Slashdot Log In
Tech Giants In Human Rights Deal
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Oct 29, 2008 08:00 AM
from the this-can't-hurt-right dept.
from the this-can't-hurt-right dept.
Ostracus writes "Microsoft, Google and Yahoo have signed a global a code of conduct promising to offer better protection for online free speech and against official intrusion." Anyone want to know what this means for China & Australia? I bet it means even less to all of us in America where every major data center has a secret room where the government sniffs our packets.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Talk is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless these companies are willing to stand up and pull out of countries like China if their governments refuse to back down, then this agreement is as worthless as the paper it's written on. The same advice applies to business PR spin as applies to political PR spin: "Look at actions, not words, for the REAL story."
And yes, this privacy policy should apply to the U.S. government as well. No special exception should be made just because the U.S. President runs around yelling "9-11!"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
My first thought on hearing the headline, was at last. Something good? But yeah, reading the details, its just PR. But the more I think about it, the more its likely to be actually worse than just PR.
Without any legal teeth, this near useless agreement is simply to placate and blind the masses, into believing something is being done to maintain freedom and fairness. So if anything, as it stands, its worse than not having an agreement. Because now, every time something bad is added to Big Brother, they will wave this bit of paper and say something like... "but, everyone, we are thinking of all of you. Look we signed this agreement, to say we care."
Since the start of the whole web 2.0 user generated content idea became popular, some people in power have said many times, how much they hate user generated content. But then, its no wonder they do hate it, as its likely the only way the full truth is getting out these days. Plus in countries like the UK, they want to create literally Big Brother to monitor everything that is said online. While Australia wants to censor the net.
No wonder some people in power want to monitor, control and even at times, silence user generated content. People may actually discuss political points of view, rather than be simply spoon feed points of view, by the large news organizations, like Rupert Murdoch's group.
Parent
Good news, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll bet there's something in there 'respecting local laws' or similar, so the code will have no teeth.
As soon as the Chinese say 'this AC is suspected of being Falun Gong', or the French say 'this AC has a SS dagger for sale', or the Australians say 'this AC has offended Family First', each and every signatory to the code will lube up and bend over.
Sorry, but I don't think Google, Microsoft or Yahoo have the balls to stand up for free speech when faced with a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they are pushing search engines to respect the relevant country's laws, but also do a little pushing back. If an official in randomforiegncountry asks for the names of some people the company in question is supposed to push back a little and ask if their request is compliant with their own laws. It was cited that often a local official in China would approach a company and ask for names, but this local official isn't necessarily following China's federal laws.
But otherwise I agree, these companies
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The part about laws does make a difference. In China the constitution is not exactly liberal, but it is more liberal than the behaviour of the police against dissidents would imply.
E.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_PRC [wikipedia.org]
Article 35 of the 1982 State Constitution proclaims that "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession, and of demonstration." In the 1978 constitution, these rights were guaranteed, but so were
except ... morals (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, interpreted so broadly by those in power that the declaration becomes essentially useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"essentially useless" ???? How about truly useless?
The simple fact is, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had any of these computing behemoths actually previously stood up against governments or oppressive groups in the past, their pact might actually be cause to think brightly about the future. Sadly, historically they have all shown themselves to be in the business of collecting dollars rather than collecting accolades from human rights organizations. Signing the pact does not indicate any true dev
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess we all miss the point here.
It is not about 3 giants agreeing to "defend" Human Rights.
It is 3 giants agreeing between themself that none of them will grow a conscience overnight, starts fighting for Human Rights and makes bad press for the other 2. Example: Google pulling out of China ... that would make MS and Yahoo look so bad. At the end of the day - future money is maybe in China, but today money is still in US/EU.
So, not useless ... for them - just the same kind of PR-spin than DRM.
Re: (Score:2)
"We promise to uphold liberty and free speech. Unless they become, y'know, inconvenient or something."
The Bullshit Continues (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless NGO's have an office/unit internally within Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google to oversee their conducts and verify their compliance to the flashy Global Code they are taunting - all this is just a PR stunt.
With ANY company:
sniff away (Score:3, Funny)
I plan on not showering so I can have the most skid-marked packets for their sniffing pleasure.
As for China, I'm sure they'll just going to go along with this. That's what they usually do in reply to any external pressure regarding online rights. They just didn't realize the errors of their ways!
For my own edification (Score:2)
(And maybe some other people)
What does it mean when Google says they will be doing business in china? Would China normally block www.google.com unless they get a business license in China? Is there another reason why the average Chinese citizen wouldn't have access to google.com? (or google.cn or èæOE or whatever?)
Or is this just that Google wants to start selling advertisements in China?
It doesn't matter what they say... (Score:5, Informative)
Any contract or promise contrary to the law is null and void.
"It is very little more than a broad statement of support for a general principle without any concrete backup mechanism to ensure that the guidelines will be followed."
This is little more than a PR stunt used to shore up their public image. The agreement language is vague, and there are questions about if it is even binding. It can probably not even be enforced, because in most countries, conspiracy is a crime. So if a company should do anything which would hinder prosecution, they could be charged with:
I'm not counting on this having any effect other than people saying, "Look, Google really isn't evil!". Which is exactly the intended effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Any contract or promise contrary to the law is null and void.
I'd like to know which specific law you're talking about. The Patriot Act? DMCA? The US Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have a binding contract to do something illegal (as part of the contract)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, the ability to wiretap voice communications is required under CALEA.
Not just voice -- ISP's providing broadband Internet service must provide the ability to tap customers' Internet traffic as well.
The government, too? (Score:3, Funny)
One of my cats was sniffing my packets when I woke up this morning.
Freakin' weirdo.
Enemy at the gates (Score:2, Interesting)
Protection for us or them? (Score:2)
Are they trying to protect us, or themselves against ? Am I getting cynical in my old age, or does this read like it's a demand for less red-tape/taxes etc. dressed up as protecting our rights to free speech?
Anyone have the actual text? (Score:2)
TFA doesn't include it, and without being able to read it, it's all hearsay.
-jcr
How will this be enforced? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing in the article that talks about how this will be enforced. So, I want to know how will this be enforced? What will be the repercussions for a company that violates the agreement? How will compliance be measured and accounted for? Who will oversee this to ensure that the companies involved are complying? Without answers to these questions this agreement among companies is "just promises." And promises are largely worthless.
The EFF was involved in the deal. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/10/global-network-initiative [eff.org]
Still, the EFF isn't completely satisfied with the results:
It means nothing in China or Australia either.. (Score:2)
Oh...pack_et_s (Score:2)
I thought I read:
Sure feels that way sometimes...sick gov't!
Code of Conduct? Please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's Cisco in all this? (Score:3, Interesting)
They were largely responsible for the Great [wired.com] Firewall [newsmax.com] of China [wired.com].
So I would think that their involvement, as well as that of Nortel and other network gear OEMs, is more desirable than that of Application/OS/Search companies.
Bad form (Score:2)
And, since you're willing to make an outright lie such as that, your opinion means what?
How can you say they're "secret" rooms?!? (Score:2)
After all, you've just told everybody about them...
Mr and Mrs Smith (Score:2)
.
The government knows 300,000,000 people who interest it more than you.
The geek is infinitely more likely to sniffed at by his boss, his neighbor, his wife and kids, his dog - assuming he has been out of the basement long enough to acquire one or all of the above.
_____
This being the season of Halloween, I have been wonderingly idly what horrors truly lie behind that
Welcome! (Score:2)
Welcome to the Glorious Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics! [zazzle.com]
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Informative)
I used to work as a sysadmin for a major datacenter. There was no room as far as I knew. If there was, it was pretty hidden from everyone.
We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.
Also, it seems obvious that if the government wanted to spy on traffic, they wouldn't do it at endpoints like datacenters. They would do it at major routers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
Google and Yahoo are both building major new datacenters within 15 miles of me, and Microsoft is building a new one within 100 miles. I plan on checking out all the new datacenters as well when I apply for jobs there.
Re: (Score:2)
They don;t have a tap in my companies server room, they have a tap in my companies ISPs server room.
Re: (Score:2)
...and I thought they used ECHELON to spy on all traffic Net, Phone, other ....
Which the likes of US companies could do nothing about ....
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.
Did you make sure they had the proper warrants? Did you inform the customers of the real reason for the problems if they didn't have warrants, or if they didn't have gag orders? If you didn't protect your customers from federal agents overstepping their bounds, or informing them of the actions of the federal agents, you are part of the problem.
Now, if they had the proper warrants and court orders, then, by all means, you should help them out. If not, then you should tell them to read the Constitution and get back to you when they have done their job properly.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
it's not paranoid if they're out to get you (Score:3, Insightful)
We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.
This might be the scariest thing I've ever read. You wouldn't tell the customer that someone showed up with a court order to see the drive and you had no choice but to comply? Did the FBI or SS at least show up with a court order? Did your legal department always review it first, how long did they have to do that? In what way were you bound to not tell the customer?
It makes me itch in a very major way that the customer's legal department never got engaged. I can't imagine that you guys would defend
Re: (Score:2)
Do other /.'ers have experience with being forced to turn over 3rd party private data?
Where I used to work (an ISP), I would occasionally have to provide usage logs, etc. on customers. However, the requests *always* came from the ISP's legal department. If ever I received a direct request (IIRC, it happened once or twice), I sent it to legal before replying with the information. I'd *pull* the data as soon as I got a notice, but I absolutely, positively did not divulge it until my legal department ok'd the request. For that matter, as I recall (it's been a while...), I only gave the inf
Re: (Score:2)
We did have people from the FBI or Secret Service come in every once in a while and ask for a hard drive out of a server. We'd tell the customer he had hardware problems as we mirrored the drive.
I strongly hope that you asked for the warrant before sending out the "Sorry for the inconvenience" message, and told them to get lost if they couldn't produce it? Otherwise, I'd sure like to know where that is, so I can avoid it.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked at a major data center about 10 years ago. There was no secret room but there was hidden equipment that belonged to the government. I was fairly high up in the company and I only learned about it years after it was installed. I was never officially told about it, but my boss happened to mention what it was one day. If he hadn't mentioned it, I would never have suspected it was there.
"Damn, this toupee itches! My grandfather stole it from Dwight Eisenhower"
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should clarify, for hyperbole's sake, that there is one NSA room in one major hub. It's well-known now, and the government has gotten quite a lot of crap about it.
Conspiracy theory is when you extend this, sans evidence, to "they must have one in every major hub".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I am a network administrator at a telco, and yes, the company I had to work for had to produce a CALEA-compliance plan about a year ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, that's certainly believable. But having a plan in place to apply a tap to every circuit they provide is different from having such a tap active.
I don't really think they should even have a plan in place to do such a thing, but the typical hyperbolic statement is "the government is actively monitoring all of your packets and phone conversations", which simply isn't true.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not always in a room, in some places they have a cage like everyone else. Referred to as the "fed rack".
Common knowledge, not conspiracy theory.