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'."
It's not Microsoft doing the violating, it's the people using their software.
Is open source software never used for anything bad?
This isn't really a surprise... this basically says that Microsoft is guilty because people use their software to violate human rights..
How MS is responsible for that, I can't figure out...
Prosecute the criminals, not those who make a product and have that product abused by criminals..
Companies like Nestle and Nike have been abusing human rights for years and nothing's happened.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Of course, the article doesn't really pin down what control M$ is offering China that they didn't already have. No specifics to tell us where M$ stopped developing regular software and started aiding in HR violations.
Standing on the shoulders of giants.
It's hard to see how Microsoft can win. If they make software that can be used to censor internet access and sell it to China, then they're aiding in human rights violations. If they make it and don't sell it to China, then they get accused of discrimination. If their software can't censor internet access, then the majority of public schools and libraries can't use it.
They are against Nixonian engagement (trade with China), against embargos/sanctions (Cuba), and against military intervention to overthrow murderous dictators (Iraq).
Too bad Amnesty just likes to whine and doesn't have any solutions.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I wouldnt blame microsoft unless it was found they were helping in a more direct way other than simply supplying software I do really dislike china though and i wish people would stop supporting them untill they clean up their act more..
Unless China asked Microsoft to specifically come up with software so that they could hunt down the political opposition, I would say that Microsoft has done little wrong in this case. The unnamed software/hardware could be nothing more than MS Windows. So if the China decides to use Windows for bad things, what is Gates supposed to do about it?
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
--
I mean come on. Yes yes, evil monopoly out to make money and their products are being used by people to violate human rights. Well, given China's iffy record on copyright enforcement, are is anyone even sure MS got paid for those products?
MS may have a lot of problems, but I don't know how they are supposed to know a priori that certain software they sell is going to be used for human rights violations. And frankly, I think the software would be pirated even if they refused to sell it.
Sorry, but this is just picking on MS, what about Yahoo, Cisco et al? The US as a whole does a LOT of trade with China, does this also mean the US is violating human rights? Yes, certain companies are carrying out business with a bad regime, but that business is also helping to *change* the regime as it becomes more and more reliant on external business, so in the end isnt it good?
Also this headline violates the "too many pointless capitals in a sentance" rule, me thinks.
The Chinese could have easily done the same thing with UNIX-based or Linux-based systems.
Indeed, that's why I have concerns with Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon CPU chip; the Chinese government might have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that could make tracking of Internet surfers even easier than many people think. (wagging fingers)
IANAL, but the first thing that caught my eye was this line:
"...United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure..."
The UNHR code says businesses SHOULD seek to ensure their products will not abuse human rights. It doesn't say is they HAVE TO.
I also have to agree with Microsoft when they say that they shouldn't be held liable for the way people use their software. It is like suing a golf club manufacturer because china uses their specifi c model to beat dissidents.
---------------
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.
Yes companies have to abide by international law too, but no laws were broken here. Amnesty International is just doing this as a publicity stunt.
Nobody can demiss the right to anybody to use free software, but Microsoft can control it sales. I guess it's two very different thinks to let a country develop a repressive politic or to sell them software that help them to do it - and make profit with it.
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.
Is open source software exempt from this sort of criticism?
As a coder, one of the things that makes me feel a little squeamish about the GPL is giving up the right to tell people they can't use my software for certain purposes. I'd rather my code not be used by the military to blow people up or by the KKK to serve racist webpages.
I mean, did the conversation go like this or something?
China: Hello? We need OS package for five hundred government computer!
Microsoft: Alright, would you like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional?
China: Whichever one better for trapping dissidents!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
was shpping mainframes to Germany to track Jews during WWII, and Ford was a raving anti-semite.
Neither seems to have had any impression on the company over the long haul, unforutnately.
I wonder how specific the "Microsoft Human Rights Abuser 2003" software and the Cisco stuff mentioned really is. It doesn't really take esoteric tools to keyword search sites, monitor net usage, and filter them out with proxies and firewalls.
After all, companies have been doing this for years on their internal networks, is this just a scaled up version?
From the article:
Does this imply that a free OS, for example, must try to make sure their software can't be used to keep lists of people targeted for oppression?
From An earlier version of The Open Source Definition
Evil tyrannical governments kill people.
From Amnesty directly;
http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGASA170052004
"In its report, the organization also refers to several companies, including Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems, which have reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China. Amnesty International fears that by selling such technology the companies did not give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments."
Things to note:
1. There are many other companies mentioned here too.
2. If they did not buy the technology from these companies they would have gotten it from OpenSource for free.
3. Its not about profits. Its about using technology for "evil", which OpenSource stuff can do.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
...And in fact, it could be worse in terms of tracking Internet usage!
Does anyone here know about Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon RISC CPU? Given that both are sanctioned by the Chinese government, you have to really openly wonder does the Chinese government have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that will allow them to quickly track Internet usage with Red Flag Linux and the Dragon CPU-based hardware.
What should the USA do? Ban the sale of any product which could be used to violate human rights? Or change the software so it opperates differently? I think this is a problem for the Chinese people, not USA companys.
If we were selling guns, then the solution would be to stop selling them. But software is not the same. The end user has to decide how to use the software. There are choices.
I also think soverign countries have a right to decide their own values. For change to occur, those who want change must vocalize it in the open, not wisper it in the dark. Then the rest of the country has a right to decide if they want change. Who are we to decide that for them, and treat them like a child? If the people of China want change bad enough, they will fight for it.
Or maybe we can just get Miscrosoft to tweak the EULA. ;)
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
This article was misleading.
The title made me skip a heartbeat and prepared me to grab a gun and start screaming, but all it actualy said was that Micro$oft $oftware was used to abuse rights in China.
Duh, someone wanted an article about nothing and he got it!
If Microsoft abuses human rights because its product abuse human rights, then what does H&K and other weapon producers do? What about Nike which pays 14 cents an hour for shoe manufacturing in Malaysia, without giving a shyte about enviromental damage.
Dont misunderstand me, im generally as anti-Micro$oft as it gets, but this is absurd.
I think the problem with all these large companies is their choice to hide behind the almighty buck. Capitalism reigns supreme. `Hey, what is it any of my business if you use my product to harm or kill people? Just as long as you pay up.'
I'm not implying that companies are responsible for finding out every last detail of how their product will be used when they sell it to a customer. However, I do think that turning a blind-eye to how their product will be used when it's fairly obvious that it will be employed in unethical ends is wrong.
Wow, if this isn't one of the largest trolls I've seen. Most slashdotters, at least most vocal slashdotters, really despise Microsoft and think their software is low-quality, expensive, insecure, and, some argue, just plain evil. Just look at the Gates-as-Borg icon... :-)
If the Chinese violate human rights using MS software, well, it's not MS's fault. The Chinese are said to be heavy proponents of Linux and are developing their own distro. What happens in China is not Linus' fault either! Slashdot folk wisdom is right on this one: blame the person, not the tool. I can barely imagine the next article... "China uses gloves to slap dissidents; glove manufacturers blamed"
I know human rights abuse is a very serious issue and people die over such things. I think it's irresponsible to trivialize it by blaming a software manufacturer, even if it's MS.
OK, rant done. Go ahead, mod me down
No
and once a tool is created the user assumes the responsibility for how it is used. Any tool can be turned into a weapon if the user is so inclined. A hammer to can be used to build a house or bash someones head in. Explosives can be used to create a sculpture (Mt. Rushmore) or used to destroy a building. A packet sniffer can be used to solve a network problem or steal user IDs and passwords.
It's unfortunate that the Chinese government chooses to use Microsoft's product to track down and punish people who don't think like they do. But, never thought I'd say this, it is NOT Microsoft's fault that the Chinese government has chosen to use their products in this fashion. Just remember that they could have chosen to use OSS instead.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
The Earth's hydrogen cycle has been blamed for violating United Nations Human Rights codes by supplying fresh drinking water that help keep Chinese goverment officals alive while they seek dissidents.
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
"guns don't kill, people do"
:)
It's fine regular folks get their AND?OR logic confused. Computer people never should. It ain't an OR. Guns AND people kill people.
Have a Nice Day!!!
HenryJamesFeltus.com
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
All about me
Note that CALEA is about making the technology capable of snooping rather than authorizing that snooping to be done. In the US, it takes further bad legislation like the Patriot act to authorize the snooping. CALEA just makes it (too) easy.
So pretty much Gates an MicroSoft are evil because they made Windows and people use it to go on the internet sometimes, and some of those people commit crimes on the internet.
Yes!
haven't you watched how the anti-gun nuts use that same stance to sue gun manufacturers and make it extremely difficult for legitimate gun buyers to buy guns?
how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this? If we are instantly guilty for the actions of a few idiots and morons then Microsoft is instantly guilty.
You cant have it both ways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone should email Bill Gates a link to this discussion...the Slashdot croud is on _his_ side on an issue.
Guess I'd better sharpen my skates, hell is freezing over.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China
So they've started doing it over there now, have they?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Any company which supplies equipment or software to China in order to promote Internet use will have its software/equipment used to jail dissidents. That comes as a direct result of the fact that with the Internet, more dissent is possible. In a way, the only reason China is able to use the Internet (and software from US vendors) to jail dissidents is that the Internet and that software provide a means more powerful than any previously in existence to spread dissent.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
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
Umm.... Before we start castigating M$ for human rights violations, perhaps we Linux aficianados should look a little closer to home... Does anyone *really* think that the Communist Chinese government isn't at least going to *try* putting hooks into their own Linux distro to keep track of their citizens political habits?
Perhaps this is an opportunity for Open Source-as a community, we should press for independent review of government distros of free software to do a free speech/privacy check on it.
how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this? If we are instantly guilty for the actions of a few idiots and morons then Microsoft is instantly guilty.
The actions of "gun-nuts" usually involve trying to decrease the possibility of dangerous weapons making it into the hands of those idiots and morons you mention. For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities. Does that say something about your self-image?
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Well for example, let's just say my right not to be "subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" stood in the way of one of the UN's stated purposes, namely "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" or "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples", then I would be fair game.
Given n rights, and m vauge "purposes and principles", there exist n*m exemptions for any organization claiming to act on behalf of the UN to do things to me I'd rather not have done.
If they are so high-minded, why did they feel a need for such a disclaimer at all? Notice that it doesn't exempt any organization other than the UN itself from such observing human rights. What scenario were they envisioning where it would really be necessary to violate basic rights like that? For example, the US Bill of Rights does not contain any such exemptions.
Slashdotters are associated with being anti-Microsoft, but when some bs like this comes up, for the most part, we recognize it as bs.
And this is the only way our criticisms of Microsoft's stagnant software ever gets taken seriously... I think they do listen to us sortof...
Its easier turn a blind eye to personal accountability when there's a highly visible (evil) corporation to blame.
(No, I don't intend this as flame-bait, and I don't know Bill Gates personally.)
Guns/knives/WinNt/burgers don't kill people, people kill people.
I've seen so many posts where people are like "uhh, how is this trapping them?"
microsoft is tailoring their software to spy and track the location of any of its users so if they do anything "bad" (like saying "freedom is great, go democracy!") they'd be jailed tortured, then killed, and microsoft's doing this knowing the reprocussions it will have on its users.
at least if they make a linux system, it can be hacked to be invisible to the chinese govt.
I don't really think that's a fair analogy given that there are legitimate uses for Microsoft products. I can't really say the same for guns, on the other hand, other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits. I doubt that you fall into that category, given that you are posting on slashdot.
Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things, and are lethal in the wrong hands. It's hard to say the same about operating systems.
As for gun nuts, I would say the people that own them are nuts, rather than the people that campaign to make them illegal. Here in the UK it's not generally acceptable to own a gun. I know the culture is different in the US, but the chances are that if you feel the need to own a gun and you're not a farmer, you're a pretty insecure person.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
Great statement!
But once again we seem to have too many people in this discussion simply turning it into a "Windows vs Linux" argument again. SO let me interject with a few additional points:
1) Microsoft treats "Open Source" as two very dirty words. However, as a Windows user, you have access to almost as much Open Source software as do Linux & BSD users - if you don't believe me, have a trawl around Sourceforge and look for yourselves.
2) As a Windows user, you do not have anywhere near the control over your operating system that a Linux user does. But that's absolutely fine, some people like ease of installation and use, others like optimisation and control, I'm not going to debate the differences here.
However, up until recently, as a Windows user, you enjoyed a relative free reign over your data and/or documents - e.g. you can copy documents between machines and OSes, burn MP3s from CD onto endless numbers of devices, etc.
Unfortunately, with DRM, that will all change. It won't affect Linux users (unless the take up of DRM'ed data formats is huge and starts restricting what types of data Linux can read and write) but it will mean that as a Windows user, you will lose control of your data because Microsoft see a huge amount of possible revenue by enforcing DRM licenses. To you, this will mean that you might not be able to transport your documents and data across devices or machines.
3) Your data is your responsibility, not Microsoft's. Therefore, if someone hacks your PC and gets hold of your data then, sure, Microsoft have a responsibility to fix the vulnerability that allowed intruder access but the data is your responsibility to protect.
As Homology said above, you can protect that data using open encryption methods with keys you control thus meaning that you maintain your ultimate control over your data.
4) Microsoft have virtually admitted that their OSes and applications are now so complex that they are impossible to fix completely. However, they have a need to show their user base that they are serious about security and it will be far less expensive for them to use hardware-based DRM to control applications and OSes, rather than put the man-power in to fix software bugs. Plus, as an added bonus, they get the ability to control your data and charge you money for the right to access it.
Please remember that Microsoft are a business like any other business and will implement anything that swells their profits as long as it doesn't affect the user base too much. While Windows Media Player may seem like an attractive piece of free software to use (and I'm not going to debate here what the "best" media player might or might not be), the ultimate reason for WMP is to make an attempt at getting DRM "in through the back door" and see what the response of the user base is.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"International Law" is a fiction.
Laws get passed by legislatures & monarchs. We don't have an international legislature or an international monarch, now do we? So, we can't really have international laws.
Maybe someday we'll have a world government but not now.
What we have in the real world are Treaties. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries. In reality the treaties are almost NEVER symmetrical. As an example, the US/UK pass a tax treaty. Well at the negotiating table, the treaty said W, X & Y. Put when parliament passed it they didn't like W. So, the UK law passed by parliament says V, X & Y. Same type of silliness in the US Congress. They don't like what the negotiators did and pass the US law with W, X, & Z. So, now we have "treaty" but they don't match.
The most important thing to notice here, is that no international law was passed, only 2 national laws. One for the UK. One for the US. I can't go into a US court and sue over the fact that the UK law lets me have rights to V, X & Y, because this is the US and our law says you have rights to W, X, & Z. Vice versa for the UK. I can't go into NZ and sue on either the treaty, the US law, or the UK law. Why? Because the treaty was never a law, it was merely and agreement "in principle" made by bureaucrats. The US law is a US law and therefore unenforceable in NZ. Same with the UK law.
So, you see, the "international law" really isn't very international at all. It is merely a group of inconsistent laws cobbled together from a bunch of countries.
It gets worse, since this "international law" is merely a group of national laws that have no effect outside the jurisdictions of those nation states, any country that doesn't pass a similar law isn't bound by that "international law." And nothing stops a nation from changing its laws. So, if the UK doesn't find the tax treaty to its advantage, it can easily pass a new law revoking the old V, X & Y law. Laws based on treaties aren't any more important than laws NOT based on treaties. If the US doesn't like that the UK revoked the law it really only has two options: change the US law, or suck eggs.
There is no International body that forces a nation to have a particular law. We have a few administrative courts that can "suggest" the types on retaliatory laws passed by the offended country, but no real involuntary enforcement mechanism on an international scale. This is really why armed conflict (one nation imposing its will on another) is still a part of international relations.
So, if the US (or any other country) is "violating an international law," the quickest and LEGAL solution to the "problem" is to just repeal the US law enacting the treaty.
"International Law" is a nice short hand phrase, but so is "treaty." And treaty is closer to what actually happens in the real world. At least a document called a "treaty" was put tighter at some point. No one with any power ever actually wrote something entitled "international law." When someone talks to me of "international laws," I know they either (a) don't know what they are talking about, or (b) have an agenda and are selecting the phrase as part of a rhetorical device and not based on facts.
There are many, many things MS does that deserve our scrutiny, scorn and seeking of alternatives. Even I as someone that generally speaking doesn't have a huge problem with MS certainly has issues with them.
But this is just nuts. Let me think this through...
Now we WANT MS to track people, to investigate them and to make sure they aren't doing anything wrong with their products? And who should determine what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing? MS?
And if they add DRM to all their products, is it OK that you can't activate a product unless you certify that you won't kill anyone, spy on them or otherwise abuse their civil liberties?
Man, talk about a no-win scenario for a big corporation. We hate'em if they intrude on us too much, we hate them if they don't intrude ENOUGH apparantly.
Sorry, MS didn't do a damned thing wrong here, and saying otherwise in this one instance is just plain nuts.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
If Colt made a disposable, all plastic smoothbore, with anti-powder burn on your finger features. Then marketed it as "The Colt Assassin" would they be in some way responsible? Technology of any kind is not entirely nuetral. If you're selling sheet metal, and someone makes it into a burglar tool. That is one thing. If you're selling burglar tools in a plastic baggie with instructions on how to break into the most popular models of cars you might be a bit more responsible. Now I'm not even equating what Microsoft is doing to marketing the "Colt Assasin" described above. I'm just pointing out that when you sell something you're aware what it's potential uses are, and not completely without responsibility for those uses.
Still, why doesn't China just take Open Source products or Copyleft or GPL source and just do whatever the hell they want with it? They could put in whatever secret patches they want and distribute binaries free of charge as a great Communist benefit to its masses (China still claims to be Communist I believe, even it falls short in many of the details). It's hard to see how we could retaliate trade-wise, since this would not be directly stealing products from corporations. Granted we are unhappy about various other copyright infringements, but only where salable products are involved. Companies like Microsoft have made such a big deal about accusing Open Source of being communistic in nature, I'm not sure we could bring action to bear if China choose to abuse Open Source. Microsoft and others probably consider this a future possibility if they don't cooperate with China to some degree on customization. Then again one has to wonder what things our government has Microsoft put in for both foreign and domestic consumption.
To my shame I use Microsoft products at home and work, but ever year I spend more an more work keeping my platforms stable, and I really don't trust what's going on under the hood. I don't think Open Source will solve human rights violations in China (they'll do whatever they want with their software), but more and more I see it as the only long-term viable Operating System option for the world.
Letter To Iran
Linux is used extensively in China. Therefore the OSS community is most likely as guilty as Microsoft. They haven't made any effort to restrict software use by the Chinese govt. I'm all for boycotting China until they reform their system, but singling out Microsoft, who writes a generic operating system as well as tools to write software, is just empty rhetoric. You might as well add Intel, AMD, a dozen motherboard makers, Cisco, etc. to the list.
Vote for Pedro
I mean... im almost allways in favor of what they do. But they should really seek technicall advice before going on to say such stupid things.
Its either that they are just mentally retarded or that MS marketing is preparing to pitch congress with the idea that, they can ensure their goods are well used if they are protected as a monopoly, whereas we (FLOSS) cannot.
By god, i just saw the flick "Kill Smotchie". If you saw it, youll remember they paint charities in a somehow different light (strong charities are mafia-like).... i see an analogy between that and amnesty and other Non Government Organizations (think greenpeace, which sells protesters to anyone with enough dough).
Lets be carefull with this and strongly oppose any attempt to scorning any software because of the way its used.
I mean, the analogy is simple. Knife companies in the US are also in violation of the UN HRC since their knifes are used in torture in China. Same goes to baseball-bat makers, golf club makers (yes, i see a couple of ways to cause pain with those), and maybe even the record house of Britney Spears (imagine 1400 watt gear in a 2x2 room with 364 days of the blonde bitch singing at you, put in some 60 in. HDTV sets with her videos...you get the idea.)
NO SIG
Well, yes. Any legislation aiming to restrict the sale or possession of firearms to those who should* be allowed to have them will necessarily inconvenience those poeple somewhat.
In attempting to secure any sort of system, there is always always a tradeoff between effectiveness and ease of use. Many of us on Slashdot accept the inconvenience of keying in an eight-character password (upper- and lower-case letters and numbers, no words please!) one or more times per day to control access ot our computers.
I spent some time in the United States as a student a few years ago. I had to make three trips to the local Social Security Administration office (and fill out copious amounts of paperwork) to acquire a Social Security Number so that I could report my scholarships correctly to Uncle Sam. Again, an apparently necessarily inconvenience to ensure that taxes are paid and that visiting students are legally in the country.
"Gun control" legislation has similar aims. The laws exist to restrict the sale of weapons to appropriate individuals (not insane, underage, or a known criminal; other restrictions may exist by state). Legitimate buyers are inconvenienced, but it is nominally the price of making the system more secure.
Whether this goal is achieved is another question, and whether the system is particularly efficient yet another. To abandon all attempt at gun control isn't the solution--it would be akin to the Social Security Administration giving up on checking ID when issuing SSN cards (because identification can be forged) or to Microsoft responding to exploits by announcing that they were removing all password-checking from their operating systems.
*I will leave the discussion regarding who should have access to firearms for another post.
~Idarubicin
US Constitution, Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The sentence is a little hard to understand, as it is not even grammatically correct - it's a runon sentence, which makes sense only if joined like:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
But I'm not rewriting the Constitution, just trying to understand how Americans are to live under that protection from government control. As long as you're struggling to understand that sentence, you should accept that "regulated" means "supplied with material", its primary meaning when that article was written. And a "Militia" means an informal, self-organized local military unit, not a standing government army. Anyone without a selfserving agenda to be armed to the teeth along with anyone else who wants guns would read that sentence without confusion. It means that the US military is to be structured as local militias, who arm themselves, as protection of the state's liberty.
Well, we have, since the Revolution, instead created a half-trillion dollar a year standing (and fighting) military. We should either drop that military in favor of an 18th Century militia self-armed structure, in keeping with the Constitution, or drop that incoherent amendment. Either way, we should drop the pretense that anyone is entitled to any arms they want in this country.
--
make install -not war
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals. I don't know what the statistics are in the USA, but in Australia a lot of the murders committed with guns were by people who didn't previously have criminal records - basically, people who flipped out for one reason or another. The common thread in these was that self-loading rifles made it too easy for such people to kill a lot of people at once. We restricted their ownership to the few people who actually need them for professional reasons. Voila, no more spree killings since.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This is off-topic, I know, but tell me what the following all have in common:
Here's a hint: In all of the above, the US government met a lot of well-armed locals and beat them completely.
As a thought experiment, ask yourself: Under what circumstances could the US population be persuaded to rise up against its government? Arresting large groups of people and holding them without trial? Nope, it happened to people of Japanese descent held during WW2, and is still happening today in Gitmo Bay, Cuba. How about widespread illegal search and seizure? Nope, the "war on drugs" is still alive and well. How about restricting freedom of speech? Nope, we're fine with putting you in a "free speech zone". How about removing the right to vote? Prepare for a repeat of Florida circa November 2000 later this year. After all, it was the pro-gun guy who won, right? Not even the Patriot act, the most over-reaching insult to the Bill of Rights to date, has caused even a hint of a threat from gun owners that I've seen.
The only thing which would motivate gun owners to act is the one thing that they have in common: they would act if the US government tried to take their guns away.
Ye have heard it said in the past: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Verily I say unto you: Guns don't protect civil rights; people protect civil rights. This is something that gun owners as a whole appear to have no particular desire to do.
This reinforces something that I've believed for a long time: Gun owners don't, as a whole, care about civil rights. At best, they care about one civil right. So long as the US government doesn't tread too far on that particular "right", they can get away with pretty much anything else. Take my free speech, take my free assembly, take my vote (it's not like I was using it anyway)... but you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I've seen a lot of biased headlines since I started visiting Slashdot in the 90s. But seeing "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" because bad people might be using their software takes the cake.
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.