No Response from Yahoo!. No Changes Either.
My e-mail sent on 2/28 has not yet been responded to.
Also, I have found a February 15th statement given by Michael Callahan (Yahoo!'s Chief Counsel) to a Global Human Rights Subcommittee.
In that statement, Yahoo! tries to exhonerate itself of it's involvement in the Shi Tao case (and a growing number of other cases) by stating that Alibaba.com is has day-to-day operational control over Yahoo! China. This deal was inked in October of 2005, long after Yahoo! put Shi Tao in jail.
Here's a quote: "When we receive a demand under law enforcement authorized under the law of the country in which we operate, we must comply."
Tell that to Google, as they are apparently unaware of the rigid standard. Arguably, Google has more to lose by denying the government in its country of origin than Yahoo! would have in denying the Chinese Government.
Callahan corrects the media that Yahoo! Hong Kong was involved. Apparently they were not. This removes what was believed to be a legal loophole that Yahoo! could have used. Apparently that loophole was not available, but it does not remove Yahoo!'s etchical responsibility in this matter at all.
Basically, Yahoo! isn't going to change anything. Unless the government or a "Collective Action" spurs them on to change their policy, our boycott will need to continue.
Also, I have found a February 15th statement given by Michael Callahan (Yahoo!'s Chief Counsel) to a Global Human Rights Subcommittee.
In that statement, Yahoo! tries to exhonerate itself of it's involvement in the Shi Tao case (and a growing number of other cases) by stating that Alibaba.com is has day-to-day operational control over Yahoo! China. This deal was inked in October of 2005, long after Yahoo! put Shi Tao in jail.
Here's a quote: "When we receive a demand under law enforcement authorized under the law of the country in which we operate, we must comply."
Tell that to Google, as they are apparently unaware of the rigid standard. Arguably, Google has more to lose by denying the government in its country of origin than Yahoo! would have in denying the Chinese Government.
Callahan corrects the media that Yahoo! Hong Kong was involved. Apparently they were not. This removes what was believed to be a legal loophole that Yahoo! could have used. Apparently that loophole was not available, but it does not remove Yahoo!'s etchical responsibility in this matter at all.
Basically, Yahoo! isn't going to change anything. Unless the government or a "Collective Action" spurs them on to change their policy, our boycott will need to continue.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home