<html>
<body>
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
<dl>
<dd>"Now that Yahoo has settled in US court regarding their
complicity with<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>the Chinese Communist dictatorship in jailing Chinese citizens for
<dd>exercising free speech (10 year sentences, and still imprisoned),
<dd>perhaps Harkins can now "weigh in" on this issue, to quote
Harkins, as
<dd>he implied he would. The evidence in March, 2006, however,
when
<dd>Harkins dodged (my wording) this issue in a Vision2020 post, was
<dd>compelling that Yahoo had indeed engaged in the conduct that is now
<dd>"resolved" in US court, in a suit brought by the families
of those
<dd>jailed in China with Yahoo's cooperation."</blockquote>
</dl>In contrast, The Washington Post reports:
<dl>
<dd>
"<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yahoo!+Inc.?tid=informline">
Yahoo</a> 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."
</dl>No fault was admitted by Yahoo. Further, The Washington Post
reports:
<dl>
<dd>"The announcement came a week after members of Congress
criticized Yahoo executives for not assisting the families of
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Shi+Tao?tid=informline">
Shi Tao</a> 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
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+District+Court?tid=informline">
U.S. District Court</a> in Northern California."<br>
<dd>"The pressures by Congress on [Yahoo chief executive]
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jerry+Yang?tid=informline">
Jerry Yang</a> 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
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/China?tid=informline">
China</a> probably sped up the settlement, as did Yahoo's interest in
being seen as a company that promotes human rights. <br><br>
<dd>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."
</dl>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. <br><br>
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?<br><br>
I do find it interesting that Moffett states,
<dl>
<dd>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!
</dl>That may be the difference between Moffett and me. If I had
been China's premiere, I would dissolve the Communist Party.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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).<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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:
<dl>
<dd>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.
</dl>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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Ted - Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, May you find Peace in 2008.<br>
</body>
</html>