Major shareholder requires Yahoo to protect freedom

NEW YORK - New York City Financial Controller William S. Thomson Jr., on behalf of the New York Pension Fund, urges Yahoo to set a set of standards for implementing a course aimed at protecting the freedom of access to the Internet in China. The New York Pension Fund System has 4.5 million Yahoo shares worth $ 123 million .

On June 12, Yahoo’s shareholders will vote on the resolution submitted by the New York Pension Fund at its annual stockholders meeting in Santa Clara, California.
In 2005, Yahoo was charged with providing data that was used to imprison journalist Shi Tao in Hunan Province. The journalist was accused of leaking state secrets to a foreign supporters website, apparently using his e-mail on Yahoo.

In April 2007, Yahoo became the first Internet company in the United States to be sued for violating human rights in China. The lawsuit was filed by a political Chinese dissident Wang Xiaoning, in accordance with the Offense Law Regarding Foreign Citizens. Wang Xiaoning was imprisoned on the basis of personal information provided by Yahoo to the government of China.
')
On the eve of Yahoo’s shareholder vote, the Epoch Times journalist interviewed Thompson on his noble decision.

The Epoch Times (EE): What made you oppose the unethical act of Yahoo and other Internet companies that are partners to the Chinese Communist regime?

William Thomson (UT): We have learned that people in China are being persecuted, accused and imprisoned.

We proposed and sent to shareholders the decision that these companies should (in countries where there is censorship), first, try to first resist this censorship and, if there are legal ways that they can use, then try to apply them. Secondly, in countries where there is censorship, these computer services must notify their users. Finally, information about individual users should not be provided to these countries.

In the worst case, subscriber information should be stored in a country where it is not available to those countries that are trying to take over this information.

Such facts became known to us as shareholders of these three companies,
over the past few years.

We do not yet know the results regarding Google; we know that we will not win, as the two main owners have 50% of the shares of these companies, but we are interested in what will happen with Yahoo tomorrow, we have people who will go to this meeting on behalf of the board of directors of the New York Pension Fund York, and we do not lose hope.
We may not win this business - of course, you understand that decisions of shareholders are not obligatory for management - but we believe that this will express the serious opinion of shareholders, which we hope will be taken into account by the company.

I heard people discuss what companies say: “If they follow this, they will work in unfavorable competition” - the protection of subscribers is the protection of those who have access to information ... there is no higher price, and if all companies will do so, there will be no adverse competition.

EE: During the May 10 Google meeting, a decision was not made and a Google management representative said that he did not consider leaving China a solution to the problems.

YT: No one imagined that they should stop doing business in this country.

We propose that if there is no legal way to prevent the provision of information to China, they should have taken information from China, then they can still provide services, they can still provide access, but they take the server and information out of China, where no one can get them to represent her.

ET: So the Google representative didn't understand what the resolution was about?

YT: We suggest that they try to resist this, that they try to do everything possible to use any legal means necessary in order to not indulge in censorship in these countries when they are forced to do so.

Do not provide the names of people who are looking for information ... as a result of this, one person was already in prison ... with the assistance of the search engine "Yahoo", and now he is under repression and is in prison for this reason. Take this information out of the country and do not provide this information. They can do it!

If they want to do business in countries such as China or Burma and Cuba, and other countries that block access to information and censor information that people can receive, then they should not provide their names, and they don’t have to do it, if they take the information out of the country, to places that will not be forced to do so.

ET: Is this a choice between ethical and unethical business?

YT: I don't know if you can call it an ethical business ... It's just right!

When talking about money and lives ... you need to find a balance. What is more important, freedom? Throw people in jail or earn big money? I would say that, in fact, protecting people and protecting their rights to try to get information and knowledge is more important than the money they earn in a country like China.

VE: It seems that it’s more important for companies to make money first, is that true?

YT: We say that it is possible to do both at the same time ...

VE: Why don't they do this?

YT: Because it's easier for them not to perform. Because it is easier for them, and you can say, not to perform cheaper. We say that at this stage, access to information and protection of innocent people from persecution ... do not have a price.