Microsoft Training May Have Helped Tunisian Regime To Spy On Citizens 129
An anonymous reader writes "A document released in the recent Cablegate leak reveals that Microsoft provided training to the Tunisian Ministries of Justice and the Interior in exchange for exemption from the country's open software policy. These Ministries would soon put the training to use by phishing for the social networking credentials of bloggers, reporters, political activists and protesters. Microsoft's assistance resulted in the sale of 12,000 software licenses to the Tunisian government."
The cable itself details the effort Microsoft put into negotiating a deal. Their clear intent was simply expanding into a new market, but the author of the cable was skeptical of the Tunisian government's adherence to its stated goals. Quoting: "In theory, increasing GOT law enforcement capability through IT training is positive, but given heavy-handed GOT interference in the internet, Post questions whether this will expand GOT capacity to monitor its own citizens."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gates is rich enough. But I'm guessing the local sales rep isn't a billionaire yet.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, all Microsoft knew was giving them computer training. What about we start writing news on how school chemistry classes allow people to make bombs? Or god forbid, cooking tv shows teach you how to use a knife!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Actualy, no. Microsoft provide intensive training to police forces, specificaly on MS security features, as mentionned in chapter 1.1 and 1.3 of the leaked agreement. Curious how the first 3 part of the contract are about security features (1.2 is about the local certificate autority and its inclusion in future MS update). You can access this agreement here (french and arabic) http://www.fhimt.com/leaks/contrat-entre-microsoft-et-le-gouvernement-tunisien/
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
how about a scanned contract? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.fhimt.com/leaks/contrat-entre-microsoft-et-le-gouvernement-tunisien/ [fhimt.com]
Support de l'autorité de certification électronique reconnue au niveau de Microsoft IE
Microsoft inclura dans son cycle de mise à jour des autorités de certificats au niveau d'Internet Explorer, le support de l'autorité de certification nationale. De son coté, le Gouvernement Tunisien procédera à une demande écrite dans ce sense auprès de Microsoft pour la mise en place de cette procédure
google translation:
Support for electronic certification authority recognized at Microsoft IE
Microsoft will include in its cycle of updating the certificate authorities in Internet Explorer, support for the national certification authority. For its part, the Tunisian Government will make a written request in this sense to
Microsoft's implementation of this procedure.
English translation:
Tunisia's certificate authority allows it to release it's own SSL certificates. Microsoft agrees to include Tunisia's CA certificates in Internet Explorer updates.
Thats fine. But it also allows the dictator to spoof https sites and thus snoop on people even if they are using SSL. There is evidence that exactly this has happened in Tunisia with sites like gmail. See
http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2010/07/05/mass-gmail-phishing-in-tunisia/ [globalvoicesonline.org]
I know there is a lot of bullshit assumptions in some of the articles on this issue, but there is definitely some fire at the heart of the smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Since they do this for a lot of countries, Tunesia could have claimed discrimination if they'd have refused to do it for Tunesia. Unless there was an official embargo, which there wasn't. You *may* suspect the usage of these certificates will be bad (and I agree) but there are a lot of standard uses for certificates.
We need (a) more awareness that certificates are not just "computer things' but have real impact on security and (b) more control over what happens with the certificates in our browsers. Fortuna
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
this is just a pretty standard trade deal for IT software. Not illegal, probably not even immoral at all.
Almost certainly immoral, possibly illegal.
How standard it is just speaks to the level of corruption and dishonesty in business, not the inherent rightness.
MS was really selling was the licenses (which don't help Tunisia with it's crackdown at all) and what MS got was Tunisia using less pirated software.
Oh gosh, I didn't know they had business goals. Well shucks then, all's fair if you're trying to make a buck.
Oh, and note the part where all this happened before the trouble, and it was a five-year in the making deal.
Oh, note how the cable (circa 2006) questions the goals of the Tunisian government. Even then their dictatorial activities were well known.
Further, Microsoft was negotiating a government-enforced monopoly. You'd have to be stupid to think that wou
Re: (Score:2)
The sensationalist part of the TFS is a quote of the linked ZDnet article, and the headline of TFS is less sensationalist than the headline of TFA.
Iit was a negotiation to override current policy that was at least amoral, probably somewhat unethical, and possibly extra-legal. (we don't have all the facts
how about this cable? (Score:3)
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07TUNIS1286&q=linux [cablegatesearch.net]
"
US companies selling quality products cannot compete on a
price basis. Microsoft gave the example of PC procurement,
in which the GOT procurement commission does not specify an
operating system in their RFPs. This results in the PCs
being shipped with the Linux,s open source operating system,
which does not support Microsoft software. The Microsoft
representative argued that this has encouraged piracy and
resulted in GOT PCs using pirated Micro
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could see it as arguing that mandating that only open source software be purchased doesn't mean that closed source software isn't being used. It's all fine and dandy to order a PC with Linux on it, but if you order a PC with Linux on it when what you really want is Microsoft Office, do you reckon the government employees are doing without or using pirated copies. Prohibiting the purchase of any kind of software doesn't stop that software being used, just purchased.
thats not what they are saying (Score:2)
what they are saying is that the government shouldn't be able to order computers without windows pre-installed, because this enables piracy, therefore you shouldn't be able to order computers without windows pre-installed.
that argument wouldn't pass any jury on the planet.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates is rich enough. But I'm guessing the local sales rep isn't a billionaire yet.
No, but that only makes it even worse: That sales rep sold out an entire country's people in exchange for a few grand worth of commissions.
More to the point, somebody hired a sales rep willing to do that. And that willingness stems from a flaw in Microsoft's business model. The quality and price of their products has never matched their market share; they subsist on inertia and lock-in. The problem with that model is that all it would take to break it is for a single medium-sized country to decide that they would rather spend a billion dollars once to implement all of the APIs, file format converters, migration tools, etc. to make switching from Microsoft to FOSS easy and popular in order to avoid having that same country's government and people continue to pay an even greater amount of money every year to a foreign corporation. The last thing in the world they need is for some oil-rich dictators to conclude that they could implement a feature-complete open-source equivalent of Exchange Server for less than the amount of money their country pays to license it.
So when Tunisia or China or whoever else comes to Microsoft and makes demands, Microsoft bends. Because Microsoft can't afford for those countries to make the path away from Microsoft's ecosystem simple, well-documented and conspicuous. So yes, you can blame the sales rep who did the deed, but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft has left itself in the position that it has to yield to crackpot dictators who violate human rights in order to maintain its market dominance.
Re: (Score:2)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2008/snapshots/86.html [cnn.com]
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2009/snapshots/38.html [cnn.com]
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2010/snapshots/51.html [cnn.com]
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bestcompanies/2011/snapshots/72.html [cnn.com]
Fortune wouldn't even rank Microsoft anywhere near their list of "Best Companies to Work For" (let alone in it for at least the
and apples nazi app store censorship is just as ba (Score:1)
and apples nazi app store censorship + tracking is just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? My god can beat up your god.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Duh. Welcome to capitalism. If there's a buck to be made, a human life becomes secondary.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Your're batshit insane. You're so conditioned from anti-Microsoft stories on Slashdot that you actually use religious terminology like "evil" and believe that offering general computer training--that was Microsoft's only intent, as stated right in the summary--somehow means Microsoft helped spy on Tunisian citizens.
Think of the ridiculous leap being made here. If Microsoft offers computer training that is subsequently used to do something bad, that means Microsoft is responsible? Was Flight Simulator also r
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
Your're batshit insane.
And you're intentionally blind to reality.
offering general computer training--that was Microsoft's only intent,
Microsoft did these things because they are a deeply unethical company that is so obsessed with eliminating competitors they are prepared to trample civil rights if it forwards their goals.
It's interesting that you share the same ability to ignore ethics and evidence in your determination to evangelise for Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The cable specifically mentions Microsoft knew the Tunisian government would misuse the training.
No, it doesn't. It says: "Post questions whether this will expand GOT capacity to monitor its own citizens."
"Post" is not Microsoft, it is a self-reference to the diplomatic post or station which is writing the cable. Furthermore, it doesn't even say they KNOW what Tunisia will do, it says they question. For example, I might question whether you are incapable of reading comprehension, but I don't know it.
Re: (Score:2)
I might question whether you are incapable of reading comprehension, but I don't know it.
You can question anything you like. There's still no doubt Microsoft knew what they were doing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/12/russia-uses-microsoft-to-_n_713653.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/russia-uses-microsoft-to-suppress-dissent-51505 [ndtv.com]
http://www.osnews.com/story/23797/NYT_Russia_Uses_Microsoft_to_Suppress_Dissent [osnews.com]
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Russia-Anti-Piracy-Raids-Microsoft-Piracy-Putin,11270.html [tomshardware.com]
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/03/microsoft-sorry-for-bing-quake-twe [techflash.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Microsoft was helping to oppress innocent people by a totalitarian regime to get a chance to sabotage the Free Software movement? Wow. Just wow. This is low. Even for Microsoft.
You're right, this is pretty low for a company who needs successful P.R. to keep printing money. So, Mensa Babe, I have a question for you: When you said "This is low even for Microsoft", how come you landed with all four paws on the assumption was that Bill Gates personally ordered it instead of asking whether or not this story wasn't spun to sell ads?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because lower-level employees routinely approach foreign governments and bargain for laws to be changed without the higher-ups noticing.
But whatever. Even if he setup a business where such things were done without his oversight, it doesn't lessen his moral responsibility to watch what his influence is being used to do.
because his name is on the contract (Score:2)
http://www.fhimt.com/leaks/contrat-entre-microsoft-et-le-gouvernement-tunisien/ [fhimt.com]
Afrique du Sud - Cape Town - GLF Africa, le 11 Julliet 2006,
EN LA PRESENCE ET EN QUALITE DE TEMOIN:
M. Bill GATES
Chairman & Chief Software Architect, Microsoft Corporation
POUR LES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES
M Kate SHALLOE
Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
POUR MICROSOFT
Director General Microsoft Tunisie
POUR LE GOUVERNEMENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE TUNISIENNE
Secretaire d'Etat aupres du Ministre des Techonlogies de la Communication chargee d
Re: (Score:2)
He sure didn't mind when the money flowed uphill to him, so he gets to take the responsibility too.
If MS had a pattern of behavior that suggested this was an uncharacteristic move, it would be easier to believe it was a rogue manager exceeding his authority and acting against policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anything that the richest man in the world won't do to get even richer?
No, Carlos Slim will do anything for one more peso.
What does that have to do with this story anyway?
Re: (Score:1)
Do you live in a happy little world with talking fluffy bunnies by any chance ?
The world of business is there to make money and that's it, if you can negotiate a deal where your products and services get priority over someone elses then you take it and run to the bank!
I used to sell systems to a US sponsored outfit that recorded telephone calls in the old East Germany from West Germany .. what's the issue ? Honestly and truely is there anyone who actually cares if someone you don't know, have never met, n
Re: (Score:3)
No, but it should have some.
Yeah, you're only saying that because nobody properly screwed you over yet.
Maybe it's more than that; it's their CA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Maybe it's more than that; it's their CA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The Windows XP machine I'm using has the Tunisian government certificate authority installed (it's named "Agence Nationale de Certification Electronique").
An easy way to check if you have it is to simply go to the Tunisian Certification Agency site [certification.tn] (with https). If your browser shows a warning saying that the certificate authority can't be confirmed (or something like that), you don't have the Tunisian Govt CA. If it doesn't show any warnings, it probably means you do have the CA -- to check it, ask your br
Re: (Score:3)
I revise my earlier comment to the effect that "either I suck at finding them, or Microsoft sucks at showing them".
Re: (Score:2)
Well Google isn't Microsoft and they don't seem to mind telling me the Agence Nationale de Certification Electronique is just fine as well within Chrome. I don't have firefox, but I doubt it's any different.
Bad government or not, I'm betting most browsers aren't going to have fits over it.
Re: (Score:2)
FF does its own thing, independent of the OS/DE provided certificate store, and throws an untrusted certificate warning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
www.certification.tn uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided.
So Firefox definitely does find something fishy about it, though this might be completely unrelated.
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing "fishy" about it, Firefox just doesn't include the issuing CA in its certificate store.
Unlike Chrome (and obviously IE), Mozilla software doesn't use the certs supplied with Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, site worked fine in stock IE8 (OS installed from a Dell image), in a heavily modded Firefox 6 it was untrusted. Half the Perspectives notaries showed consistent results, the other half returned nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Also I can confirm the CA is trusted, you can see it in IE8's cert manager.
Re: (Score:2)
for it to mean anything, you should check who signed the site's certificate.
Afaict even that is of limited utility because thanks to the webs page by page model there is no enforcement that the cert used to send you the login page is the same cert that will be used when you submit the login form.
Re: (Score:1)
6. (C) In a call on DCM a few days before the South Africa Forum, Smaoui worried that she was going to the Forum without a signed agreement in hand and could not confirm that the GOT's representative would even show up. She fretted that she might have to confess to Bill Gates that she had no reason to be at the Forum. In the event, Khedija Ghariani, Secretary of State for Computers, Internet, and Free SIPDIS Software, attended and signed the agreement on behalf of the GOT. Despite the drawn-out negotiations, Smaoui stated that reaching an agreement was "vital" for Microsoft. ......
Even as the goal of expanding employment opportunities for handicapped Tunisians is worthy, the program's affiliation with Leila Ben Ali's charity is indicative of the backroom maneuvering sometimes required to finalize a deal.
first of all, this likely is a violation of FCPA [wikipedia.org], this is the stuff that Murdoch is facing BTW, so he is trying to repeal this law.
Microsoft's reticence to fully disclose the details of the agreement further highlights the GOT emphasis on secrecy over transparency. In theory, increasing GOT law enforcement capability through IT training is positive, but given heavy-handed GOT interference in the internet, Post questions whether this will expand GOT capacity to monitor its own citizens. Ultimately, for Microsoft the benefits outweigh the costs.
- secondly, here we have a company (MS) conspiring with a foreign government in order to limit freedoms of entire nation. If there is nothing illegal about this, then everything on this planet is f.d up.
might be illegall.. who will enforce the law? (Score:3)
obama's DOJ is too busy going after journalists and 'leakers'
(Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling, Shamai Leibowitz, Thomas Drake, Bradley Manning)
In fact, Bradley Manning is quite probably being charged specifically with giving out this cable, as it is probably one of the 100,000+ he is charged with under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Theft of Government Property laws.
in essence... the government we have now would allow Microsoft to break this law, but they would put the guy in jail who let you know that
Re: (Score:2)
It was probably Firefox 4 or 5 for which that applies, between the crazy release cycle of major Firefox versions and slashdot's habit of posting things late, it's unlikely that Firefox 6.0.1 was used by the person writing the story.
Re: (Score:2)
Your 6.0.1 doesn't throw an untrusted cert error? Mine does.
In other news (Score:2, Interesting)
GE power turbine used to energize torture cables
Caterpillar tractor harvested crops to feed dictator
Re:In other news (Score:4, Informative)
GE makes missiles and other weapons of mass destruction.
Caterpillar sells bulldozers to Israel that are used to run over and kill people, as well as illegal home demolitions.
In other news, blissfully ignorant American is ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Missiles aren't considered weapons of mass destruction, and GE got out of the nuclear weapons making business a while ago.
Caterpillar sells special armored bulldozers to Israel because the Palestinians try to kill the drivers who are demolishing terrorist hideouts. People get run over because they run where the driver can't see them (the armor restricts visibility), or the Palestinians are shooting at or otherwise interfering with the the Israeli soldiers whose job is to clear the path of any people.
In othe
Re: (Score:1)
The question is Caterpillar's culpability (Score:2)
The purpose of these bulldozers is not to run over people. In fact, that is why the IDF has troops go with them when possible to make sure they don't run over anybody (but as I said, their job is made difficult due to attacks by the very people they're trying to save from getting run over). The IDF has even installed cameras to try to eliminate the blind spots so drivers can avoid running over people who throw themselves in front of the bulldozers.
But the AC made it out as running over people was in the pla
Re: (Score:2)
That's hardly interesting, in both of those cases the equipment would have to be used in a legitimate way before that could happen. Unless GE generators are being hooked up directly to the cables used for torture, it's highly unlikely that GE would know that it's being used for nefarious purposes rather than for humanitarian ones.
As for Caterpillar, under that scenario it's unlikely that they'd have done anything wrong, so long as they didn't need to break an embargo to ship the equipment over there.
Re: (Score:1)
(likely at the command of the Dutch government)
Unlikely, their own certificates were compromised too. The way Diginotar went about in their business and the way they handled the fall-out is reminiscent of IT gaffes by the Dutch government (unfair, you rarely hear about the things that do go right but that's assuming there are things that go right). The average Dutch government wouldn't hesitate about letting the USA spy services in though but not the Iranians.
It's Ballmers Plan C. (Score:1)
Plan A: Build better products which compete on merit alone. Failed - look at the market share of anything outside Windows & Office - e.g 1% for their new phone OS or IE's decline.
Plan B: Use litigation to extort or smother the competition, e.g. 5$ for every Android handset from HTC [slashdot.org]. Failed - Motorolas patents will nullify them now, and Ballmer is in serious shit for letting Motorola go to Google [cnet.co.uk].
Plan C: Get corrupt government officials to buy their products by helping them do evil. Good luck with that,
Oh c'mon, why the outcry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it gets known now? You don't think MS is the only company that doesn't give half a shit about who they sell to, do you? If there's not an outright embargo (that has to be circumvented somehow), anyone can buy anything if the price is right. Hell, IBM sold computers to the Nazis, knowing quite well just what they will be used for.
You think any corporation would have acted different in any way? Corporations are the pinnacle of capitalist evolution: Intelligence without conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone finds a person or tech, its emptied out, sold, lost in a take over
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/torture-in-bahrain-becomes-routine-with-help-from-nokia-siemens-networking.html [bloomberg.com]
e.g. "says he can’t comment because all documentation from the intelligence solutions unit had been transferred"
The big brand then only likes "ethical businesses"
Re: (Score:2)
IBM sold computers to the Nazis...
Cite - cause I'd really like to know which ones. The first true computer ever built wasn't completed until 1943 (ENIAC). Other computers wouldn't show up until after the war.
Re: (Score:2)
Konrad Zuse - Z1 program-controlled computer ~ 1936. His Z3 was the world's first fully functional programmable computer ~ 1941.
http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Zuse.html [vt.edu]
and by "computer" people point to the IBM's Hollerith punch card technology.
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ [ibmandtheholocaust.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the morality of the executive leadership can affect the morality of the corporation's acts.
Sometimes the main shareholders are real humain beings with a conscience, which may affect their choices for the corporation.
Even if we accept the idea that every corporations are without conscience, they may a le
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Corporations, from bottom to top, are guided by a sense of duty, a sense of responsibility and a shift of blame.
Every person has a conscience that would prohibit certain actions. Even the most "evil" patent lawyers might be conscious people. But they have a duty, a responsibility and someone else is to blame for their actions.
Take the chance of getting laid off. A group manager gets told that he has to fire one of his people. He knows them. All of them. He knows that Bill has just bought a new house a
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. A corporation can be socially responsible if it sees an advantage in it.
Mostly, corporations can be guided by laws and fines. Fines need to be high enough to overcome the potential increase in cost, though, or the fine will become a cost factor.
What if it had been open source software? (Score:2)
Wouldn't that mean open source software was being used to oppress? Or would somehow the spirit of freedom inside of the software refuse to run, knowing what it was being used for?
I know Microsoft is evil and all, but really, it sounds like they had plausible deniability: "..Tunisian government's adherence to its stated goals."
Re: (Score:2)
Nice strawman. The problem is not the software, it's the company. Nobody is blaming Windows, we're blaming actual people who made a deal. And if instead of MS it was a company which produced open source it would be just has bad.
And there's nothing plausible about their deniability.
USA (Score:5, Insightful)
actually you could. you own our debt. (Score:2)
China and Russia could sell all their fannie and freddie bonds, and all their tresaury bonds, and the US would collapse overnight.
move off the dollar as a world reserve currency, and it would undergo mass inflation like argentina a few years back.
Re: (Score:3)
cheer up (Score:2)
go through the cables at http://www.cablegatesearch.net/ [cablegatesearch.net]
type in something interesting like 'microsoft' or 'cisco'
find some interesting ones
submit a slashdot story on it ....?
profit!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
China can crash the US economy, and then their biggest exports market ($365 billion just last year) crashes too, leaving them in shit. The EU (the other big importer) is already having enough problems affording China's stuff, they have nothing to gain adding instability.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the story of every powerful nation? We could go back in time and the people of the world would be complaining about the English, or the Dutch, or the French spreading their imperialism across the globe, and complaining that they can't do anything about it. Well, the cost for us to do something is the same as the cost for you. And meanwhile, the powers that control the USA are not the only problem. Germany, Canada, Australia, Britain, China... they're all the same. The USA just happens to be proje
Re: (Score:1)
WE'RE TRYING!!!!! It doesn't help that the sane people who vote in those who they thought were also sane were ( bought off by monied interests | turned his/their back on their base constituents ). And it takes time to change minds to at least change (if not dismantle) the military-industrial-intelligence complex.
Only Money matters: Bing in China, renren, GOT,... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They run Windows ME and MSSQL in hell, I don't think anyone around here is going to question that. Now if the devil wants to spread more evil is he going to pump money into a big evil monopolistic corporation and make Steve Ballmer richer, or is he going to pirate it, removing the trouble of managing licenses from the backs of hell's sysadmins?
Microsoft compatibility prohibited? (Score:2)
Additionally, future GOT tenders for IT equipment will specify that the equipment must be Microsoft compatible, which is currently prohibited by the Tunisian open software policy.
This seems to be a point of contention. Can anyone explain why/how Microsoft compatibility is prohibited? Just because it can run MS software doesn't mean it will, the same hardware could very well run exclusively "open" software. The open software itself could also be compatible with MS hardware and software, providing drivers that work with hardware under the Microsoft label (mice, keyboards, webcams, etc), and be capable of reading and exporting to MS file formats (.doc, .xls, etc).
Re:Microsoft compatibility prohibited? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so silly (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If you live in the US, yes.
It's called accessory to murder. Also, you could be charged with conspiracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)#United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean if I sell someone an axe, knowing that they will kill someone with it, I am somehow responsible?
Legally?
It would be hard to prove, that you knew that they will kill someone with it. But if that could be established, in most countries you would be held responsible.
Morally?
Yes, asshole
Re: (Score:2)
Lawful evil (Score:1)
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
so what (Score:1)
that is the way the world works, you sell a product or service or die
MS To Reboot Charlton Heston? (Score:3)
The US Gov. does this too (Score:1)
Microsoft "Training" ? (Score:1)
`According to a cable sent by the US embassy in Tunis on 22 September, 2006, Microsoft was so keen to get the Tunisian government to drop its policy favouring open-source software that it agreed to set up a "program on cyber criminality" to cover training. The deal also entailed the company giving the Tunisian regime, headed by President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali, the original source code for Microsoft software.' link [zdnet.co.uk]
"Tunisia has its own certificateauthority and since 2007 the root certificate has been inclu
If... (Score:2)
businesses are allowed to do business in Tunisia, isn't this just a piece of anti-microsoft fud? We (the USA) trained Afghani's to fight the Soviets, it worked pretty good until the tactics were used on US (USA). It's not the training that is the issue, its the application; just say what you want to say and be done with it;
You think Microsoft training is evil.
FUD.
Next you'll be accusing them of.... (Score:2)
http://techrights.org/2009/09/20/privatization-africa/ [techrights.org]
http://techrights.org/2009/11/02/gates-africa-un-education/ [techrights.org]
http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/seeds-of-doubt-in-bill-gates-investments/ [techrights.org]
Re:Which is it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the training was more along these lines [ycombinator.com] than "Ctrl-X cuts, ctrl-V pastes..."