NEW YORK—New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., on behalf of the New York City Pension Funds, is calling on Yahoo to establish a set of standards to enforce policies to protect freedom of access to the Internet in China. The New York City Pension Funds system has 4.5 million Yahoo shares valued at $123 million.
On June 12, Yahoo shareholders will vote on a resolution filed by the NYC Pension Funds at the company's annual shareholder meeting in Santa Clara, California.
In 2005, Yahoo was accused of supplying data that was used to jail business journalist Shi Tao in Hunan province. The journalist was charged with leaking state secrets to an overseas pro-democracy site—apparently by using his Yahoo email account.
In April 2007, Yahoo became the first Internet company to be sued in the United States for human rights violations in China. The suit was brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act by a Chinese political dissident, Wang Xiaoning, who was jailed on the basis of personal ID information handed over to the Chinese government by Yahoo.
On the eve of Yahoo shareholders vote, The Epoch Times sat down with Thompson to learn more about his admirable decision.
The Epoch Times (ET): How did you decide to take such a noble stand against the unethical behavior of Yahoo and other Internet companies complicit with the Chinese Communist regime?
William Thompson (WT): We became aware that people in China became persecuted or prosecuted and jailed.
What we have suggested, and we filed shareholders resolution with these companies, is to say that they should not (in countries where there is censorship), number one: attempt to resist that censorship first and if there are legal means that they can take, attempt to take those legal means. Number two: where there is censorship, those who are using the services, those Online should be made aware of that. Finally, information about individual users should not be provided to these countries.
At worst case, the information on subscribers should be stored out of the country where it can't be accessed by countries who are attempting to sensor information.
I think it's something we have become aware of in the last couple of years as share holders with these three companies.
We don't know the results of Google yet, we know we are not going to win that since two of the major owners have 50 percent of the stock, but we are interested with what happens with Yahoo tomorrow, we have someone going to that meeting on behalf of the New York City Pension boards and we are hopeful.
If we don't win this—obviously, you know shareholders resolutions are not necessarily binding on management—but we think it will express a serious sentiment from the shareholders that we hope that the company will take that into account.
I have heard people talk about what companies say... "if they adhere to this they work at a competitive disadvantage"—to protect subscribers is to protect those who access information… there isn't a higher cost and if all companies would, then there is no competitive disadvantage.
ET: At the Google meeting on May 10, the resolution was voted down and the Google management representative said he didn't believe that going out of China will solve the issues.
WT: No one suggested that they stop doing business there. What we have suggested is that if there isn't a legal way to be able to prevent providing information in China, that they take the information out of China, they still can provide the services, they still can provide access but they [would] take the server and the information outside of China where no one can force them to turn it over.
ET: So the Google spokesperson didn't understand what the resolution was about?
WT: What we suggest is that they try and resist it, that they do the best they can to use any legal means necessary not to bow to censorship from these countries in cases where they are forced too.
Don't provide the names of individuals who seek information… this is what landed one person in jail...through a Yahoo search engine and now he is being prosecuted and jailed because of it. Take that information out of the country and don't provide that information. That they can do!
If they want to do business in countries like China and Burma and Cuba and others that block access to information and sensor the information that people can get, don't provide their names, and they don't have to do that if they take the information out of the country to places that won't force that.
ET: Is it a question of if a business wants to be ethical or not?
WT: I don't know if you can look and say its ethical business… It's the right thing to do!
Now you are talking about money and lives…you are balancing. Well what is more important, someone's freedom? People are going to jail against making money? I would say, in fact, that protecting people and protecting their right to try and gather information and knowledge is more important then the money that they are making in a country like China.
ET: Businesses seem to want to make money first, is that true?
WT: And what we are saying is you can do both…
ET: Why are they not complying?
WT: Because it's easier for them not too. Because it's easier, and some would say cheaper for them not to comply. And what we are saying is that at a certain point that access to information and protecting innocent people from being persecuted… there is no value on that.
Feeds