RSSSEC Says Yahoo Shareholders Must Vote on Anti-censorship Resolution
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published April 24, 2007, 12:10 PM
According to the office of New York City Comptroller William C. Thomson, Jr., which represents many of the city's various retirement and pension funds, the Securities and Exchange Commission has rejected a request from Yahoo to "omit" a shareholder resolution proposed by those funds, to have Yahoo adopt anti-censorship policies.
The resolution, the comptroller's office says, would institute a set of minimum standards which Yahoo would follow in dealing with other countries. For instance, it would have prohibited the company from hosting private data about members or individuals on systems housed in countries whose legal system prohibits any form of political speech.
It also would compel Yahoo management to inform users when the company accedes to a foreign government's request to restrict access to information queried through the Yahoo search engine.
Earlier this month, Google rejected a shareholders' petition on behalf of the same set of New York City funds, which called on the company to institute similar policies. Since that time, the comptroller's office has drafted a shareholder's resolution, apparently using similar language, that Google shareholders are set to vote on May 10.
Yahoo sought permission from the SEC to omit its version of the resolution from its shareholder's proxy; an SEC attorney reportedly responded in writing, denying Yahoo's request.
New York City's pension funds collectively have investments in Yahoo totaling $123.7 million, the comptroller's office reports, while its investments in Google total $338 million.
Included in the language of both shareholder petitions is the following language: "Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to 'receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.' Technology companies in the United States. that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights."
The foreign governments listed in those petitions as having questionable censorship and public information management policies are: Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
The Shareholders Anti-censorship Resolution: prohibiting hosting private data on countries
...having questionable censorship & public information management policies... whose legal system prohibits any form of political speech... is kinda meaningless:
w/o even mentioning widespread data breaches both accidental & malicious, likely no single country on the face of the earth qualifies when we take a pragmatic peek to notice the exemptions in "free" countries- in order to combat pedophilia, pornography, drugs, money laundering, tax evasion, gambling, terrorism, subversion(as innocent as disagreeing with leader, established religion / economic system, etc.), etc.-- real-life results would indicate that either:
1. "all countries" whether thru government or law enforcement agency(s) already have or can easily obtain all private citizen data,
2. "all citizens" are already in some type of government / law enforcement watch list / database.
btw This is all esp. true when we take a closer look at the different categories: some have contradictory regs, others make illegal some particular type of product / behavior that either is not widely considered immoral or does not cause hardship to others...so even those who feel they never break any law / their conscience is clean do not get spared.
So who cares where my data is stored? I'm gonna get reamed anyway-- whether by an amoral / unscrupulous individual or some overzealous / overreaching government / law enforcement agency.
What needs to be done is that 'free' countries need to lead by example in a 'fundamental reversal of course'--
1. Put the onus on law enforcement to investigate and detect specific cases... then go to a judge each and everytime for approval of search/eavesdrop... to stop deputizing financial institutions & isp's as government collaborators / spies.
2. To stop outlawing behaviors / products that are already legally licensed / specifically allowed in 'most other states / countries' !!!
Otherwise... human nature being that, since 'most' people somewhere do at least a few things that 'most' others do 'most' elsewhere... we will turn 'most' citizens into lawbreakers(including 'most' government officials / law enforcement personnel) needing controlling / monitoring by Big Brother.
This will lead into a total breakdown of civilization as we know it-- the world will be one giant USSR.
Score: 0
|