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: They are caught between demands of governments on one hand and rights of users on the other – not only in authoritarian countries such as China but in virtually all countries around the world. While Yahoo! may have been legally "off the hook" as far as Chinese and perhaps even U.S. law was concerned, it was not off the hook in the court of global public opinion. Moral imperatives aside, the Shi Tao case proves that Internet and telecoms companies seeking to establish trustworthy reputations across a global customer base cannot afford to ignore the human rights implications of their business practices. There could have been these options which Yahoo could have done differently:- Option 1: Corporate “civil disobedience” in cases that seem to involve dissidents (choice: risk local employees or leave); Option 2: Don’t put user e-mail data on servers inside PRC; Option 3: Moral obligation to go beyond legalistic terms of service: Better inform users about risks.
Yahoo! definitely evolved after two years since Shi Tao was sentenced. Yang can start out on the defensive side, with statements as if he believed that Shi Tao was acceptable collateral damage in the noble effort to bring the Internet to China. After being featured as number one negative example on the cover of at least two human rights reports, yelled at in congress twice, a victims' lawsuit, and countless anti-Yahoo campaigns by free speech and human rights groups, they should finally do what many have been advising them to do for some time: admit that their actions have helped to ruin human lives, and admit that they made mistakes. He should meet with the family members of Shi Tao and offer to help them financially and legally, commit to help him get out of jail, and commit to serious efforts to prevent such situations from happening again.
I hope Yahoo! and all Internet companies have learned something from this: that they've got to think through the privacy and human rights implications of their international business decisions before they launch new services in any market. Or they will pay later. And there will be broader implications for global free speech and the future of global information flows.
Question 5 :- In what ways is the Yahoo situation similar to the Shell case? In what ways is it different?
Answer :- Yahoo! And Shell case are similar in terms of Security Lapses. Both compromised on process safety but differed in a manner that Shell did it for cost cutting and carelessness while Yahoo did it for its business expansion and because of fear of China’s government. They were bounded by the law on one hand and their employee’s risk at the other hand.
Because of Shell oil spill case, till 2008 at least 100 people have died and the average lifespan outside the cities have fallen to 40 years. Shell came to know about the oil spill very soon, but it dint’ do anything for six months. People lost their huts, nets and fishing pots because of the pipelines that crisscross the Niger delta and had corroded and spewed oil for several months. Forests and farmlands were covered in a sheen of greasy oil. Drinking wells got polluted and people were dejected. Shell company have acted with such impunity and recklessness that much of the region has been devastated by leaks. Community leaders demanded $1bn in compensation for the illness and loss of livelihood they suffered. Similarly, the victims of Yahoo case also asked for comensation and filed law suit against Yahoo! .
Shell, which works in partnership with the Nigerian government in the delta, says that 98% of all its oil spills are caused by vandalism, theft or sabotage by militants and only a minimal amount by deteriorating infrastructure while Yahoo blamed the Chinese government for all the trouble.
Shell said that “We are committed to cleaning up any spill as fast as possible as soon as and for whatever reason they occur”. But, These claims are hotly disputed by communities and environmental watchdog groups. They mostly blame the companies' vast network of rusting pipes and storage tanks, corroding pipelines, semi-derelict pumping stations and old wellheads, as well as tankers and vessels cleaning out tanks. Similarly Yahoo said that they work on the principle of free expression but when this principle was violated; their safe bet was to put the blame squarely on China’s government and their internet policies.
Also, Shell has been reportedly involved in inflating its 'proven' oil reserves figures that has significantly tarnished its image as one of the best professionally managed companies in the world. The case provides detailed insights into the role played by the top management at Shell leading to the oil reserves controversy. It describes the events leading to the Shell's announcement to revise its oil reserves figures. It was another unethical practice by Shell.