Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China
gexen writes "According to this article in The Guardian, 'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'."
This article is not from the Guardian (a UK daily paper), it's from it's sister paper the Observer, which is published weekly on Sundays.
The Observer has a record of stupid and ill-informed articles such as this. In one famous case it published the photo of the boss of Demon Internet, calling him a 'child pornographer', since child porn could be found in nntp feeds that Demon carried. Demon, like Microsoft, countered that it couldn't be held responsible for the actions of it's users.
HH
--
ANY chance to bash Micro$oft is welcomed.
Its not just Microsoft. Yahoo customized their software for China in order to censor certain topics. I believe google did the same.
Hmm, but Amnesty International isn't saying that... it's just the slashdot headline.
Amensty International are saying Microsoft 'should take more responsibility', not 'are violating human rights'... there's quite a big difference.
All you need to know is in the summary. The article doesn't tell what products or services of Microsoft are being used to abuse human rights and what changes in software or business practices MS should make to avoid being a tool of the oppressor.
Here's an article at the Amnesty International website (dated 28 Jan 04) if you want more. This is the only mention of MS on that link:
***************
Amnesty International remains concerned that in their pursuit of new and lucrative markets, foreign corporations may be indirectly contributing to human rights violations or at the very least failing to give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments. In its first report on State Control of the Internet in China, Amnesty International cited several foreign companies (Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems), which had reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China.(29) [...]
(29) Amnesty International: People's Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA 17/007/2002, November 2002.
***********
Well now I'm really confused. That report is over a year old, and there doesn't seem to be anything newer than the link I gave on this topic. It sounds like the Guardian picked up the story because it mentioned Microsoft (but not Intel - hmmm, what is the software running on?), even though the source for the MS reference is old.
You must also remember that these systems need support to keep going.
There are people from these companies right now, that are in china and making sure the system works.
And what is wrong with that exactly?
If the rights could not be exercised contrary to UN policies, there would be something sinister about article 29, however it clearly states purposes and principles, not policies.
The principles of the UN are clearly laid out in the UN charter.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
sharp@bart sharp $ hostx caldera.com
caldera.com A 216.250.128.12
sharp@bart sharp $ hostx sco.com
sco.com A 216.250.128.12
That might explain it.
You should read the reports by AI rather than this half-assed newspaper report. You can get the original reports here and here:
Nothing in these reports is "ridiculous". The claims that AI makes are well documented, and are justified concerns about human rights violations. Most of each report is concerned with what the Chinese government is doing, and not with what anyone outside of China might be doing to aid and abet these crimes. They do not acuse foreign companies of human rights violations, but they do ask that those companies exercise some responsibilty when they sell products to China. Comments from the companies in question make it quite clear that they are not even willing to ask whether their products will be used for censorship purposes, let alone refuse to do business when the answerr is "yes".
Wiping out villages...
Curse my terrible memory, but that does remind me of something...
Why is it that when someone tries to compare the great AMERICAN (insert state/action/policy here), they get accused of oversimplifying? How much of an oversimplification is us-good, them-bad?
well, obviously they weren't mainframes, but they were electronic punch card catalogs. The Germans used them for inventory control of lots of things, such as military supplies. But they were also used to track humans - the numbers that were tattooed onto prisoners' arms were numbers into this database. There is a famous photo of one of the IBM directors at a meeting with Hitler. (I think this was before they were called IBM).
Ok - nice sarcasm.
Here:
cbs news
or better yet, here:
google/ibm
and for Ford:
ford/anti-semite
This is not the case for some big commercial companies. They just see $$$ and lots of it. Not that long ago MS claimed that they could not show their source code because it could be a threat to national security, yet they turn around and sell it to China! MS also has representatives that work for them over in China trying to push their software. MS, and the whole world knows what goes on over in China, yet MS does not care, they see an oppurtunity to make a buck. The same goes for Cisco and Nortel Networks. These copanies should be using their power to stop these types of actions, yet they don't and say we are "politically neutral". Which is just a load of bull. Look at how much money MS dumps into the US congress/senate to try to get some government sway. Politically neutral my backside.
MS's response to this claim is:
A big PR lie. Have you actaully read any of those EULA? MS restricts many things that that you can do with their software such as, you cannot post bench mark results with MS SQL Server and other MS Software. They even put a clause into their MS Front Page that say you cannot use it to create a web site that casts any disparagement at MS. I also believe that they require you to transfer the software if you want to sell you PC so that you have to buy another license. No control over the end-user usage my backside.If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison