Yahoo in China - Case Questions

Question 1 :- Should Yahoo! Have provided information on Shi Tao to the Chinese government? Why or why not?

Answer:- The Chinese subsidiary of Yahoo! ,i.e. Yahoo China had no choice but to comply with local laws. Hence, I would say that even if they dint' want to share the information, they had no other choice. Yahoo was attacked by both sides of politics for complying with a request under Chinese law, in China, to provide information on a political dissident. Yahoo knew that when it comes to China there are very few who will come to the defense of those who deal with the Chinese Government. Yahoo's actions might have been in part wrong morally, but legally they have done nothing wrong, and in a global economy this is even more true.

The manager also believed that failure to comply with the request could put Yahoo China's employees at risk of prosecution, and it might have imperiled Yahoo China's license to do the business. It was possible to raise the issue with lawyers and executives at Yahoo headquarters in the U.S , but the manager worried that even if the response was in their favor, employees might still be at risk.

Moreover, in 2002 Yahoo signed a "public pledge on self-discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry". The pledge required Internet-related businesses to agree to various forms of censorship in the name of state security and social stability.

Yahoo had done nothing more than obey the lawful authority of the Chinese government. Just like any other global company, Yahoo must ensure that its local country sites must operate within the laws, regulations and customs of the country in which they are based. The executive team at Yahoo may be on shaky moral ground, but legally they have done nothing more than be a good corporate citizen, no matter which country they operate in.

Question 2 :- What were Yahoo's responsibilities in the situation ?

Answer :- Yahoo was sued by the World Organization for Human Rights for sharing information about its users with the Chinese government. The information led to the arrests of journalists, including Shi Tao. But Yahoo argued that there was little connection between the information the firm gave and the ensuing arrests and imprisonment of its users. Yahoo said that while it did not condone the suppression of people's liberties, the firm had been compelled by local laws to hand over the information that was requested.

If we talk about the ethical responsibility of Yahoo, we can say that even if it was lawful in China that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law but US law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad. But, In the long run, more Chinese people benefit from Yahoo!'s engagement than are hurt.

Other responsibilities of Yahoo were that they should have avoided the user's e-mail data to be kept on servers inside PRC. And they should better inform users about the risks. Maximum possible transparency with users should be present about how and why material is being censored, and under what circumstances information could be shared with authorities.

Question 3 :- What is your explanation of the Chinese government's internet policy ?

Answer :- With the widespread increase of internet in China, its government created a series of carefully developed legal and technological tools to regulate the internet. All the organizations were to follow the censorship and control system that the Chinese government had developed to promote state security and social stability. They also established a surveillance infrastructure to monitor internet activity.

While signing the pledge was not required by law, it was, along with China's many restrictive internet laws, another repressive measure against China's rapidly growing virtual community. The signatories that China's policy had many norms like - refrain from producing, posting or disseminating harmful information but there was no information defining "Harmful Information". It also had a norm regarding monitoring of information publicized by users on websites according to law and remove the harmful information promptly.

The government of PRC systematically restricts freedom of expression. More than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government, and censorship systems are vigorously implemented by provincial branches of state-owned ISPs, business companies, and organizations.

Question 4 :- What, if anything, could Yahoo have done differently to address the situation? What should Yang do now?

Answer :- Shi Tao case highlights the complex challenges of corporate social and ethical responsibility for Internet and telecommunications companies:

...