Main Shareholder Demands Yahoo to Protect Freedom

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

On June 12, Yahoo shareholders will vote on a resolution submitted by the New York Pension Fund at its annual meeting of company shareholders 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 site of democracy supporters, apparently using his e-mail address on Yahoo.

In April 2007, Yahoo became the first US Internet company to sue for human rights violations in China. The lawsuit was brought by Chinese political dissident Wang Xiaoning, in accordance with the Foreign Citizens Offense Act. Wang Xiaoning was imprisoned on the basis of personal information transmitted by Yahoo to the Chinese government.

On the eve of the Yahoo shareholders ’vote, the Epoch Times interviewed Thompson regarding his noble decision.

The Great Era (EE): What prompted you to oppose the unethical act of Yahoo and other Internet companies - accomplices of the Chinese Communist regime?

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

We proposed and sent to shareholders a decision that these companies should (in countries where censorship exists), first, try to counter this censorship first and, if there are legal ways that they can use, then try to apply them. Secondly, in countries where censorship exists, these computer services should notify their users of this. Lastly, individual user information 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 get hold of this information.

Such facts have become known to us, as the 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, since the two main owners have 50% of the shares of these companies, but we are interested in what will happen to Yahoo tomorrow, we have people who will attend 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 the decisions of the shareholders are not necessary for management - but we believe that this will express the serious opinion of the shareholders, which we hope will be taken into account by the company.

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

VE: No decision was made at a Google meeting on May 10, and a Google management spokesman said he did not consider leaving China as a solution.

YT: No one ever 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 take information out of China, then they can still provide services, they can still provide access, but they can take out the server and information outside of China, where no one able to get them to represent her.

VE: So the Google representative did not 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 to not indulge 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, one person has already ended up in jail ... with the help of the Yahoo search device, and now he is being repressed and imprisoned 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 don’t have to provide their names, and they don’t have to. if they take information out of the country to places that will not force it.

VE: 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 it comes to money and lives ... you need to find a balance. What is more important, freedom? Throw people in jail or make big money? I would say that, in fact, protecting people and protecting their right 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 is more important for companies to make money first, is that true?

YT: We are talking about the possibility of doing both at the same time ...

VE: Why are they not doing this?

YT: Because it’s easier for them not to fulfill. Because it’s easier for them, and it can be said, it’s cheaper not to do it. We say that at this stage, access to information and protecting innocent people from persecution ... have no price.