Decius wrote: Lantos, to Microsoft: Is your company ashamed? Microsoft: We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China. Lantos: Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of? Lantos, to Yahoo: Are you ashamed? Yahoo: We are very distressed about the consequences of having to comply with Chinese law...We are certainly troubled by that and we look forward to working with our peers. Lantos: Do you think that individuals or families have been negatively impacted by some of the activities we have been told, like being in prison for 10 years? Have any of the companies reached out to these families and asked if you could be of any help to them? Yahoo: We have expressed our condemnation of the prosecution of this person, expressed our views to the Chinese government...We have approached the Chinese government on these issues. Lantos: Have you reached out to the family? I can ask it 10 more times if you refuse to answer it. You are under oath.
This strikes me as terribly unfair. I'm opposed to censorship on principle, but I'm just as opposed to political grandstanding of this kind. We're not talking about companies poisoning villages or destroying ecosystems, here, both of which happen daily in many parts of the world. It's unfortunate that China is the kind of country that silences dissidents and ignores their own failings and persecutes believers in a number of various philosophies. But that's a problem with China. It needs to be addressed as such. If our government has a problem with China's behavior, and it *should*, then they should talk to China. If the solution is to issue a proclamation that no US-based technology company is required to comply with Chinese law in these matters then do so, and tell the Chinese to address any problems they have with that situation to the State Department, not the CEO of Yahoo or Google. If the solution is to embargo China from high tech (I don't think it is) then do that. I think that last is a bad idea because it seems like the spread of internet technologies in China is a great boon, even with the censorship that goes on. I think it won't be long before the people catch on to what's being hidden from them and popularly demand an end to it. That can't happen if there's no internet to begin with. Obviously these companies want to do business with China, and I think they'd prefer to do it without censoring anybody for purely business reasons, leaving out humanitarian concern. Antagonizing the chinese government, however, seems like a good way to get yourself cut off from that market. Obviously I think corporations need to behave responsibly, but I also think there's a greater good here that shouldn't be missed. Nonetheless, if the we want our companies to toe a harder line against censorship, then we (by which I mean Congress, and the State dept.) need to say, unequivocally, "We've got your back when the shit hits the fan." Because it will. RE: Congressman quizzes Net companies on shame | CNET News.com |
