[Vision2020] US Corporate Totalitarian Complicity:Yahoo Settles In US Court, Google Censors

[Jeff Harkins]

Fortunately, I don't have to weigh in very much - looks like the 
matter has been resolved in the short run - but not in the manner 
implied by Moffett.  He states
"Now that Yahoo has settled in US court regarding their complicity with
>the Chinese Communist dictatorship in jailing Chinese citizens for
>exercising free speech (10 year sentences, and still imprisoned),
>perhaps Harkins can now "weigh in" on this issue, to quote Harkins, as
>he implied he would.  The evidence in March, 2006, however, when
>Harkins dodged (my wording) this issue in a Vision2020 post, was
>compelling that Yahoo had indeed engaged in the conduct that is now
>"resolved" in US court, in a suit brought by the families of those
>jailed in China with Yahoo's cooperation."
In contrast, The Washington Post reports:
"<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yahoo!+Inc.?tid=informline>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."
No fault was admitted by Yahoo.  Further, The Washington Post reports:
"The announcement came a week after members of Congress criticized 
Yahoo executives for not assisting the families of 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Shi+Tao?tid=informline>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 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+District+Court?tid=informline>U.S. 
District Court in Northern California."
"The pressures by Congress on [Yahoo chief executive] 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jerry+Yang?tid=informline>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 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/China?tid=informline>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."
Hmmm - the US Congress wins, the lawyers win, Yahoo wins (helping 
establish their role as a humanitarian company), the advocacy groups 
win, the Chinese families sort of win, and China loses.

It is impossible for me to conclude anything about the underlying 
events other than the fact that, at the end of  the day thus far, 
free speech, as a result of the Yahoo incident, has been brought to 
the front pages for some time, as well as China's lack of free 
speech.  Is it possible that the whole matter was concocted as a 
means of forcing the issue?  It certainly seems to me that China is 
the one with egg on their face - and it was concluded without 
military action.  Hmmm, almost as if Jack Higgins (Harry Patterson), 
Robert Ludlum or Tom Clancy  was running the show.  Ted, would you 
prefer a military solution to advancing human rights in China?

I do find it interesting that Moffett states,
If I was China's leader, I would quietly smile to myself thinking how 
successful China has been in compromising the democratic idealism of 
the USA in gaining their complicity in maintaining the Socialist 
Communists hold on power!
That may be the difference between Moffett and me.  If I had been 
China's premiere, I would dissolve the Communist Party.

And now to the Google' issue.  It is inconceivable to me that someone 
who posts or uses publicly available bandwidth can have an 
expectation of privacy.  There are, of course, arguments for absolute 
privacy and I advance some of them but given the architecture of 
public bandwidth, assurance of absolute privacy is inexplicable.  So 
where should the line be drawn - how private should the public 
bandwidth be - what standard should be the protocol?  The answer of 
course, depends on who you are and what your agenda is.  If you are a 
career law enforcement officer, you probably want to be able to 
identify and capture "bad guys" before they have a chance of hurting 
someone.  If you are a terrorist, you no doubt would like a 
reasonably high assurance of privacy.  If you are a criminal or thief 
interested in obtaining access to other people's information and 
identity you would like less privacy for others, more for 
yourself.  System architecture is a slippery slope and it does seem 
that our society is groping with strategies for navigating the territory.

One thing I am confident of - if privacy standards are low, and 
private citizens are harmed, they will have legal recourse (refer to 
the Yahoo story).

If the privacy standards are too high, then when internet resources 
are used to cause massive harm to large numbers (probably doesn't 
have to be large numbers) and those charged with securing our society 
are not able to obtain information that might have thwarted the 
disaster, there will be hell to pay of a different order.

As regards Moffett's interest in my understanding and acknowledgement 
of Google's censors and the Chinese government, I was rather clear in 
my response:
I am aware of many positive actions by US companies,including 
Internet companies.  But I will seek to learn more about your 
"conspiracy" allegations and, if persuaded by the evidence I obtain, 
will post you on my findings.
As might be clear to Moffett, I have yet to be persuaded that the 
current state of affairs is a "conspiracy."  As alluded to in my 
previous comments regarding Yahoo, I see a different scenario.

Go back about two decades and ask yourself the question - what do you 
think the chances are that a US corporation could install a 
world-wide communication system within mainland China?  The fact is, 
Google has pulled off a great feat - it has provided the world with a 
world-wide communication link with the Chinese people.  Free Speech 
you say?  Moffett, understand something - China is a communist state 
- they do not want their citizens to have full human rights.  But 
Google (and other high-tech companies) have forged a system that is 
helping to make interpersonal communication and information sharing a 
reality, even in China.  That said, if you live in China, simple 
common sense suggests that you best be careful what you search for 
and who you communicate with.  I would much rather play diplomatic 
games and corporate battles and propaganda agendas than to attempt to 
force the Chinese to do anything.  You appear to favor a strong arm, 
perhaps even a military strategy to deal with this problem.  And of 
course, you seem to discount substantially the progress being forged 
by US technology companies (and US policy) in building those 
technology links with Chinese citizens and businesses.

I see the actions by Privacy Times and Paris-based Reporters Without 
Borders as advancing the cause of free and unfettered communication 
in China.  We would not be having this conversation without the risks 
of investment taken by US Technology companies.

I will add that it seems that you are far more interested in calling 
me on a carpet and attacking me personally than seeking to have a 
discourse on the merits of US technology advances throughout the world.

Bottom line - I accept the developments of US technology companies in 
broadened communications throughout the world - and especially in 
repressed or totalitarian states - in fact I applaud them.  An omelet 
usually requires a few broken eggs.

Ted - Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, May you find Peace in 2008.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071224/ff248209/attachment-0001.html