply unless they wanted to be brought up on charges themselves. Again this isnt about how petty we think the charge is, its about what is on record as being a law and what isnt. Doesnt seem there is any freedom of speech in China, if so then its not on Yahoo thats on Chinas government.

    Technically speaking, Yahoo didnt bring any damage to their families, they did by writing and sending the things they said, over a known public "highway" of sorts. Being citizens of China they should know what laws are what, and what they say or do could be used against them, keeping in mind I dont know anything truly about China do they have so called "freedom of speech"? if not then they knew going in anything they said against the state (country) could come back to bite them regardless of whether it was their opinion or not, which it did.

    All I can say is that like here if one doesnt like how the law works, do your best to get it changed. I personally dont feel it should have been on Yahoo's shoulders simply because they were under subpoena to turn over all the information they had. Everyone has to realize that what you do on the internet can be tracked and traced. Online journals, blogs, forums, message boards, emails etc. all these things every word you type can be traced back to you. You dont have as much anonymity as you might think, altho what you say or do will ultimately decide in the end whether or not its important enough to be used against you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, but I can't make the leap of moral relativism, that everybody's laws, culture, etc. are of equal value. If that were the case, there would be no need for moral outrage at Nazi Germany killing millions of Jews, that was the law, they were Jewish therefore they should die. Likewise, I distinctly remember you being outraged by the imprisonment of one Nanazin Fatehi, who went to jail for defending herself from being raped. Why? Isn't that just Iranian law at work? Aren't all laws equal and we should just sit idly by while this type of justice is doled out? Of course not, and Yahoo is guilty of not just sitting idly by, but in fact abetting it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You misunderstand I never said anything about everyone's laws and culture being equal. I simply stated that legally Yahoo was under subpoena to turn over information which they did. By law they did what they had to do. That isnt about what I feel is right or wrong morally its about what is law to them and their country. As I stated if one doesnt like how the law works in your country work to get them changed. Thats here as well as any where.

    Did Yahoo have the option of ignoring the subpoena? What would have happened had they ignored it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's hard to get the law changed when you get jailed for trying. Yahoo certainly could have ignored the subpoena. Does anyone really think the United States would have extradited the executives of Yahoo to China for failing to turn over documents that would be used to jail pro democracy dissidents? Sometimes we have to serve a greater good than simply the law, regardless of whose law it is. The problem with Yahoo's actions, and those actions of the people that supported Nanzin is that they in effect, embolden, not weaken those laws. Now anyone wishing to speak out against the Chinese government need not just worry about the government itself, but any company that may wish to turn them in as well. Likewise, Nanazin's case has raised the bar so that any woman who defends herself from being raped in Iran will have to rely on the aid of foreigners to pay a bribe to get them out of jail, which just pushes the bar further back to actually getting the law changed.

    ReplyDelete

Our inspiration (the title for this blog)

Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger.

Where we've been