EFF Takes On Cisco's Role In China 84
decora writes "Several years ago, writer Du Daobin posted several essays on the internet, protesting such things as unfair taxes and the corruption of the media. He was then charged with 'inciting subversion of state power,' arrested, and after many legal twists and turns, tortured in prison. Daobin, along with several other dissidents with similar stories, decided to sue Cisco Systems (PDF) earlier this year under the legal theory that it aided and abetted China's violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. As the case moves forward, the Chinese Ministry of Public Security has stepped up its surveillance, harassment, and interrogation of Daobin and the others. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has now joined the Laogai Research Foundation to draw attention to the case. As part of its opening move, it has asked Cisco to make public statements in support of human rights, hoping that the company's influence with the Chinese government will provide some modicum of protection for the threatened dissidents."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese culture and Western ideals are orthogonal to each other. Those Chinese wishing something different should abandon China, move West, and help the West compete with the culture which rejected them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's BS. Ethnically Chinese like living in a democracy together with the native people of Taiwan. Ethnically Chinese did enjoy freedom of speech in Hong Kong while outperforming China by a wide margin.
Many countries in the West had to live under dictatorial governments in the past. The Chinese have every right to reject their dictatorial government, too.
Those Chinese who don't like their fellow citizens to be free should abandon China and move to Libya. Oh wait - try Syria. Or ... well maybe they can
The precedent needs to be set (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a lot of executin'. I'm gonna need some coffee to work up to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since the method of execution is strapping them to a wheel that is on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What is being argued is that Cisco was *aware* of the purpose that their technology was to be used for, and still went along with the deal to make a profit.
A company's right to make a profit comes with certain implicit restrictions. Companies are not allowed to provide supplies to the enemies in t
Re: (Score:2)
So because another, less efficient, product can be used for evil, we might as well allow our own, more efficient, product to be used for evil? That does not follow. All humans have an unalienable responsibility to not do evil, even Cisco. If humans choose to violate this responsibility, they should be sued by individuals or prosecuted by the state.
Re: (Score:2)
So there is no problem I guess, as everyone knows there are no humans at Cisco.
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco can hardly be blamed if they were not aware that their product will be used for censorship and trampling of human rights. If you sell me a knife assuming I was going to use it to cut vegetables, and I go and use it to kill a bunch of kids, you are not accountable.
However, if I practically came and told you "Hey, I wanna slash the throats of a bunch of infants, what kind of knife would recommend for that?" and you *still* sold me
Re: (Score:2)
i posted a direct link to the legal complaint (Score:2)
the details are all inside.
Re: (Score:2)
What is being argued is that Cisco was *aware* of the purpose that their technology was to be used for, and still went along with the deal to make a profit.
Yes and even if they were that's an issue for Cisco's management, board of directors, shareholders and even their other customers. If you want a different government to order the company not to do business with another government then isn't that just as totalitarian in its own way?
What gets me is that Cisco is doing business with the Chinese government while said government's officials take bribes to look the other way while local factories crank out blatant pirate versions of Cisco's equipment on the nigh
Re: (Score:2)
Let us see, prosecuting "freedom fighters" or dissidents who kill/blow up innocents. Good.
Prosecuting dissidents who did not actually kill/hurt anyone and were simply disagreeing with you. Bad.
I am not sure why you are advocating apathy. We cannot obviously hand freedom and rights on a silver platter to others. They have to be desired and fought for, and thus earned. But there is no reason why we should be unsympathetic or become an accomplice towards making their lives even wo
Re: (Score:2)
If Smith and Wesson knowingly and purposefully sold guns to a regime that they knew were going to use to kill and suppress the freedoms and human rights of their populace wouldn't you want them to be
They are following precedent (Score:3)
the US government does business with the Chinese, the US government supports other companies doing business with the Chinese, the US maintains sells bonds to the Chinese.
Until you hold the US government accountable for its actions how can you hold any corporation accountable? Or is this a matter of one has guns and the other does not?
Really, how do you permit with one hand and deny with another? Why not penalize the American's who buy goods made in China, why not hold Apple accountable as well, after all th
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that Cisco has set up their equipment in such a way that it can be specifically used to violate human rights. Probably beta tested in the US under the "Patriot Act" which also violates human rights.
If you want to argue that it should be illegal to do business with countries that violate human rights, the sad fact is that no one should do business with the US. Or almos
Re: (Score:1)
Actually we do restrict the sale of certain kinds of weapons and technologies to countries that are too far out of line with our values. And there is a difference between "pushing our laws on other countries" and deciding not to knowingly aid and abet a foreign gov't's reprehensible behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
why not hold Apple accountable as well, after all their products are produced
Products that we line up to buy....We are just as guilty as the government we accuse of standing by and doing nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't bother asking regular Cisco employees in silicon valley. In today's employment climate, we certainly cannot expect domestic employees of our multinationals to say anything - they're all afraid of defaulting on their mortgages, at th
Re: (Score:2)
Although it might be a good idea to go after the companies that sell tuns to Mexican warlords. Particularly the ones used to kill American agents.
But then, selling weapons to people that kill Americans seems to be a big business in the US, so don't waste your time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what? Since I cannot stop you from finding a rock anyways, allow me to loan you my hammer to kill him.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's time we stop letting companies off the hook for helping to subvert freedoms as a course of just doing business
Very true - and, I think, a sentiment that resonates strongly with the best in Socialism, much as I'm sure you'll hate me for saying so.
It has always been too simple to say that "So and so government oppresses whatever"; reality is far too complicated for that to be true. And it is worth remembering that whereas states are (at least in principle) sovereign withing their own borders, many multinational companies are in a position to flick their finger at most countries; which they routinely do.
And, just to r
Let me take a stab at it... (Score:3, Insightful)
"At Cisco, we strive to provide excellent products and services in the network backbone and infrastructure space. Our company philosophy discourages all forms of discrimination, violence and abuse, including human rights abuses. Although we will never condone the suppression of free speech, or torturing of political prisoners, we are bound to the laws of any country in which we operate. Cisco recognizes the law of the land and will act accordingly."
In other words, we aren't taking a stand. You can forget about that that, buster.
They can say lots of things without saying anything.
Re: (Score:2)
...Our company philosophy discourages all forms of discrimination, violence and abuse, including human rights abuses....
In other words, we aren't taking a stand. You can forget about that that, buster. They can say lots of things without saying anything.
So... they just "discourage" human right abuses. Like in "I hope you don't abuse our surveillance tools, or else we would be very sad and cry a little".
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco recognizes the law of the land and will act accordingly."
Roger that.
Oh, "and [we] are not responsible anything that happens, GOOD or bad, unless it's GOOD, as a result of local, territorial, national, or *whisperquick* int'l LAW that is beyond the scope of our DIRECTLY and closely-monitored legal responsibility. *mumblemumble* Customer *mumble* quality *grumble* provide *mumble* innovation *slidemumble*"
Is that pretty close to daily business speak? I've been there, man. Don't tell me I'm nuts :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we can torture people with impunity (Score:3)
and have no risk of law suit, why shouldn't the Chinese be able to also?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the most honest answer to that question is simply that "them" is more evil than "us".
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality [wikipedia.org]
Note the relative positions of the US and China. We totally suck, and we still beat them. And if you don't think this is the best metric of "evil," then you're probably too rich to have an opinion worth listening to.
Re:If we can torture people with impunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely ignorant of history. If the poor getting poorer is an effect of the rich getting richer than how do you explain the 19th Century in the United States?
The rich grew richer than they had ever been. The typical person also experienced a jump in wealth never before seen in such a short time. Were there all kinds of abuses, certainly there were. Still it proves that the poor getting poorer is not a necessary outcome of the rich getting richer.
There is also no justice in equality of result,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the article, you twit. The data is right there. Why did you only look at the map?
I'll speak real slow.
I did not only look at the map.
My comment was that the image does not stand alone, and it would be nice if it did, it needs the context of the article to make sense. It's a cool image, I like it, fuck off.
The twit comment is completely uncalled for, and you are an extremely rude asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that your conclusion is quite subjective, do you?
In various parts of the world, "US" make "them" look like well behaved.
I intended for it to be relative. So "us" is USA or China, or Libya, or Chile, depending on where you were born.
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco already has one (Score:2)
Of course, it doesn't stop them mistreating or firing US employees by the thousands.
The EFF King has invited you to Lake Laogai. (Score:2)
How is it different from regulatory arbitrage? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
because federally mandated accounting practices that keep giant corporations from telling complete fabrications to their shareholders caused all our industries to believe that moving to China was the best cost-cutting measure ever.
I can understand China being seen as a cost cutting measure. Do you actually mean to imply that part of the problem is a lack of accounting fraud and that corporations should be able to present inaccurate data to share holders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sorry (Score:2)
you are right, that is a pretty horrible headline. i will try harder next time.
Won't change a thing in China (Score:5, Interesting)
I applaud the EFF's efforts here but I seriously doubt this will make a difference on the ground in China, even if Cisco were to see the light and speak up on behalf the dissidents. I also think the EFF is mistaken about which way influence flows in the CCP-Cisco relationship. Like any Western company doing major business with China, Cisco has had to jump through all sorts of hoops, hand over a large amount control of local operations to party apparatchiks and work under contracts that change significantly and frequently after being signed.
Cisco's position in China is so compromised at this point that I don't see how they could stand up to the CCP in this case without pulling out of the Chinese market entirely and I just don't mean stop selling in China. They have suppliers, production facilities, hundreds of directly employees not to mention billions of dollars of IP in China. All of that is vulnerable to CCP action if Cisco were to get on their bad side. China isn't like the West, the government won't need warrants or due process to arrest Cisco employers, seize facilities and IP or just choke off Cisco's supply train like they did with rare earths a few months ago.
Cisco is in too deep to take a stand at this point, they have more to lose than the CCP does. The CCP has demonstrated repeatedly that human rights aren't a concern for them and given their hostile reaction whenever a Western government or NGO (Nobel Committee) explicitly or implicitly criticizes their human rights record they aren't exactly concerned about their international image either. Cisco on the other hand pretty much can't win this no matter what they do. Just like most any Western company doing big business in China these days.
Cheers,
Josh
Re: (Score:2)
Like any Western company doing major business with China, Cisco has had to jump through all sorts of hoops, hand over a large amount control of local operations to party apparatchiks and work under contracts that change significantly and frequently after being signed.
They don't actually have to do any of that, assuming that a legitimate scenario is to not do business with China at all. Which of course it is not.
Cisco is in too deep to take a stand at this point, they have more to lose than the CCP does. The CCP has demonstrated repeatedly that human rights aren't a concern for them and given their hostile reaction whenever a Western government or NGO (Nobel Committee) explicitly or implicitly criticizes their human rights record they aren't exactly concerned about their international image either. Cisco on the other hand pretty much can't win this no matter what they do. Just like most any Western company doing big business in China these days.
LOL! Yeah, and in this respect, the Chinese government is much more honest and open than the corporations it does business with.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless we are planning to globalize all existing laws - which is going to make switzerland and bermuda look significantly less attractive to big business as places to be (nominally) headquartered.
It is illegal for an american company to pay bribes to government officials in any country. Is this an example of creeping globalism, too? Can US companies engage in slave trade, as long as they don't take any slaves into USA?
They should have classes (Score:1)
The Electronic Frontier Foundation should offer university level classes for people interested in issues surrounding internet and information freedoms... ...just so they could sell EFF U sweatshirts.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like one of those!
That ship has already sailed (Score:3)
Cisco makes gear to let governments spy on their citizens. Every major network equipment manufacturer makes it. All of them. Every major network operator buys it. Practically every government requires it if you're going to build a public network. They sell it, and, yeah, that means they support it, in every sense of the word.
It's called "Lawful Intercept" by its friends, and "sleazy narcing" by its enemies.
It's an idea pioneered right in the U S of A. CALEA, Baby.
Sometimes it's used for Good(TM) and sometimes it's used for Evil(TM). No government is immune to the Evil. The US government, specifically, is almost certainly abusing it, and even if it's not, the EFF sure thinks it is.
Even if it's not being abused in the sense of illegal use, it's being used heavily to enforce laws the EFF and its main backers don't agree with.
So why isn't the EFF coming down on Cisco for selling such equipment in the US? It's not like the EFF believes the US is pure. Nor any of the many other major governments.
The fact is that all the network gear makers sold out ages ago, back when this whole spying thing first came up in the US. The precedent is set, the principle is established. There's no going back. Governments get what they want on the Net, period. US, China, North Korea, whoever.
At this point, it's self help. Encrypt your data, use relays, use steganography, whatever. But it's way too late to try to fix the equipment makers. The EFF is just grandstanding.