Slashdot Mirror
Amnesty Calls Shenannigans on MS, Sun, Cisco
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."
Nowhere in that C/Net story does anyone accuse those companies of breaking a law. And what law would they be breaking?
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
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?
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.
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