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..
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.
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.
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.
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?
Evil tyrannical governments kill people.
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
[IBM] was shpping mainframes to Germany to track Jews during WWII
And they managed to do this even before the most primitive vacuum-tube computers were built! The wonders of temporal distortions. I hear Hewlett-Packard supplied the mainframes to track runaway slaves in the 1850s.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
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
They are against punishment without fair trials, against punishments for expressing a viewpoint, and against torture and the death penalty.
They are not against war per-se, and were even accused in '90-91 of promoting the Gulf War by some left-wing extremists after they published reports demanding to know why it takes an invasion of a neighbouring country to get other governments riled about Iraq's human rights violations, and a rather emotive story about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators that turned out to be a hoax (Amnesty was a victim of that hoax, I don't mean they perpetrated it.)
They are not against trade with China, though they frequently demand an end to companies selling instruments of torture and repression.
I'm not aware of anything concerning them being for or against embargoes and sanctions with Cuba. They may have highlighted human rights issues in the way the embargoes have been prosecuted by the US government (people in the US fined for freedom of movement/speech issues), but I don't recall seeing them against the embargoes themselves.
Amnesty's modus-operadi since creation has been the logic that most people who are subject to human rights abuses have those abuses occur to them because the officials that perpetrate them think that nobody will find out, and that many governments are comprised of both good people, who can help, and people who are concerned about the reputations of their countries. Amnesty publicises, usually just to the members but also general issues more widely, specific cases, and members write letters and make it clear to the governments concerned that people across the world are fully aware of the abuses that are going on. It doesn't work every time, but it does work often.
Ironically, your "Amnesty just likes to whine and doesn't have any solutions" summary couldn't be more wrong for this specific article. Amnesty are proposing that companies be aware of the uses of their technologies and exercise more discretion when building and selling it.
How is that not a solution?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
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.
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
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.