Slashdot Mirror
Western Software Used to Support Censorship
just_another_sean writes "The NYT has an interesting summary of a study done by the OpenNet Initiative about Western software companies developing and profiting from censorship and Internet filtering tools used by repressive regimes. This particular study focuses on censorship in Myanmar, a country that is currently under American sanctions. Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?"
What we should do is restrict these evil companies from selling such software, or 'censor' the software companies if you like... That would solve the problem and the world would be a more free and happy place.
...transcoded to computer technology.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
...and allow me to fan it with an analogy:
Are these gun manufacturers simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problem of criminals?
Flame on!
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Myanmar, which has long been under American sanctions
If Myanmar has long been under sanctions, wtf is an American tech company doing there? I mean, aren't American companies, especially technology companies prohibited working with such repressive governments? Or is this simply a case of a company going stealth from the American government simply to make a buck?
The argument of "just selling software... not concerned with how its used..." has precedence in the file sharing cases. In those, it was not valid for the utilities like Napstar, Morpheus, etc. to simply sell / give away software that is being used for illegal activities. Interesting argument though. See the following situations: Makers of Morpheus Makers of old software application "cracking" software - like Isepic Makers of CD / DVD copying software Sellers of handguns etc. etc.
Look if gooooogle can censor news in china why should we start to worry about these smaller companies building software too censor and not even putting them into use. Sorry but go after the big companies then all the little ones will follow suit.
They fitted George Orwell's coffin with rollers so he could turn over more easily years ago.
Just another example of why we need stricter trade controls. If a US company is selling technology specifically designed to censor the public or if they provide technical support to achieve such an end, they should be fined, and if the offense continues, dissolved. Of course there needs to be clearly defined limits on what constitutes such things, but it needs to be done.
Not read TFA, but dear lord we've been though this so many times - the technology is an enabler. People can do good things with it, or bad things. voila, that's it.
... the profit motive rules all. What, you think our companies should worry about the lot of the ordinary citizen, the workers, the guy in the street? That's not American, that's not the Western way, that's communism! You're not a Communist, are you? Why do you hate America so much?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Should AutoCAD be concerned when it's software is used to design weapons? Should I be concerned about paying taxes when that money is used to kill people because they live on the other side of an imaginary line? Should Slashdot editors be concerned when their forums are used to copyright infringe entire articles?
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
...with an analogy that's got a flamewar of its own.
How about chemical explosives? Used all the time in legal, safe construction and demolition, yet it's often used by terrorists to destroy occupied buildings.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Yawn a tool is being used for a purpose someone disagrees with.
Is the tool bad, or just that it is being used for that purpose.
Considering 2 examples of filtering/censoring software and p2p file distribution software.
They both have legitimate uses, however they may be used in other manners.
What I don't understand is how a Western software salesman can be so blinded by profit that they can do this. What do they say to their family when they ask "What did you do today?". "Not much, I just sold a complete filtering solution to the Chinese government in order to help them supress dissent and hunt down pro-democracy campaigners".
We're not talking about a few off-the-shelf copies of Windows here - these are large scale installations.
The "two tier model" of which the article speaks is a pathetically small fig-leaf. There is nothing remotely difficult about imposing restrictions on resellers not to sell to repressive regimes or for any use to curtail freedom of speech.
...I still call them collaborators.
When it's your own country that's repressed by dictators, those who help them do it are called "collaborators" by the rest of the populace. When it's somebody else's country, well...
Don't blame the tool for the way it's used, or the company that made the tool. Blame the jerkoff who is misusing the tool.
"There's a cat-and-mouse game going on between states that seek to control the information environment and citizens who seek to speak freely online," said John Palfrey, the director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society and a researcher with the OpenNet Initiative. "Filtering technologies, and the way that they are implemented, are becoming more sophisticated."
/ bm.html#Govt
Not surprisingly, repressive governments have been eager buyers of those technologies.
From the CIA 'Factbook' on Myanmar (Burma):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
Economy - overview:
Burma is a resource-rich country that suffers from government controls, inefficient economic policies, and abject rural poverty. The junta took steps in the early 1990s to liberalize the economy after decades of failure under the "Burmese Way to Socialism", but those efforts have since stalled and some of the liberalization measures have been rescinded. Burma has been unable to achieve monetary or fiscal stability, resulting in an economy that suffers from serious macroeconomic imbalances - including inflation and multiple official exchange rates that overvalue the Burmese kyat. In addition, most overseas development assistance ceased after the junta began to suppress the democracy movement in 1988 and subsequently ignored the results of the 1990 legislative elections. Economic sanctions against Burma by the United States - including a ban on imports of Burmese products and a ban on provision of financial services by US persons in response to the government of Burma's attack in May 2003 on AUNG SAN SUU KYI and her convoy - further slowed the inflow of foreign exchange. Official statistics are inaccurate. Published statistics on foreign trade are greatly understated because of the size of the black market and unofficial border trade - often estimated to be one to two times the size of the official economy. Though the Burmese government has good economic relations with its neighbors, a better investment climate and an improved political situation are needed to promote foreign investment, exports, and tourism. In February 2003, a major banking crisis hit the country's 20 private banks, shutting them down and disrupting the economy. As of January 2004, the largest private banks remained moribund, leaving the private sector with little formal access to credit.
I wonder what the executives at companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco feel about using their technology to aid oppressive regimes? The whole idea of information sharing and transferral is thrown out the window when you can no longer criticize your goverment or those in power. You then have a dumbed-down version of the software, with no reason to trust or believe anything you read through them since they are easily monitored, and easily censored.
Do the executives at these companies have any morals? How far must it go before they will object to censorship? Is their complacency indicative of their need for more sales or that they just don't care?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Surely if the west stop selling them these proprietry brands of censorship tools they'll just go back to their open source censorship tools. Horrah for open source!
The solution is quite easy: just make laws that forbid companies from supplying such assistance to those regimes. The goal of a company is to make money, preferably within existing laws. It's pretty sure they're not breaking the laws of of e.g. China and Myanmar, so people can only be surprised that companies in the business of making money are trying to make money.
If people are so concerned about democracy, freedom of speech and other bla bla, then why import so many goods from China (repressive communist regime) or import oil from Saudi Arabia (fundamentalist Islamic)? At the end of the day, it's all about the money and practically no one is even marginally innocent in this.
see a Text Widget
If you don't sell them the software they will just get it off of bittorrent. Seriously, custom software for governments under sanction is no fair, but beyond that what are the limits, legally and morally.
Do bad people deserve good software?
Of course they are simply selling a product. In much the same way that gun manufacturers aren't supporting armed crime, and producers of poorly secured software aren't supporting on-line fraud. Heck, they could be selling gloves but that doesn't mean they support "happy slapping"!
Are they selling their product as a censorship product, or as something with multiple uses? Are there "good" uses for products like theirs?
I am trolling
What about Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc? All of which are falling all over themselves to serve the Chinese market?
Falling over themselves so fast and hard, they're perfectly happy to turn over the names of political dissidents and censor web results so the Great Firewall of China doesn't stick out like a sore thumb? Seems pretty "evil" to me.
Always amazes me that Slashdotters get all up in arms about filtering at their school or work, scream blue bloody murder about censorship...but when Google filters for a whole country, nobody gives a damn.
Please help metamoderate.
It is a company's obligation to its shareholders, employees, customers and the human race to act in a manner that is at least on the right side of the morality line. Selling software to regimes that are oppressive to further their oppression of human rights is not moral.
Some have suggested that P2P software hides behind an argument in that they are not concerned with its use, however the supreme court has stated that you can not knowing selling something to someone that you know will be used in an illegal manner; be it guns, software, whatever. The gun argument is a little more tricky because a gun is a gun, but some people advocate that everyone has the right to protect themselves and have a gun for 'hunting' and such but they are often not used for that purpose, however I don't know if you can restrict the sales of all guns and make it overly difficult to obtain one without potentially negating a citizen's ability to protect themselves, especially in the type of countries we are talking about.
My 2 cents.
From country that exports death in a thousand forms - you are worried about a company selling software used for filtering internet traffic.
Is this the same ideology that blanks out Janet's tits, but allows 100 people to be shot in a half hour TV show ?
Get your priorities right.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
I see a familiar double standard. The rules only apply to people, not big companies.
This story certainly reminds me of what V.I. Lenin said -- "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."
(Quote attributed to Lenin, but there's no real documented evidence to support his saying it. Stalin, on the other hand, definitely paraphrased it on at least one occasion.)
Ian Ameline
...who cares where they come down? That's not my department. -- Wernher von Braun
If we make money off it, who cares some will suffer? -- Corporate world
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
So what if they use squid and iptables and various other "free" softwares to censor their public? Is that ok?
There are good and bad applications for a gun: you can rob people, you can defend people from robbery. What about censorship software? Can anybody come up with a hypothetical situation where it benefits the oh-so-slippery "common good?"
For all y'all who want to make a gun comparison, here's mine: it would be like David Duke going to Smith and Wesson and saying "I need to put down some darkies and your garden-variety black market assault rifle just won't cut it. Can you make me something more powerful?"
The seller in this case--as in the software case--knows the tool is going to be used badly.
The gun manufacturer has a veil of plausable deniability: they "don't know" where their weapons are going or how they're going to be used. Once you start selling directly to the oppressors, or start selling something with only oppressive applications, you're collaborating.
I am appalled that US software is being used to suppress individual rights overseas, when there's obviously so much more that needs to be done to suppress individual rights here at home.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
There is no such thing as a rich patriot or a rich Christian. If your preacher wears Satan's leash (a.k.a. a "necktie") why are you putting your soul in jepardy by listening to his evil ravings?
The only thing worse than a preacher in a tie is a preacher in a $4000 suit (e.g. Pat Robertson, Lucifer's lap dog)
And have any writers of "free software" stopped to think what terrible things their software can and is being used for? Should we stop free software makers from distributing their software to anybody who wants it? Or, if a free software program is used to commit, say, war crimes, should its creators be arrested and tried?
Why aren't they outsourcing this to China?
If these companies are just selling a product and needn't concern themselves with how it will be used once it leaves their hands, we should be consistent and apply the same thought process to our handling of your local pharmacy's policies on selling opiates or your local gun dealer's policies on selling guns.
Perhaps if the citizens of these countries pushed themselves away from their keyboards and took a more proactive, physical interest in the freedoms most westerners think they should have they might be able to choose any software they like.
More bluntly, if they were willing to fight for the freedoms they might someday have Best Buy and CompUSA right at their fingertips.
But articles written by (well meaning) people wearing pointy hats and living in ivory towers ain't going to do it.
Another question: should we force our consumer-based culture on them or allow them to remain in the (oppressive) culture to which they are accustomed.
Does the Prime Directivce apply?
Cogito Ergo Sum
Seriously though, the questioning of the morality of technology should be reserved for those using it for evil--not for the creators or vendors who supply it. I did not hate Chris & Mitch when they made the laser hotter and stronger and used it to make popcorn; I hated the bad professor who wanted to use it for assasination.
Personally, I'd rather see "studies" done on supposed software companies cough*peoplsoft*cough*blackboard*cough* ripping people off with poorly coded, unsecure "solutions" than companies providing technology that works to people who paid money for it...
Greatness. It comes in many forms, sometimes it comes in the form of sacrifice - that's the loneliest form.
Under circumstances where money and profit are the moral, religious and primary motivation for business, it's unsurprising that they fail to account for contributing to human suffering or oppression. Look at Nike!
But we certainly don't need more laws or restrictions on its own. What we need are more people who care about the problems and are willing to display the shameful for who and what they are. I think one of the biggest problems in today's society comes from anonymity. After all, if no one knows who you are, then no one will know what you have been doing or whether you are responsible for this that or the other. No face, no shame and somehow no guilt.
The Nike example shows that they are not proud of their approach to manufacturing and will even display signs of shame (even if through denial) for the murky areas in which they are engaged. I don't think that these other companies would be any different... the problem is how to get that stuff exposed in a way that gets enough attention. The media is now owned by the same club membership that is responsible for a lot of the activity we find so repugnant so the dilemma is clear and obvious.
When it comes to greed versus good - the history of corporations in the USA (and other places too) has been anything but stellar. One good read is "Trading With The Enemy" - which shows Dupont supplied the gas to murder millions in the concetration camps, which shows Ford supplied ballbearings for Nazis tanks - which shows the Luftwaffer bombing London with Luftwaffer getting their aviation fuel from Standard Oil (Esso?) - which shows IBM set up the computerized system for the Nazis to track who was put into which concentration camp and/or was murdered or sent off to experimental medical operations - all the while ATT listened to all telephone communications of the Nazis but didn't supply the Allies with any intelligence. All for a blood dollar. Last but not least the head of Dupont was called into the Oval Office by Roosevelt - why? - the head of Dupont through the World Bank (that he headed up) to stop selling the gold that the Nazis took out of the mouths of the millions gased in gas chambers. The laundered money was then sent to the Nazis to buy more bombs - to bomb London! Of course "we" find out about all the horrors years after the fact. I hate to be reading what corporate horror stories are going on now in various parts of the world - 10 years from now.
How the Great Firewall Worksr eat-firewall.mp3
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/gr eat-firewall.m3u
Bill Xia
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/g
Cult of the Dead Cow Hactivism Paneld c-hacktivism-1.mp3
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-1.m3u
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.mp3
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.m3u
Eric Grimm, Sharon Hom, Dr. James Mulvenon, Oxblood Ruffin, Nart Villeneuve
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/c
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
The correct name for this country is Burmah. The other name "Myanmar" was imposed by an illigitimate government, and therefore is not the legitimate name for this state. Someday in the near future, a democratic and free government will probably change Burmah's name to Mayanmar, but until then, its Burmah
This is no different than when US automakers and other corporate fucks did business with nazi germany. These pricks only understand one thing: money, and are only motivated by one thing: greed. This is not news, but 'business' as usual.
..and the #1 distributor of small arms throughout the world.
Know who the next 4 largest arms manufacturers are? That's right: China, Russia, France and the U.K.
The five permanent members of the UN security council are also the world's five largest arms manufacturers!
There's a market for this software and I'd rather take money from such regimes than let it fund a similar one. You won't change the world by not selling them what they'll eventually be able to buy from someone else. I'm sure there are a lot more worse things that such regimes impose than just restricting internet access. Place a call to Team America: World Police if you're that concerned.
Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
Uh...do Antivirus vendors really want to rid the world of viruses?
Do lawyers really want a crime-free America?
Does the president want the war to end?
The answer, of course, is no. Money makes the world go round, and nobody cares about anything else.
...but this time there's legal precedent:
_ suits_out/
IBM got some bad press in the 90's for selling systems used to organize and maintain the imposed class system in South Africa during Apartheid. Recently, they were found unliable for damages:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/30/apartheid
Disclaimer: Having done a lot of research on Apartheid, I disagree with the ruling. They profited on human suffering, and were not held responsible.
People of conscience wouldn't support American companies building torture devices or weapons for oppressive regimes, but we'll turn a blind eye to the censorship of their people? Why is that?
So as to avoid a flamewar, I'll forbear mentioning my ideas as to the why, but I would like to point out that a not insignificant number of Americans not only turn a blind eye, but actively support the censorship of their own people; why should we expect them to be more charitable towards others?
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
You ask how public censorship can be more acceptable then government censorship. But there can be no public censorship because the public at large does not back its censorship through coercive force short of a mob going door to door threatening individuals with bodily harm if they say certain things or buy certain products. Rather, a public effort to shame a company into modifying its behavior respects the principle of individual autonomy because it invites people to participate rather than forcing people to participate.
Consider a woman getting up on a soapbox to sing protest songs in a public square. If I turn my back on her and walk away solely because of the content of her songs, that isn't censorship. But if the police come along and arrest her solely because of the content of her songs, she has been censored. Even if I go around urging others to ignore this singer, I'm still not committing censorship. She is still free to express her protest just as I am still free to ignore it and free to attempt to stop her message being promulgated by depriving her of an audience by convincing others to choose to ignore her.
Fair reply, and I never meant to imply that it wasn't happening, just hoping to provoke a little bit of debate. You're right about lots of folks turning a blind eye, or actually supporting such acts, but I'd find it difficult to refer to them as people of conscience.
...that capitalism would sell the rope used by communism to hang it. The reality is, capitalism will sell you the rope used to hang yourself -- a lesson China has yet to realize.
what is this, the 1800s? why keep propagating this east vs. west mentality? just use the companies names or the biggest one + 'et al.' or something. or just say douchebag companies. geez
IG Farben
Ford
US Arms Sales to Iraq
Oil Companies in Nigeria
US/UK Subversion of Democratic Iran for Oil Companies
I don't recall anyone asking for the public's opinion on these business practices.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
American corporate law states that the profit of the shareholders is the primary consideration. Corporations are legally required to do that which maximises profits, even if it offends their personal sensibilities. After a while, only those people with no personal moral codes can put up with this, which is why it is certainly not cream that floats to the top of American industry.
Seriously, if this company had determined that the best way to maximise profits was to produce image discrimination software that made it easier for psychotic dictators to precision-bomb orphanages with anthrax, that's what they would be doing. Because under American law, it would be illegal for them to ignore that avenue of profits.
Until western culture learns to value things other than money and power, this will continue. Of course, by making things like happy family life, unpolluted environments, health, good food and security such rarities, they are already working to increase their value ; who knows, in a couple of decades, maybe they will be rare enough to be valuable....
How is this different that Western guns, warplanes, and bombs being sold to repressive regimes? To paraphrase Captain Renault in Casablanca :
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that Western software is being used in repressive regimes!"
"Your liscencing fees, sir."
"Thank you very much."
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
What I want to know is; why is any country that has an oppressive government that filters internet content to it's people connected to my internet. I want all of those countries cut off from the rest of the free internet completely. Like what we did with Iraq.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
oh whooops, this isn't politics.slashdot.org!
"American corporate law states that the profit of the shareholders is the primary consideration. Corporations are legally required to do that which maximises profits, even if it offends their personal sensibilities."
Completely untrue. A corporation must do what is in its by-laws or charter. That can be anything. A corporation is only a handy tool for organizing a business and getting resources together. The profit motive is a specific decision that must be made by people. It comes back to personal responsibility, period...not "b-b-but the piece of paper made me do it!"
Most corporate charters (or limited liability company or partnership agreements) that I read (and that's mostly what I do) state that they will go into business to manufacture a specific item or they will be vague and say they'll do anything that is not illegal. Again, someone has to *decide* to use the corporate structure to persue a certain path.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Many posts here will state that the right to bear arms is in the constitution and therefore it is not the responsibility of guns manufacturers to look out for the use of their products. Well then the "right to censor" is part of China's legal backbone, as inviolable as "the right to bear arms".
However as I disagree with "the right to bear arms" and censorship I guess what I am saying is that documents like the constitution are just as silly and self serving of special interest groups as is the flawed Chinese system. A true democracy wouldn't need a constitution and everything would be up for bids at each election. You could have an honest debate about gun control without resorting to obscure language in a very dated document. If a party campaigns on the right to bear arms and wins then so be it, everyone can carry a gun but it is also fair that the opposite result will also hold true.
The bikini - security through obscurity since 1943
Everyone gets upset when you hear about another country censoring their population for one reason or another. It happens here all the time though. Next time you hit google up type in "kazza" now go to the bottom and you will see this "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org." Now how is that censorship any different then other countrires censorship. You will probably say something like this: "yea but that is because of a law that congress passed." Ok but you really think that in other countries were censorship is happening there are not laws against what is being censored, bet there are. Have a nice day.
In some important european countries, free speech has been abolished and non politically conform websites are being censored, while their authors are sued.
IBM provided the hardware that the NAZIs used to run the concentration camps.
Those Holocaust Numbers? IBM serial numbers.
The west has ALWAYS made money supporting repressive regimes. It makes sense in a capitalistic sort of way. SOMEONE has to write the software, so the profits might as well go to a FREE country, Right?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Fortinet has a product line that they also claimed they wrote their own OS for. They even said this in product training. Repeatedly. Bits of it sure look a lot like Linux. And funnily enough, it turned out their custom, in-house, own, super, operating system was in fact .... Linux.
They may sell through resellers, but they sure as heck provide the support, pattern updates, etc. And like most vendors, the larger the piece of equipment, the closer the manufacturer is to the customer and the support.
So it's Fortinet; we already know they play fast and loose with the truth, even so far as to directly lie. I wouldn't trust a word of what they say to distance themselves from Myanmar's use of their product.
Maybe she has something to say about a free press and not sucking the government's cock.
Ok, so the ultra-liberal NYT runs an article saying capitalism is bad, and scoured the world to find an example. This is why people don't buy their newspaper anymore.
Sure, that'll keep Halliburton from dealing with the Saddam Hussein regime through offshore subsidiaries.
I bet it'll keep us all from buying cheap goods manufactured in China, too. Get the word out. Once the weight of public shame gets out there, we'll all stop buying the stuff.
Granted, those examples aren't quite to this point: Toys R Us isn't actively selling products for the quasi-enslavement of China's factory laborers, it's contributing to those working conditions at one (slight) remove. In the case of Halliburton, though, the company was working to find loopholes in the oil for food program. Under Cheney. At least borderline illegal, and the shame didn't seem to hold them back...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Alright then, you're an ugly fag and your site sucks.
I didn't know that content filtering was always bad.
I know many people who
Filter email for spam
Block spyware
Block ads
Block pornography from minors
Shaming people into doing the right thing can work wonders. Think of the bus boycott. This would probably fall under the "bully censoring" of which you speak. One of the reasons we don't see klansmen running around announcing themselves as such, is because it has been made (mostly) societally (sp) unacceptable. This was also done by ridiculing and shaming those involved. There is nothing wrong with this, as the other side is able to debate the issue as well.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
Technology, as a whole, is a tool. A neutral tool, no matter what form it takes. It can serve to hurt or heal with equal facility, all depending on how it's used. Each individual manufacturer of "censorship software," as it were, is going to have to make their own decision, based on their owner(s) beliefs.
I would add that censorship of this nature is not going to solved by suppressing sales of the necessary software or other technological tools to 'problem' countries. If a repressive regime is shopping for such, and whatever company they approach refuses to sell to them on moral grounds, they're simply going to go elsewhere, waving around progressively larger amounts of dinero until they get what they want. If a large company doesn't want to do it, I'm sure there are many "software consultants" who would be happy to take their cash.
The only way sales of this sort might be stopped is if EVERYone, individuals and companies alike, who is capable of writing such code bands together under one flag and Just Says No (and how likely is that?)
Even then, what's to stop that same regime from buying the raw materials (computers, compilers, etc.) and 'rolling their own?' It's naive to think that U.S. economic sanctions or export regulations would stop whichever country from doing so. You can buy ANYthing if you talk to the right people and throw around enough $$.
No, the only thing that's going to truly stop a repressive regime from being repressive is those who are repressed rising up as a whole, and forcing change. This is usually referred to as 'Revolution.'
Yes, it's sad. Yes, it's ugly. But it is the truth. You don't have to take my word for it either. Look at U.S. history, just as one example.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
I forsee a huge problem with this a year down the line. I agree that your solution, forbidding companies from supplying assistance to oppressive regimes could pass Congress and become law. But I'm afraid of what would constitute "supplying assistance." What if they use Slackware in their network filtering kit? What if they modified their routing hardware to use Linux? What are the consequences to a group dedicated to providing good software for everyone when a demonstrable subset of "everyone" is evil?
Getting something for free, and then using it for their own purposes cannot be stopped or regulated.
However, if Linus personally went to China and trained a crack team of chinese coders on how to implement the great Firewall, I wouldn't be too hurt if I saw the OSS masses dragging his corpse through the streets.
This is what some US companies are doing NOW. Imagine if some of those companies helped the USSR the same way 20 years ago?
It's a crime, or at least it should be.
So let me see if I understand.
Slashdotters are generally libertarian in their views of government involvement in the body private. They are opposed to "government" placing (what they consider) morally arbitrary controls or limits on just about any personal behavior, be it from downloading mp3s without paying for them, all the way to antisodomy laws and abortion restrictions.
Yet when it crosses YOUR moral line - i.e. when individuals or corporations do something that offends your personal sacred cows - then the overwhelming majority of posts are "geez, why doesn't the government ban this?" or "why doesn't the government pass a law punishing companies that do this?"
Note to all: Freedom is freedom. If you want to prevent the government from legislating YOUR morality (commendable goal, in my view), then you can't ask it to legislate someone ELSE's. If you do, you're just a hypocrite with an agenda.
-Styopa
People often think that companies have no obligation to protect or respect basic human rights. They are wrong. A company is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Why do we think basic moral obligations end when we create companies? Companies have moral obligations just like people do.
I'm not a philosophy guru, but this is covered in most intro business ethics classes.
We should hold companies accountable who help to opress others.
-- bearclaw
If there is a market a billion big, and the only way you can play in it is to filter yourself, companies will filter themselves. Period, end of story.
Companies are stupid and mindless entities. In general, they follow the letter of the law without fail. The problem is that in general they follow the letter of the law and not a step beyond. Sure, some companies do build in their own 'laws' to govern their behavior, but these are often for the sake of convincing people to buy from them. Nokia for instance has laws against sweatshop labor and sends inspectors over to China to inspect the plants there. It isn't that Nokia has much of a conscience; they just think that they will convince more people to buy from them if they can say that their phones are not made with sweatshop labor.
Companies do one thing very well. Companies manage and allocate resources with extreme efficiency. There is a reason why there are only a very small number of truly socialistic countries left in this world. Most nations rely wholly on the superior efficiency of corporations to process resources into final goods. Sure, they might have a few utilities and industries socialized that they consider vital (public transportation comes to mind), but for the most part, most nations have corporations handle resources, and for good reason.
The thing that people need to realize is that companies work like cogs in machine. They do their job very well and with great efficiency, but they do it mindlessly. If for instance suppression of free speech bothers you, you need to access your democracies to stop it. Corporations will not develop a collective conscience to do it for you. Don't like Chinese suppression of free speech? Ban corporations from participating in such activity. Don't like the idea of corporations fleeing your nation to go live in China so that they can continue their activities? Get together with other major powers like the EU and the US to pass a unified set of treaties.
If a company is given a choice between Norway or China, Norway will get the shaft. If a corporation is given a choice between working in the EU and US or China, China is the one that is going to be getting the shaft. The EU and the US has plenty of power to exercise against China. The problem is that the EU and the US have absolutely no desire to. Hell, the EU is trying to sell weapons to the People's Liberation Army (you know, the one that liberated the people of their lives in Tiananmen Square?). The US might be a little bit more active in advocating change in China in terms of rhetoric and a few watered down pro-democracy programs, but you sure as hell don't see the US reigning in its own companies doing suppressive work in China.
Dude, you don't know shit do you?
Punchcards were invented by a German-American (don't know his name, google it) for... census purposes. Thats what the US used them for, along with all the other "civlized" countries in the world. Including, get this, Germany. Fucking revelation. A friend of the inventor licensed all the patents and created a company called Dehomag to build the shit. IBM then bought Dehomag.
Enter WW2. The friend turns out to be a Nazi supporter. In 1941 the Nazis start running Dehomag. In January 20, 1942, the Nazis decide to kill all the Jews.
So what exactly was IBM supposed to do? Shut down Dehomag? Not-fucking-possible. They fire everybody: the Nazis get them to work for them (I'll be damned if I can guess how), the buildings and machines stay and can be used. The only way to have closed Dehomag so that the Nazis couldn't use them would be to destroy _everything_. There was a) no clear reason why, and b) nobody who would: the SS are all around. Oh, and your CEO really loves them.
Get a clue.
I would like to point out that a not insignificant number of Americans not only turn a blind eye, but actively support the censorship of their own people; why should we expect them to be more charitable towards others?
Well, for one, the group of those who turn a blind eye to domestic censorship are probably also members of the group that believes the US invaded Iraq in order to free the people there. If they are ok with actively going to war in order to promote freedom, then they ought to be onboard with a passive boycott or two. Right?
ELAINE: Mr. Peterman, you can't leave.
PETERMAN: I've already left, Elaine. I'm in Burma.
ELAINE: Burma?
PETERMAN: You'll most likely know it as Myanmar, but it'll always be Burma to me.... You there, on the motorbike! Sell me one of your belts!
At what point does it become their obligation to consider negative uses of positive features?
Netgear makes a router that lets me block various domain name fragments. This is a really useful feature as lets users block ads. and kill 90% of advertising. Add in xupiter etc. and you can block out malware manufacturers.
But what happens if I add country, cmt, etc. and start censoring my wife's [admitedly awful] taste in music just because I disagree with it? Do Netgear suddenly become bad for supplying and profiting from hardware that can be used for censorship?
Is the best criteria to use similar to the old VCRs aren't piracy tools argument?: If it has significant non-infringing use, it's valid. Thus Netgear's router, although it can be used for censorship, also has significant non-censoring uses and thus is reasonable to be sold.
This is an interesting question considering the fact that the same people who say these greedy companies should held responsible are the same people who would hold P2P companies free of all blame for software piracy. Warning: Slippery slope ahead.
We clearly have different sources on the matter.
IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation
Justice Delayed: IBM 's Collaboration with Nazi Germany
Profits uber Alles! American Corporations and Hitler
What are your sources? I'd be interested in reading some alternate interpretations of the existing documentation.
It's important to keep in mind that the IBM of today doesn't share much (if any) staff with the IBM of 1935. They aren't the same corporation at this point.
Regardless of the example I chose, my point remains. Western countries providing the tools necessary to support oppressive regimes is nothing new. You can reach back further if you want to the American companies manufacturing guns in the 19th century. My point is, this is hardly news, and it's depressing that there are people so ignorant of history and how the world works that they think this is somehow a "new" development, just because it's software instead of hardware.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Corporations are not mindless entities. What they are, though, is amoral and sociopathic. This has been explored in interesting and disturbing detail in the documentary film, The Corporation. This in and of itself may not necessarily be a bad thing - the real question is, "Are these sociopathic entities rational or irrational?". When you think about corporate entity "mindset" in this fashion, you rapidly come to the conclusion that the answer to that question is the latter, rather than the former. Here is where the problem lies: If a corporation is behaving in not just an amoral and sociopathic fashion, but irrationally as well, what chance do you or anybody else have at predicting how a corporation (as an entity) will react to stimuli? For a given a set of inputs to a corporation, what are the resultant outputs, or reaction, by that entity?
For many (most?) corporations, being amoral, sociopathic, and irrational, you can't predict that with any certainty. You may notice larger trends, but that is a weak indicator for future reactions. Having such a corporation be at least rational in its reactions would go a long way toward instilling a sense of knowledge of how a corporation will react given a set of inputs. This won't quell the amoral, sociopathic tendancies, but it may allow better guidance of these vehicles of commerce by their public and private interests, which can only help. So, how do you at least instill within a corporation, which is both amoral and sociopathic, a sense of rationality?
Corporations are, at their heart, a set of interlinking processes which perform one purpose: taking a set of inputs (as raw materials, labor, and information) and producing output (as product, information, and money). One of the very first steps is to be able to identify and map each of those individual processes of the entire company, down to the finest degree. The majority of processes in most companies have grown haphazardly, with no thinking in the design, measurements of performance, input structure, output structure, or how the process affects other processes within the company. It is this lack of knowledge and structure that is likely the cause of the irrationality of the corporate reactions. If these processes can be mapped out, debugged, and refactored - then followed without short-circuiting the processes by the employees performing them, the result should be a more rational (though still amoral and sociopathic, mind you) corporate entity. A single organization alone, though, cannot reap the ultimate benefits of this until more organizations do the same. Some gains can be expected (mostly monetary gains - since performing the above methods/steps will realize a cost savings as waste in processes is discovered, curtailed, or eliminated), but the ultimate gain of a more rational outcome on a societal level cannot be realized until more organizations are brought to the same level.
In other words, it helps not the rational entity to be the only rational entity in a sea of irrationality. However, as more rationality is injected into the system, the irrational behavior of the rest of the system becomes more apparent. It can be identified and helped, or barring that, eliminated as being a threat to the community of rational systems at large. Convincing other organizations to be rational is a difficult task, but one that must be done, and is being done - simply because ultimately it makes more money for the organization as a whole (by eliminating waste and error at all levels). The tide is slowly changing...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
A person can infringe on your rights in many ways. They can kill you, taking away your right to live, they can steal from you, taking away your right to personal property, they can kidnap you, taking away your right to liberty, or many, many other things. Not even libertarians (of which I'm not one) say that those should be legal.
A corporation can infringe on your rights in totally different ways. They can carefully calculate wages so you never make enough money to leave, taking away your right to liberty (like the mining and logging camps used to do). They can control information, and give it out selectively, or censor the information you give out, taking your right to gain knowledge of the world around you and your right to free speech. They can knowingly create hazardous products that can injure or kill you, or lie to you in an attempt to take your money.
People infringing on your rights are just as regulated as corporations infringing on your rights, they're just very different things, so they require different rules.
Enron lying about their stock to make money at the stockholders and employees expense is just as bad as if Ken Lay robbed you at gunpoint, just different methods.
I mean, yes, Casto doesn't allow his people to access the internet except with government permission, and even then content is filtered, but that is a reasonable man simply trying to protect his people from harmful ideas... BUT DAMN THOSE EVIL CAPITALIST FOR OPPRESSING THE CUBAN PEOPLE BY SELLING CASTRO FILTERING SOFTWARE!!!
Oh, wait a minute? The United States doesn't allow companies to sell to Cuba? Those egotistical, arrogant, imperialist bastards! Cuba should be free to buy and sell whatever it wants from the U.S.. How dare those evil capitalists try to force their views on Cuba by refusing to sell them stuff!
Geez... why can't people just admit that they are reactionary whankers with no real ideology... just some vauge dislike of "capitalism" (without any real consistant definition of what capitalism is... they call Stalin "capitalist" for god sakes, and in the next sentence call Western Europe "socialist")...
I mean, when the U.S. doesn't trade with Cuba, or England doesn't trade with Zimbabwe, this is considered "imperialism" (whatever that means, they don't have any consistent definition of that either)... but if U.S. or European companies trade with China or Saudi Arabia, they are guilty for "supporting oppressive regimes" (somehow it is not "arrogant" to call China or Saudi Arabia "oppressive regimes", but call Cuba or North Korea an "oppressive regime" and it is not only "arrogance", but "imperialist hate speech").
I can understand and respect people with different ideologies than me... we don't all have to agree. But please, GET AN IDEOLOGY before you start your self-rightous preaching! Enough of the self-contradictory, reactionary drivel that passes as "political correctness" nowadays!
No... in this case it is noot like autocad, which replaces a skill that people already have but makes them more efficient. This is more like supercomputers, or computer targeting systems, where the computer does someting that humans can not.
and in that case, YES, we should stop it's use by repressive regimes.
I do hope there are leauges of 9th grade haxors that take up the call to arms and pwn burma's servers... sorta a childrens crusade...
that'd be cool.
But I bet Mr. Bush would have them arrested.
I hate this world. (shaking head)
There seems to be one small fact missing from this discussion, especially in this day and age of globalization. Software is international, in whole or part. If India writes part of the code used to censors? Does that mean we should censor what they produce?
Dunno... I'll ask both you and the chap above you how you feel about... oh, child pornography? The US government does a pretty damn good job not only of censoring the pornography part but even of pressuring US companies from publishing (and parents and guardians from allowing the creation of) supposedly legal child erotica - and I've encountered very few allegedly "thinking" folks who don't support this all out censorship.
Somehow I just knew that this was going to end up being America's fault...somehow I just knew.
I pressure people all the time to behave in ways that I want them to. However, I don't believe in forcing them to behave the way I want them to. I think legal child erotica (e.g. a fictional written work or even a computer generated movie) is in damn poor taste, and I certainly wouldn't support a business that engages in it. I do support their right to make such things, and would oppose legislation or other aggressive means to curb it. If you are actually involving children (and I'm willing to negotiate the age of consent downwards from 18 a bit.... it wasn't too long ago that people would be concerned if an 18 year old woman wasn't at least engaged to be married.), they cannot give a meaningful consent to sexual activity, and I think legal measures to stop it are warranted.
Just because one has the right to do something doesn't also entitle them to my automatic approval, and if I disapprove, I have an equal right to be vocal in my disapproval. I tell people all the time that if everything I disapproved of were illegal, we'd live in a damned depressing, evil police state. This is why I don't believe in legislating against behavior.
I can't believe that the posters are not able to see the difference
It's not a matter of if they're able. It's just far more fun to take any issue, no matter how unrelated, and twist it into "open source is as evil, and certainly no better than everything else".
Witness the continual stream of posts to the effect of "if P2P is good, why are GPL violations bad?", "no operating system is perfect" (usually prefaced by "if Linux had xx% market share", "if Microsoft is held liable for bugs, so should OSS authors", and "Apple has a monopoly on mp3 players/they bundle Quicktime", all being modded up highly. Oh yeah, and for an extra mod point or two, the accusation of "Slashdot bias!!!". Yup, a bias that consistently works in reverse.
There's some intense hatred for OSS (and anything non-mainstream) on Slashdot lately. The tinfoil hat part of me would ascribe it to astroturfing/shilling, but quite frankly most of it is so juvenile that I usually write it off to "stop making me think outside of the box". I can't speak for most people online, but those I know offline usually feel pretty intimidated by OSS ideas. Linux is too hard to learn/use (makes them feel inferior), and the general OSS philosophy is just too different from how the rest of the world works. Ergo, attack anything and anyone related to it, because it's too hard to understand or accept.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I've encountered very few allegedly "thinking" folks who don't support this all out censorship.
You haven't hung out on slashdot enough. Plenty of us have a problem with it in various ways. In the real world it is such an emotionally loaded issue that few are willing to make a stand for reason because few will get past the irrationality of emotion to comprehend a stand for reason. Until society gets another boogeyman to focus on, it isn't likely that will change either.
In the big picture though, political speech is a few orders of magnitude more important, and that's the real focus of this discussion.
Actually, the issue is that GOVERNMENTS are doing things to restrict people's freedoms. Myanmar being run by a GOVERNMENT and all.
There's no double standard here at all. Those of us that don't enjoy OUR government restricting our freedom also don't enjoy OTHER governments restricting other people's freedoms. Those entities that enable governments to restrict freedom are just as bad as the governments themselves.
It's a pretty consistent worldview, if you think about it. It's much easier to rant about Slashdot's double standards, I realize.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Maybe all these CS, EEs and MBAs should be required to take some classes in sociology and ethics before they graduate.
Oh, that's right. There is none. Intelligent people know censorware doesn't work in a free society, regardless of whether the censoring is justified or not. Ethical people, those interested in stamping out child porn, hence do not propose measures that will not work.
However, I don't know how we could shame censorware companies more by revealing they sell to repressive governments...their entire purpose is repressive.
And they are liars and frauds, as they can't actually do what they say.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I thought the exact same thing - most people (with the surprisingly common exception of a lot of us computer nerds, myself included) seem to beleive that there's "good censorship" and "bad censorship"; censorship is good when it stops others from seeing something I don't like to see (or don't like my children to see, or wish didn't exist), and bad censorship when it's something I was taught in kindergarten shouldn't be censored.
Because you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"
Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
If, instead of an article about American software for sale, this were an article about a repressive regime using GNU/Linux on all government computer systems, would we be having this same argument? Would an article even mention the human rights issues involved?
For a real life example, if one can believe the press, China is a big user of Linux. And last I heard China is not particularly fond of human rights. So...are these software authors simply making a product and should not be concerned with how it is used, or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?
What's good for the goose, as they say, is good for the gander. If you're going to nail the bad old companies that sell software to the wall for selling it in bad countries, then those in the GNU/Linux world need to be asking themselves the same question.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Having been someone who was both beat up in high school over things I've said and investigated by the secret service for things I've posted online (google for kuro5hin, smallpox, secret service if you're interested in knowing the details), I can tell you that the latter has had a far greater chilling effect on my own expression. As powerful as social norms and mores are, I don't think that they come anywhere close to the power of the coercive force of the state.
Next week on Slashdot: hardware stores supporting axe murderers by selling forestry tools!
erotic photographs of children are legal in the US. And erotica does *not* involve "sexual activity."
See? This is why censorship takes hold - because people don't even know what the hell they're censoring. They make excuses and rationalizations and pretty soon censorship is "a good thing."
And what of the porn created years ago? This censorship you have been conned into suppoorting is not about protecting children, because those children are long since grown and some of them grown old enough to be DEAD. It's just about silencing speech we don't like - that's all censorship is ever about. Deny the speech, demonize those who rebuke the censorship, and thereby prevent any meaningful dialog on the subject. Just look what happened to Jocelyn Elders when she suggested this country get over its stifling and perverse puritanism...
Upon furnishing your intellectual property to a government or agency, or knowingly allowing it to be sublicensed, and knowing such government, or agency can reasonably be expected to us said property for the restriction of free speech, statutory rights in such property shall be affected in this wise:
(1) Patents and Copyrights
For each instance of free speech infringelment documented, one month is deducated from the remaining term.
For each person imprisoned for exercise of political or artistic expression, on evidence furnished in whole or part by such intellectual property, one year is deducted from the remaining term.
For each person tortured, executed, or "disappeared" for exercise of political or artistic expression, on evidence furnished in whole or part by such intellectual property, ten years is deducted from the remaining term.
(2) Trade Secrets
Upon the imprisonment, abuse, torture, execution or "disappearing" of individuals for exercise of political or artistic expression on basis of evidence furnished by products incorporating trade secrets, all such secrets shall be null, non-disclosure contracts nothwithstanding, unless the holder refrains from further licensing these secrets and terminates such licenses as are possible.
Of course, Microsoft may not be able to sell Office to the US Government any more under these terms.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You're not ignorant because you don't "approve of child erotica" - you're ignorant because you apparently don't even know what the fuck it is... you just know you "don't approave of it."
That's why the joke's on you: we were "done" before I even wrote my first reply to you... because (like most of the braindead masses who support censorship) you don't know what the fuck you're even taking about.
And, exactly as predicted, they are slippery-sloping beyond that to non-child, but "extremely obscene" but fully consenting adult pr0n.
See, they've successfully caught all the terrorists and have the prevention of suitcase nukes from entering US cities so well in hand they can afford to divert agents to this.
"And then they came for me, but there was no one left to protest."
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
"western software companies developing and profiting from censorship and internet filtering tools used by repressive regimes."
If the west needed to stop trading with every nation that does things that might be disagreeable (and vice-versa)--all trade would stop tomorrow. Is the point of this article to suggest nations stop trading with China? Anybody watch Leno last night? Jibjab clip which kind of sums up the trading relationship nicely.
Kind of off topic but somewhat related.
The part I don't get about trade relations is that wasn't it the Republicans in the 80's that encouraged opening trade with governments of questionable values? It's wierd that now the same party seems to be arguing on behalf of protecting the "american worker".
What exactly did everyone expect would happen when you open up your markets to cheap foreign labour? They certainly don't have much cash to buy western products. Even if they did, it would be cheaper to manufacture in their native nation. (No pollution controls, unions, fairwages, etc...)
On the plus side, as it does help bring poor uneducated people into the modern age even if it does come at the cost of the manufacturing sector in the West. Maybe a decade or two down the road they'll have more money to buy stuff from us but for now the chief beneficiaries of this will be large multinationals that get local marketshare there.
However, unabaited the mounting trade deficit could transfer ownership of a huge portion of our economies to China which quite possibly will turn the 21st century into the Pacific century. If Taiwan is an example of what China could become-- it seems very possible in will surpass the COMBINED economies of Europe and the US.
Maybe I should brush up on some Manderin?
Embargoes may not help but boycotts do as witnessed in South Africa.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Does your ISP censor your spam?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
that's why I never use that box. I use f2o for most of my mail, and they DO censor it for me. It's not a problem because I know they are doing it and I accept that some stuff may not get through - and it's not being INFLICTED upon me.
My ISP does, however, censor its DNS server - and I bet yours does as well. This is why my router uses 4.2.2.2 for its primary DNS resolution...
And, exactly as predicted, they are slippery-sloping beyond that to non-child, but "extremely obscene" but fully consenting adult pr0n.
It's not even much of a slope - because the SCOTUS ruling supporting the initial censorship was partially based on "protecting children from indoctrination" - that existing child porn could be used to help coersce other children.
But it doesn't take child pornography to do that. Kids want to be like grown-ups. All you have to do is show the kid (or for the kid to see it himself by surprising mommy and daddy one day) adults behaving in this manner and the kid is likely to accept it.
So, even from the initial ruling, it's ok to censor any sexual content so long as it "protects the children." All we need is one more mullah on the SCOTUS and no "deviant" will ever be safe...
And the censorware designed to filter out child pornography is where, exactly?
You really think there is none?
It starts at the DNS servers. You can add onto that the notices to the newsgroup providers (who, under under threat of federal prosecution, must oblige the takedown notices) and further onto that pile the bots that poison the p2p well.
Intelligent people know censorware doesn't work in a free society
and you sure seem to know from "intelligence..."
Moron #2, meet Moron #1...
... they cannot give a meaningful consent to sexual activity, and I think legal measures to stop it are warranted.
If you are actually involving children
This was said in the context (or so he said) of erotica. Pornography and erotica are not the same thing, but you seem to have no more clue about this than the person you are trying so ineffectively to defend. Both of you seem to need not just a course in logic, but a dictionary as well...