Yahoo! in ChinaCase 5.1 Yahoo! in ChinaShi Tao is a thirty- seven- year- old Chinese journalist and democracy advocate. Arrested for leakingstate secrets in 2005, he was sentenced to ten years in prison. His crime? Mr. Shi had disclosed that theCommunist Party?s propaganda department had ordered tight controls for handling the anniversary ofthe infamous June 4, 1989, crackdown on demonstrators in Beijing?s Tiananmen Square. A sad story, forsure, but it?s an all too familiar one, given China?s notoriously poor record on human rights. What makesMr. Shi?s case stand out, however, is the fact that he was arrested and convicted only because theAmerican com-pany Yahoo! revealed his identity to Chinese authorities. 82 You see, Mr. Shi had postedhis information anonymously on a Chinese- language Website called Democracy Forum, which is based inNew York. Chinese journalists say that Shi?s information, which revealed only routine instructions on howofficials were to dampen possible protests, was already widely circulated. Still, the Chinesegovernment?s elite State Security Bureau wanted to put its hands on the culprit behind the anonymousposting. And for that it needed Yahoo!? s help in tracking down the Internet address from [email protected] yahoo. com. cn had accessed his e- mail. This turned out to be a computer in Mr. Shi?sworkplace, Contemporary Business News in Changsha, China. A few months after Shi?s conviction, thewatchdog group ? Reporters Without Borders? revealed the story of Yahoo!? s involvement andembroiled the company in a squall of controversy. After initially declining to comment on the allegation,Yahoo! eventually admitted that it had helped Chinese authorities catch Mr. Shi and that it had suppliedinformation on other customers as well. But the company claimed that it had no choice, that the ?information was provided as part of a ? legal process,? and that the company is obliged to obey thelaws of any country in which it operates. Yahoo! co- founder, Jerry Yang, said: ? I do not like theoutcome of what happens with these things . . . but we have to comply with the law. That?s what youneed to do in business.? Some critics immediately spied a technical flaw in that argument: Theinformation on Mr. Shi was provided by Yahoo!? s subsidiary in Hong Kong, which has an independentjudiciary and a legal process separate from that of mainland China. Hong Kong legislation does not spellout what e- mail service providers must do when presented with a court order by mainland authorities.Commentators pointed out, however, that even if Yahoo! was legally obliged to reveal the informa-tion,there was a deeper question of principle involved. As the Financial Times put it in an editorial: ? As ageneral principle, companies choosing to operate in a country should be pre-pared to obey its laws.When those laws are so reprehensible that conforming to them would be unethical, they should be readyto withdraw from that market.? Congressional repre-sentative Christopher H. Smith, a New JerseyRepublican and chair of a House subcommittee on human rights, was even blunter: ? This is aboutaccommodating a dictatorship. It?s outrageous to be complicit in cracking down on dissenters.? And inan open letter to Jerry Yang, the Chinese dissident Liu Xiabo, who has himself suffered censorship,imprisonment, and other indignities, wrote: ? I must tell you that my indigna-tion at and contempt foryou and your company are not a bit less than my indignation and contempt for the Communist regime. .. . Profit makes you dull in morality. Did it ever occur to you that it is a shame for you to be considereda traitor to your customer Shi Tao?? Whether profit is dulling their morality is an issue that must beconfronted not just by Yahoo! but also by other Internet- related companies doing business in China.Microsoft, for example, recently shut down the MSN Spaces Website of a popular Beijing blogger whosepostings had run afoul of censors. Google has agreed to apply the Chinese censors? blacklist to its newChinese search engine. And a congressional investigative committee has accused Google, Yahoo!, andCisco of helping to maintain in China ? the most sophisticated Internet control system in the world.? Intheir defense, the companies ask what good it would do for them to pull out of the Chinese market. Theycontend that if they resist the Chinese government and their operations are closed down or if theychoose to leave the country for moral reasons, they would only deny to ordinary Chinese whatever freshair the Internet, even filtered and censored, can provide in a closed society. It?s more important forthem to stay there, play ball with the government, and do what they can to push for Internet freedom.As Yahoo! chairman Terry S. Semel puts it: ? Part of our role in any form of media is to get whatever wecan into those countries and to show and to enable people, slowly, to see the Western way and what ourculture is like, and to learn.? But critics wonder what these companies, when they are complicit inpolitical repression, are teaching the Chinese about American values. Some tech companies are turningto the U. S. government for help. Bill Gates, for example, thinks that legislation making it illegal forAmerican companies to assist in the violation of human rights overseas would help. A carefully craftedAmerican anti- repression law would give Yahoo! an answer the next time Chinese officials demandevidence against cyber- dissidents. We want to obey your laws, Yahoo! officials could say, but our handsare tied; we can?t break American law. The assumption is that China would have no choice but to acceptthis because it does not want to forgo the advan-tages of having U. S. tech companies operating there.Still, this doesn?t answer the underlying moral questions. At a November 2007 congressional hearing,however, a number of lawmakers made their own moral views perfectly clear. They lambasted Yahoo!,describing the company as ? spineless and irresponsible? and ? moral pygmies.? In response, Jerry Yangapologized to the mother of Shi Tao, who attended the hearing. Still, Yahoo! has its defenders. RobertReich, for instance, argues that ? Yahoo! is not a moral entity? and ? its executives have only oneresponsibility . . . to make money for their shareholders and, along the way, satisfy their consumers.?And in this case, he thinks, the key ? con-sumer? is the Chinese government. Update How to deal withChina continues to confound American internet companies. In January 2010, upset by the hacking of itsservers by the Chinese government, which was trying to gain information about dissidents, and uneasyabout continuing its complicity in Internet censorship, Google announced that it would withdraw fromChina altogether if it could not operate there without censorship. Two months later, after negotiationswith Chinese authorities went nowhere, Google began automatically redirecting searches on its Chineseservers to its Hong Kong affiliate. Hong Kong has an independent legal system, and mainland Chinesecensorship laws do not apply there. In response the Chinese government threatened to pull Google?sInternet license. The stalemate lasted until July of that year when Google replaced its automaticredirect from Google China to Google Hong Kong with a link to the latter, and signed a new licens-ingagreement that allows it to continue to operate in China but to deliver results only for searches aboutproducts and music and for some maps. One result is that the popular Chinese search engine Baidu,which complies fully with government censorship rules, has greatly increased its market share.Discussion Questions1. What moral issues does this controversy raise? What obli-gations should Yahoo! have weighed in thissituation? Was the company a ? traitor? to its customer, as Liu Xiabo says?2. In your view, was Yahoo! right or wrong to assist Chinese authorities? What would you have done ifyou were in charge of Yahoo!?3. Is Jerry Yang correct that the company had ? no choice?? Assuming that Yahoo! was legally requiredto do what it did, does that justify its conduct morally?4. Assess the actions of Yahoo! and of Microsoft, Google, and Cisco from the point of view of both thenarrow and the broader views of corporate responsibility. What view of corporate responsibility do youthink these compa-nies hold? Do you think they see themselves as acting in a morally legitimate andsocially responsible way?5. In light of this case, do you think it makes sense to talk of a corporation like Yahoo! as a moral agent,or is it only the people in it who can be properly described as having moral responsibility?6. Would American companies do more good by refusing to cooperate with Chinese authorities ( and risknot being able to do business in China) or by cooperating and working gradually to spread Internetfreedom? In general, under what circumstances is it permissible for a company to operate in a repressivecountry or do business with a dictatorial regime?7. Assess the pros and cons of a law forbidding American high- tech companies from assisting repressiveforeign governments.Order for a custom written PAPER now and one of our online writers will write your assignment from scratch within your deadline! Category: Essay Writing
Unlike most other websites we deliver what we promise;
- Our Support Staff are online 24/7
- Our Writers are available 24/7
- Most Urgent order is delivered with 6 Hrs
- 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.
GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.