Amnesty Calls Shenannigans on MS, Sun, Cisco 519
ZurichPrague writes "Amnesty International is claiming Microsoft, Sun, Nortel and Cisco, among others, have broken the law by selling filtering technology to China, helping that country implement its censorship. Is Amnesty right? Making the technology is fine, but if we know that it could be used for ill, aren't we bound to not sell to some countries and companies? C/Net has the story here."
Of course not. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Interesting)
You've just stated there is no legal obligation. Probably true. Amnesty's modus operandi is basically to ask governments and corporations to consider the morality of what they do. Further, it can make it a business issue for the company if it doesn't care by making it lose sales elsewhere. Companies, like Apple, were pressured by boycotts to stop selling services to the murderous Burmese junta by that means.
Re:Of course not. (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently you didn't RTFA. They're defending (or actually, as their name implies, asking for leniency for) "33 people detained in recent years for downloading or distributing politically subversive information via the Internet, three of whom died in custody. Many of these detainees are associated with the Falun Gong spiritual movement and with pro-democracy activities."
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
corporations exist for one reason: to make money. For good or for ill, there are no moral obligations placed on them.
I must agree. A business's only motivation is, and should be, to make a profit. If people wish to impose morality on a business, it should be done the same way, through profit. Simple answer: If a business is engaging in behaviour that people disagree with, boycott them. If the business loses more money through boycott than it makes from the offending behaviour, then it will stop engaging in the behaviour.Unfortunately, this is probably another issue where people would rather bitch than take action.
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
But companies are made up of humans. So if some people form a company they no longer have to follow any moral code? What kind of reasoning is that?
So companies that did business with the Nazis were ok because they weren't breaking the law?
Re:Of course not. [drifting slightly off topic] (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite true.
Leaving aside a discussion as to the definition of evil, the broad lines of the "final solution" were well known from around 1941...
It was well known from before 1933 that anti-semitic groups were active in Germany, and were on the way to taking political control.
Read Address Unknown [amazon.com], first published in 1938, set in 1932 - 1934.
Perhaps many people did not grasp just how enormous the "implementation of the solution" was... Industrial-scale extermination of an entire ethnic group!
Getting back to the topic, why do you think governments legislate to limit which countries can buy certain technologies?
I call bullshit on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is utter bullshit.
The only reason we allow businesses and corporations to run is to better society as a whole. Even the Founders had some grave doubts about corporations, but they were seen as a neccessary evil in order to encourage a good economy and a better standard of living for all.
The key words there are "for all", not for the shareholders, not for the employees, not even for the customers, but for everybody.
When a corporation starts going against that, when it actually starts doing harm to some people, that corporation is not fulfilling the reasons it is allowed to exist for.
What is a shame is how few people remember this.
Re:I call bullshit on this one. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we need to readjust our entire system towards human values, rather that monentary values.
Export Controls (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly no one on this thread works for a manufacturer doing international business from the U.S. (or recalls the export restrictions on encryption a few years back--since relaxed). The U.S. government does quite a good job of imposing morality on business, through its export control classification number (ECCN) [doc.gov] system, run by the Bureau of Industry and Security [doc.gov] at the Department of Commerce.
This organization has its roots in the old Atomic Energy Commission rules on limiting the export of nuclear materials in the 1940s, but has been greatly expanded, starting in the 1980s, then explosively in the last few years. Every item exported, from software to plastic, must be classified prior to shipment, and there are quite lengthy and detailed [gpo.gov] descriptions involved. (The sections most relevant to the average /. reader are Category 3-electronics [gpo.gov], Category 4-computers [gpo.gov], Category 5 (Part 1)-telecommunications [gpo.gov], Category 5 (Part 2)-information security [gpo.gov], and Supplement No. 2, general technology and software notes [gpo.gov], all in section 774.) The rules are in place ostensibly to keep the unwashed heathen overseas from access to U.S. technology that can be turned against the U.S., or technology that they can use to protect themselves against the U.S. Technologists should be aware that the rules were "clarified" a year or two back to include "technology" export, not just the export of physical objects, and that simply discussing a "controlled" technology with someone inside the U.S. that has citizenship from a "banned nation" list makes one subject to fines and/or imprisonment. (This policy works because, as everyone knows, the U.S. is the source of all useful technology ;).)
I bring this up to show that moral obligations (at least in the form of obligations that protect U.S. interests) are already placed on businesses, and that the mechanisms are already in place to control whatever export the federal government desires to control.
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
[END SARCASM MODE]
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me crazy, but Corporations are permitted much of the same legal protections as individuals (IIRC, at least in the US, YMMV). Shouldn't they be expected to behave with some sense of responsibility for their actions?
Yes, I know about "responsibility to shareholders" and all of that mess. Mod me down for naivete, I deserve it for the above statement. What I should have said was "Corporations are given MORE legal protections than individuals..."
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? You've missed the point entirely. Corporations can't accomplish anything on their own - that's why people work for them. You're right in that a corporation (which is just an abstract legal construct) doesn't have moral obligations, but the people who make the decisions for it sure as hell do.
An executive at Sun, or Microsoft, or whoever else, can't just sit there and say "there was money to be made, who am I to judge?" They had the opportunity to do the right thing, and say no.
Shrugging your shoulders and saying "that's what corporations do" is incredibly callous. The Chinese government is not playing around: people who get busted by these filters aren't getting a warning, or a fine - they're going to jail. Read some of the articles on the issue, like this one [businessweek.com]. People are being thrown in jail for simply speaking their mind using the net, and some of them have already died in custody.
err... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, you're right that a corporation is an artificial person like Data -- the law does anthropomorphize them for many purposes, for example a corporation may sue or be sued, is taxed as an entity, and can be found guilty of a crime (if not jailed). It enjoys privileges and assume burdens, but is fundamentally amoral. But that doesn't mean that it can't choose to concern itself with corporate responsibility; nor that we can't lobby it to do so; nor that as a bare minimum of good business sense most public companies will at least attempt to comport their activities with public opinion, for fear of damaging share price or customer good will.
So we do place moral obligations on them. They don't have to worry about whether they're going to heaven or hell, but they do need to respond to the world around them, if for no other reason than good business. They don't live in a business school beaker.
The level of responsiveness varies widely. The pressure on companies not to do business in apartheid South Africa, and on univerities and trusts to divest themselves of stock in these companies, was particularly bitter.
Is it OK to supply the US military... (Score:2, Interesting)
Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Where do you draw the line?
Re:Is it OK to supply the US military... (Score:2, Insightful)
Evil is in the eye of the beholder, true. And hypocrisy is always a hazard. But these problems need not paralyze us -- you don't have to be a saint to smell something rotten.
Re:Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be American.
Re:Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you have hit on the crux of the matter. You only really hear these type of arguments ("profit is all that matters for corporations") from Americans. In the rest of the world, they sound frankly screwed up. But of course since most Americans haven't really experienced countries other than their own, they assume that these sad ideas are normal.
Bye bye Karma.
(Score -1, Unamerican.)
Re:Of course not. (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? So coporations in other countries are beacons of moral purity and selfless sacrifice? Not hardly. French corporations are implicated in political bribes. South African De Beers does all sorts of evil stuff to maintain their lucrative position. Those are just a couple examples off the top of my head.
There are probably a million similar "scandals" around the world every day, but because they involve less prominent countries or happen in places where corruption is a way of life no one considers them dramatic enough to report. Trying to brush off greed as a purely American failing may make you feel better, but it's just ridiculous.
Re:Of course not. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, corporations exist for one reason: to better the lives of its employees.
If the corporation was making money, but wasn't improving the lives of its employees, it would cease to exist.
Re:Of course not. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've seen this opinion expressed on Slashdot several times before. I'm hoping it's just because it's mainly quite young people that post on Slashdot, and when they get a bit older they'll hold more reasonable views.
I have an employee who's mother is terminally ill. For the last year or so, she's been taking a lot of time off work, and she's costing the company more than she's making at the moment. According to your worldview, I should sack her. Well, I think you're worldview is screwed up and sad.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:4, Insightful)
China is interested in Linux -- how will people here feel when Secret Police Agent 46 posts here for help with his database?
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:5, Funny)
And what do you really know about upgrading mSQL databases to MySQL?!
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:3, Interesting)
There *are* laws aginst selling certain things to China, including "off the shelf" CPU's and software.
Should American corporations be excluded from having to ahdere to those laws ?
Re:N. Korea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad you can't even get simple facts right. The US doubts North Korea has a nuclear weapon. We just knew they had an active nuke program before they admitted it. Then...North Korea announced they had a nuke. A few days later, they backtracked. An article explaining this can be found here [abc.net.au].
The White House wants Saddam Hussein gone because he's a murderous insane dictator. He executes anyone he doens't like, gases Kurds, never follows any rules, and attacks any country the first chance he gets. On the other hand, North Korea hasn't started wars is still open to dialogue. That's why the White House isn't threatening to attack North Korea.
Oh, and if you're american: it will be your fellow countrymen who will risk their lives in the desert in a country for nothing more than egos.
I'm American. I know people in the armed forces. They don't like the idea of a war, nobody does. But they'll fight when asked. The reason being that it will clean up Iraq for our security and especially for the citizens of Iraq. With Saddam gone, there wouldn't be the need for sanctions that has sent the country's economy south, causing poverty that's killed hundreds of thousands.
--
Old actors don't die, they just go to Old Navy
Crap. Do evil works, be judged. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a matter of "could" the technology be put to ill use, it's a matter of knowing what the system you set up was designed to do. Are we to think that M$ and Cisco did not know the Chinese government's intentions? Of course they knew, they desined the network to make it possible. They just did not care.
There's a huge difference between general purpose work and applying specific technology to evil ends. Here's an analogy: Furnace design is a fine occupation, designing furnaces to burn people alive is evil. You can try to justify things like Paladium, Magic Lantern, Carnivor and what not, but these are systems designed to deny you of your rights. Those working on them must know what they are doing. It's not like they are making new email music and movie formats for improved performance, email systems with greater reliability, keybords that make fewer errors, they are making systems that will keep you from making copies of your files and running "non M$ approved" aplications and automated fourth amendment violation all at the cost of relaibility and performance of the systems involved.
If you are working on a bogus project don't fall for comforting logic. "someone else will do it if I don't" may be true, but it will be their bad. It's better if you blow the wistle and get away as fast as you can. The world always finds out. It may forgive you, but you will always know that you wimped out and other people suffered as a result. Think of yourself as well. Never truse an employer who's working on ways to screw their customers (ie, those who give you money), as they never treat their employees any better.
Re:Crap. Do evil works, be judged. (Score:4, Insightful)
People who are going to burn in hell according to you;
- Albert Einstein
- Anyone who worked on firewall filtering.
- Who ever the wise ass was who thought up the crossbow.
- That dude who did PGP - The choice of criminals everwhere!
- The ad guy who put that sexy woman up on that billboard for cigerettes.
Clue for you: Technology is a double edged sword. I really doubt that these companies have a "Evil project developement and bunny killing" department.
Re:Crap. Do evil works, be judged. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still blaming the tool for the actions of those who use it.
Re:MS Say's It Best (Score:5, Informative)
The statement also called on Microsoft to avoid selling software to mainland police or security services that might use it to suppress dissent.
Locke: [pushby.com] I watched both of the meetings - linked in my previous comment - in their entirety. It was worth the effort if only to watch Bill Gates squirm as a shareholder representative presents the chinese resolution (near the beginning of the Microsoft meeting). However, what I found most interesting was the overall tone of the meetings, which couldn't have been more different. The Microsoft meeting was very impersonal and had an imposing facade that made it clear that investors were meeting a corporation. The Sun meeting was, on the other hand, was clearly a meeting of and between people, some of whom happened to be investors in a company, and one of whom happened to be the CEO of that company. I strongly recommend watching these two annual meetings. From a business perspective, they are highly instructive.
More on Shareholder advocacy, tech giants, China [openflows.org]
Good point by AI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good point by AI (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people are glad to see Linux being picked up in China. What happens when Amnesty get's pissed off that Linux is being used to violate Human Rights? Sue the Free Software Foundation?
While Internet censorship may be no better than Nazi bookburning ( I would tend to agree ) it doesn't make the act of selling software or routers to the Chinese illegal. In my opinion this is a frivilous lawsuit and should be thrown out. Amnesty should be charged for whatever fees are associated with the case for wasting tax payer dollars. What Amnesty should be doing is lobbying to make it illegal to sell the devices/software to any company that uses or intends to use them for Human Rights violations. Put the blame where it belongs, with the Chinese government, and not with corporations.
Hell, according to the article this is even more suspect. Amnesty doesn't even appear to have done any hard research, they point to various news articles as thier sources.
Re:Good point by AI (Score:5, Informative)
Cisco did [newsmax.com]
Pot, meet Kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
These companies might be selling technology that could be repurposed to suppress freedom to an oppressive regime, but the Open Source community is willing to give it to them for free.
If Amnesty had published an article on the Chinese government using ipchains or squid in the Great Firewall, or using Perl to search proxy logs for who was looking at unapproved sites, would
Re:Good point by AI (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, China's communist practices of censorship are not a Good Thing, but just because companies produce filtering technology and sell it to them doesn't make THEM bad. The filtering tech can be useful if used properly.
It's the age old dispute that applies here - "guns don't kill, people do".
Moral issue, but is there a legal one here? (Score:4, Interesting)
But is there really a legal issue here? I'm not so sure.
Re:Moral issue, but is there a legal one here? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Moral issue, but is there a legal one here? (Score:2)
No, but should there? (Score:5, Insightful)
As I point out in another post below, the Amnesty allegations go well beyond suppressing freedom of speech, to torture and execution.
Should it be a legal issue? (he asks rhetorically)
Not only .com's, also search engines? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, except for MS, Sun, etc. are the search engines also breaking the law?
Re:Not only .com's, also search engines? (Score:3, Interesting)
The only mention of 'law' in CNN's article is a Chinese law prohibiting transmission of state secrets to overseas organizations via the Internet.
Anyway, the bag is already open and the cats have escaped - there are way too many different ways and means to block sites at the borders. NetBSD, FreeBSD, Linux (all distros), Solaris, etc are all capable of acting as routers, never mind the routers and switches that Cisco and other network providers push out. Any fraggin' box with two NICs can do it. Heck, even one NIC would be enough if you're careful.
About 7 years ago I put together a firewall for a small company's dialup. While I was poking around looking for software I came across Drawbridge, from tamu.edu. It's a packet filter that runs on a DOS-based PC, for crying out loud - give it a couple of NICs and a set of rules and it too could be part of the Great FireWall of China.
And another thing - there's what, 3 billion Chinese? Anyone stop to think that among all those folks there might be a few individuals smart enough to actually produce their own blocking software? How many Chinese attend Universities in the Western hemisphere? I know the Uni I was at had a sizeable population of Orientals, some of them even pursuing PHD's in computer studies of one kind or another.
I'm not saying that makes it right for China to stop their citizens from accessing certain sites on the Internet. I'm saying that if there is actually a law being broken (and that's doubtful) by letting China get blocking software, then it's being broken by a hell of a lot more people than MS, Sun and Cisco. Pretty much every computer OS from DOS up to mainframes supports TCP/IP and can therefore be used to create blocking software.
OK, this is bound to be modded down as Commie-loving flamebait, but I don't care. Moderators, do your worst! And as you do, remember that there are Commies on both sides of this argument - the communist government of China is suppressing the communist people of China, so whichever side you support, you're a Commie-lover!
Does this really matter? (Score:2)
They're filtering the internet. It happens in libraries and schools in the U.S. all the time. In this case it's nation wide, but it's not as if the Chinese governemnt wouldn't have something to filter the internet in place if Sun, MS and Cisco weren't selling the stuff.
One could argue that China is better off with some filtering but access to the internet rather than no filtering and no 'net access. Sure, they block a lot of sites, but I'm willing to bet they don't get them all. Add on to that the fact that people are probably working just as hard coming up with ways to get around the filters.
This is a classic example of information wanting to be free, and it will be. Anything they have in place to block information will fall short. The filtering technology WILL fail, and then billions of people will have acess to the 'net. If the Chinese govt. wants to spend millions on technology from U.S. companies, that's fine by me.
Re:Does this really matter? (Score:2)
It matters if you believe in responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the old, "if we don't do it, someone else will, so why not?" argument. If we don't sell weapons to UNITA, someone else will, and dammit, we don't want the Belgians and Germans to make money when we could be! Why bother with an arms embargo on Serbia, when someone else will just sell them weapons?
The fallacy with this argument is that first, the technology being sold by Cisco, et. al. is not irreplaceable, but it's not exactly easy to simply duplicate in a commodity fashion. It would take a concerted effort to conduct this blocking using other equipment. Sure, it wouldn't stop them, but it would make it more difficult, thereby giving the information more of an opportunity to achieve freedom. Of course, the information doesn't just suddenly attain free status on its own, it takes people to make it free.
The other fallacy is that there's a moral equivalency between profiting from unethical or immoral behavior, and choosing *not* to profit from it. If someone does something wrong, and you assist them in that endeavor, you're doing something wrong, too.
I certainly don't expect big companies like M$ and Cisco to deny themselves the opportunity to do business with the Chinese government. I'm not naiive. However, even big multinationals are very sensitive to public opinion. Witness Nike and the sweatshops, the growth of Fair Trade Coffee, and so on. If we do nothing when companies engage in amoral profiteering, it's no wonder we expect it from them.
I don't share your belief that the Chinese system of control over information flow will somehow magically disappear on its own. Not only that, but the US supposedly represents freedom of expression. How are those millions of Chinese going to feel about American rhetoric about freedom when we've been profiting from the squelching of freedoms in their country?
I don't see a problem (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess it's idealistic, but I sometimes think that people can deal with the issue of why do people want to censor others, or take drugs, or etc, rather than getting offended that it happens. I know that's not the case though, and I also know companies exist to turn a profit, so I guess in the end I don't really care about China censoring its citizens since it doesn't involve me directly.*
*I know that's a terrible thing to say, but it's how people feel. *shrug*
Holocaust argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe / maybe not but consider this
Industrial Leaders [geocities.com]
It is easy to forget about prominant business men when focusing on figures like Eichmann or Hoss, but the industrialists who were eager to create factories at Auschwitz were perpetrators of the horror too.
Many prominent German corporations, among them Krupp, Siemens and Bayer, were interested in what might be negotiated. Auschwitz began developing a network of outlying subcamps, thirty-four in all. Soon, the prisoners worked at a cement plant, a coal-mine, a steel factory and a shoe factory.
The biggest of these Auschwitz subcamps was the I.G. Farben plant. The plant was known as Buna because its principal purpose was to produce synthetic rubber; its other main installation was a hydrogenation plant designed to convert coal into oil. The Auschwitz factories were the largest in the Farben empire. Conditions at Buna were much like those at Auschwitz. The dawn roll calls, the starvation rations, the labor gangs sent out for twelve hours at a time, forced to work at the gas chambers and furnaces, beaten by guards, harried by giant dogs. The prisoners who died of overwork (dozens of them every day) had to be hauled back to camp at nightfall so that they could be propped up and counted at the next morning's roll call.
Ultimately, around 25,000 people were killed during the construction of the I.G. Farben plant.
Re:Holocaust argument (Score:3, Interesting)
After the war, IG Farben's HQ in Frankfurt was taken over by the US Army and the company split up. The process of denazification could not be complete though because the plants were vital to the reconstruction of post-war Germany.
What is relevant is that this was the first "Corporate Death Penalty" of a major corporation for moral reasons.
Corporate Complicity (Score:2)
Re:Holocaust argument (Score:2)
Bah. Ferdinand Porsche designed, built, and sold transportation (guess where Volkswagen got its start?) and armor (yes, there was a Porsche-designed tank) to the Nazi military machine. Does that mean Porsche the company is bad? Should you not want a Porsche? BMW provided engines for the Luftwaffe, and after the war were no longer allowed to make airplane engines, so they turned to cars. Should you not buy a BMW now because of that?
Pretty much any German, Italian, or Japanese company that's been around since WWII will have done something to support the war effort at the time. Is that a reason to boycott them now? I think not.
And as far as China and censorship goes, how are they any different than France (except in severity), who don't allow any searches, auctions, etc on Nazi memorabilia?
(And before anybody gets it in their head, let me just state outright that I'm not a Nazi sympathizer. I'm simply making a point.)
the lesser known "Teen Amnesty Regional" (Score:2, Funny)
More info at Teen Magazine.
not against the law (Score:5, Insightful)
The other angle is that the technology has legitimate uses (for example, in a corporate setting). If the technology is used for bad purposes, are the creators liable for it? Place the blame where it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of China.
Things are always better... (Score:2, Informative)
Pedagogy (Score:2)
Highlight page 13 of the PDF then mail to Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
Do not use mozilla in China (Score:5, Funny)
I hope Chinese users don't use mozilla with link prefetching [mozilla.org]. They might be downloading illegal material by accident...
First Amendment applies only in America (Score:2, Informative)
The First Amendment only applies to America. In fact, to be more specific, it only applies to public areas. The First Amendment does not apply on my property. And it doesn't apply on Chinese property either.
Besides, we're practically the only country that fights so vigorously for every form of free speech. The Europe Union has no problem banning hate speech it finds destructive, and other countries have their own free speech problems. I do agree with Amnesty is fighting for more free speech. But its absolutely wrong to call these actions illegal when American companies are providing solutions to allow other countries to enforce their own laws.
--
Old actors don't die, they just go to Old Navy
Re:First Amendment applies only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the US constitution guarantees the right to life. However, that does not mean it is wrong or illegal to sell guns just because someone might use those to deprive someone of their right to live.
Technology is a tool. Technology is not evil in itself.
Re:First Amendment applies only in America (Score:3, Insightful)
What if you know for sure the guy you sell a gun to is going to kill someone with it? Does this still apply then?
Re:First Amendment applies only in America (Score:2)
What about children inside of public schools? I don't recall having any freedom of expression as a minor in school.
Re:First Amendment applies only in America (Score:2)
The poster is also mistaken to say free speech rights never apply on private property; there are limited exceptions for shopping malls and union organizing.
Re:First Amendment applies only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but this is a moral relativistic cop out. Free speech is a fundamental human right. End of story. If I were a stock holder in the above companies, I would sell that stock as soon as trading re-opened. It is fundamentally morally backwards to support in anyway the blocking of speech or access to other peoples speech.
If it is not illegal for US companies to help other countries to do things that violate the fundamental human rights of it's citizens, then it SHOULD BE. We shouldn't pass the buck on this stuff, it's how the US gets such a bad reputation.
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Score:3, Informative)
However, almost every country has signed the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html).
Totalitarian regimes like China igore it (but they have signed it).
Freedom of Religion is covered in UDHR Article 18.
Freedom of Speech is covered in UDHR Article 19.
Freedom of Press is cobered through UDHR Article 19.
Freedom of Assembly is covered in UDHR Article 20.
Freedom of Petition is covered in UDHR Article 21.
problems (Score:2, Interesting)
Troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I heard about China buying censoring technology from the US, it has bothered me that companies' ethics aren't better. IMO it's a major source of social decay in any country when companies are allowed to do whatever they want. What kind of example are they setting as corporate citizens of the community?
What if I wanted to write software for the mafia? I could just pretend the software wouldn't be used for illegal purposes. Would that be ethical of me? Could I be aiding and abetting (to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose) known criminals? Of course. How is this different than aiding known human rights violators?
Somebody called shenanigans? (Score:2)
Only one question.. (Score:2, Interesting)
No it doesn't say that (Score:4, Informative)
Nowhere in that C/Net story does anyone accuse those companies of breaking a law. And what law would they be breaking?
Here's an interesting question (Score:4, Insightful)
This whole thing sounds a lot like the old "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.
It is spelled "shenanigans" (Score:2)
Not "Shenannigans", but "Shenanigans"
US filtering software (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the US filtering technology they bought... it's just an interim solution. There's a love and hate relationship between the communist regime in Beijing and the US... they love getting the new technology, but they don't trust the US. Once the software shops inside of China are up to speed, they're going to build their own filtering software. All in the plan of being self-sufficient.
Amnesty is out on a limb here (Score:2)
Can someone define censorship for me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't e-bay REQUIRED to prevent selling Nazi artifacts to visitors from Germany?
So limiting peoples freedoms in Germany is OK, but its taboo in China?
- Remember kids, dressing up like Hitler in school is not cool.
The best thing to do? Act local, think global. (Score:3, Interesting)
In the short run, I don't think it makes any difference that some entrepeneurs are making money from the tyrants. In the long run, those who are oppressed by tyranny will eventually be freed by nothing but knowlege.
it's the result of too much MS advertisement (Score:2, Funny)
Something odd (Score:3, Interesting)
people the filter caught - or missed (Score:2, Insightful)
Note: the above link is not English. Non-Francophones may wish to give machine translation [altavista.com] a shot.
Which one is better... (Score:4, Insightful)
I seriously do not think that obtaining the technology is a limiting factor in here. Even though, I have been an amnesty member for some years, I believe this shot goes to wrong direction. Maybe they could have pointed at only the Websense company, whose main purpose is producing filtering technology. Maybe they should not have pointed at any of those companies. When you know that currently you can get killed and tortured for using internet in china I think there is some more concrete issues to concentrate on. Like concentrating all power into freeing those (I heard there were tens of) people) who are in prison because they "used the internet" right now - maybe amnesty could instead make these companies look like saints and request help in this task for them.
The Whole Story (Score:5, Insightful)
To give you a hint, the document is entitled "China: Internet users at risk of arbitrary detention, torture and even execution."
This is censorship with a big rock, not benign filtering, the occasional arrest and whoops a death or two in custody. "Benign" filtering software would probably be useful to track down suspects, a sinister dimension. Change anyone's minds?
This does remind me of the risk of trusting the press; even if the Amnesty report proves to be baloney, C|Net did not accurately describe it, or provide a link to it.
Code is Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, I'd like to see some Congressmen condemning Microsoft's executives as treasonous scum, and a call on real Americans to use Open Source alternatives.
Re:Code is Speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides which, not all code is free speech under the First Amendment. Check out the US stance on exporting encryption products, for example. That's software classed as munitions... It doesn't even have to be US-written encryption software. Import something from Europe and re-export it and suddenly you're illegally shipping munitions.
Probably right (Score:2)
Probably. These are corporations in the business of making money, particularly if they're selling the same products they sell to other areas.
The artical doesn't mention whether or not amnesty is refering to out of the box appliances, or custom solutions designed from the ground up to the customer's specs. Anyone care to shed some light?
In related news.. (Score:4, Funny)
The Chinese don't need US technology. (Score:2)
Trying to influence other countries by restricting technology is a losing proposition--it just forces them to become more independent. If we wanted to get the attention of the Chinese, restricting imports of their low-cost products would do much more. But we aren't principled enough for that--instead we give the Chinese MFN status.
the list (Score:2, Informative)
Check this list out.
http://code.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.
ABC
BBC
CBS
All blocked. I especially like the http://sourceforge.net block.
Is this the price of freedom is knowing how powerless we are against power?
dgd
Also... (Score:2)
Slashdot also has a story here [slashdot.org]
Oh wait...
IBM and the Holocaust (Score:4, Insightful)
WWII, I feel, had a lot to do with the very fast development of production, and technology in general at the time. The author, Edwin Black, says the scale at which the holocaust took place would not have been possible without the help of IBM's machines, and their engineers.
This is really not much different, in my opinion. Cisco is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ, which is a US based stock market. The shareholders (mostly US citizens) should be ultimately responsible, not only for ensuring profits, but also be held responsible for any misdeeds the company commits...
As another poster puts it; its one thing if they are buying the equipment off the shelf and using it for censorship. It is quite another if the companies are tailoring their products to these requirements in anticipation or in response to demand...
Arms for Iraq (Score:3, Interesting)
Now as I understand it, to have a free market transparency of information is needed, i.e. you cannot have a free market if access to market information is selectively denied to people. If the buggy whip makers can prevent the spread of information about Mr. Ford's new toy, that is not a free market. So the one law that must be enforced to protect market economies is the law of freedom of information, and it is this one that the Chinese are breaking.
Amnesty is peeved because the Chinese are preventing the rest of the world from learning that they have a scumbag government, scumbag bureaucracy, and scumbag rural life. A good capitalist might be equally peeved that the Chinese are trying to prevent the rest of the world learning things that might downgrade China's investment worthiness, putting on a face about supporting capitalism while in private allowing corrupt officials to steal from corporations. (You can see Chinese censorship as being equivalent to Enron's trying to keep secret the true nature of its operations and accounting.) One way of doing this is preventing the Chinese from learning about ways of disseminating that information.
To put it another way, the right of one corporation to make a profit by selling censorware has to be balanced against the greater interest of the market economy in not allowing people to use such censorship.
It's about time. (Score:3, Interesting)
More, Original Information (Score:3, Informative)
Re:you know... (Score:2)
Precisely why we should offer them Microsoft's full services.
Embrace, extend, extinguish -- China will be our by the end of the decade.
(Disclaimer -- OK, this does implicitly make fun of MS. If you like MS, substitute the name of your personal bete noir for MS. Like IBM or Dan Quayle or whatever.)
Re:give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure if you read a few papers from around the world you'll find a consensus, imprisoning, torturing and killing people because of what they have read is just plain wrong.
Just imagine if the police came round and arrested you because they knew you had been reading this very post.
Helping the Communists (I can't say Chinese, I know too many of them and so I know it is not a part of Chinese culture no matter what the communists may say) do these things is analogues to wealthy industrialist aid Hitler in the Holocaust.
You want a break, go to McDonald's (Score:2)
And this would bother a Libertarian because?
The amusing thing is that while Libertarians advocate that individuals take responsibility for their actions, this doesn't apply to businesses, whose sole responsibility is to make profit. For them, NOBODY has moral responsibility for the actions of a business.
So you get people willing to make excuses for Cisco, who very definitely was knowingly involved in building the Great Firewall of China. So if a business chooses to belch megatons of pollution into the atmosphere from its own property, this is OK. If Cisco wants to build products for customers who want to use them to target people for execution, this too is OK. I've seen complaints about pure food and drug laws from any number of Libertarians. The engineering consulting firm that designed the Auschwitz gas chambers is still in business.
One cornerstone of Communist doctrine is that "The capitalists will sell us the rope required to hang them." I am certain that Marx and Lenin had exactly the kind of capitalists discussed above in mind.
My point is that a real Libertarian would look at the above paragraphs and wonder why anyone would think this wasn't OK, mistake me for a socialist, maybe write a lame flame, and go on about his business.
The people here who support Cisco's right to do business in a way that targets people for state-sponsored murder, torture, and imprisonment aren't like the rest of us. It's a religious thing normal people just don't understand.
The good news is that this will keep the Libertarians from ever becoming a major political force in America.
Re:give me a break (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, consider the fact that while China does filter traffic, it set up a large government funded network for the benefits of its people. Analogy: most Corporations have internet access for their employees, and they filter content just the same.
I think it's great the Chinese government provides its people with internet access, and though I condemn filtering to some point I do understand what they are trying to achieve with this. Ultimately they will succumb to the users' creativity anyway although this might take a few years.
Re:give me a break (Score:3, Funny)
Re:give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)
Amnesty is like you. They can say what
they think is right, and so can you. The notion
that only a gov't can say what's right - why
is that so, exactly?
Re:Amnesty is a Sensasionalist Organisation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amnesty is a Sensasionalist Organisation (Score:3, Insightful)
As you are evidently unaware, Amnesty is restricted by its mandate to work on behalf of prisoners of conscience provided that they have not used or advocated violence. This is true even for prisoners who, in addition to their use or advocacy of violence, also advocate views that a government finds unpopular, and even if the violence advocated might be viewed as legitimate resistance against an oppressive regime.
For many years, Amnesty would not work on behalf of Nelson Mandela for precisely this reason, even though he was arguably the most celebrated political prisoner in the world. Mandela advocated "armed struggle" against the apartheid regime, and the ANC was partially organized for this purpose. So Amnesty never "sponsored" him while he was in prison, as they did with numerous other prisoners around the world. (IIRC, Mandela eventually renounced "armed struggle" after he had been released.)
MoThugz, or whatever your name is, slow down, take a deep breath, and avail yourself of a little bit of information. Presenting an argument from a position of ignorance is like trying to box with your hands tied. You'll get beat up badly and look foolish in the process.
Re:Amnesty is a Sensasionalist Organisation (Score:3, Informative)
Whether my position is of ignorance or otherwise is your opinion, and I respect it regardless of whether I think it is true or otherwise. Opinions are (sic) basic human rights, as also taking up struggle against opression regardless whether it is an armed struggle or a peaceful one.
As hard as it may seem to you, my opinions are based on actions [amnesty.org] they [amnesty.org] taken [amnesty.org] in [amnesty.org] my country [amnesty.org] has caused more harm than good. And that is my honest opinion.
It is not about getting beat up badly and looking foolish in the process, it is about my own observation on Amnesty's stand in issues that I am very familiar happening in my country and region. What basis did you form your opinions on? Eventhough I absolutely agree that you have valid points, you in turn must not just see what is programmed by parties in the mass media. Take a long hard look at what is going on behind the curtains, some things might suprise you a lot.