US-Made Censorware Used To Oppress Burma 199
An anonymous reader writes "The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that US-made censorware is being used to oppress the people in many countries, including Burma. That in itself may not be surprising, but a more interesting point is that according to lawyers interviewed by the CS Monitor it appears to be legal — in spite of all the economic sanctions against the country, and even though people know it will be used to hush up any mention of things like attacks on peaceful protesters."
It's quite OK (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see what the legal or moral issue is here...
Disgraceful (Score:4, Insightful)
An excerpt from the source article:
This is what's going on in Burma http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/28/myanmar-internet-blocked/ [globalvoicesonline.org]
How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?
US made guns used to oppress Burma (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevermind Burma (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened to "information wants to be free"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me guess, we're upset now because this software is inherently "evil" whereas encryption software is inherently "good", or at least benign. "Blocking software? Why that's used to stop the flow of information and it's used to oppress. Of course it shouldn't be making it's way from the US into our enemy's hands." Maybe we should throw on a good old, "Damned neocon's!" or "Corporations profiting by their export of legalized digital oppression! Same old story."
Give me break. If we're going to support free use and access for the one (PGP, for instance) aren't we logically bound to support the other, since the basis of the support was that programs are neither good nor bad and that information/code/software yearns to be free? Sure, lament their use for evil purpose, but lets not go all "this shouldn't be allowed to happen" or "there should be a law against it". At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the company apparently does care and it isn't yet clear how this software came to be in use in the embargoed nation. For all anyone knows it was pirated by a Burmese government sympathizer who worked for another company that attained it legally. Let's not pile on this company in undue haste.
Re:It's quite OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship and guns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not your fault if you're not aware of just how oppressive and violent the government is there (how could anyone keep up with all the monsters in the world?), but it's pretty bad there.
And no disrespect intended, but being a capitalist does not mean being a nihilist in business. There is absolutely no sense to that idea. Capitalism was invented by Karl Marx, by the way, as a way of describing the absence of an economic system. In other words, nature.
In favoring free markets, there is no reason not to disincentivize barbaric governments.
But I agree with you insofar as you make no distinction between this type of software and bullets.
This is like selling rat poison to Hitler. Sure, there could be a legit use if we bury our heads in the sand. Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy. Generally speaking, there is a broad category of things that are inherently about control. Weapons and this software are included.
Re:What happened to "information wants to be free" (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's perfectly possible to preach that information "wants" to be free* and be for software that can help that in difficult situations, while still being against software that can only be used to restrict information.
(* Although dropping the advocacy for a moment, I've always hated that phrase)
At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.
Again playing Devil's Advocate, we do that already with all sorts of objects and services; why should software be any different?
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not my business how someone uses a product I sell them. It's your business who I'm selling to, though. If you don't like who I do business with, then don't do business with me. People like Hitler have a habit of ending up dead, and if my only customer base is megalomaniacal homicidal dictators, I'll run out of customers pretty fast...
Weapons are just as much (if not more so) about breaking controls and defending freedoms than enforcing them and taking them away.Guns are Not Important. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't we clear this up first, before going after software that can not be used by people to kill people quite as directly as guns?
No, the software is more important. You may recall the 1994 Rwandan Genocide [wikipedia.org] where the primary weapon was machetes, an intentionally cruel method of murder. What's being demonstrated in Burma is that a non free network can be used to target and eliminate unarmed dissidents. The guns are secondary.
Re:This is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's quite OK (Score:4, Insightful)
You are being cynical, right? I hope that this is the case and it was recognized by those who modded you +4 insightful. Governments are supposed to rule country for the good of the people. This is where they derive their power from. If a government does not act in behalf of the people it rules, it has no right to be in that position of power, and should be brought down. Oh and by the way, 'for the good of the people' does not mean 'whatever the government decides is for the good of the people'. Let the people think for themselves.
Re:Hmm? (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorware tyranny (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is the the western governments (mine included, I am British) do not like banning the sale of arms to these sort of countries as it damages our economies and may cost us jobs. The only time we ban the sale of arms is when we fear they may be used against us, if they are just going to be used to surpress indiginous pupulations we generally don't mind.
If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong. Modding this post down as flamebait or troll does not contribute to this discussion in a positive way.
Yeah, right (Score:3, Insightful)
One day, people will realise that this sentence belongs in the same league of:
Market is powered by greed. Greed may improve the economy, but if you think greed is going to do any good to democracy, well you're in for a surprise.
Couple of facts about Burma (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Burma has lots of oil reserves, China does not.
Next time you see some proposed UN sanctions against Burma vetoed by China - you'll know why.
pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US wants to stop censorship and human rights abuses in Burma, it needs to do it the traditional way: persuasion, politics, trade, and/or military.
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: US group writes open-source "net-nanny" type flexible program. Burma government, like all of humanity, has access to this software and uses it to censor political speech.
Guess what: US-made censorware just got used to oppress Burma!
So, the fact that a US-made (or norweigan-made) software program was used for censorship (or military encryption, or...) should not itself be alarming. The title should be more like, "US firm sold censorship software to Burmese military".
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
While both Smith and Marx describe the same system, the point of view is very different. Smith considers the system beneficial, seeing it when everything is working well, while Marx sees it during a catastrophic failure situation caused by the Industrial Revolution and the resulting simultaneous high barriers of entry - the capital needed to build a whole factory required to be competitive - and large oversupply of labour and naturally draws the obvious conclusion that it is the root of all evil and must be destroyed for the sake of mankind.
Both views are, of course, incomplete. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to get enamored with extremes, so we have free-market fundamentalists on one side and communists on the other, both trying to both trying to push their economic religion rather than actually thinking what happens to be the best decision in any given situation. Meanwhile the scoundrels and petty thiefs are taking advantage of the fighting and filling their own pockets by abusing the legal system, patent, and copyright systems - the ones who aren't engaged in outright stock or accounting scams, selling weapons for dictators, or launching wars for profit, anyway.
Re:Hmm? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmm? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)
- RG>