[rockboyzaza]

[Drugmachine]

sure it is. especially when people sue on their behalf.

[ggiifdfalls]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Where is Yahoo based? USA. USA journalists don't have to give up sources. Are you familiar with the concept of wholly-owned subsidiaries?

[rozettasmolanov]

They followed the law in China. If Yahoo started violating US law, Slow, you'd be up in arms.

[WaydayFep]

violent bush on fire pharoah

[Pynctyncroast]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Asher, you agree that Yahoo acted properly? I said no such thing, I'm just saying you were wrong in that sentence I quoted.

[Keendwainge]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They followed the law in China. If Yahoo started violating US law, Slow, you'd be up in arms. ...and smashing their heads into the concrete.

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

Yahoo! has two choices:

1) Don't operate in China
2) Rat out dissidents in China

Based on this constrained set of choices, I would defend Yahoo!'s actions.

If they failed to obey Chinese law they would be unable to operate in China, it's just that simple. I don't think a large multinational should be required to give up billions of dollars worth of business because it is forced to engage in human rights violations. If it hadn't been Yahoo! it would have been some other company, it's not like Yahoo! caused the violations or encouraged them. It chose not to take a stand where it couldn't win.

Am I advocating hunting down dissidents in China? Obviously not. I advocate recognizing reality and the power differential between Yahoo! and the Chinese government. The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must.

[IodinkBoilk]

Have you guys considered that the lawsuit is about shaming Yahoo and drumming up negative publicity for it rather than civil penalties?

[GenryDont]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Have you guys considered that the lawsuit is about shaming Yahoo and drumming up negative publicity for it rather than civil penalties? That's not the issue. The issue is slamming Slowwhand .

[Immarsecice]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Have you guys considered that the lawsuit is about shaming Yahoo and drumming up negative publicity for it rather than civil penalties? Have you considered that it has no merit and constitutes little more than harrasment?

[movlabk]

only Yahoo has been accused of directly assisting in a dissident's arrest. Of course, the facts in the article are too sparce to figure out what's going on.

The best scenario I can think of for plaintiffs is if the records which the Chinese are seeking are routinely kept in the U.S. and, under U.S. law, can only be obtained via a court order -- which the Chinese did not get.

[piramirra]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Of course, the facts in the article are too sparce to figure out what's going on.

The best scenario I can think of for plaintiffs is if the records which the Chinese are seeking are routinely kept in the U.S. and, under U.S. law, can only be obtained via a court order -- which the Chinese did not get. Unlikely. Why would Yahoo! store those records in the US? Also, is location of an electronic record really meaningful? Even supposing it was, do you think the Chinese government would be like: Oh, that's cool we can't get records from you about dangerous subversives you hide, we'll just move along.

[Jackson]

I don't think storing electronic records off-shore is a valid strategy. I mean if it were, everyone would store everything in offshore data havens.

[UFJon]

Have a look. What about this, as a stand-alone example, and also in comparison?

Web site rats on informants

10:56 AM CDT on Thursday, April 19, 2007

By STEVE STOLER / WFAA-TV

COLLIN COUNTY — The Who's a Rat Web site is dedicated to outing informants and officers. It bills itself as the largest online database of informants and agents—including dozens from North Texas.

Its creator claims the whole idea is to level the playing field between those accused of committing crimes and their accusers.

We showed the site to Tarrant County Narcotics Unit Commander Herschel Tebay.

"Pretty disgusting," he said, noting that some officers' names were listed on the site. "As disgusting as we may find it, we really can't control the Internet when people are allowed to post like that."

The three-year-old Web site claims its purpose is to assist attorneys and criminal defendants who have few resources. It is based on the premise that informants lie to get shorter sentences.

Defense lawyer Todd Shapiro said Who's a Rat is can be a useful tool. "If it's a police officer or an informant that's got some shady dealings in their past or has some problems in their past, and someone else may know about it, and that information has been shared on this Web site, I don't really see what the problem is."

"I definitely wouldn't want my name on it," said Tony Bradley, a former undercover narcotics officer for the Collin County Sheriff's office. He called it a huge problem.

"I do think that law enforcement is at risk if their name is on there," Bradley said.

The Who's a Rat Web site has a link to what it calls "secret documents." The informant profiles list everything from age and occupation to photos and summaries.

There are also numerous legal disclaimers, including one that states: "This Web site does not promote or condone violence against informants or law enforcement officers."

Collin County prosecutor Greg Davis agrees that Who's a Rat is dangerous. He said the Web site could hinder investigations by making informants fearful for their safety and even their lives.

"The only purpose that I can see behind this is to: A - intimidate informants, or B- to see that they're harmed in some way," Davis said. "Witnesses who are informants are going to be much less likely to participate with us, and—in many of these cases—we have to rely on this testimony."

Who's a Rat charges a $29 yearly fee. Members can then use passwords to add agent or informant profiles.

"When you're dealing with police officers; when you're dealing with confidential informants; not all of them have the clean background that you hope they would," defense lawyer Shapiro said.

But voices on the other side of the argument said this kind of information is extremely sensitive.

"There is a touch of paranoia in the drug community," Tebay said. "It would be easy for them to mislabel someone as an informant and cause someone to be hurt—or worse."

"It's just going to take one instant where someone accesses that database and takes action against an officer or an informant," Davis added.

"We're really going to have problems then."

[no02rSx2]

Originally posted by MRT144


im glad to see you represent everyone Ah, so your argument is that everyone must not use Yahoo in order to say that it has negative publicity? Or are you just being a fool?

[Anydayhybeall]

Quite frankly, I don't use Yahoo! for other reasons (possibly because their programmers could be replaced with retarded monkies and no one would notice).

[dhYTvlAv]

Rufus

[loyalgagora]

Originally posted by Berzerker
AQ = Chinese dissidents ? To the Chinese government, probably.