AllThingsD » human rights

Twitter Can Censor by Country

Loretta Chao and Amir Efrati — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:30:49 +0000

Twitter Inc. says it can now make content selectively available to users based on geography, and plans to use that ability to enter countries with “different ideas” about freedom of expression as a human right — reflecting the difficult ethical questions facing Internet companies.

The announcement, published on the official blog of the microblog operator, said Twitter is now able to withhold content from users in a specific country while keeping it available to the rest of the world.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

"Most People Would Be Disturbed if They Saw Where Their iPhone Comes From"

John Paczkowski — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:50:54 +0000

This according to a former Apple executive who tells the New York Times that the working conditions at the company’s overseas manufacturing partners are still sorely lacking. And while there have been improvements since Apple began auditing factories, there’s a lot more that can be done. Said another former Apple exec, “We’ve known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they’re still going on. Why? Because the system works for us. Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.”

Bill Aims to Curb Tech Firms' Exports

Steve Stecklow — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:00:05 +0000

Pressure mounted Thursday on U.S. and Western companies that sell censorship and surveillance technology to repressive regimes, with a congressman introducing a bill that would restrict such exports.

Separately, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on corporations to do “human-rights due diligence” before making sales in new markets.

“In recent months we’ve seen cases where companies’ products and services were used as tools of oppression,” Mrs. Clinton told a conference on Internet freedom in the Netherlands.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Hague: Cultural Differences No Excuse to Dilute Online Rights

Ben Rooney — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 07:00:00 +0000

The U.K. Foreign Secretary has issued a strongly worded rebuke to China and other regimes, saying cultural differences were not an excuse “to water down human rights.”

William Hague told the delegates at the London Cyber Conference that there were no excuses for curtailing rights.

“Human Rights are universal. Cultural differences are not an excuse to water down human rights, nor can the exploitation of digital networks by a minority of criminals or terrorists be a justification for states to censor their citizens.”

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Microsoft: “Don’t Be Evil” Is Google’s Motto, Not Ours, Redux

John Paczkowski — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:10:31 +0000

“I’m very disappointed for them in particular. As I understand, they have effectively no market share–so they essentially spoke against freedom of speech and human rights simply in order to contradict Google.”

– Google co-founder Sergey Brin

Microsoft isn’t paying much heed to calls for it to follow Google’s lead in China. In January, CEO Steve Ballmer said the company had no plans to adopt a “new approach” to doing business in China, and evidently, that position hasn’t changed much in the ensuing months.

Responding to Google (GOOG) co-founder Sergey Brin’s recent criticism of its stance, Microsoft (MSFT) made it clear that it will not be moving operations to Hong Kong any time soon. “We appreciate that different companies may make different decisions based on their own experiences and views,” a Microsoft spokesperson said. “We have done business in China for more than 20 years and we intend to continue our business there.”

What's the Chinese Word for Bing? Google Threatens to Leave China.

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:45 +0000

“We actually did an evil scale and decided not to serve at all was worse evil.”

– Google CEO Eric Schmidt on the company’s decision to offer a censored version of its search services in China, Jan. 30, 2006

Evidently Google is taking its informal “don’t be evil motto” a bit more seriously these days. The search sovereign threatened late Tuesday to pull out of its operations in China after detecting a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on [its] corporate infrastructure originating from China.” Targeted in the assault: The Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China,” Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond, wrote in a post to the company blog.

“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all,” Drummond added. “We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.”

Shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China? Hmm. What’s the Chinese word for “Bing”?

Drummond didn’t directly accuse the Chinese government of orchestrating the incursion, but he certainly seems to be implying there’s a link. And you’d think one would have to exist for Google (GOOG) to threaten pull out of a country that has more Internet users than the total population of the U.S.–even if its efforts to gain market share there haven’t met with the same success as in the rest of the world.

It’s tough to stake your claim in a country where the government favors the local rival and blocks your traffic if you fail to censor. Baidu’s share of the Chinese search market in the third quarter was 77 percent, up from 75.6 percent. Google’s share for the same period? Just 17 percent, down from 19 percent.

So, to some extent, Google can probably threaten to leave China because the country accounts for such a small portion of its revenue. On the other hand, China leads the world in Internet users and presents a hell of a market opportunity–large enough that Google willingly provided a censored version of its services as a prerequisite for doing business there. Or, rather, it used to.

At $395.50 Baidu shares are up more than two percent after hours on the news. Google shares are down 1.6 percent at $581.01.

Drummond’s post in full, below, as well as another on the safety of data on Google by Dave Girouard, President of Google Enterprise:

A new approach to China

Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.

First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.

Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.

We have already used information gained from this attack to make infrastructure and architectural improvements that enhance security for Google and for our users. In terms of individual users, we would advise people to deploy reputable anti-virus and anti-spyware programs on their computers, to install patches for their operating systems and to update their web browsers. Always be cautious when clicking on links appearing in instant messages and emails, or when asked to share personal information like passwords online. You can read more here about our cyber-security recommendations.

We have taken the unusual step of sharing information about these attacks with a broad audience not just because of the security and human rights implications of what we have unearthed, but also because this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech. In the last two decades, China’s economic reform programs and its citizens’ entrepreneurial flair have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. Indeed, this great nation is at the heart of much economic progress and development in the world today.

We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”

These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.

Keeping your data safe

Many corporations and consumers regularly come under cyber attack, and Google is no exception. We recently detected a cyber attack targeting our infrastructure and that of at least 20 other publicly listed companies. This incident was particularly notable for its high degree of sophistication. We believe Google Apps and related customer data were not affected by this incident. Please read more about our public response on the Official Google Blog.

This attack may understandably raise some questions, so we wanted to take this opportunity to share some additional information and assure you that Google is introducing additional security measures to help ensure the safety of your data.

This was not an assault on cloud computing. It was an attack on the technology infrastructure of major corporations in sectors as diverse as finance, technology, media, and chemical. The route the attackers used was malicious software used to infect personal computers. Any computer connected to the Internet can fall victim to such attacks. While some intellectual property on our corporate network was compromised, we believe our customer cloud-based data remains secure.

While any company can be subject to such an attack, those who use our cloud services benefit from our data security capabilities. At Google, we invest massive amounts of time and money in security. Nothing is more important to us. Our response to this attack shows that we are dedicated to protecting the businesses and users who have entrusted us with their sensitive email and document information. We are telling you this because we are committed to transparency, accountability, and maintaining your trust.

Yahoo Hires Amber Allman as New D.C. Director of Public Affairs

Kara Swisher — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:18:59 +0000

Earlier today, BoomTown reported that Yahoo was poised to name a few new top execs at its Silicon Valley HQ.

But the company has also hired a new director of public affairs in the nation’s capital.

After I queried the company, Yahoo (YHOO) confirmed that it has tapped Amber Allman, a vice president at 463 Communications, for the job. She has extensive tech experience.

“We are very pleased that she is coming on board,” said Nina Blackwell, senior director of global public affairs, who will be Allman’s boss. “She will be a very valuable member of the team.

Yahoo’s last public affairs rep in D.C. was the most excellent Tracy Schmaler, who left Yahoo earlier this year.

At Yahoo, she worked on everything from human rights issues in China to the failed takeover attempt by Microsoft (MSFT) to Yahoo’s also-botched effort to do a search and advertising deal with search giant Google (GOOG).

Ironically, Schmaler is now deputy director, Office of Public Affairs, at the Justice Department, which is currently scrutinizing Yahoo’s search and ad partnership with Microsoft.

Ah, the revolving doors of Washington, D.C.!

For Shame: The Congo Nightmare Continues

Kara Swisher — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:09:18 +0000

Eve Ensler, playwright, activist and creator of V-Day, appeared at the the seventh D: All Things Digital conference in late May to talk about the links between what goes into making mobile phones and human rights violations.

There, Ensler (pictured above) shed much needed light on the dire situation in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where some of the worst atrocities are now being committed on the population in a terrible civil war.

She predicted it would get worse without massive international intervention.

Tragically, she was right.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that rapes of women were escalating dramatically–if that is even possible considering past devastation–in the Congo.

Reported the Post:

“An already staggering epidemic of rape has become markedly worse since the January deployment of tens of thousands of poorly trained, poorly paid Congolese soldiers, with people in front-line villages such as this one saying the soldiers are not so much hunting rebels as hunting women.”

It follows another recent report by the New York Times about the rise of rapes of men too.

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the Congo, where she unveiled a $17 million plan to battle sexual violence in the country.

She said the situation was “evil in its basest form”

Ensler’s aim is to end the use of rape as a weapon of war there, which is, in part, a consequence of the region’s coltan trade. Coltan, or columbite tantalite, is a mineral essential to the manufacture of a wide array of consumer electronics, such as mobile phones and laptops.

Clinton mentioned these “conflict minerals” during her visit.

To learn more about a shameful situation that needs immediate attention, I urge you to watch the video interview from D7 with me, which you can see in its entirety below.

And then visit the V-Day site on the dire situation in the Congo to learn what you can do to help.

Here is the Ensler interview:

[ See post to watch video ]

Liveblogging the 2009 Yahoo Annual Meeting: Carol-tastic!

Kara Swisher — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:18:06 +0000

BoomTown is at the lovely Santa Clara Marriott in Silicon Valley at the 2009 Yahoo annual meeting, liveblogging the event, which should be spectacularly dull.

Here is a rundown of what went on.

10:05 am: The meeting kicked off with a little video presentation with various and sundry television talking heads saying “Yahoo” in quick succession.

Actually, this was the year during which all of those hype-magnets repeated “Twitter”–the hottest media trend these days–so many times that it has began to make my ears bleed.

But I like the spirit of trying to make Yahoo (YHOO) seem relevant and innovative again.

Then, CEO Carol Bartz (pictured below) walked onto the small stage in the California Ballroom, declaring: “Well, that made me feel good.”

Exactly when does Carol not feel good?

She explained why: “I am having a ball,” speaking about her rehaul job at Yahoo, and then thanked shareholders after what was “a tough year last year.”

The board was introduced, with most of them being present at the meeting, except for Ron Burkle and Carl Icahn.

10:12 am: General Counsel Mike Callahan comes on with the blah-blah-blah about rules and votes.

I soon started thinking of the lovely breakfast pastries outside that I passed by outside. Drat!

This year, the 12-member board, now including Bartz, was up for reelection.

Last year, as you might remember, many of those board members were under siege by shareholder discontent.

Not in 2009. A major shareholder who was unhappy last year told me there would be no protest vote.

“Carol is doing a good job,” said the investor.

Yahoo was also asking for approval of its accounting firm, Price Waterhouse.

There were several important votes before the shareholders.

One was a standard one regarding executive compensation or a “say on pay” proposal, which was introduced by an outside stockholder.

Yahoo’s board recommended against it.

Another proposal regarded changes to be made to a 1995 stock plan and to a 1996 employee stock purchase plan.

The latter was most important, because it was a request to authorize more shares for future employee options grants. It will mean a large addition to the pool–30 million more shares–if authorized.

The stock will be used to keep valuable Yahoo talent in place. Good idea.

10:23 am: The floor was then opened for comments on the proposal and ballots were collected.

I was not on the edge of my seat.

Like clockwork or an election in the former Soviet Union, the board was elected, the stock plans approved and Price Waterhouse was in.

The “say for pay” proposal? It went down in defeat.

The people have spoken!

10:29 pm: Bartz took back the stage, which immediately livened things up.

She went through the history of her coming to Yahoo, which began with former Yahoo CEO and Co-Founder Jerry Yang (pictured here) asking if she was interested in the job at a Cisco (CSCO) board meeting.

Both are on its board.

Bartz also briefly recounted her meeting with Yang at his house, although she minimized the insulting aspect of the story.

She has maximized it in other tellings–such as in an onstage interview with me recently at the D: All Things Digital conference.

The basic thrust of the story was that Yahoo was a big mess that needed the Carol treatment.

Bartz, of course, did not stress that as much today. After all, Yang was sitting right in front of her.

Bartz noted that she has been asked about two things since coming on board:

What about a deal with Microsoft? And what the heck is Yahoo anyway?

She had nothing to say about Microsoft (MSFT) and said it would be said publicly only after any such deal was struck.

Actually, she has commented about talks with the software giant publicly many times, but let’s overlook that.

The Bartz went into the definition of Yahoo. It’s simple, she said. The largest global online media company. With technology. That everyone knows. Plus email.

10:34 am: Bartz ran through the new staff she has put in place, such as CMO Elisa Steele and others.

She then moved onto the top-to-bottom reviews she has been doing of Yahoo.

Including what she dubbed “space debris,” which are Yahoo sites that should be shut down, repaired or outsourced.

Bartz’s tone? Calm and comforting and reassuring–less the live wire she usually telegraphs and more the I’m-in-charge-here-so-remain-calm vibe.

She hit all the big targets, for good measure. Front page. Mobile. And, of course, advertising.

“Yahoo has a distinct opportunity in this area,” said Bartz, referring to its online display ad business. “Advertisers come to us.”

She ended by calling Yahoo a “home,” which is one theme the company is considering using as a brand strategy in an massive overhaul it is working on.

10:45 am: The floor was open for questions.

The first was a good one. Essentially, why is Google (GOOG) such a money machine when Yahoo is not? And why are its workers so much more productive in comparison?

“We have a very different model than Google,” said Bartz. “It has a cleaner process.”

As in, it is better at vacuuming up the dough!

Bartz, who has been trying mightily to end the Yahoo/Google comparison (smart move!), did not really give an answer.

“Please, this direct comparison model to Google is not fair and is frankly not relevant,” she said.

Well, it is actually quite a bit fair and a lot relevant, but we shall also overlook that one too (for now).

10:49 am: A fan question about how it was good that Bartz has been taking the focus off of the Microsoft issue too.

He also liked that she said she would take piles of money from the software giant, though, in a search partnership deal.

Then, the questioner dived right into the weeds, with questions about the front page, such as having too much dopey entertainment news on it.

Especially all that Jon & Kate and their gazillion kids crap!

This is a favorite meme for Bartz, who proceeded to quickly one-up the question by strafing a perfect celebrity target.

“If I see another Britney Spears item, I am going to throw up,” she declared in nauseous solidarity.

She then mentioned something called a “fluffometer,” which is apparently taking care of this most pressing issue of our time–the Lindsay Lohan threat.

Will it defluff Yahoo?

Inquiring minds want to know.

10:54 am: The inevitable China question was asked, of course, a query which has always tripped up previous Yahoo management.

“It’s very easy to get crosswise,” said Bartz, trying not to get crosswise.

She mentioned a recent human rights summit Yahoo had hosted. “We have actually done a lot, but it is never enough.”

Well, actually, Yahoo and many others did not do enough previously, but Bartz was pretty much steering clear of the thorny realities of doing business in China.

Then came the “vision” question.

Actually, Bartz said it was not about vision, but about growth. “We don’t have a vision problem, we have an execution problem,” she said.

Another question was asked about Internet censorship in China.

“I’m going to go real simple here: Yahoo was not incorporated to fix China,” she said. “It’s that simple.”

Bartz said the company was not going to take on every government in the world and that its “mistake”–referring to activists jailed due to Yahoo handing over information to the Chinese government–should not hound it forever.

Well, it should, but point taken.

The next question was about Iran and how popular Twitter is. Bartz said Yahoo was also in there.

11:04 am: A questioner asked about Facebook and why the social networking site was so popular, even though Yahoo had better products.

Bartz said Yahoo was working hard on making those products more social.

The next questioner asked about whether another Google partnership deal with Yahoo could be reborn. That deal went down in defeat last year.

“Justice is Justice,” said Bartz, referring to the federal government department’s opposition to the deal.

As in, you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and you don’t mess around with Uncle Sam.

The next questioner asked about why Yahoo always told shareholders at meetings like this that it was doing great every year and then didn’t deliver.

Bear with us, said Bartz.

As to selling off its Alibaba assets in China: Not a good time to sell.

11:09 am: A questioner asked whether Yahoo might buy a newspaper, like the New York Times (NYT).

Yes, that would be a good move–out of the frying pan into the fire!

I was sitting right next to one of its reporters, Miguel Helft. No comment!

Bartz then thanked the Yahoo shareholders for having faith.

As I said, it was Bartz’s first annual meeting. But, for Yahoo investors over the last several years, having a lot of faith–too often tested–kind of comes with the territory.

V-Day Founder Eve Ensler: The Full D7 Session

Kara Swisher — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:04:52 +0000

As founder of a global movement to end violence against women and girls, Eve Ensler has long been focused on human rights issues across the world.

Onstage in an interview at the seventh D: All Things Digital conference, she shed much-needed light on the dire situation in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where some of the worst atrocities are now being committed on the population in a terrible civil war.

It is well worth hearing about exactly how some of our everyday gadgets come to us at a terrible price.

Here is the video of the full D7 session:

[ See post to watch video ]

V-Day Founder Eve Ensler: The Full D7 Session

Kara Swisher — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:21:16 +0000

As founder of a global movement to end violence against women and girls, Eve Ensler has long been focused on human rights issues across the world.

It is well worth hearing about exactly how some of our everyday gadgets come to us at a terrible price.

Here is the video of the full D7 session:

[ See post to watch video ]

YouTube's White House Clips: Now 100 Percent Snoop-Free

Peter Kafka — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:15:18 +0000

President Barack Obama gets pretty high marks from the tech set for his embrace of all things Webby. Except when they’re giving him grief: After overhauling the official White House Web site to make it, you know, interactive and stuff, the administration caught flak from privacy advocates because of the way Google’s YouTube used tracking cookies on the site.

But after making an initial concession earlier this year, Google (GOOG) and the White House are going further. The Electronic Frontier Foundation explains: “Ordinarily, YouTube maintains a record of every YouTube video you’ve ever viewed, associated with your YouTube account, through use of the YouTube cookie. Now, they’ve agreed to exempt videos embedded on Whitehouse.gov from this logging.”

Will that be good enough to satisfy hard-to-please critics like the EFF? Amazingly, it does! Though of course, they’d like to see more. Here’s Cindy Cohn, the EFF’s legal director:

This is a good step and we commend YouTube and the Government for taking it. It shows that they recognize that tracking the government videos that Americans view is creepy and wrong. It also shows that Google/YouTube technologists can build and offer clever, useful privacy-protective modifications to their standard software.

Now we’d like to see them turn that cleverness to other places, not just the White House. Google/YouTube should offer this same “tracking-free” viewing to others. Human rights videos, politically sensitive videos, or even ordinary videos where viewers may want privacy should all be available without tracking…

In addition, the government should adopt “tracking-free” videos across the board for all government websites. Viewers of videos from the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, your member of Congress and other governmental entities deserve the same privacy protection that viewers of the President’s speeches.

The IRS has videos? Who knew? In the meantime, feel free to watch clips like this one, of Obama’s April victory over the UConn women’s basketball team in a game of “P-I-G” without worrying that the government is watching you watch.

Liveblogging From Yahoo Annual Meeting: Shareholder Q&A!

Kara Swisher — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 18:42:21 +0000

OK, now we’re cooking with gas at Yahoo’s annual meeting in San Jose, as various shareholders–mostly small ones–come to the microphones to give Yahoo a piece of their mind.

The room has filled up more, about one-third to one-half full, with the top Yahoo (YHOO) leadership arrayed at a table up front like an Italian wedding.

First up, longtime Yahoo activist shareholder Eric Jackson asked Yahoo Chairman Roy Bostock to step down, noted that Yahoo had overplayed its hand with the Microsoft bid, wondered about Yahoo President Sue Decker’s time problems (too many outside boards) and questioned the worth of Yahoo’s deal to sell an asset in Japan.

Yahoo, of course, did not agree with Jackson! At all!

“No,” said Bostock about stepping down, also noting that he was woefully underpaid for his board service, given all the activity over the last year related to Microsoft (MSFT).

Next up, a shareholder asked about Yahoo’s poor performance compared to Google (GOOG).

Yang’s answer: We’re trying!

Next, a shareholder supported Yang, noting that Yang did co-found the company. But then he kind of suggested Yang perhaps leave the company for a “cathartic” time.

The same shareholder also compared Bostock’s defense of Yahoo’s behavior with “a girlfriend who is trying to convince the world that she initiated the breakup.”

That made Yang smile.

Later, Bostock added: “I would not compare Yahoo’s relationship to Microsoft to a romantic one.”

The next question was related to China and Yahoo’s thorny history there. Yang had addressed the issue earlier and added that the company was working hard to improve its efforts related to human rights.

While one former employee and shareholder called Yahoo “rude” not to entertain more questions from investors, another shareholder called Microsoft “a green-tentacled monster,” I think, which provoked laughs and clapping.

A question was then asked about advertising and competing with Google-owned DoubleClick. Decker noted that Yahoo’s Web-based approach is better.

One shareholder noted the lack of women on the board (there is one), and a shareholder justifiably complained that only one-third of the directors did not show up and also not enough of the board owns stock, such as Ron Burkle (who was apparently in Europe at another commitment.)

Perhaps of everything that went on at the annual meeting, which was mostly nothing, perhaps that was the most salient point of all.

Microsoft’s ODF Support Good … On Paper, Anyway

John Paczkowski — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:00:53 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

99.9% Man, .01% Animal … TOTAL TERROR!

John Paczkowski — Wed, 21 May 2008 23:00:51 +0000

England, for one, welcomes our new humanimal overlords…

British lawmakers voted Monday to allow the use of human-animal embryos for research after an attempt to ban the technique was overwhelmingly rejected. At issue is a bill that permits scientists to blend human and animal DNA to make “chimeric” embryos from which stem cells can be extracted.

Scientists say the technique could aid the understanding of genetic defects and diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. But critics, who’ve taken a more hysterical view of the mingling of human and animal DNA, call it a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life. To them so-called “human-admixed embryos” recall the creatures of Marlon Brando’s fey, muumuu-wearing Dr. Moreau and his fantastical island.

Said MP Edward Leigh: “In embryos you do have the genetic makeup of a complete human being, and you cannot splice together a human and an animal. I’m not sure even my greatest political enemies would say that I was 30% a daffodil and 80% a mouse. I don’t believe in my soul or my brain I’m 80% a mouse or 30% a daffodil. But I do think that we are special and, therefore, as the human race is special, it is different from the animal race. And I think that we should take this very seriously.”

Thirty percent daffodil? Eighty percent mouse? Oh, you’re special all right, Leigh. Sure you read the right bill?

Anyway, as New Scientist’s Linda Geddes points out, this is all much ado about nothing. These “human-admixed embryos” aren’t really any more monstrous than you or I. “These embryos contain 99.9% human DNA, and 0.01% animal DNA,” writes Geddes. “Arguably I’m less than 99.9% human myself. Once you consider the billions of bacteria living in my gut and on my skin, the parasitic worms which may or may not be colonizing my intestines, and the fungi causing the itch between my toes, I’m a walking menagerie. In fact, some scientists have estimated that the total number of microbial genes in the human body outnumber human genes by up to 1,000 to 1.”

QUOTED

John Paczkowski — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:17:21 +0000

I’m pretty proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish in China. Google has a far superior track record than other Internet or Internet search companies in China.”

–Google co-founder Sergey Brin adjusts the company’s informal corporate motto “Don’t Be Evil” to “Don’t be AS evil” for the Chinese market.

Yahoo: It Is Better to Light One Candle in the Jail Cell of a Chinese Dissident Than to Curse the Darkness

John Paczkowski — Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:40:07 +0000

What Yahoo would likely describe as nuance in its position on a human-rights lawsuit brought against it by two Chinese journalists, others might call talking out of both sides of your mouth. Earlier this week, the company said its Chinese subsidiary had no choice but to follow local laws when it handed over private information that led to the imprisonment and torture of Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning. In a motion to dismiss the case, Yahoo argued that it cannot “be held liable for the independent acts of the (Chinese government) just because a former Yahoo subsidiary in China obeyed a lawful government request for the collection of evidence relevant to a pending investigation. … This is a lawsuit by citizens of China imprisoned for using the Internet in China to express political views in violation of China law,” Yahoo told the court. “It is a political case challenging the laws and actions of the Chinese government. It has no place in the American courts.”

Of course, the irony, the hysterical irony, of this is that back in 2000, Yahoo policy on international legal matters like these was quite a bit different–diametrically opposed, to be exact. Defending the company against a French court’s order to remove Nazi memorabilia from its auction pages, Yahoo’s top French executive, Philippe Guillanton, said that such a ruling ran against the international nature of the World Wide Web. “Yahoo.com is not doing anything unlawful. It is completely complying with the law of the country in which it operates and where its target audience is,” Guillanton said. “Yahoo auctions in the U.S. are ruled by the legal, moral and cultural principles of that country.”

Nice, eh? As Rough Type’s Nick Carr notes, “Times change, and so do companies. This time, Yahoo executives are making no mention of ‘the legal, moral and cultural principles’ of the U.S.”

Enough About the Privacy Implications of Our Network-Level Antipiracy Tool. How ’Bout That iPhone?

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:33:34 +0000

[ See post to watch video ]

Yahoo: How Do We Keep Our Conscience So Clean? Ancient Chinese Secret …

John Paczkowski — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:26:43 +0000

Good thing Yahoo’s working with several Internet and human-rights groups to “further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy,” otherwise its shareholders’ rejection of two anticensorship proposals yesterday might make you want to question its commitment to human rights.

At Yahoo’s annual meeting, an overwhelming majority of Yahoo shareholders voted against two proposals that would require the Internet company to take proactive steps to address online censorship abroad. The first, which would have prevented Yahoo from storing personally identifying information on servers located in countries where public Internet use is monitored by the government, was sacked, with a vote of 74% opposed. The second, which would have established an independent human-rights committee on the board of directors, was rejected, with a vote of 80% opposed.

Sad, isn’t it? Although to be fair, Yahoo’s shareholders were just doing what they’d been told: The company’s board urged them to oppose the proposals in its annual proxy statement. “Yahoo! is committed to preserving and advancing the fundamental principles of free speech and expression, and … has already adopted policies to promote open access to information and communication for users of the company’s services around the world. The board of directors believes the company’s existing policies, which were carefully developed by Yahoo’s management team, provide the company with the flexibility and resources to comply with applicable laws and, at the same time, protect and advance these important freedoms.”

And what “existing policies” would those be? Turning over political dissidents’ emails to the Chinese government?