To Go Global, Do You Ignore Censorship

Introduction:

The article, "To Go Global, Do You Ignore Censorship" looks at the case of Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist who was imprisoned for 10 years under the charge of "illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities." Shi Tao worked for the Contemporary Business News in China, and in 2004, forwarded his notes on the Chinese government's instructions on covering the Tiananmen Square anniversary to a US-based network. This decrypted email, coming from a Yahoo email account, brought a great amount of criticism to Yahoo when they assisted the Chinese government in determining the email's origin. Yahoo's position on this action is that they were operating under Chinese law. Others, such as Liu Xiaobo, who wrote an essay on this case, feel this action was completely unethical and led to the conviction of a good journalist who was doing his job. Critics of Yahoo feel Yahoo had an ethical responsibility to protect their customer from the abuse of the Chinese government. A standpoint based on ethical principles shows that Yahoo's actions were not ethical at a Utilitarianism, Rights, Justice, and Care level.

1.) Data Gathering:

From a Utilitarianism standpoint, it is difficult to show that Yahoo's cooperation was unacceptable. Looking at this from a Cost-Benefit position, China is the world's largest internet market, and Yahoo ran the risk of violating the Chinese censorship regulations they signed and agreed to in 2002. Before the Shi Tao incident, Yahoo had recently purchased two large Chinese companies, 3721.com and China's largest e-commerce firm Alibaba.com, for $120M and approximately $1B respectively. Both of these investments ran the risk of being censored by the Chinese Communist party if Yahoo did not cooperate. Ultimately, the cost of number of people boycotting Yahoo did not outweigh the benefit of losing access to doing business China. This policy was acceptable from a Utilitarian aspect.

Yahoo's cooperation was also acceptable on a Legal Rights premise. In a statement from Yahoo correspondent, Mary Osako, Yahoo points out that they must operate within the laws of each country they are doing business in. Legally, this is acceptable; morally, this is not. Ethical Rights state that all individuals are entitled to the freedom of choice and well-being. Freedom of expression is even present in the Chinese Constitution, so it is difficult to see how Shi Tao committed any wrong-doing with his actions. In a comment from his essay, Liu Xiaobo states:

"Anything can be Ð''national secrets' and Ð''leaking secrets' covers virtually anything that the government does not want people to know or for people to talk about."

Just as many Germans protected the rights of others by hiding Jews from the Nazis during the Holocost, the people at Yahoo should have protected the human rights of their customer, Shi Tao, knowing the extent of the consequences he faced. His, and his family's lives are forever ruined even after his release from prison. This incident will follow them throughout the rest of their lives in China. There is a big difference between cooperating and collaborating with the Chinese government. I find it interesting that Yahoo's core values of "excellence, innovation, customer fixation, team work, community and fun" were so easily compromised once the Chinese government pushed them into providing this information.

Looking at this from the ethical level of Justice, Yahoo's actions were also unacceptable. From a Retributive Justice standpoint, one can state that this message was to be considered "Jue Mi" or top secret, so Shi Tao was punished accordingly. Yet, from a Compensatory Justice view, the compensation to the communist party of putting Shi Tao in prison for 10 years is not justified. The communist party did not truly lose anything by Shi Tao sharing that the government did not want the Tiananmen Square anniversary celebrated. Anyone who searches on a computer for "Tiananmen Square" in can determine that the Chinese government does not want to accept responsibility for this event. One can also determine this by looking at the censorship regulations in China, especially around Tiananmen Square, to know that the Chinese government does not want this discussed. The comments forwarded were not directly from the Chinese government's instructions, but Shi Tao's own personal notes. Therefore, Shi Tao did not truly reveal anything "Jue Mi."

This act of collaboration by Yahoo is also ethically unacceptable on the final ethical level of Care. Being that Care is a preservation for the well being to those near to Yahoo, I feel that all businesses should provide their customers with some level of care. After all, without customers, a company can never grow. As a Communitarian ethic, which states that community relationships have a value that should be maintained, Shi Tao was a member of Yahoo's community of users. This community helped Yahoo reach the size of their business, which gave Yahoo the opportunity to