One thinks that the internet is a democratizing force in the world. With a natural tendency to globalize, the internet has spread Western values for freedom and the right to free speech. But while the internet is a symbol of unbridled expression and expansive freedom for most of cyber-citizens, it is not so for a growing majority (more than a billion in fact). Activists in repressive countries have turned to the Web, only to be clamped down by authorities.
In recent times, China has stood its ground in silencing discussion and civilian mobilization based on contentious subjects such as democracy, Tibet and Taiwan. Under the guise of protecting “public security”, the Republic has launched the 
Golden Shield Project (jīndùn gōngchéng), sometimes called the Great Firewall of China. Through this powerful censorship tool, the ruling elite of China cut off the only remaining venue of Chinese activists. Despite this setback, China’s reformers sought refuge in services provided by multinational companies such as Yahoo! that guarantee anonymity and privacy. Journalist Shi Tao used such a service, e-mail to be exact, just to inform one of his colleagues about a memorandum issued by Chinese media censors that banned discussion on the commemoration of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Shi Tao
This is where Yahoo! comes in. It allowed the Chinese government access to his e-mail, providing direct evidence to a court that would later convict Shi Tao of “subversive activities”. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, along with an unknown (and concealed) number of comrades. The complicity of the technological and financial giants in the act of oppression shocked US government officials. Even ordinary netizens grew wary of whether Yahoo! really protected its subscribers. After all, Yahoo! stands to gain from the world’s second biggest internet community and would benefit from its continued “cooperation” with the authorities that license its business in the Republic.
It comes then appropriately that Yahoo! now pay up for its participation in suppressive activities. It should pay for the betrayal of trust, for its breach of contract (so carefully detailed in the “terms of service” displayed on its e-mail website), for the physical and psychological harm of imprisonment, for Shi Tao’s loss of livelihood, for a lifetime of oppression and scrutiny thanks to a blown cover.
Can the Internet ever be safe again?
humanity at its finest 