This Weekend’s Unanswered Questions (TWUQs for 061805)

Another installment in a nearly-regular series of mysteries and pseudo-mysteries this inquiring mind would like to have answers for (some links included may require free registration):

• When will those who assail “evil capitalists” go after companies that are helping oppressive governments squelch dissent?I realize that the arguments here are not black-and-white, but I am still troubled by Microsoft’s apparent willingness to help Communist-and-sorta-capitalist China keep a lid on dissent:
  

  Fresh off its controversial flip-flopping on support for a gay-rights bill in Washington state comes a news report that Microsoft is cooperating with the Chinese government to censor users of the MSN Spaces section of its MSN China Web portal.

  …. Still, the idea that an American business would help a government censor its people, to however small a degree, should leave us a little uneasy. These companies aren’t just representing themselves in foreign countries, they represent the United States as well.

  ….. Today China asks Microsoft to help ban certain words in file headers only. What if tomorrow it decides to extend that censorship to file contents? Or asks for archived records of some dissident’s Web travels? Or the Web addresses of all unregistered users of the portal? How far will Microsoft go?

  The company has gained a business foothold for now, but tomorrow, if the Chinese people find themselves free to decide where they want to go today, will they view Microsoft appreciatively as the company that helped open the door to the Internet and new ideas or suspiciously as an agent in the Chinese government’s efforts to keep that door only partially open? No one can know, but it’s something to think about.

  It would be nice to see if Microsoft has a coherent policy on this, other than “whatever makes money.”

  UPDATE: Obviously I’ve been working too much on local politics–The Wall Street Journal (link just moved to Opinion Journal at 12:01 am on June 19, so it only requires free registration) ripped Microsoft, Yahoo and Google in a brief editorial called “Microsoft’s Kowtow” originally published on Wednesday (June 15), and notes that Colin Powell is (sort of) grudgingly backing thoses companies:

  Where do you want to go today?”

  That was Microsoft’s slogan in the mid-1990s, one that evoked the unlimited possibilities inherent in the age of the Internet and the software revolution. The answer to that question today would be, “hopefully not where they discuss ‘freedom,’ ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights,’” at least not if you expect to use Microsoft’s new portal in China.

  The software giant has just bowed to the Chinese government by banning these words. If you type them on Microsoft’s new portal, a message appears telling you to try different ones. If this weren’t insulting enough, the message actually says, according to news reports, “this item should not contain forbidden speech such as profanity. Please enter a different word for this item.”

  To be fair to Microsoft, it is not alone. Yahoo! and Google have also caved in to China. Google chose last year to omit sources the Chinese government does not like from its Google News China edition, saying that it didn’t make sense to provide a link to sites that would probably be blank anyway. All of these Internet companies make the point that it is better to make a compromise, gain a foothold in China and then offer China’s masses the smorgasbord of information that is out there.

  ……. Powell added that he thought the Chinese government was fighting a losing battle in thought control over the Internet, at least “if Chinese teenagers are like the teenagers in my family.”

  It is admittedly difficult for China’s government to block Internet content from its estimated 87 million users, a number that is growing. But it is a lot easier if it has the cooperation of the industry. These corporations might also remember that Beijing needs their business. The Internet is where demand and supply meet these days, and China’s leaders need economic growth to continue if they are not to face large-scale upheaval. Certainly the Microsofts and Googles might try to drive a harder bargain.

  This bears serious watching.

  UPDATE: Uh-oh. Looks like all TypePad blogs no longer can be seen in China. Much more depressing detail, including insights into the less-than-open design of the Chinese Internet and corporate complicity in it, at RConversation.

• Do you see now why Elliot Spitzer prefers press-release intimidation over real trials? (HT: Professor Bainbridge)I let this ride for a week in hopes of seeing a lot more reaction to this, and saw very little other than the predictable business locales (WSJ, etc.). It is impossible to conclude anything other than that Spitzer is getting a pass from the business press because he’s going after “obviously” bad people–so tactics don’t matter.

  As an example, watch how the Reuters writer tries to soften the blow to Spitzer with a ridiculous headline, sub-headline, and early paragraphs all designed to make the reader dig deep before finding out Spitzer’s target got off scot-free (my heckling is in italics):

  Ex-BofA broker acquitted on most counts
  Sihpol was acquitted of 29 of 33 charges that he helped a hedge fund trade mutual funds illegally. (what about the other four charges?)
  June 9, 2005: 2:27 PM EDT

  NEW YORK (Reuters) – Theodore Sihpol, a former Bank of America Corp. broker, was acquitted on Thursday of 29 of 33 criminal charges that he helped a hedge fund trade mutual funds illegally. (ahem–the other four charges?)

  The jury said it could not reach a verdict on the remaining four counts against Sihpol, leading Manhattan Supreme Court Justice James Yates to declare a mistrial on those charges. (So this means…..Sihpol wasn’t convicted of anything, right? Why can’t you say that?)

  The trial marked the first time that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office has taken a case before a jury in his efforts to reform practices in the $8 trillion U.S. mutual fund industry. (I thought lawmakers were in charge of passing “reform” laws if business practices are suspect; AGs are supposed to prosecute cases.)

  Sihpol, 37, faced seven counts of grand larceny, four of securities fraud and scheming to defraud, and 22 of falsifying records. If convicted on all counts, he would have faced up to 30 years in prison. (you almost sound sad that it didn’t happen.)

  “Those of us who have believed in Ted Sihpol are euphoric,” defense attorney Paul Shechtman said after the verdict. “He showed enormous personal courage to go to trial and he and his lawyers bless the jury system.”

  It’s understandable why most of Spitzer’s public sliming targets fold, but it would be nice to see a few more hand Elliot his hat, if only to force him to have second thoughts about his tactics every once in a while.

  Here’s another blog comment on the Spitzer setback:

  The Sihpol acquittal yesterday focuses attention on an important aspect of the current wave of criminalizing merely questionable business transactions — that is, the government’s destruction of good reputations in its quest to obtain convictions and prevent juries from hearing testimony that is favorable to unpopular defendants.

• Will anybody miss those moronic “Meet Bob” commercials if this company that makes this product (warning: link is rated PG-13 by BizzyBlog) gets put out of business by the group of state attorneys general pursuing it?It would appear that the product involved has not always, uh, risen to the occasion:
  

  According to a news release from (Ohio Attorney General) Petro’s office, the suit claims Berkeley, Lifekey Inc., Boland Naturals Inc., Warner Health Care, and Wagner Nutraceuticals failed to inform consumers who received a free-trial offer for nutritional supplements that they also would be enrolled in a plan that automatically billed them for future shipments of products. It also alleges Warshak and his companies made unsubstantiated claims about the effectiveness of products and that the companies did not have competent and reliable scientific evidence to back up advertised health claims.