Why does Yahoo think it is ok to turn over their records to the government, rather than resist like Google?
79369
Yahoo must have nothing big to cover up, or on the other hand cooperation with the government can pay off later when you need it.  Google could also just be more for the constitution than yahoo
41095
National Security. The govenment already has your "really private" information because of social security, taxes and so forth. This 'private' info Yahoo would release is more like account info and they would only release info regarding people that talk of anything to do with national security or the breaking of Federal Laws. Using the internet to commit crime is a Federal Offense and it is their duty to help enforce it. Same thing with any telecommunications company. (Phone and internet providers included.)
617225
If you can't vote, than you shouldn't be allowed on those sites. I, too would like to know why they don't enforce such rules. I think they have those guidelines just so people can't sue the company for what they seee on the site. Shouldn't they have some advanced technology that can spot certain language and, perhaps, photos and delete it?
652400
Yes, because I'm not a criminal so they have no right to collect data on me.  They don't need to listen in on things to know details of my life.  They can figure out easily how often I call my doctor, how often bill collectors call me, how often I stay in touch with family and where they are, what products I purchase via phone, how often I order pizza, and whether or not I cheat on my wife.  \n\nI don't want some geek sitting in a control room somewhere figuring that out, its just creepy...and unconstitutional...and "1984".  Please place me on the "Do Not Monitor" list, thanks.
651167
They do not have open records acts like our Federal laws.  They are a nation within a nation and have their own set of laws.
360121
China is a sovereign nation..they can have any laws they like..and Yahoo has to follow them...\n\nIt is not like Yahoo is trying to clamp down on revolution....\n\nThe problem is the Chinese government..NOT any individual company....
669126
OK, first, I totally disagree with your premise regarding human rights.  I don't even think you understand the term.  But I want to address the question about Yahoo:\n\nYahoo has a right to withdraw anything here if it wants to FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT.  It is THEIR site.  They own it.  They allow you to write on it, but they can remove things if they want.  That's how a free country works.  If it is yours, you can do what you want with it.  \n\nIf I wrote things on YOUR website, YOU would have a right to remove things that you didn't like.  Why is that so hard to understand?  You do NOT have any right to publish on someone else's website.  You have a right to publish on your own site and the site of anyone who CHOOSES FREELY to allow you to post on theirs.  YOU DO NOT OWN YAHOO!!!!
325723
AH HA!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! thats the big fubar isnt it? ever read 'Creature from Jekyll Island'?\nhttp://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5rf5FTpEf24Bi7dXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2cDBvcmhqBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMwRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGNzMyXzg5/SIG=11ulpqn00/EXP=1144743801/**http%3a//www.wealth4freedom.com/creature.htm\nthey cant, its illegal. the irs is also illegal. im glad you know this tell everyone you can. its common practice to bow down to government & whatever it says. is this what the founders would do? thank you thank you thank you
410386
No, restricting your freedom to interact with a free service is just plain wrong. You should have the right to use whatever email service you want. I just don't understand why you can use this forum and not email, are you breaking the law right now?
579325
Yahoo just wants this place to be popular. They care little about actual discussion or rights. It's just the whole nature of business in general... a business will do anything that will promote its product and it will avoid anything that will do nothing for it. \n\nRace discussions are generally highly subjective and the negative risks of such a discussion outweigh any positive gain for Yahoo. Thus, they ban it. Rights of individuals has nothing to do with it.
173720
Not necessarily.  If someone were stupid enough to ask how to make a pipebomb, and someone gave the right answer, most voting Americans feel the government should get to know.  It doesn't mean that the government hires people to search this particular site since Yahoo has quite a few documented instances where they handed people over to the government just for merit points.  It's happened a few times in China, and if it happened in America, no one would know, because THAT is part of the PATRIOT ACT.  PATRIOT ACT is capitalized because it stands for something, and THAT would make a good question.
410781
Records are generally never free, because it costs a lot of money to store them and find them. Also, not many records are available online, except through private companies, who charge much more for the service than the government body ever would. As for whether it would be available online at all, it depends on what records you need and where you live.
486762
Yeah, it's biased.  But what do you expect from a corporation that readily hands over personal Internet subject search records of Americans over to Bush and Co. in the administration's guise of cracking down on porn?  From what I heard, they also use people to fill Yahoo Answers with questioners and answerers that push the Republican agenda.\n\nAnd it was dumb to pose that question.  It is a crime to threaten the President and even though you weren't trying to do that, it can be interpreted that way--especially by this president.  But I've noticed that they've let a lot of your other questions slide by which violates their vulgarity standards, but I guess as long as you're not offensive in a political way, then are fine with it.  I'm sure most conservatives are like that.
809311
The answer, put simply, is hypocrisy.  I'm in the military and anything I do at work, from surfing the internet to my phone calls, is subject to monitoring, so I'm probably a little more comfortable with it than most, but people don't want to get caught.  For my two cents, I think innocence is its own shield.  If I'm accused of something I didn't do, I want to be searched and investigated so I'll be vindicated.  Too many people want to abuse the right to privacy to keep from getting caught doing something wrong, and its always easy to blame the cops.
136838
Yahoo! justified providing Tao's personal emails to Chinese police by arguing that it was only following local (Chinese) laws since the emails were stored in servers in China. \n\nHowever, Many ask why Yahoo! uses servers in China knowing that it will be legally obliged to disclose private information of its    email service users to the government, which may lead to its email users being jailed as was the case with Mr. Tao.\n\nWhether this was morally justified, I leave this for you to judge!
89926
What are you talking about?\n\nClearly there are some national security reasons to make some things difficult to locate.  Yes, it is certainly true that national security is sometimes used where it shouldn’t be use.  However the recourse for such actions is public access to records and application can be made for anything.  If the government wants to keep it for only a high security clearance, then it must demonstrate that necessity in a court.\n\nBanning of books generally occurs at the local level in the local school or library.  In both of these situations there is recourse to get such decisions reversed.  A relatively few things should fall under banning acts.  For example, pornographic pictures and writings kept from those who are too young.\n\nWhat specifically are you referring to?  If you listed those it might be easier to join with you if those things have merit.
132336
In response to a broad government subpoena, Yahoo turned over material about users' searches without protest, and Google is going to court to fight the subpoena.  (The case had nothing to do with terrorism, rather it is an attempt by the Government to demonstrate that lots of porn is missed by porn filters.)  For that reason, I personally am inclined to ues the Google search engine rather than Yahoo's, as an expression of suuport for Google's stance.