Some Brief Thoughts on Yahoo
I haven’t really said much about the recent goings-on with Yahoo, but after Jerry Yang was hauled up to Congress and grilled about his company’s cooperation with the authorities over here, I feel obligated to say something.
In the past, my view has (I hope) been fairly consistent. I feel kind of sorry for Yahoo. It is just trying to do business, and although there are of course limits on how far a corporation should go in cooperating with a government request, for the most part all these guys are turning data over to
Is that a good thing. No, it isn’t. However, that’s the situation in the real world right now, and I don’t think members of the U.S. Congress would recognize the real world even if it bit ‘em on their pale white posteriors. They have problems of their own dealing with the Patriot Act and
Yahoo certainly did not help its case by bungling the response and giving incorrect information to Congress – hard to get away with that, unless your name is Alberto Gonzalez. I am not surprised that communications over sensitive internal issues from the
I do wish to say something about the Congressional hearing, however. I have not had the time to read the transcript, but I generally agree with Erik Schmidt at Tech LawForum that Yahoo provides a handy scapegoat for a Congress that is just itching to bash
Schmidt points out that statements made by Tom Lantos, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee that was barbequing Jerry Yang, were unreasonable:
Lantos asserts that Yahoo didn’t have to roll over for the Chinese government. After all, Yahoo is a big, powerful company and has been doing business with the Chinese government for some time.
Like Schmidt, I think that this is rather absurd. Yahoo has a lot of leverage with the Chinese government?
I’ve had lots of problems with Lantos’
Declan McCullagh, who was liveblogging on the hearing (h/t RConversation – go here for a full roundup of this issue with lots o’ links) had this to say:
I wonder if Lantos and other Patriot Act supporters will apologize to Americans like Brandon Mayfield (falsely jailed under the Patriot Act) or Sami al-Hussayen (a Webmaster who provided hyperlinks to Muslim sites and was prosecuted under the Patriot Act).
The bottom line: Yahoo did not handle this well, but they should not be held to a higher standard than other firms doing business over here. Oh yeah, and the U.S. Congress has, once again, come out of a controversial matter looking like dorks.
“… mother of the dude”? How old are you?
Anyway, I don’t view this as Yahoo being held to a higher standard. It’s simply that Yahoo’s actions resulted in the imprisonment of a journalist.
And what does hypocrisy have to do with anything? It doesn’t. IF the U.S. is doing something wrong vis-a-vis the Patriot Act, then appropriate disciplinary actions should be taken. But this doesn’t excuse the imprisonment of a journalist. Your logic is severely flawed.
(BTW, I live in China, too.)
Good comments, dude.
1. No excuse for my language. I write in a stuffy and formal manner all day long, so this is my chance to relax. My writing style will not change. If it somehow lessens my credibility, so be it.
2. Higher standard — I think Yahoo’s actions are more important than focusing on the results. You can call me heartless, but if Yahoo is doing the same thing as everyone else, and yet this one time it results in a negative outcome, punishing Yahoo for that does not seem fair to me. That’s using a higher standard because we are uncomfortable with a specific outcome. I don’t like it.
As to violations of U.S. law, including misrepresentation, that’s another story. Punish accordingly.
3. Hypocrisy – very good comment. You are right that what the U.S. government does has no bearing on whether Yahoo did something wrong or not. I agree.
Let me clarify. If Yahoo did something wrong under the law, they should be punished. However, I find the actions of individual members of Congress quite hypocritical, and therefore distasteful. Engaging in moral condemnation of actions that you otherwise support when done by your own government is wrong.
BTW, doesn’t matter where you live. All opinions are valid. I hope I do not come across as some sort of China snob just because I live here — not my intent.
Trackback failed. I have a similar blog post:
http://blogs.sun.com/syw/entry/a_capitol_hill_theater
Has our Congress secured the electronic privacy rights of Americans?
The fact is our own government also requires ISPs and telcos to release user information in criminal investigations, as recent PBS Frontline segment on domestic spying demonstrates:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
The NSA had 15-20 listening stations all over US – that’s just AT&T alone! We haven’t even touched stuff like National Security Letter, or the FBI’s project “Carnivor”, “Magic Lantern”.
So why is it okay for us to do it, but not other people? Is hypocrisy part of this “moral pygmie” characterization?
If Yahoo! is a “moral pygmie” for responding to criminal investigation required by law, then what is Blackwater USA?
No matter what’s the result of this case, I only know that many people in China will get rid of Yahoo mail service, for it’s not doing things for its users in China.
Well, that’s definitely a pragmatic viewpoint. I find the comment on hypocrisy and double standards a little more interesting, however.