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
--
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.
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?
Ok - nice sarcasm.
Here:
cbs news
or better yet, here:
google/ibm
and for Ford:
ford/anti-semite