Western Software Used to Support Censorship

just_another_sean writes "The NYT has an interesting summary of a study done by the OpenNet Initiative about Western software companies developing and profiting from censorship and Internet filtering tools used by repressive regimes. This particular study focuses on censorship in Myanmar, a country that is currently under American sanctions. Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?"

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Parent should be +1 Funny, not +1 Interesting. "What we should do is... 'censor' the software companies... the world would be a more free place"

Yes, because censorship is certainly the path to freedom.

Trading With The Enemy

[cannuck]

When it comes to greed versus good - the history of corporations in the USA (and other places too) has been anything but stellar. One good read is "Trading With The Enemy" - which shows Dupont supplied the gas to murder millions in the concetration camps, which shows Ford supplied ballbearings for Nazis tanks - which shows the Luftwaffer bombing London with Luftwaffer getting their aviation fuel from Standard Oil (Esso?) - which shows IBM set up the computerized system for the Nazis to track who was put into which concentration camp and/or was murdered or sent off to experimental medical operations - all the while ATT listened to all telephone communications of the Nazis but didn't supply the Allies with any intelligence. All for a blood dollar. Last but not least the head of Dupont was called into the Oval Office by Roosevelt - why? - the head of Dupont through the World Bank (that he headed up) to stop selling the gold that the Nazis took out of the mouths of the millions gased in gas chambers. The laundered money was then sent to the Nazis to buy more bombs - to bomb London! Of course "we" find out about all the horrors years after the fact. I hate to be reading what corporate horror stories are going on now in various parts of the world - 10 years from now.

The Fifth Hope had some good lectures on this ...

[un1xl0ser]

From: http://www.the-fifth-hope.org/hoop/5hope_speakers. khtml [the-fifth-hope.org]

How the Great Firewall Works
Bill Xia
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/gr eat-firewall.mp3 [nyud.net] http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/gr eat-firewall.m3u [nyud.net]

Cult of the Dead Cow Hactivism Panel
Eric Grimm, Sharon Hom, Dr. James Mulvenon, Oxblood Ruffin, Nart Villeneuve
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-1.mp3 [nyud.net] http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-1.m3u [nyud.net] http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.mp3 [nyud.net] http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.m3u [nyud.net]

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I think a company like this should be publicly shamed. It should be presented to the public that they are cooperating with these regimes in assisting in the enslavement of their people.

ok. Who decides who deserves this? CNN? Bill Gates? Linus? Your competitor? What if you don't agree? What if it's _you_ being shamed? How do you rebut it? Is it trial by media? Does the person controlling the media decide?

This is what happens with "moral" issues that are not breaking the law. Since they're not breaking the law, there's no police. So that leave vigilantees. Which basically means "I, and enough of my friends can do what we like." ie Anarchy.

That's why the law exists in the first place. By all means write the laws. Then there's a clear line in the sand. By all means start a campaign to change the law. By all means start a campaign to boycott a company. But be prepared for the company to respond - as would be their right. Be prepared to give others the power you so eagerly desire. If someone starts a campaign to boycott _your_ company then don't complain...

Public `censorship' is not censorship

[brokeninside]

You ask how public censorship can be more acceptable then government censorship. But there can be no public censorship because the public at large does not back its censorship through coercive force short of a mob going door to door threatening individuals with bodily harm if they say certain things or buy certain products. Rather, a public effort to shame a company into modifying its behavior respects the principle of individual autonomy because it invites people to participate rather than forcing people to participate.

Consider a woman getting up on a soapbox to sing protest songs in a public square. If I turn my back on her and walk away solely because of the content of her songs, that isn't censorship. But if the police come along and arrest her solely because of the content of her songs, she has been censored. Even if I go around urging others to ignore this singer, I'm still not committing censorship. She is still free to express her protest just as I am still free to ignore it and free to attempt to stop her message being promulgated by depriving her of an audience by convincing others to choose to ignore her.

Re:What about the American Sanctions

[brian.glanz]

This is where the U.S. Congress has license to go after these companies, legally. A few hearings ought to clear everything up for the American people, where the "two-tier distribution models" that pass responsibility for distribution on to resellers become front-page news and election issues. The problem here though, is one of significantly higher order than sanctions and software in Myanmar. For Congress to assert itself and American law in this one case would only belie the greater reality and delay the onset of global justice.

If we're going to live in a world of nations, then we each maintain our own law and for example, the U.S. Congress does have something substantive to say about how American companies conduct their business. If companies are to continue being considered "American" or "German" or "Japanese" at all, then the national governments must reassert themselves. Under the current circumstances, only fools believe what's written in all those books, charters, and constitutions. Americans argue over whether The Pledge of Allegiance should be said -- they ought to consider first whether any of it is relevant, anymore. Fact is, corporations are already far more nimble and powerful than countries. Nations are already unable to protect and govern their citizens, so are they nations at all?

Economics lead and politics follow. At some point, the national governments will admit their standing and, in a grab for power they can no longer pretend to have, they will coalesce with other, similar national governments. As we've seen in the EU, mergers between governments will attempt to catch up to the transnationalism of corporations. Before this happens, I think corporations will need to abuse their workers and their consumers somewhat more than already they do, and all of us will need to hear and read more about it. There will need to be significant public support for a body like the U.S. Congress to go on suggesting a merger with other governments, admitting it cannot otherwise corral American companies.

The Chinese may yet prove me wrong, but so far I'm still pretty sure that capitalism requires an overseeing democracy to maintain justice. Justice's scales are far out of balance at the moment, where the laws we write here in the U.S. are wholly ignored by American companies elsewhere. Hell, even the American government itself just outsources its torture and killing of detainees and enemies of our state. Whenever we want to break our own laws, we just go somewhere else to do it. The connection between laws and land is an ancient concept, one which bears decreasing resemblance to 21st century reality.

So yes, American companies should not be selling product there, because there are those sanctions and yes, I do think the American government could still do something to stop it, but not so long as they remain only the government of America. To really do something about it, to right the scales of Justice, to police and govern the world, we require world government. Nothing less will do, all this nonsense about being a "Super Power" and the policemen of the world set aside. Our tech and strategy and experience can't even put Iraq at peace; the U.S. and its few close friends are nowhere near the strength required of a global government.

Happens Here too!

[Pooldraft]

Everyone gets upset when you hear about another country censoring their population for one reason or another. It happens here all the time though. Next time you hit google up type in "kazza" now go to the bottom and you will see this "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org." Now how is that censorship any different then other countrires censorship. You will probably say something like this: "yea but that is because of a law that congress passed." Ok but you really think that in other countries were censorship is happening there are not laws against what is being censored, bet there are. Have a nice day.

Re:Isn't it already unconstitutional?

[cdrguru]

Sorry, if a US citizen kill someone in Canada, you might get extradited to Canada for prosecution, but there is no way you are going to be prosecuted in the US.

Same with killing someone in Brazil. Or Mexico. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, the US Justice Department would probably look favorably on an extradition request from just about anywhere for a murderer. And, US law enforcement would probably not bat an eye at helping out in the capture of said murderer. But there is no way they would be prosecuted by a US court.