Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amnesty Calls Shenannigans on MS, Sun, Cisco

Posted by chrisd on from the filtering-is-bad-mkay dept.

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."

8 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. First Amendment applies only in America by helix400 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't like it, but its perfectly legal.

    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

  2. No it doesn't say that by divide+overflow · · 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?

    1. Re:No it doesn't say that by divide+overflow · · Score: 2, Informative


      You know, when I submitted the story last night, I could have sworn the original article did say something about it being illegal. My mistake. But it's immoral and that's equivalent.

      As much as I might agree with your sentiment, immoral is NOT equivalent to illegal. That makes TWO mistakes. :^)

  3. the list by denny_d · · Score: 2, Informative

    The sword cuts both ways.

    Check this list out.
    http://code.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.h tml

    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

  4. Re:Good point by AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Cisco sells routers, firewalls, etc. The chinese government made the concious decision to block various routes in those routers, or sites in the firewalls. Cisco didn't do it for them (at least I don't see where it says they did).

    Cisco did

  5. Re:Of course not. [drifting slightly off topic] by Keith_Beef · · Score: 5, Informative
    how evil Nazis [were] was not discovered until after the war

    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, 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?

  6. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights by sjanich · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yes, the The first admendement of the US Constitution only applies to the US.

    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.

  7. Re:Amnesty is a Sensasionalist Organisation by MoThugz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Precisely the point... Mandela was put in prison for advocating equality towards blacks. Can you blame him for advocating armed struggle against the apartheid regime? A regime who wouldn't bat an eyelid at someone who is not white regardless whether the protest is peaceful or otherwise.

    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 they taken in my country 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.

    --
    Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers