Congressman Quizzes Net Companies on Shame 459
mjdroner writes "Cnet has a transcript of the House of Representatives hearing on net censorship with Google, Microsoft, Cisco, and Yahoo reps. At one point, Rep. Tom Lantos asks if Microsoft is ashamed of their actions in China. Microsoft: 'We comply with legally binding orders whether it's here in the U.S. or China.' Lantos: 'Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system.'"
Shit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironic how MS is doing everything not to have to comply with the EU's antitrust rulings.
Re:Shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, it's quite simple.
Complying with China's demands may: cost some pro-democracy activists their lives
Complying with the EU's demands may: cost some Microsoft shareholders some of their money
You aren't suggesting that Microsoft should deliberately make less money than the maximum theoretically possible, are you? That's Communism! That goes against all the principles of liberty, justice and shameless gouging that America was founded on!
Re:Shit (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
US-American law requires that a publically traded company maximize their revenue. The executive-staff could be prosecuted for deliberately ignoring the Chinese market.
Care to back this up with a quote from the U.S. Code? I know they have a responsibility to their shareholders as spelled out in pretty much any corporate charter, but civil or criminal liability? I seriously doubt it unless it was a case of willful negligence or stock abuse (e.g. Enron). Just failing to meet an opportunity to make more mone
No, you're wrong (Score:5, Informative)
First, there is no "U.S. Code" (I assume you mean federal law) governing corporate profits.
Second, virtually every state has a law that DOES require maximizing profits.
http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/533/ [ucdavis.edu]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_res
http://www.business-ethics.com/resources/article_
Each of these links add information, but because the laws are specific to each state, I'm not going to look them up for you.
Regardless, the point is clear.
Business Judgement Rule = no lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
The Board of Directors, and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty [wikipedia.org].
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgement Rule [wikipedia.org] protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hypo_Google_Director/CEO: "should we go into China knowing the upside for immediate growth and the potential downside for long-term corporate image problems? No, I don't think so."
No way you a shareholder could sue over that. You cenrtainly could try to vote in a new Board of Directors who are committed to expansion in China, but that is not the same as suing the Board.
Re:Shit (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Shit (Score:3, Funny)
Complying with the EU's demands may: cost some Microsoft shareholders some of their money
And the sad part is, some people are going to think that's just you being funny or ironic, but that's exactly how it works.
It's always easier to apologize later, once the bodies are buried and your pockets are full, than to do anything ahead of time and take heat from your shareholders for it.
But I have only a limited amount of blame for t
I agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
And before anyone gets on my case, this is apolitical - both parties have kowtowed to the Chinese in the interests of American businesses. It's a bit hypocritical to start getting mad at them now when our government led the way.
Snappy answer to overboard question (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, Lantos has standing to invoke Nazi Germany on account of his personal and family history.
Re:Shit (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shit (Score:3, Insightful)
I also wonder if they would have suggested that these companies not cooperate with another government that recently came to them for information.
Re:Shit (Score:2)
"In general, Godwin's Law does not apply in situations wherein one could reasonably expect Hitler or Nazis to be mentioned, such as a discussion of Germany in World War II."
In this situation there is a direct comparison of companies doing buisness based on local laws that caused great Evil(TM). I think the comparison is direct enough to say Godwin's Law does not apply.
Re:Shit (Score:2)
Godwin on Godwin's law (Score:2, Informative)
He lost his own argument (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:He lost his own argument (Score:2, Informative)
"Hitler ate sugar."
Re:He lost his own argument (Score:2)
uh-oh (Score:2, Funny)
Anne Frank (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course they would have, if there was a profit in it. What Anne Frank was doing was illegal (Reich Criminal Code section 1775B: Breathing while Jewish), and if Yahoo wanted to do business in Germany at the time then they would certainly have had to comply with the demands of the lawfully appointed Gestapo. Not to do so would require them to forego the potential revenues to be had in Germany, which would clearly mean a failure to maximise shareholder value.
They're corporations. They're pure Lawful Evil by definition.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that Lawful Evil is an overstatement. If being good will bring them profits, they'll be good. They don't give a damn one way or the other. The same with obedience to laws. True Neutral all the way baby.
</geek>
Re:Anne Frank (Score:4, Insightful)
Actaully, by your explanation they are Lawful Neutral. They are complying with the laws no matter if the laws are good or bad.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Interesting)
Really? I quote:
"A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He's comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He is loath to break promises, and is therefore very cautious about giving his word unless a bargain is clearly in his favour."
Sounds pretty much like a typical corporation to me.
It continues:
"Many lawful evil characters use society and its laws for selfish advantages, exploiting the letter of the law over its spirit whenever it best suits their interests."
Now, tell me that's not Microsoft all over.
(quotations from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], although presumably originating in D&D sourcebooks - I recognise the text from NWN :-)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, tell me that's not Microsoft all over.
Why stop at Microsoft? Why not Halliburton, Enron, Exxon-Mobil, Pfizer, or any other large corporation. Each company seeks a competitive advantage over its rivals. They will circumvent laws where they can if it means gaining the upper hand. They care little for the plight of the citizens around them, unless it threatens their livelihood (boycott), and even then they pay it lip service until the law puts the hammer to them, and even that is not enough, as they drag legal proceedings out over decades.
Microsoft, Google, Yahoo - they are all competing for a share of the Chinese market. One company cannot afford to be seen bucking the Chinese government, because the others will not follow suit, simply leaving the offending company to hang while they exploit its downfall. All is fair in love, war, and apparently, Internet commerce.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the AD&D Players' Handbook to define a personal code of mortality is kind of like using a Dvorak magazine article to define an global enterprise IT architecture...
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2)
What schools teach you about Mao in "a positive way"?
China's "Great Leap Forward" [orbit6.com] around 1960. The typical estimate given for the number of people who died is generally placed around 30 million people.
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2)
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2)
Well, it's been pretty well-known for at least 20 years. If the subject of Mao came up in a history class I'd hope the teacher might have a clue. Or was he waving a Little Red Book and exhorting you to learn from Lei Feng?
Re:Anne Frank (Score:5, Insightful)
One interesting section I saw was when Yahoo was being quizzed about handing over information to the Chinese Government about a Blogger. They were asked if they would have done the same if the Nazi's asked them the location of Anne frank.
I would ask if they would do the same if the FBI came knocking on their door asking for customer information without a warrant, but waving the ill-named USA PATRIOT Act around. "Terrorism!" "Security reasons!" "Other buzzword that makes it sound like you aren't a true red-blooded American if you don't comply!" This whole thing really pisses me off. Congress is more than willing to tear down trade barriers with China, allow some corporations to run sweat shops over there, while criticising the tech companies for doing something similar. Sure, there aren't sweat shops, but paying some poor guy 12 cents an hour in dangerous conditions is surely at least as bad, from a freedom and democracy standpoint, as providing a censored web search to their population.
I guess some "most favored nations" are more favored than others. Since Britain and China are both MFN, why should we treat them differently? If China needs to be treated differently, why don't they lose their MFN status?
Re:Anne Frank (Score:3, Interesting)
"Terrorism!" is the modern buzzword, but....
"Pinkoes!" - 1950s
"A Jap's a Jap!" - 1940s
"Over there!" - 1920s
"Rebels!" - 1860s
"Laissez-faire!" - mid-1800s
"Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite!" - 1790s
"For the Holy Land!" - 1200s
"Chivalry!" - 1000s
"Carthago delenda est!" - 100s BC
"The Mandate of Heaven!" - 900s BC
It isn't just the current administration of the United States. We've been
Re:Anne Frank (Score:2, Interesting)
My company is trying to succeed in China. I wonder wh
A corporation has no shame (Score:5, Insightful)
Comforting, isn't it? And so convenient too. Nobody's to blame. In fact, if it wasn't illegal, you could run a corporation dealing in murder. Nobody would have a problem pulling the trigger. 'cause hey, he can't do anything else anyway, it's the system.
And since I don't want to invoke Godwin's Law, I'll end here.
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Say you have Joe, an investor with a 401k. He works at a factory that makes watches. He gets his prospectus this year, and notices the message fom his broker of an anticipated increse in profits due to a rise in share price in some of their sector companies. Next month, Joe
Ethical funds, Walmart (Score:3, Insightful)
The people brokering our investments are just doing what we tell them. If you don't want to invest in Google then you always have the option of putting your money elsewhere. If you're a mutual fund investor then it's your responsibility to read through the prospectus and
Re:A corporation has no shame (Score:3, Insightful)
Invidivuals have morals, conscience, and shame, but unless a corporation is firmly controlled by a particular individual or very select group of individuals (as is the case with some privately held companies) who cannot be easily displaced, the organization itself will act amorally.
One of the main reasons for this is because, given that the ultimate driving motive is profit, there is a mechanism at practically every level, from the factory floor to the executi
Godwin's Law: missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Godwin's Law has caught on so strongly is that it's a useful rule of thumb. Once a discussion on USENET has reached the point where people are citing the Nazis, chances are it has long ago stopped being worth reading.
However, there are circumstances in which comparisons to the Nazis are not unreasonable and cannot be put down to the usual hyperbole found in flamewars. This discussion is one of them. We are dealing here with American corporations doing business in a totalitarian state, and - through the nature of the business they are doing - aiding and abetting the unpleasant regime there in the very deeds for which they are despised.
In the 1940s, it was IBM supplying the machinery needed to handle the great indexes and lists needed to keep track of the processing of six million or so undesirables, and the consultants and technical assistance needed to set up and run that machinery.
Today, it is Yahoo handing over the emails of activists, and Google censoring search results. Is this quite the same scale of evil as IBM's collaboration in the Final Solution? No. Is it, however, qualitatively the same, even if it is quantitavely lesser? Yes. Just as happened back then, our corporations are collaborating in the sordid work of tyrants.
Godwin's Law, therefore, cannot be applied. Comparisons to the Nazis are clear and appropriate.
The Pot Calls The Kettle.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps Lantos should look closer to home for people to berate. Asking the sociopaths that run multinational corperations whether they are "ashamed" is ridiculous to begin with. These people are physically incapable of that emotion. Joe Cong
Re:The Pot Calls The Kettle.... (Score:5, Informative)
He was wrong then and wrong now, but at least he is consistent.
Perhaps you should learn who Tom Lantos is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps you should learn who Tom Lantos is (Score:2)
So what's he actually doing about it? Instead of making noise about that, he's hassling Google and Microsift about their dealings abroad. Maybe he should divert his energies to more pertinent matters on the home front.
Re:Perhaps you should learn who Tom Lantos is (Score:5, Informative)
He has held unofficial hearings outside Congress, but they have no power and get no press.
When the Democrats held control, Lantos was at the forefront of the human rights movement that was reflected in official policy. Today he has no such power.
So he is doing what he can, in the forums he has access to, and I applaud him for it.
Re:Perhaps you should learn who Tom Lantos is (Score:4, Informative)
What about search history? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does Google maintain the same history of keyword searches by IP and by "cookie" at google.cn? If so, what are they going to do when the Chinese government demands they provide that information?
It's not hard to imagine a situation where that information would put a Chinese Google user in danger.
Godwin's Law at 0th post (Score:2, Funny)
Heard it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Heard it (Score:2)
Nah, it had occurred to him. He would have been briefed by P.R. and legal teams before being allowed anywhere near an interview team. They will have explained to him all about IBM and Nazi Germany and how their consultants had helped put together the advanced filing systems to or
Bizarre double standard (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the SAME congress that mandates filtering of the Net in all libraries.
So, basically, if other countries do it, it's evil, but if the USA does it, that's the right thing to do? Sounds a lot like Congress' policy on detaining and torturing prisoners.
Re:Bizarre double standard (Score:2)
Re:Bizarre double standard (Score:2)
Google took a hit because they stood up to demands from the US government for records of searches by Americans. IOW, they took a stand for individual privacy and against erosion of civil liberties.
Now Google takes a hit because they didn't stand up against the Chinese government. IOW they didn't stand up against erosion of civil liberties.
So tell me, as a company doing business world-wide, how can they win in this little political game, and how different are the two demands? (Bonus points if you don't i
Re:Bizarre double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Library filters are not exactly similar to China's censorship and persecution of citizens. Libraries are required to have some type of filtering, yes, but they are not required to have it turned on at all times. Nearly all libraries will happily turn off filtering for an adult patron who asks. Librarians hate the filters more than just about anyone, just ask.
Furthermore, libraries are required to have a sign in sheet for c
Ah THAT same Congress, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Confusing (Score:5, Insightful)
Either the company comply with Chinas laws or do not do business there.
So what they are debating , is if they are going to ban the companies from a particular area of trade and services in china .
Is that somehow anti-capitalist ? does it constitute an embargo ?
Re:Confusing (Score:2)
In a capitalist society a company should have no shame, they should do whatever they can to make profits regardless of the costs to anything, however it is the governments job to stop companies from doing things we see as "evil", and through a system of fines or other methods make it not rational to do because of the cost. Basically everyone should act in only their best interest, and it should be in the Government's interest to keep peop
Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:4, Insightful)
I honestly believe that this entire topic has been blown out of proportion - congress is not interested in promoting free speech, they just want to spread democracy to the rest of the world.
Just remember how communists in the US were treated during the cold war - there goes the free speech argument. It can be said that the United States is the greatest example of democracy, however, it is also the greatest example of it's failure. In the US corporations run the country at least in China they are forced to tow the line.
Having recently visited China, I can sincerely say it is not the police state that most people envision (actually the heightened security in the US is far more restrictive in my experience i.e bags being searched and going though metal detectors in some buildings most notably SF City Hall)
Although many people do comment on China's education system which puts Mao on a pedistol, it is no different to what the US does with Kennedy - secondly in China's education system, the incident at Tienanmen Square is not taboo - my current girlfriend completed high school in China and was taught that the military was wrong but so too were the protesters (allegedly they set fires)
I'm not trying to make excuses for the Chinese Government, I just think we should give them a fair go and accept their sovereignty like they do ours (has anyone heard Chinese criticising the US for their human rights record?).
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't give a damn about democracy. They want to spread free market capitalism to the rest of the world.
Remember, Congressmen do the bidding not of the voters but of the corporations that contributed to their campaign funds. These corporations don't care whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship, as long as it lets them do more or less as they please and make an awful lot of money at it.
Indeed, a free-market dictatorship might be even better than a democracy. In a dictatorship, you need only bribe the dictator and all regulations and obstacles to the greater profit melt away. In a democracy, you have do bribe a majority of the representatives, and that costs a lot more.
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:2)
Or something that at some level resembles that enough that they could call it such, whilst actually being neither free (as most participants are realistically indentured slaves), a market (since only one or two companies control 100% of the sales), or capitalism (as the benefits would accrue to people with political capital... Oh well, I guess I'm wrong about that one...)...
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as long as that involves being willing to de-recognize countries that elect the "wrong" people, like Hamas. After all, its not real democracy if you don't vote the way that we want you to. Or something.
Re:Democracy Isnt For Everyone (Score:3)
"Because might makes right,
And, till they've seen the light
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
Till somebody we like can be elected!"
Tom Lehrer, Send the Marines!
Re:"Democracy isn't for everyone"!?!?! WTF? (Score:2)
Because we all know how we never tried (or succeded in some cases) in bringing democracy to the Japanese, South Koreans, South Vietnamese, Philipinos, etc... no, we Americans certainly would never shed our own blood for the freedom of Asian people. We're all a bunch of Euro-centric racists, right?
Power/Profit, or Ethics? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the United States, where so many people are very committed to capitalism, it may rear its head more than in some other types of social or economic systems, but I see it everywhere I go.
"What pays best" and "What is best" simply aren't always the same thing, after all.
Personally, I've made choices on both sides of the divide, when there's been one. I got tired of picking things that paid well but made me feel dirty, after a while... but that's probably why I'm neither corporate nor congressional!
Take at look at your mouse (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you have *any* equipment that says "Made in China" ?
If you do, your questions should be asked in the mirror.
Re:Take at look at your mouse (Score:2)
Probably the flag he's waving was sewn there.
Since when do we require companies to be ethical? (Score:4, Insightful)
* HP, Tektronics e.a. have supplied Iraq with militairy usefull technology, resulting in the death of allied soldiers and lots of iraqi (and kurdish) people.
* Companies like Enron and MCI/Worldcom have, by lying about revenues e.a., jeopardized jobs and savings of thousands of people who, in a climate of economical recession and outsourcing/offshoring, risk the destruction of their livelyhoods. I know, no direct fatalities, but not very nice now is it?
* Companies like Shell continue to do business in countries like Nigeria, which are known to have a bad record regarding human rights.
And don't get me started about the ethical aspects of some of the policies of the American Federal Government. (Guantanamo Bay, Weapons of Mass Destruction, dropping bombs on Civil targets).
Re:Since when do we require companies to be ethica (Score:3, Insightful)
The crazy thing is that in my reckoning, the land belongs to the indians who have lived there for generations and generations. At some point, a government came in, declared ayahuasca illegal, and is allowing big oil companies to come in and destroy the land.
The head of one village was knifed by military forces because he
Awesome (Score:2)
"Those were legal orders under the Nazi German" (Score:5, Insightful)
If they wanted to do business there they had to comply.
You never saw senate hearings THEN (Especially Postwar) About their actions
China will change, it wont be a "grand" revolution, but it will change. In 50 years with the Decline of Freedom and Liberty here in the US I wouldnt be suprised in the LEAST if China were a MORE free society, (in 50 year I estimate) There are simply too many people, and the more that become educated with a market system such as china has , it will happen.
Does this cut both ways? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does this cut both ways? (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States bans toplessness on broadcast TV, unlike, say, the UK.
Should UK companies be allowed to violate these rules and slap bouncing breasts on US broadcast TV? This is an extremely similar case of censorship laws varying between countries.
Time for a boycott, but this is going to be hard.. (Score:2)
And who won the discussion? (Score:2)
Capitalism in the best of the worst (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's also been established that without some sort of ethical laws governing a capitalistic system it will steamroll over anybody on it's way to the singular goal of profits.
We have laws in the U.S. designed to limit the behavior of corporations (within the country) based on the ethical and moral will of the people as represented through government (mostly...don't start the hypocracy
Godwin's Law Does Not Apply (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unreasonable to suggest when the topic is totalitarian regimes who routinely lock people up because of their beliefs and also routinely execute people and harvest them for organs, that comparisons to Nazis are either off-topic or a sign that the argument has been lost.
TWW
The obvious answer to Lantos' question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lantos asks:
Well, IBM complied with legal orders when they cooperated with Nazi Germany. Those were legal orders under the Nazi German system...Do you think that IBM during that period had something to be ashamed of?
The answers should have been:
Are you saying that the current Chinese regime and the Nazi regime are equivalently evil? If you are then my answer to you is that not only IBM but the whole of the U.S.A had something to have been ashamed of during that period.
The U.S.A had yet to enter the war despite evidence of what the Nazi's were up to. They had yet to implement full economic sanctions against the Nazis.
If, congressman, you believe that the Nazis and the chinese are comparable, why hasn't the U.S declared full economic sanctions against China, and why hasn't it made illegal for any U.S company to do business with that country? Why have you yet to propose that we declare war against China?
The truth is, because China is not equivalent to Nazi Germany, and your question is nonsensical.
Nazi German exceptionalism (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing I take issue with is that once a society or a regime crosses a certain threshold of ev
Absurd. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's ridiculous that people would compare the US to China. I feel like people here like to dream up these crazy threats from the government. When was the last time you or any o
Re:Absurd. (Score:5, Insightful)
>> demonstrating without a warrant
Sorry, I need permission to express my displeasure about something?
>> Those people jailed at Guantanamo Bay are also there for their ties to terrorism
Bullshit. Utter tosh and nonsense. Please provide references. Please also explain how holding them there without trial, legal representation, the ability for individual private interviews with representatives from the UN, while interrogating them with abusive techniques is in any way justified even if they do have ties to terrorism.
Just what is terrorism anyway? I do recall considerable amounts of US support for those very people in Afghanistan when they were fighting against the Russians that are currently being targeted by American "anti terrorist" operations now.
Hypocrisy? Hell yes. I don't give a shit what the background of Lantos is, I don't care whether he votes against MFT status for China or not; the organisation he represents is very far from being the champion of freedom and democracy it would have to be for his questions to those companies to have any credence at all.
Shame? I hope to hell he feels it.
Re:Good for the goose (Score:3, Insightful)
I did not specify that references had to be 'net based. Neither have I said I'd consider an Internet based reference to be sufficient to convince me (or otherwise). I'm happy to accept in advance your apology for misrepresenting me by saying otherwise.
Can you provide actual evidence that the detainees are all terrorists, or linked to terrorism? And can you further provide justification for the flagrant abuses of their civil liberties?
Obviously those infringements of civil liberties can be referenced through
Re:Absurd. (Score:3, Informative)
When was the last time the FBI showed up at someone's house simply for running a blog criticizing the US government?
Appearently you can get an intimidating visit for having
Come on, this is China, not Cuba (Score:4, Interesting)
Typical Washington hypocrites.
Congressmen also supported Nazism (Score:4, Informative)
People forget that the Nazi party was probably the most political party in the world during the 1930s. The American Bund (a group formed to promote Nazism in the states, and to encourage neutrality while Hitler invaded the rest of Europe) was not a fringe group - they had among their members Congressmen, Senators, judges, and governors.
Even after World War II had begun in earnest for America in 1942, members of Congress gave classified information to Nazi agents, spoke out for the extermination of "the Jew" on the floor of Congress, and continued to spout anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rhetoric in newsletters sent to their home district.
Luckily for us, Congress is not beholden to respect the opinions of all of its members individually - it only has to respond to the majority opinion, which usually correlates with public opinion. This is also true of corporations - their "public" is just limited to those who own stock in it.
Grandstanding, and a revised Nazi analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
Lantos asked Yahoo! about whether it has contacted the family of the jailed reporter and what it felt about that. Okay, fine. Then he asked Microsoft about the blogger, to which Microsoft clarified that it only took down the site and never provided the government with private information. Well, that's fine too, I guess, if Lantos didn't know beforehand the specifics of this incident and exactly what was different this time between "turn in" and "take down". And then he asks Google the same question. And here, that political grandstanding shines through clear and bright. Google just censors search results. It hasn't turned anyone in. It hasn't taken down any sites. Nobody could conceivably be harmed in this sensational "think of the family!" way by seeing rosy pictures of Tian'an'men. It's purely political.
If Congress was *really* interested in doing something about this, then they would recognize that the solution is not to criticize American companies, but to back them with a strong diplomatic stance up so that they would have the ability to say no to Beijing. But being tough to Beijing is hard, so let's bash these companies instead and hope that Americans will equate that to us doing something productive.
And as much as I dislike these Nazi references, maybe we should think of it this way. Remember that scene in Schindler's List when Jewish doctors kill their patients with lethal doses of some sort of liquid shortly before the Nazis come crashing in? One could argue that these doctors were immoral because they killed Jews and by killing them, they were in a way helping with the Nazi extermination. But most people would not hold that view, and instead would praise them for having mercifully killed them instead of letting them be killed by machine gun bullets when the Nazis come. The doctors could do nothing about the fact that those people were going to die, so they decided to do a little evil of their own, but in a way that mitigated a worse evil. Replace killing with censorship, doctors with American companies, and now you have a more accurate Nazi comparison.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Interesting)
It would appear that you're trying to let google off the hook, just because another organization (the government) has also dealt with the criminal regime. Sorry, morality doesn't work that way. Having company doesn't excuse a crime.
No, but it sure means that Congress doesn't have any business conducting this.
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, morality doesn't work that way.
Your right morality does not work that way, you don't go critize someone else for actions that you are unwilling to do yourself. You set the example of what others should be doing.
I do not see them making a big stink of stuff that are real crimes like child labor, human rights and corrupt government officials which are worse and more directly affect peoples lives. If the issue of human rights is such a big deal they should not be treating China with MFT status,
Tom Lantos (Score:5, Informative)
An American by choice, Tom Lantos was born in Budapest, Hungary, on February 1, 1928. He was 16 years of age when Nazi Germany occupied his native country. As a teenager, he was placed in a Hungarian fascist forced labor camp. He succeeded in escaping and was able to survive in a safe house in Budapest set up by Swedish humanitarian Raoul Wallenberg. His story is one of the individual accounts which forms the basis of Steven Spielberg's Academy Award winning documentary about the Holocaust in Hungary, The Last Days.
Say what you will about most Congressmen, Senators and the President, but complaints about MFT and coddling those commie bastards doen't apply to Rep. Lantos.
Re:Tom Lantos (Score:5, Informative)
He has called for hearings on many human rights issues, including Guantanamo Bay. Do you really think the Republicans will allow any hearings into China, Gitmo or Iraq?
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell it to the Dalai Lama.
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Troll)
"Insightful" my ass. It just proves that the general Slashdot crew is fundamentally clueless about this topic.
Dalia Lama does accept being a part of China. He doesn't fight for a free Tibet. But you didn't know that because you didn
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
That... depends on whom you ask, and how you define "a part of."
Yes, Tibet first came under Chinese control 700 years ago, when it was conquered by the Yuan Dynasty of the Mongol Empire. (Prior to that it was off doing its own little mountainous thing, one would presume... so the fact that it is under Chinese control seems to fly in the face of your prior assertion that China doesn't invade people. But anyway.)
That said, there have been periods since then during which China had little if any control over Tibet, and prior to the Cultural Revolution, even when it had control, it apparently chose not to exercise that control very much.
So there are some people who see things differently. And there are some people who feel that China's control, particularly in the last several decades, has had a... detrimental effect on people in Tibet, as far as certain cultural or religious freedoms might be concerend.
It's not surprising that there are misunderstandings, there are a lot of people in the world with many different views. These sorts of things happen.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you qualified and authorized to make that statement? How familiar are you with how China deals with its dissident groups, like, say, Falun Gong? Most of the outside world does not know what China does or does not have in that regard, because China is not exactly for
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
After the recent UN Human Rights condemnation of the Guantanamo prison camp, I was a bit shocked by the allusion to the 10 year prisoner when there are prisoners in Guantanamo for nearly 5 years without trial.
The problem that I have with this is in China the 10-year prisoner is incarcertated legally according to Chinese law (even if you don't agree with thoses laws), the terrorist suspects in Guantanamo are not there legally according to American law.
Fine, if they are terrorists, try them and lock them up or execute them, if that's what you want to do - but it is pure hypocrisy to complain about China acting under its own laws while having a blatant disregard for your own laws and the right to just and fair treatment under them.
It's do as I say, not as I do.
I can see where Tom Lantos is coming from with his background, and I like a good Microsoft roasting as much as the next man, but as a representive of the government of the United States, I wonder is he ashamed?
Re:How about working with the US congress ? (Score:2)
Brian Sebril [wikipedia.org] thinks man never landed on the moon. These people [alaska.net] think the earth is flat. A lot of smart people think a lot of dumb things.
Slashdot seems to be full of Godwin Nazis today. (Score:2)
Re:NO (Score:2)
The point is that the shareholders have all the power and these owners are international. They force change in the company should they wish to, because they