Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Guest Blog

Analysis and insight from occasional correspondents and decision makers.

Advertisement
Tuesday, November 06, 2007

House Foreign Affairs Committee Attacks Yahoo

Yahoo executives are ambushed with tough questions.
By Clark Boyd

Yahoo has a real China problem these days. The company is currently embroiled in a lawsuit in a California federal court over its role in turning over customer information to the Chinese State Security Bureau. That information, which Yahoo says it was required to provide under Chinese law, landed both Shi Tao, a journalist, and Wang Xiaoning, a democracy activist, in jail. Both are serving 10-year sentences. There are credible reports that both have been tortured.

Today, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang and chief counsel Michael Callahan were under attack on the East Coast as well. The House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington wanted them to answer some tough questions about the way they do business in China. At issue is Callahan's testimony before two House committees last year: he admitted that Yahoo China did turn over information on Shi Tao, but that executives in Sunnyvale, CA, had no idea at the time that it was Shi Tao that the government was after. Callahan also said that, more important, there was no indication given as to why Chinese authorities were after Shi Tao.

Now, Callahan says that his original account was wrong, and that someone at Yahoo China did know that "providing state secrets to a foreign entity" was indeed the charge being investigated. Callahan and Yang were on Capitol Hill today to apologize for not coming forward to the House Committee with this information, and for the "concern" that this caused the committee.

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Tom Lantos led a blistering attack on Yahoo today at the hearing. In his opening statement, Lantos said that Callahan and Yang should be ashamed:

"If you think our witnesses today are uncomfortable sitting in this climate-controlled room and accounting for their company's spineless and irresponsible actions, imagine how life is for Shi Tao, spending 10 long years in a Chinese dungeon for exchanging information publicly--exactly what Yahoo claims to support in places like China."

From the other side of the aisle, New Jersey Republican and senior House member Chris Smith said that it doesn't take a genius to figure out that "providing state secrets" is Beijing's code for cracking down on antidemocracy activists.

"If the Chinese government would prefer that people not know something about life in China, then they make it a state secret. The so-called state secret the Chinese government accused Shi Tao of violating was to pass on a directive calling for censorship of news on the fifteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre. I look over to the press sitting to our left. If any of you passed on that information, you would be in prison for 10 or more years."

Yahoo's Yang, at times faltering and barely audible even at the mike, said that the revelations in the Shi Tao case run "counter to all my personal and professional beliefs." He reiterated the company's position: "We continue to believe in engagement in markets like China." In other words, some Internet for China's millions of potential users is better than none at all.

Yahoo's Callahan said that even if the company did know that Shi Tao was being investigated for "providing state secrets," that doesn't mean he lied to Congress in last year's testimony:

"There remains disagreement over whether the reference to state secrets was significant enough to tell Yahoo China anything significant about the case. And I believe that while my testimony could have been more precise, the fundamental point of my testimony remains unchanged: we did not know that the case related to a journalist, dissident activity, or that it was a political case when Yahoo China was required to provide the demanded information."

Lantos would not let Callahan or Yang off the hook, though. He ambushed them with questions about whether their company considered the Chinese government's demands "lawful" and whether "Yahoo collaborated with the Chinese police apparatus in the imprisonment of a freedom-loving Chinese journalist."

Lantos also asked Callahan and Yang to turn around and apologize personally to Shi Tao's mother and Wang Xiaoning's wife, who were seated directly behind the two Yahoo executives. They bowed to both women. The women bowed in return, and Shi's mother wept.

When Lantos asked if Yahoo had done anything directly to help Shi Tao or other imprisoned activists, Yang and Callahan faltered and said no. But they told the committee that the company is working "more broadly"--with other IT companies, human-rights groups, and the State Department--to come up with a code of best practices for doing business in China.

They also said that, in principle, they support a House bill called the Global Online Freedom Act, sponsored by senior member Chris Smith. That bill would make it illegal for companies like Yahoo to comply with the kind of requests that landed it in hot water in the Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning cases.

Advertisement

Comments

  • Jerry Yang a sellout
    If you also consider that Mr. Jerry Yang is of Taiwanese origin, then his support of the mainland communist regime pretty much makes him a traitor. There are no values anymore, only greed.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    11/06/2007
    Posts:361
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Jerry Yang a sellout
      Is it just me or does anyone else find it insanely ironic that our courts are lampooning Yahoo for providing the Chinese govt with user info, while our lawmakers are writing up bills to provide telcos immunity for doing essentially the same thing with their customers and the US govt?
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mnikkel55
      11/06/2007
      Posts:4
      • Re: Jerry Yang a sellout
        Very true. But one government crime does not excuse/justify another government crime.

        And in the US people don't go to jail for expressing their opinion, like that happens in China.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        gabrielg01
        11/07/2007
        Posts:361
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Yahoo - you must be better than this
    The fact that Yahoo have done nothing to help Shi Tao since being instrumental in his incarceration is staggering.
    Were they hoping that he and their actions would just be forgotten?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    weee
    11/07/2007
    Posts:34
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • yahoos
    If Yahoo had thought for a minute that revealing such sensitive information about these two Chinese disidents would have hurt their proverbial 'bottom line' and placed their balance sheets in jeopardy, you can bet your 'bottom dollar' that they would have found a legal precedent to exclude them from doing so. It was simply business as usual. They were simply looking out for their own vested interests.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    phoenix
    11/07/2007
    Posts:172
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Are we hypocrites?
    Knowing what we do about the gov't of China, is it hypocritical of us to do anything to support it, such as buy products "Made in China"?

    If we can justify propping up this evil regime with our purchases, by arguing that open markets will result (long-term) in a society with more freedom, then why can't Yahoo do the same?  Their spin has always been that the Chinese people would be helped by an open internet (even if it isn't exactly open), and that _someone_ would provide Yahoo-like services to the Chinese consumer, and that Yahoo would at least be less of a government toady than a China-based company.  By that argument, Yahoo sacrificed these two men for the greater good.  Regrettable, but necessary.

    Certainly you can disagree with Yahoo's actions -- and you may be right.  But then I think it can't be "business as usual" when you go shopping.

    Am I missing an important distinction?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dmm
    11/09/2007
    Posts:172
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Are we hypocrites? - no we aren't
      When you buy Chinese trinkets you do not provide the same level of support to an oppressive regime. Buying random products does not necessarily equate with morally supporting oppression.

      Oppressive regimes need to control&censor information, and oppress their citizens (obviously). Yahoo's crime is that it has collaborated along these clearly defined immoral lines. It controls and censors information along the official party line, and it turns in those people who rebel. This is not a moral gray zone anymore. It clearly falls on the black side of the moral spectrum.

      But then, this is no surprise...telecoms have violated human rights from the very beginning of their existence. Today all traffic going through Google, Yahoo and the others gets copied and given to the NSA. This is spying on you and me without a warrant.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      11/09/2007
      Posts:361
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Tip of the iceberg
    Only 2 people are going for jail according to our news. But these 2 have their families in the USA. So they can write to their congressmen, to newspapers, human rights organizations etc.

    How about the thousands of ordinary Chinese who have no such support group? They go to jail, and nobody knows about it.

    What we see in this Yahoo case is just the tip of the iceberg.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    11/10/2007
    Posts:361
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review July/August 2009

Current Issue

Search Me
Inside the launch of Stephen Wolfram’s new “computational knowledge engine.”
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.