US-Made Censorware Used To Oppress Burma

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."

This is news?

[scgops]

Seriously, why would this surprise anyone?

This just in, companies are legally selling the same Internet filtering software used by companies, libraries, etc., to Burma, and the government is using the software for its own purposes.

Websense, one of the Internet filtering "censorware" companies mentioned in the article, had a partnership in place with Cisco starting over a decade ago to integrate URL filtering into Cisco PIX firewalls. That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.

Re:

[dr_d_19]

That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.

The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.

If I hadn't ratted on Anne Franke, my neighbour would have anyway, right?

Re:

[mi]

The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.

Khmm, this reminds me of the arguments in the file-sharing debate... When content-owners were going after the makers of the software used primarily to exchange copyrighted media files (against the wishes of the copyright-holders), all of the freedom-loving Slashdotters were defendin

Re:

[dr_d_19]

Now comes a story about a maker of the software, which is used legitimately world-wide, and we are bashing them to smithereens over a (perfectly legal) sale to a rogue customer -- which may still be using it. Says the article: "if a connection found to exist in 2005 still holds."

Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound. Global corporations using child workers in vietnam doesn't neccessarily break the law.

Censoring software is not killing anybody -- it prevents (or makes difficult) an activity, that did

Re:

[mi]

Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound.

Uh-oh, "morally"... Morally the music-trading sites (like Napster) are indefensible too — except on Slashdot, which insists, the individual abusers should be targeted, not napsters themselves.

Of course not. Neither was ratting on Anne Frank (if I am to continue my analogy). Someone else did the killing.

Nobody "did the killing". Anne died of malnutrition at the camp. Her father survived, for example. But ratting the family out meant condemning them to gr

Re:

[rtb61]

There is nothing 'morally' wrong with sharing ideas, in fact there is everything 'morally' wrong with attempting to block the sharing of ideas regardless of the media used. Censorship enables the worst abusers of humanity to hide, to stay out of the public light, to avoid prosecution and to continue their evil immoral practices.

Infringing copyright does not deny anybody anything, all it does is break the artificial government enforced monopoly. You don't want people to use your ideas, then to be blunt, ke

Re:

[scgops]

Should you be able to sell arms to Burma?

Yes. I'm a capitalist.

Is there much of a difference between selling "censorware" and guns to a foreign government? Probably not, other than the specific words likely to be used by the permanently hyperbolic press to describe the sales.

Re:This is news?

[G Fab]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.

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:This is news?

[Chibi Merrow]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler. 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.

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal. It's immoral, yes, and I wouldn't do business with someone selling guns to the Burmese government... But that's the proper response in that case: don't do business with someone who's business practices you find disagreeable, don't legislate them out of existence...

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.

1) Marx didn't "invent" capitalism any more than Newton "invented" gravity, he described a system he already observed and gave it a name. 2) People such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. also described essentially the same system well before Marx.

In favoring free markets, there is no reason not to disincentivize barbaric governments.

If you're denying someone the ability to trade with a party, it's not a free market any more. Let the market deal with it; if people care about the people in Burma, they won't do business with a company supporting that government. Better yet, start selling the people of Burma weapons...

This is like selling rat poison to Hitler.

Hi Godwin.

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...

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.

Weapons are just as much (if not more so) about breaking controls and defending freedoms than enforcing them and taking them away.

Re:

[G Fab]

yeah yeah yeah, Godwin. Except that I'm exactly right to make the banal observation that selling rat poison to Hitler is a special problem. Some things can uniquely be used to control. We can't forsee the future, but we can use as much sense as we can to limit software that prevents human rights workers from exclaiming their distress.

Morality is the basis of law. What else are we supposed to base our laws on? Efficiency? That's utilitarianism. If we know something is immoral to a level that is outrag

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

yeah yeah yeah, Godwin. Except that I'm exactly right to make the banal observation that selling rat poison to Hitler is a special problem.

Then at least be creative and use Pol Pot or something... :)

Some things can uniquely be used to control. We can't forsee the future, but we can use as much sense as we can to limit software that prevents human rights workers from exclaiming their distress.

Lots of things have undesirable uses. Medicines are a good example of that. I'm not saying that a company should

Re:

[G Fab]

Good points.

I just like to rag on Hitler.

It's an interesting perspective to see black markets driving up the price as evidence that it is more cost effective. You're right... but this still makes like harder for the subject of the prohibition (the drug user or Burma for censor software). Still... my fault for putting it in the perspective of the seller. I think it could be argued that it's not more cost effective for black marketers. Al Capone did not do as well as Anheuser-Busch does. Though Al being

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

It's an interesting perspective to see black markets driving up the price as evidence that it is more cost effective.

It's not just more cost effective because the price has gone up. Once you've decided that you're going to engage in an illegal business, then there's no reason to follow legal business practices. Labor standards? Payroll taxes? Import tariffs? Minimum wage? Why bother? You're already doing something you'll go to jail for, so save the cash on compliance as well...

Al Capone did not do as well

Yeah, right

[orzetto]

Let the market deal with it

One day, people will realise that this sentence belongs in the same league of:

This ship cannot be sunk
640K will be enough for everyone
We have superior firepower, the Vietnamese will lose
We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down
History has ended

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.

Re:

[RealGrouchy]

Let the market deal with it

One day, people will realise that this sentence belongs in the same league of:

I thought it already was, hence Stephen Colbert saying it so often.

- RG>

Re:

[Asic Eng]

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal.

Why not? Please can you explain the benefit why that should remain legal?

But that's the proper response in that case: don't do business with someone who's business practices you find disagreeable, don't legislate them out of existence...

Again - can you please explain the benefit of that?

Let the market deal with it; if people care about the people in Burma, t

Re:

[l4m3z0r]

Let's look at the facts here: if the market would solve these problems, the Burmese government would not have this software. They do, and that means that the market is not going to solve the problem.

This predefines Burma having this software as objectionable. So of course you can point at it and say something bad just happened free markets don't work. But ultimately that is a stupid argument, because you've already decided the conclusion and are defining the argument around it.

Ultimately, this is a

Re:

[hey!]

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal.

Well, maybe there's a third hand here, somewhere between trying to satisfy everyone's sense of political correctness, and waiting until we are actually at war with a country to stop selling them bullets to stockpile against us.

I would say that the right standard is whether allowing such sales is against the common interest of (in this case) Americans. It's not an easy

Re:This is news?

[ultranova]

1) Marx didn't "invent" capitalism any more than Newton "invented" gravity, he described a system he already observed and gave it a name. 2) People such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. also described essentially the same system well before Marx.

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:

[Stanza]

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...

Actually the problem is that people like Hitler have a habit of trying to make lots of other people end up dead...

Re:

[l4m3z0r]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.

I take a bit of an issue with this. It requires that we take a side in a conflict that largely does not concern us. It also assumes that we are in such a position of moral superiority that we should in fact dictate who can and should own arms. My personal position is that we should sell arms to anyone who wishes to buy(revolutionary groups in burma as well) such that we give the tools nec

Re:

[Valdez]

Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy.

Right. Because control of things like medicine, food, and heating oil has never been used to impose policy.

I believe the term you seek is "Hydraulic Empire [wikipedia.org]"

He who controls the spice...

US-Made Censorware

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: you can use photoshop to draw a black rectangle.

Re:

[martinX]

Or an unspiral effect.

It's quite OK

[JonathanR]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. The thing that isn't allowed, is for general populations to have free access to encryption, anonymising and other clandestine enabling technologies that prevent governments from suppressing populations.

I don't see what the legal or moral issue is here...

Re:

[Camael]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations.

I quite disagree. More accurately, in a country that respects the rule of law, the general public may in certain limited circumstances allow their government to censor or suppress certain types of information, for example secrets which impact on national security, or financial information crucial to the nation's economy.

Perhaps what you meant to say was governments which are not popularly elected and which are not accountable to their citizens can by rule of force censor and suppress their populations w

Re:

[mh1997]

Whether the GPs post was sarcastic or not, why was this modded offtopic? Perhaps the problem is that Carmael's answer was polite and rational - two traits that many on slashdot lack?

Re:It's quite OK

[mrjb]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. The thing that isn't allowed, is for general populations to have free access to encryption, anonymising and other clandestine enabling technologies that prevent governments from suppressing populations.
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:

[ultranova]

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'.

Of course not. It means "what is good for the bottom lines of large corporations."

Re:

[Mister Whirly]

"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."

"The government" is people. There is no such entity that is "the government" - it is just people making decisions about (and often for) other people.

Re:It's quite OK

[JonathanR]

Governments don't have such authority just by virtue of being governments

I think you need to take some history lessons, and see things from a global perspective, rather than a 20th century US viewpoint.

Re:

[freeweed]

Where's the (+1, Sad but True) moderation option?

I wouldn't narrow it down so specifically to the US though. Canada's been pretty dang nice as far as oppressive governments go.

Re:

[ultranova]

Are you kidding? Allowed? What is this higher authority that confers on governments the right to do such things?

Judging by this story, the Almighty Dollar, acting through its servants, the US corporations, and justified by the often-demonstrated creed of capitalism that might makes right.

Re:

[Tim C]

I think this [cambridge.org] is the word you're looking for.

Re:

[demachina]

"Either you're a troll most wily, or else a moral vacuum. You don't see what the moral issue is of it being legal for a US company or person to aid in the oppression of the people of another country? Really?"

Well considering the U.S. government has been known to engage in oppression, and you presumably don't have an issue with U.S. companies working with the U.S. government I'm not exactly seeing your point. The U.S. government using U.S. telco's to spy on its citizens is the obvious latest example. Rendi

Disgraceful

[Camael]

It would be a massive disgrace if this news was true.

An excerpt from the source article:

It's hard to know exactly what happened on a technical level, but politically, it seems pretty clear at this point. The monks and other activists began their protests. The military did not crack down right away, I believe because they feared the impact of citizen journalists posting images and videos of brutality to the Web. The military decided that they were going to take more-severe steps, so they cut access to the Internet through the ISPs, particularly in cities like Yangon and Mandalay. They also cut off access to cell service and otherwise.

This is what's going on in Burma http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/28/myanmar-internet-blocked/ [globalvoicesonline.org]

Internet cafes were closed down. Both MPT ISP and Myanmar Teleport ISP cut down internet access in Yangon and Mandalay since this morning. The Junta try to prevent more videos, photographs and information about their violent crackdown getting out. I got a news from my friends that last night some militray guys searched office computers from Traders and Sakura Tower building. Most of the downtown movement photos were took from office rooms of those high buildings. GSM phone lines and some land lines were also cut out and very diffficult to contact even in local. GSM short message sending service is not working also. Burma is blacked out now!

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

Re:

[scgops]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

I'll assume you meant in general, not just the sale to Burma.

Filtering software continues to sell because companies don't want to risk sexual harassment lawsuits from people who've accidentally seen someone else surfing porn. Or from someone who has seen one jpeg spam too many and decides to try to hit the lawsuit jackpot. If you want to get rid of filtering software, you'll need to get rid of the lawsui

Re:

[Asic Eng]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

Oh that's easy:

1 - the market must be free, the business man's only obligation is to grow the wealth of the shareholders. If it's immoral, then society should take care of making it illegal.

2 - the free market will solve all the world's problems, so we can not legislate anything.

3 - if the market does demonstratably not solve a problem, well then it's because people didn't sufficiently care about it.

N

Re: Disgraceful

[Black Parrot]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

Yes, ethical companies would be making cigarettes or providing "security" service in Iraq.

US made guns used to oppress Burma

[iamacat]

US, Russia and France, among other countries, export massive amount of munitions to rather flakey "allies" willing to pay good money. It's a certainly that some american guns made it to burmese military through secondary market. 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?

Re:

[aadvancedGIR]

As a sanction to the Burma junta, french compagnies are frobidden to deal with burman small businesses, but Total has a few large oil drilling contracts there, and some even say that the money from these contracts saved the junta at least once.

I bet this is a general trend (we all remember the iraki embargo in the 90's that resulted in tens of thousands children death by lack of food and medecine and the continuation of Sadam reign), the public intention of the west is to fight against dictatorships, but th

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

It's a certainly that some american guns made it to burmese military through secondary market.

Why would they bother? You can get ten soviet guns that are just as good (or arguably better) for the price of one American gun, secondhand or not.

Hell I just want an M1911, and I've paid less for cars than what some people are asking...

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

I want a PS90, but some fruit loop in my country has decided that it's a pistol and has classified it as such.

A pistol? Are you serious? Based on what, exactly? What country, for that matter?

Since it is a very long pistol, and holds more than 10 rounds, it's illegal to own one.

Even though they make 10 round magazines for it? That's crazy. I mean, the Chinese knockoff AK-47 I had was legal to hunt with as long as I used the 5-round mag... That reminds me, I need to get a larger capacity mag for my 742 before

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

pistols are highly restricted firearms here

Of course, they're the easiest weapon to defend yourself with... :P

I *think* you'd be allowed to use that, on the condition that it was not capable of firing in automatic mode, plus you'd need a special category licence for a military style firearm.

Yeah it's semi-auto, a company in California specialized in importing them as sporting rifles years back... Good gun. Someone screwed up the firing mechanism on it, though, before I got it... Would occasionally fire

Re:

[Agripa]

My first shotgun (single shot .410) wasn't 762mm in length, it was only 28". That's patently ridiculous. They gonna call that a pistol, too? I'm assuming they're talking about barrel length, here, since total length is meaningless.

There were similar issues in the US after the NFA (National Firearms Act) was passed in 1934 placing restriction on machine guns among other weapons. Occasionally, .22 rifles would show up with barrel lengths of 16 inches that were actually smooth bore. BATF figured these were a

Guns are Not Important.

[Erris]

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:

[Asic Eng]

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?

That's a false dichotomy - there is no reason you can't do both, outlawing the software sales doesn't hinder your efforts to prevent them from getting weapons.

Re:

[iamacat]

Is our government good at handling even one thing at a time well?

OSS? Anyone?

[scgops]

I guess the Burmese government hasn't heard of open source software. [freshmeat.net]

Re:

[LingNoi]

Interesting point.

How would the GPL deal with this? The GPL says you can not limit the use of the software from a specific group. So you wouldn't be able to say "The military can't use this software" because it limits who uses the software... is this an issue for anyone else?

Re:

[Bert64]

They used to use dansguardian a few years ago...

Nevermind Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

Our own phones are all tapped, and we the "free" people of the US can't do squat. Burmese are "oppressed?" Nevermind them, sort out our house before worrying about internet access of a people on the other end of the globe.

What happened to "information wants to be free"?

[Sontas]

So what? Let me guess, we're supposed to get all hauty over this "criminal injustice" of a piece of software being used by an enemy state in a way we wouldn't like. Yet we'll cry "let the information/code/whatever be free" when it comes to encryption software, despite the fact that it is used by criminals, enemy states, and even terrorist groups. Hell, we'll tie ourselves in knots trying to make sure our criminal and military intelligence services can't overcome those encryption tools despite their use b

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[Tim C]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, there is a moral difference. Encryption software can be used by the bad guys, but it can also be used by the oppressed to get their message out. Content filtering/blocking software can only be used to restrict access to information - there's no way to use it to spread information.

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:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[malsdavis]

...of a piece of software being used by an enemy state...

Are we at war with Myanmar or something? What makes them an "enemy state"?

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[Opportunist]

Software that allows me to dictate what happens to my data == Good
Software that allows you to dictate what happens to your data == Good
Software that allows me to dictate what happens to your data == Bad
Software that allows you to dictate what happens to my data == Bad

See the difference?

Censorship and guns

[Askmum]

How is this different from countries oppressing people using US-made and -funded guns?

"News for Nerds"

[argent]

This is Slashdot, not the NRA.

Re:

[east coast]

How is this different from countries oppressing people using US-made and -funded guns?

US guns have also liberated people.

Or do you blame the Soviets every time someone is killed with an AK?

If that's the way you think of it I'd say you're likely an American. It's popular in America today to blame the producer of a tool instead of the user who uses it for destruction and corruption.

Frankly, it's a sickening trend since it diverts attention from the real issue.

Crapware isn't new

[flyingfsck]

US made spam blasting software and MS Windows Vista is also used world-wide to oppress people.

Re: Crapware isn't new

[Black Parrot]

MS Windows Vista is also used world-wide to oppress people.

Presumably you refer to the people who got stuck with it on their computers.

Censorware tyranny

[dgun]

They should release it under the GPL. Then it will be free, as in freedom.

If the US doesn't deliver it, someone else will

[Britz]

so the US should, because otherwise US companies will loose. We have seen this with Iran and their nuclear power program. Because of stupid restrictions Pakistan and Russia now supply the Iranians. No more boundaries for US companies for those only hurt the US economy.

Re:

[Black Parrot]

so the US should, because otherwise US companies will loose. We have seen this with Iran and their nuclear power program. Because of stupid restrictions Pakistan and Russia now supply the Iranians.

Yeah, we can only sell it to countries that aren't members of the non-proliferation treaty.

OFAC on Burma

[rlp]

OFAC (US Office of Foreign Asset Control) has a guide on the US laws relating to trade with Burma. (link [treas.gov]):

There is no prohibition on the exportation of goods and services other than financial services to Burma.

Note: there are restrictions on imports from Burma. Perhaps the law should be changed (to prohibit certain or all exports).

Couple of facts about Burma

[rlp]

1) China is one of the largest trading partners with Burma
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.

Re: Couple of facts about Burma

[Black Parrot]

1) China is one of the largest trading partners with Burma
2) Burma has lots of oil reserves, China does not.

3) China pwns the US economy.

Next time you see some proposed UN sanctions against Burma vetoed by China - you'll know why.

And the US government will, at most, cry crocodile tears.

Re:

[superpulpsicle]

If this really is about oil. I think is time we innovate cars that use real alternate fuel. Iraq was bad enough.

Re:

[freeweed]

3) China likes having more repressive regimes around that make them look not quite so bad.

Re:

[ShawnX]

If you accept that the junta are legitimate government, sure. But In my world, Myanmar is Burma until the PEOPLE of Burma decide otherwise.

pointless

[m2943]

Trying to stop censorship by pointing fingers at the manufacturers of filtering software is pointless. You can put together an Internet censorship platform out of open source components: no sales, no "made in USA". And it would be really bad if you couldn't: an evolving, open Internet requires being able to manipulate traffic at the packet level.

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:

[m2943]

One day there is going to be an accounting for what has happened in Myanmar.

I wouldn't bet on it; far bigger crimes against humanity have been committed and are largely forgotten.

What the Civilization games have taught us

[Hoi Polloi]

If the Civilization games have taught us anything, one thing is that you can still keep trading with hostile governments and frequently at a bigger profit. The other is keep your triremes near the shore.

wow. slow news day?

[c6gunner]

Other newsflashes:

1) European union using American made operating systems! Stay tuned for more!
2) Chinese web filters running on US made systems! End the oppression!
3) North Korean propaganda machines run on US made computers! Film at 11!

Those Americans sure are some 3v33l d00dz!

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Export restrictions mainly cover encryption

[Airw0lf]

I really don't understand why that's not illegal...isn't this why there are so many restrictions on where certain programs can be legally downloaded?

That's usually due to encryption capabilities of the software being "exported." IIRC, there used to be export versions of IE that were limited to 56-bit encryption due to US export laws which classified certain types of encryption as a "weapon." But I think that's pretty much a non-issue in the developed world nowadays. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Hmm?

[Camael]

What the company did was against the US embargo, actually. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144178/fortinet-investigates-sanctions/ [vnunet.com]

So yes, it's illegal but the company doesn't care.

Re:Hmm?

[Sontas]

Actually, the company, Fortinet, is looking into the matter. As the article states, they don't sell directly to end users, all sales go through resellers. Their policy with their resellers states that all US export laws must be followed.

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:Hmm?

[timmarhy]

damn it man, your wasting valuable flag burning time with your reason and logic!

Re:Hmm?

[mr100percent]

From the article:

The firm, says ONI, responded by saying it doesn't sell software directly to end-users. ONI challenges Fortinet's claim, pointing to a 2004 article, reachable online, by the official New Light of Myanmar newspaper. The story covers a ceremony bringing together Burma's prime minister and Benjamin Teh, described as "an official representative of Fortinet." "Given Mr. Teh's participation, it seems unlikely that Fortinet did not know of the sale of its software to Burma," notes the ONI report.

Anyway, How is it illegal to export this software to Iran but not Burma?

Re:Hmm?

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm not saying the following happened, but I want to say why "US-made censorware used to oppress burma" sounds like a deliberately inflammatory statement of something that could be nothing.

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:

[ScentCone]

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".

Come now! You're losing all of your slashdottedness! If the headline doesn't make it sound like President Bush personally made a phone call to make sure that a US firm, no doubt owned by Halliburton, has tech support people on site helping with deployment, raping village

Re:

[Fred_A]

If the headline doesn't make it sound like President Bush personally made a phone call to make sure that a US firm, no doubt owned by Halliburton, has tech support people on site helping with deployment, raping villages on weekends, and sending back container loads of gold and diamonds to Dick Cheney's gardener, who buries them in the back yard under a tree shaped like the Masonic logo... well, then, that's just not a slashdot story then, is it?

Hey if you know more than what is divulged by the article you should submit your own story. This sound promising !

Re:

[budgenator]

Comparing the number of totalitarian human rights abusing countries around the world that are begging to get their asses kicked, compared to the amount of ass kicking that has actually happened; I'd say we've shown remarkable restraint.

Re:

[oliverthered]

But isn't filtering software the worst kind of weapon, a weapon against the people.

Re:

[GigG]

The US laws limiting the sale of "weapons" aren't really designed to protect the the people of other countries they are to protect the US. If that wasn't the case it would be against the law to export fast food.

Re:

[oliverthered]

that was my point exactly.

Re:Hmm?

[Ash Vince]

I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment. It bans investment in the country but a simple sale of weaponary (even that which may be used to surpress the pro-democracy campaigners) where the profit all ends up in the hands of a US company seems to be fair play.

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.

Re: Hmm?

[Black Parrot]

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.

According to some, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drugs and arms dealers will switch from dollars to euros as their preferred brand of blood money.

Re:Hmm?

[composer777]

Like most of our (US) foreign policy, it's a business decision. Freedom, democracy, and human rights are far down on the list of priorities, if they ever make it onto that list. If it comes down to spreading capitalism or democracy, capitalism comes first. If it comes to a decision between creating a free country, or a source of profits, profits come first, always.

Re:

[magarity]

I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment...If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong

Because the link above is to a summary of the newest batch of sanctions. What you need is the Treasury Dept's complete list [treas.gov]:

537.517 Noncommercial, personal remittances.
(a)(1) U.S. depository institutions,U.S. registered broker

Re:

[Ash Vince]

So you might get US Customs to let you export weapons to Burma but the Treasury won't let you get paid for them unless you find a local who is willing pretend it's a personal family transfer and to send it to you in chuncks of $300 per calendar quarter.

Or I arrange to have the payment sent to my numbered account in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or any other country that allows the banking industry to operate without government intervention.

Re:

[magarity]

I don't get it - the tone of your first posting suggested you were irritated government was not more forceful in telling companies where they could and couldn't sell their merchandise and now the tone of this post suggests you think government should cut back on telling banks how they could and couldn't do business. Which is it? As for myself, I know that economic sanctions just don't work against dictators / juntas. Sanctions only make things miserable for the common citizen.

Anyway, nevermind th

Re:

[Ash Vince]

I was (still am) irritated that companies in the west quite frequently make money by selling arms to dictatorships that use those arms to stay in power against the wishes of the people who live under their rule. Companies like BAe Systems make huge profits by selling to countries like Indonesia who have an appalling human rights record. I know you can always make the argument that if we don't someone else will but that still doesn't make it any less morally wrong.

I am especially against schemes like the Exp

Re:

[CmdrGravy]

You think the military rulers of Burma are short of money ? With the resources of an entire country at their disposal I rather think not and suggesting that they make carefully balanced purchases based on the relative costs and merits of a product rather than the size of the bribe from the vendor is also a little far fetched.

Re:

[Chibi Merrow]

You think the military rulers of Burma are short of money ?

No, but I think they'd rather spend the money sniffing cocaine off the tits of a $10k/hour prostitute than an overpriced easily broken toy from the US when they can get ten sturdy, equally functional tools practically for free from an old Soviet satellite state.

Please note I am not disparaging US rifles, just pointing out that they're not what most thugs look for in a weapon. They're designed for a well disciplined, organized, and funded fightin

Re:

[Applekid]

Yay more kdawsonfud!

Unless the censorware is actually authored by the US government, I don't see what "US-Made" has anything to do with it.

When was the last time you heard of Windows, the Big Mac, and the Credit Card as "US-Made"? All have done damage to the world at large.

Another vote for kdawsonfud.

Re:

[The Second Horseman]

What's exactly the difference between:

Because bittorrent and encryption are communications enabling technologies, and internet filtering software is a communications censoring technology? Much as I often disagree with the Slashdot conventional "wisdom" on things, I'm not seeing a philosophical inconsistency here.

Re: old street fighter buddy

[Black Parrot]

anyway, sucks that his home country has a bunch of pyschos running the gov't

Yeah, a lot of us here in the USA can sympathize with that.

Re:

[ShinmaWa]

You are absolutely right. Next time I'm in the market to buy software that filters and/or logs and/or spies on internet traffic, I'll be sure not to buy from THESE guys.