Yahoo sued over torture of Chinese dissident

From Times Online
April 19, 2007

Yahoo! sued over torture of Chinese dissident

Chinese political prisoner sues Yahoo! in a US federal court in what is believed to be first case of its kind
Rhys Blakely

A Chinese political prisoner sued Yahoo! in a US federal court, accusing the internet company of helping the Chinese government torture him by providing information that led to his arrest.

The suit, filed under the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victims Protection Act, is believed to be the first of its kind made against an American internet company.

Wang Xiaoning, who is serving a 10-year sentence in China, and his wife, Yu Ling, who is currently in San Francisco, are seeking damages and an injunction barring Yahoo! from identifying political opponents to the Chinese authorities.

Mr Wang was arrested after distributing online articles calling for democratic reform and a multiparty system in China via Yahoo! sites in 2000 and 2001. His suit contends that Yahoo!’s Hong Kong office provided police in China with information that linked him to the postings. Mr Wang was arrested in September 2002 and says he was beaten while in detention.

A Yahoo! spokesman said the company “is distressed that citizens in China have been imprisoned for expressing their political views on the internet", but said it had not had time to review Mr Wang's lawsuit.

It added: “However, the concerns raised about the Chinese government compelling companies to follow Chinese law and disclose user information are not new. Companies doing business in China must comply with Chinese law or its local employees could be faced with civil and criminal penalties."

Lawyers said the lawsuit will encounter a number of hurdles – including the fact that Yahoo! has always complied with Chinese laws.

However, it comes as internet groups see increased activism from investor groups over online-related human rights issues.

Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and Cisco have all faced fierce criticism for doing business in China, a state dubbed "the world champion of internet censorship" by Reporters Without Borders, the press freedom group.

Google will face a showdown with shareholders over its business in China and other territories that censor the web, at its annual meeting on May 10.

The Office of the Comptroller of New York City, which controls police, fire department and teachers’ pensions funds, has demanded a shareholder vote calling for measures designed to safeguard free speech online.

The vote will include a call for Google not to store information that can identify its users in “internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system”.

Other policies being proposed ask that Google not engage in "proactive censorship" and that it use all legal means to resist demands for censorship.

Google's board has recommended a vote against the shareholder proposal. Since two thirds of Google’s voting stock is owned by its co-founders and chief executive, who sit on the board, the proposal has no chance of being passed.

Human rights groups say that Yahoo has helped the Chinese authorities identify at least four people, including the journalist Shi Tao in 2004, who have since been imprisoned for voicing dissent in cyberspace.

In January, F&C Asset Management, which manages some £106 billion, gave a public “warning” to the technology, media and telecoms companies to rethink “tough issues” such as setting up shop in China while toeing Beijing’s line on censorship.

Citing the example of Cisco, an F&C report - Managing Access, Security & Privacy – described how the group faced an investor revolt last year when 29 per cent of shareholders supported a proposal demanding it to report on how its products are being used to limit freedom of expression. Cisco sells network equipment to the Chinese authorities that is used in the so-called "Great Firewall", the blocking apparatus that Beijing uses to censor online content.

Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft, Cisco were also called before the US Congressional Subcommittee on Global Human Rights last year to explain their roles in China.

Karina Litvak, F&C’s head of governance and sustainable investment, said that companies are obliged to comply with local laws.

However, she added that they are also “expected to meet rapidly-evolving global human rights standards. The only way is for the industry as a whole to develop clear protocol for how to interact with governments when faced with these sensitive issues, whether in China, Europe, the US or elsewhere."

F&C said it was worried about "the pitfalls of regulatory clampdowns, penalties and public relations disasters".

It highlighted the case of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, the US telecoms groups that are now being sued for a combined $200 million for violating privacy laws after allegedly submitting customer records to the US National Security Agency's anti-terrorist call-tracking programme last year.

* Have your say

What a pathetic bunch of liberals. "We were only complying with Chinese laws," says Google. Maybe Google shouldn't be doing business with oppressive governments. But I forget. To the liberals at Google and elsewhere it is the US that is repressive. It is the US that is always wrong. The Communist Chinese, well, they deserve a Nobel Prize or a special award from some Hollywood degenerate.

Alphonso, Clarendon Hills, IL

In answer to why Microsoft has never been sued for providing info. to the CIA, it sadly comes down to the fact that we don't know/can't prove how they are responsible for its misuse. When the US disappears people, their names don't appear on an international action list.

Point being that international watch groups can divine these same data in the Chinese case, demonstrating beyond any question that the US is the least free place in the world today.

Wake up! Where was this concern in 2002 when the US senate authorized US invasion of any country putting US service personnel on trial? How many times has this been mentioned? Your concerns and media are useless.

Haroon Jahed, Portland, USA/Oregon

"I believe every person or a company should obey the laws of that country in which they are established."

And what if you can't get out of the country? If you're there by choice, fine, but what if you aren't? I find torture a pretty serious consequence, thank you very much.

starling, Lancaster, UK

EVERY US WEBB PAGE SHOULD HAVE A STATEMENT OR LINK THAT WILL INVOKE AUTOMATIC CENSORSHIP FROM THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. ESSENTIALLY SHUTTING DOWN ALL ACCESS TO THE US WEBB TO THE CHINESE PEOPLE. IF THE ENTIRE FREE WORLD DID THIS THE CHINESE PEOPLE WOULD NOTICE AND THEIR GOVERNMENT WOULD NOTICE.

ELLIOTT, PHILADELPHIA, USA, PA

why has Microsoft never been prosecuted for doing the same to its millions of customers,.by providing the CIA with the means, info and opportunity to spy on the worlds citizens,...who also get tortured and murdered

Key loggers Ru, ,

Followed by a proverb - " be a roman, when you are in rome", I believe every person or a company should obey the laws of that country in which they are established. If they are not, then they are not being lawful to the country where they are gaining profit from. In this case, I really believe that Yahoo has done the correct thing taking measures for not being blamed later on, for more serious consequences just because they didnt provide this sort of information to the Chinese government.

Viritha Yella, Mundelein, IL

Yahoo employees need to remember that Nazi Germany was also legal...

Donna, Farmington Hills, MI, USA

To be fair - Google made a choice - no presence in China or a presence under China's terms and conditions - I think they are doing the right thing. Eventually, China will have to accept people's freedom of expression as the old guard will die off and Google will be able to get on with their unrestricted search business. V. Sensible if you ask me.

Chad, Nottingham, UK

This is funny to hear everyone's soul-wrenching complaints about these companies.

Pure and simple, it's M O N E Y. If you can effectively boycott, like Sharpton was able to do over the Imus flap, you'll have your way. Until then, stop sniveling and wringing your hands. Our world runs on money. Nothing else. There are no moral based decisions anymore. It's all money.

Trust me....the Devil has won.

Mark Gordon, Chantilly, VA, USA

I dont think people should be so concearned about personal privacy, unless they have something to hide. I personally wouldn't care, and wont care if it comes to that, if the Government wants to look into everything I do. I dont do anything illegal, so what does it matter to me? People are too overprotective of their 'personal privacy'. If your'e breaking the law, you should be punished. Thats all there is to it. Laws are laws, and each country has their own.

Neo, The Dalles, USA, Oregon

Look's like these companie's need to take a big bite out of a reality sandwich! If I boycott the advertiser's on there website's and tell a couple of friend's to do the same until they make some positive change's on these human right's issue's.Wait a minute,if I use Google and Yahoo I can tell a couple of "MILLION" people to boycott there advertiser's!Like the "TANK MAN" who stood in front of a column of tank's leaving Tianaman Square during the Democracy Protest's in 1989 said to them,"WHY ARE YOU HERE?YOU HAVED CAUSED US NOTHING BUT MISERY!"

Charles H., Hooterville, CA.

these big companies are investing in China and their only concern is money and therefore it's not surprising that yahoo gave some critical information.

Galymzhan Kirbassov, Binghamton, NY, USA

I am frightened by what I read here. My eyes have been opened for the first time to the real negative impact of the net on many issues. I do not use Yahoo! only because it has not served my purposes as well as Google, but I have been simply politically naive not to think that my use of the net is as politically weighted as anything else I do in my daily life. Do I now stop using Google as well? What other search engine is there that I can know for sure is not going to cause misery and cruelty in some other part of the world? How we are bamboozled round every corner by powerful companies and countries is nothing if not frightening.

Tjaart Potgieter, Pretoria, South Africa

I really agree with Ronaldo from Rio that a person has to take responsibility for his own actions. When you use the electronic media you need to realize that what you say or do is not protected by any means from snooping by others including governments. It is no secret for instance that just anyone with enough desire, wherewithall and technical expertise can monitor both sides of your cellphone activity. You may as well go down to your enemies headquarters and stand just inside their door ans shout out your plans, thoughts and loyalties. This goes for every location. If I were to advertise for a hit man to go kill someone on the internet, just how long do you think it would be before a representative of the law shows up at my door with an arrest warrrant. You can bet it would be so fast that my head would spin. Diclaimer..I am not looking for a hit man for any purpose whatsoever. If you are one, don't contact me, I'll only report you to the police.

Don McCallum, Rancho Cordova, CA, USA

Money money money....It's this kind of behavior by capitalistic companies that will lead the world back to the dark age of communisms and fascisms of late history.

Liam, BuenaPark,

I don't think this case will go anywhere. Not because it has no legal merit, but because of the implications for telecommunications companies that gather information for the US government. Our government likes spying on internet users as much as any other government and won't want companies scared off data collection. I hope I'm wrong, I would prefer no government have easy access to internet communications.

Betty Ackers, Greenville, SC

While extreme, any talk of political reform in China is seen as a comspiracy to overthrow the government. And that, even in the US, is not permitted. Just go and fillout an application for a US Passport and you will read: page 4 of the application, section entitled Acts and Conditions:

I have not, since acquiring United States
citizenship....attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms
against, the United States, or conspiring to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force, the Government of the
United States.

The US focuses on the use of force and violence in order to bring about political change. China on the other hand knows that the pen is mightier than the sword.

I am not advocating China's choke hold on free speech but government is in the business of self preservation and freedom of speech and communism in the internet era cannot co-exist for long.

Tayo, Atlanta, GA

Nazis in Germany followed "local regulations" when enslaving and killing subhuman races (Untertan, as the "Rassenkunde des Deutschen Volkes" said). Yahoo managers has obeyed a inhuman rule, so they must be punished!

Pedro, Cordoba, ARGENTINA

"Following the laws of another country" sounds awfully open-ended to me. Sure, it makes sense, on one level, that if you are running a business in a country, that you obey its laws. But if you are connected to the U.S. in this case, it would seem that you are thoroughly subject to its laws as well. I didn't think that U.S. citizens or companies could simply go to another country to practice activities that are illegal in the U.S. regardless of whether they are legal in that other country. But I guess to some extent it must work that way.... thus American companies can go to another country and pay the workers there less than the legal minimum wage established here. Move over decency, make way for money.

Nathan, H.P., Illinois

Yahoo, Google, et al, and their shareholders must make a decision that requires that they examine their integrity (support of democracy or support of profit). This decision has most often been made on the side of profit, particularily and primarily in the United States. That said, they cannot be 'blamed' for making it. - American corporate law *demands* that such a decision be made in the direction of profit.

We Americans have put ourselves (or perhaps the wealthy have put us) in the legal position of favoring profit (and perhaps even fascist ideology) over democracy. In such a double-bind, democracy is the loser. In spite of our lip-service to it, we have nearly lost it once again.

Google (shareholders included) , above all, should be ashamed. If Yahoo were not *required* to be greedy and increase profits at all costs, perhaps it might have developed a corporate conscience and left China. Likewise for other investors in fascism.

Chan Fu, Fredericksburg,

Great points folks. I mean, imagine if the phone companies started turning over all of our calling records to the government so they could lock people away in a 'terrorist' camp in some foreign country without trials! We should really thinkg about the way compani... oh wait..
woops.

Rev, H-Town, Texas

I do not Yahoo! anyway..this is just another reason not to.

sk8rgurl, Amsterdam, NL

What happen to the freedom of speech in the world? Can you no longer express your opinion without imprisonment? Just imagine that US might already be doing this.

Joe, Bay Area , CA

Basically. this is not exactly frivolous, although there are probaly better ways than taking it to court (like working on a law to present to legislatures). In this particular case to get something that needs to be done, done, the court is a vaiable soultion. The fact is that a company that is based out of and mostly employed by citizens of a democratic country, should not when working with tolitarian goverments help them to supress what should be basic global rights. Free speech is a big one of these, so kudos to anyone trying to make some postive changes for the people of China.

Eric, Denver, CO

This company's ad is: "Do you Yahoo?"

The thought of life imprisonment & torture for using your services to express myself? "Yahoo" indeed.

Kevin, Dallas, TX

like I said on another site:

Profits over Ethics. That's the #1 rule of business. Profits over Ethics.

obe, Inglewood, CA

I agree with the companies when they say they have to follow local laws and regulations. However I also agree with shareholders who don't want to support companies that are cooperating with oppressive governments. I think that if these companies lose enough money and/or get enough negative publicity they will "somehow" find a way to work within the local rules AND behave ethically.

Rob Gordon, Cleveland,

Both Yahoo! and Google have cooperated with the Chinese government to suppress free speech and free media. This is shameful that these companies are not supporting the ideals of democracy, free speech and freedom of the press.

Google also prominently posts news from government and communist sponsored media outlets prominently on its news sites, giving prominence to propaganda style news reports. (Yes, even these reports should be available by search on Google or Yahoo!, but not placed on the same level as serious, independent media outlets.

Dan Cahill, Orlando, FL

Unfortunately US laws require that corporations act in the best interest of their shareholders mone. It is also required that they follow the laws of the country where they are doing business. The lawsuit has no real merit, and unless the shareholders all decided that they weren't going to sue Yahoo for financial mis-management, Yahoo must continue to make as much money as possible. Blame the corporate laws in the US and our long history of ensuring that money comes before everything else in the business world.

Matt, Pleasanton, CA

Yahoo did the right thing by giving up the information. They had to follow the law. This is just another frivolous lawsuit . The man should have some done some research before posting those comments on a website host that would give up that information, especially when he knows what his country will do to him if he were to talk against the government. I do agree that internet companies as well as others should do no business with China until they stop oppressing political speech.

Ronaldo, Rio, Brazil

Everything we do now has global significance. I will personally be taking my business away from Yahoo until it protects human rights or pulls out of countries that limit them.

Stephen Scalese, Pittsburgh, pa

About time! The holier-than-thou image that tech companies build while making deals like this need to be questioned.

iFaqeer, Fremont, California/USA

Yahoo should be sued. Companies in search of a buck should be aware of how their business impacts human rights in the countries in which they do business... particularly in Communist China.

If Yahoo had a Cuban web site and started giving customer information to Fidel Castro, the nation would be in an uproar. It's horrible that companies need to turn a profit so badly that they'll cooperate and collaborate with oppressive government bodies.

Shareholders should be ashamed.

Darrel, Oakland, CA