Comments on: Looking the other way

Cuddling up to Beijing inevitably will raise hard questions about the costs of operating in other countries, says News.com's Charles Cooper.

[Christopher Hall]

A few thoughts

>>The United States may have been the economic wunderkind of the 20th century, but the 21st century belongs to China.<<
While there's certainly no doubt in stating that China is on the verge of economic prosperity - and more power to 'em in that, they deserve it - this seems to be a popular opinion that has little backing in fact. As I'm sure you've heard financial advisors say time and time again: "past performance is no indicator of future success." This applies to anything that plays with money, countries included. I honestly believe that China is destined to be a major world player in the 21st century, but to say that the century belongs to them may be a bit off-base.

Now what kind of crazy thing is that for me to say? Look at the history. In the past, various predictions have been made about rising stars in the global economy that were supposed to overtake the US and become the next big thing. Be it Russia, Germany, Japan, the EU, what have you, all have risen to the challenge and while each has had its booms, none really fulfilled expectations. They've each become regional powers, but the "superpower" title is still largely uniquely held.

There are three parties involved in this prediction: China, the United States, and the analysts. Never mind for a minute that analysts get paid gobs of cash to take good hard looks at their morning bowel movements. The United States is still a great deal stronger, economically, than China is. Their greatest hindrance is the governmental tinkering in the economy. In recent times, they've backed off a bit, which is good, but they still have a long way to go.

Further, I suspect that we will begin to see issues regarding China's personal freedoms arise. In its current form, China is essentially two countries in one: economic, business-friendly China, and the non-economic zones outside these areas. The freedoms allowed those in the economic zones are increasing, but the countryside is still largely oppressed. Unchecked, I fear this may come back to haunt China.

>>Critics charged Microsoft's new Chinese portal with including blocks on certain words and phrases, including "democracy," "freedom" and "human rights." Elsewhere, Google reportedly filtered its Chinese-language site to omit news banned by the authorities.<<
It's important to keep in mind that while China is making great strides forward in its social awareness, those people are still not, for all intents and purposes, truly free as we are in the United States. As China is welcomed into the global marketplace as a participant instead of just a production tool, the rules will change. Since the inception of the Internet, the world has largely been playing by the West's rules. Concepts such as freedom of expression, personal privacy, and social norms are not universal by any means. As globalization continues, the rules of business will change to fit what's most beneficial for the corporations.

China's rules are neither right nor wrong. They're simply different. If Google were to stay out of China on the sole basis that they're morally opposed to external regulations, I promise you some other company would have filled the void. And with hundreds of millions of people potentially connecting to the Internet in China, I can't really blame Google for running in to get a piece of that.

Side note: how long will foreign countries have to type in "WWW..." to access the web? Why have no conventions been established to make the interface more local-friendly?

Crikey, that turned out to be quite the wall of text... Sorry about that.

[wailai1]

More balanced comment

The comment to the news article gives a more balanced view to the situation than the article itself. Although there is not enough details known, the article writer appears to take the position that China has to prove it to the world again.

From the reference to an "internal document" in the news article, should one be also asking the question of "How the internal document was obtained or what was the intention in doing so as well"?

There is really not enough information, but may be a more balanced treatment in the reporting is warranted, especially if U.S. wants to fullfill the obligation of being the super power.

[Slylencer]

Sorry, but you are a corporate apologist

So is IBM not to blame for cooperating with the Nazis? Is Microsoft and Yahoo! not to be seen as greedy capalists for cooperating with a government that participates in the Tiananmen Square masacre? Of course not! There is money to be made, right? Forget the plight of the people and morals! Greed is good! Let's just change all of the laws. If there's money involved, than who are we to stand in the way why someone makes a buck? The ultimate capitalist society. Corporations are faultless anyways, right?

[Ann Juurinen]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

China's long history has never included the concepts of freedom or democracy. Why would we think that the present forces of capitalism would bring new pressures to bear on the personal liberty front in China? Grinding poverty in the hinterland, and government officials living like Kings in Beijing are just one reality of the neo-feudalism that modern business leaders continue to ignore.
We all have much to learn from the Chinese about the ultimate nature of competition and a no-holds barred capitalism.
More than one business leader that I have interviewed has espoused the totalitarian model of government being the ideal for business, not democracy.
Who among you hasn't heard the neo-con adage, "The more dollars one has, the more democracy."
Press freedom,& new media freedom of expression are the only bulwarks against capitalism that has neo-feudalism as its real intent.
Dissent, and thinking for oneself, reliance on one's own visions in the New World has fostered all kinds of inventions and innovations over the past 100 years. A cloistered community for whom "order" is seen as a greater good than personal opinion or press liberties, is always going to have to play catch up. A society with no press freedoms will always hinder the best and the brightest a society has to bring to the world.
For a very long time in Chinese history, all foreigners were seen as barbarians. Hence the Great Wall. How much has changed?

[Bill Dautrive]

Is it so easy to look the other way when big bucks are at stake?

Of course! What does it matter if you do business with and help a government keep its people down if there is money to be made?

In todays climate of greed, only corporate profits matter. Not human rights, not decency, no enviromental protections, nothing is more important then the almighty bottom-line.

The sad thing is how easily coporations were able to brainwash the masses into believing that profits trumps all. Mr. Halls post is prime example. Corporations stomp all over everyone and people line up to praise them for it.

People need to understand that corporations are not operating for our benefit, but to our detriment.

[ajbright]

a little more than looking the other way

Actually complying with a non-enforceable request for the contents of someone's email account is hardly what I'd call looking the other way.

This company - albeit it's Hongkong subsiduary - knowingly allowed the Chinese government to use private information contained on their servers to prosecute a Chinese citizen.


The issue here is whether international corporates have a moral obligation to protect their customer's privacy as much as possible.

When the RIAA attempted to get the identities of people thieving music via P2P, as a matter of principle the internet providers resisted all the way to the supreme court.

The point there was that even though the consequences of releasing this information pales in comparison to that of Yahoo's indiscretion, they still fought for the privacy of their customers - correctly understanding that this is what was expected of them, and giving some assurances that should a more serious breach of rights happen, the company that holds your personal information will do all that it can to protect it.

Yahoo folded at the first request, caving in to the Chinese government without even making sure that the request was legitimate or legal.

What this tells me is that I will never do business with Yahoo, because if they're willing to sell out one of their customers to the worst human rights violators this side of the Hussain dictatorship, then what will be their attitude regarding selling my information to marketing companies?

So I will never shop using their storefront, purchase plane tickets or even sign up for a free email account - not even with a false identity - because I can't trust them at all.

To use the excuse that they were legally bound to release this information is pure and simple BS. They didn't even try to contest the request in court, because they didn't want to become another Microsoft, and have their earnings trapped in China (Microsoft recently admitted to something all corporates know - getting money earnt in China out of the country is almost impossible, because their law forbids it, however if you grease the correct palms ways can be found - and were subsequently fleeced of all their earnings in that country by the Chinese government).

[mwa423]

Ever consider other countries approach things different ways?

I am amazed that people consider what Yahoo did as wrong. Have you ever possibly considered that the rights that we enjoy in the United States are not the same all over the world and no matter what, it will always be that way. I will be very suprised if I ever see a world that is %100 democratic. I believe democracy is the best for the people, but cooperating with governments whose laws are different because those are the cards you're dealt is more of a part of being a corporate citizen then torpedoing your business because you don't agree with the way that the government operates.

If terrorists were using Yahoo email accounts to communicate and the U.S. government traced them through the accounts stopping a possible attack on the U.S. would you boo and hiss because of the privacy violations? In China the government feels the same way about people who give away state secrets. I don't think that this journalist is as much of a monster as a terrorist, but in this case the journalist knew he was breaking the law, even if it was for a just cause and he was morally correct in doing it. Shame the Chinese Government didn't agree.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech, but in this case Yahoo was in the right! They followed the laws of the government and cooperated with authorities to catch a criminal, which is what the journalist was. Just because I don't agree with the Chinese Government's law does not mean I should criticize those who follow it.

One thing that people are too blind to understand is that in China there are not the methods of recourse that we enjoy in the United States. In the United States, you can go to court to defend anything, but in China that's not the case.

The Patriot Act was one example given in this article as poorly written legislation which endangers American liberties, but if you were caught in a crime under the Patriot Act it would not be the fault of a company who had the information subpoenaed by the government, it's the fault of the Government who made the law.

[whmitty]

Dancing with the Dragon

We are, for better AND worse, in a wobbly economic/political waltz with China. Financial benefits will assuredly accrue on both sides while we occasionally tromp on each other's toes politically and righteously scold one another for doing so.

The dance could be a potential NET positive for both parties ... if they watch their step.

[umghhh]

capitalism & democracy

democracy supports capitalism is a way our open societies chose to behave. Capitalism as a force does point direction of authoritarian regimes - they are more effective when it comes down to *convincing* people to do certain things. There are studies that prove that point.
We in western and still open societies must realize that that china with its purchasing power can be and often will be (if it has not happened yet) very destructive. It is enough to think about 80 or 100 tones (who cares how much was it anyway) benzene that was allowed to flow into the river some time ago or about dam on yellow river - how many people have to die so that we consider reasonable to act. And what can we do? We have not started thinking about it yet and it may already be too late.

Let the capitalism form our society and bloodshed and war is inevitable.

//