US-Made Censorware Used To Oppress Burma

An anonymous reader writes "The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that US-made censorware is being used to oppress the people in many countries, including Burma. That in itself may not be surprising, but a more interesting point is that according to lawyers interviewed by the CS Monitor it appears to be legal — in spite of all the economic sanctions against the country, and even though people know it will be used to hush up any mention of things like attacks on peaceful protesters."

Comments

Hmm?

[snl2587]

I really don't understand why that's not illegal...isn't this why there are so many restrictions on where certain programs can be legally downloaded?

The only way I can see it as legal is if it was obtained before the sanctions, and then shame on the authors for not providing an adequate license, something I have no problem with except in cases such as this where it involves censorware or other "mass restriction" software.

Re:Hmm?

[Typoboy]

As someone else said, the restrictions have to do with things that could be considered 'weapons'. Filtering software isn't really seen as a military threat. The latest sanctions list only financial products as being restricted on export.

Re:Hmm?

[Camael]

What the company did was against the US embargo, actually. http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2144178/fortinet-investigates-sanctions/

So yes, it's illegal but the company doesn't care.

Re:Hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly person.

If the past couple of years should have taught you anything it's that it's only bad if the Frenchies do it.

When it turns out the French suppliers are subsidiaries of US companies, you can bury it in a couple "OMG they're against FREEDOM!" opinion pieces on Fox News.

Re:Hmm?

[Sontas]

Actually, the company, Fortinet, is looking into the matter. As the article states, they don't sell directly to end users, all sales go through resellers. Their policy with their resellers states that all US export laws must be followed.

So the company apparently does care and it isn't yet clear how this software came to be in use in the embargoed nation. For all anyone knows it was pirated by a Burmese government sympathizer who worked for another company that attained it legally. Let's not pile on this company in undue haste.

Re:Hmm?

[timmarhy]

damn it man, your wasting valuable flag burning time with your reason and logic!

Re:Hmm?

[aproposofwhat]

Although, reading TFA, it seems that a Fortinet executive was reported to have been associated with the Burmese government, as reported in the Burmese press.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

Having said that, if one reads TFA to the end, the argument that the existence of more-or-less ineffective filtering actually helped in the dissemination of information about the Burmese government repression seems reasonable - the sense of false security afforded the authorities by their possession of filtering may have provided a window of opportunity for the citizenry to get information to the world.

Re:Hmm?

[Seumas]

Who in the hell are we to say that we need to take a stand against a country and how it treats the people within it when there are perfectly good Wal-Marts and Kentucky Fried Chickens to be built for further corporate expansion?!

What is the small price of a few lives in return for a higher price on WallStreet for the consumer goods and fast foods sector?! After all, if they were supposed to enjoy freedom, god would'a done born them in the US of A!

Oh, also -- cue everyone who is going to spit out the "spreading capitalism spreads democracy -- just look at all the countries that have Levi Jeans, Coca Cola and Burger Kings" thing.

Re:Hmm?

[im just cannonfodder]

As with the oil companies private security and weapons dealers they all seem to get around any blocks on trade and mostly originate from the usa!

the world is a testing ground for usa weapons and anti personal liberties technology until the police state is unleashed in the usa under the false guise of anti terrorism laws

US tech firm behind massive new human-tracking system in China!

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/12/us-tech-firm-behind-.html

Authorities in southern China are installing 20,000 (or more) police surveillance cameras, managed by software from an American-financed company. That spying system is designed to automatically recognize faces of criminal suspects, and spot potential crimes. And citizens of Shenzhen (pop: 12.4 million) will soon be required to carry computer-chipped residency cards programmed by that same company. Snip from NYT story: Data on the chip will include not just the citizen's name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord's phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China's controversial "one child" policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card. More about the US-financed company behind both technologies: "If they do not get the permanent card, they cannot live here, they cannot get government benefits, and that is a way for the government to control the population in the future," said Michael Lin, the vice president for investor relations at China Public Security Technology, the company providing the technology. Incorporated in Florida, China Public Security has raised much of the money to develop its technology from two investment funds in Plano, Tex., Pinnacle Fund and Pinnacle China Fund. Three investment banks -- Roth Capital Partners in Newport Beach, Calif.; Oppenheimer & Company in New York; and First Asia Finance Group of Hong Kong -- helped raise the money.

Re:Hmm?

[mr100percent]

From the article:

The firm, says ONI, responded by saying it doesn't sell software directly to end-users. ONI challenges Fortinet's claim, pointing to a 2004 article, reachable online, by the official New Light of Myanmar newspaper. The story covers a ceremony bringing together Burma's prime minister and Benjamin Teh, described as "an official representative of Fortinet." "Given Mr. Teh's participation, it seems unlikely that Fortinet did not know of the sale of its software to Burma," notes the ONI report. Anyway, How is it illegal to export this software to Iran but not Burma?

Re:Hmm?

[oliverthered]

But isn't filtering software the worst kind of weapon, a weapon against the people.

Re:Hmm?

[Ash Vince]

I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment. It bans investment in the country but a simple sale of weaponary (even that which may be used to surpress the pro-democracy campaigners) where the profit all ends up in the hands of a US company seems to be fair play.

The fact is the the western governments (mine included, I am British) do not like banning the sale of arms to these sort of countries as it damages our economies and may cost us jobs. The only time we ban the sale of arms is when we fear they may be used against us, if they are just going to be used to surpress indiginous pupulations we generally don't mind.

If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong. Modding this post down as flamebait or troll does not contribute to this discussion in a positive way.

Re:Hmm?

[budgenator]

Comparing the number of totalitarian human rights abusing countries around the world that are begging to get their asses kicked, compared to the amount of ass kicking that has actually happened; I'd say we've shown remarkable restraint.

Re:Hmm?

[deviceb]

America is a business.

Re:Hmm?

[UbuntuDupe]

I'm not saying the following happened, but I want to say why "US-made censorware used to oppress burma" sounds like a deliberately inflammatory statement of something that could be nothing.

Example: US group writes open-source "net-nanny" type flexible program. Burma government, like all of humanity, has access to this software and uses it to censor political speech.

Guess what: US-made censorware just got used to oppress Burma!

So, the fact that a US-made (or norweigan-made) software program was used for censorship (or military encryption, or...) should not itself be alarming. The title should be more like, "US firm sold censorship software to Burmese military".

Re: Hmm?

[Black Parrot]

The fact is the the western governments (mine included, I am British) do not like banning the sale of arms to these sort of countries as it damages our economies and may cost us jobs. According to some, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drugs and arms dealers will switch from dollars to euros as their preferred brand of blood money.

Re:Hmm?

[ScentCone]

So, the fact that a US-made (or norweigan-made) software program was used for censorship (or military encryption, or...) should not itself be alarming. The title should be more like, "US firm sold censorship software to Burmese military".

Come now! You're losing all of your slashdottedness! If the headline doesn't make it sound like President Bush personally made a phone call to make sure that a US firm, no doubt owned by Halliburton, has tech support people on site helping with deployment, raping villages on weekends, and sending back container loads of gold and diamonds to Dick Cheney's gardener, who buries them in the back yard under a tree shaped like the Masonic logo... well, then, that's just not a slashdot story then, is it?

Why not also say, "US-made butterknives may have been used by Nazis to gouge out eyeballs!" Or, more to the point, "Information Hosted On US Websites Used By Burma Military Suppressors". You know, like, footage from CNN, or Google Earth?

I grow so weary of people looking to blame the tool, and not the person using it. Do we REALLY have to go one step farther than, "Corrupt, Evil Military Dictatorship Behaves As Usual In Myanmar" to pretty much cover all the bases? A regime like that is going to use buckets, mops, computer parts, clothing, antibiotics, tires, and everything else that any other government uses in its daily operations. Fussing about from which company it was indirectly purchased might be interesting if that company appears to actually have an interest in furthering that government's actions, but mostly it seems more appropriate to actually talk about the idealogy of the regime that's causing the trouble in the first place. It seems rather likely that Iran - even as they ship vehicle-destroying bombs and technicians to Iraq to kill people - probably has more than one institution or government entity running both open-source stuff AND pirated proprietary stuff within their IT universe. So what. It's not going to slow them down to beat up Microsoft, or Dell, or Symantec, or anyon else about it. Loudly doing that is just a way to avoid speaking about the actual problem, which is the regime itself - and that regime really doesn't care what is thought about them by the same demographic that would stamp its feet about the effectiveness of a software company's restrictions policy. We're talking about regimes that simply kill people, in large numbers, in the street, for having the wrong opinion. They'll get their tools - butterknives and software - either way. People who want to complain should be complaining about why the regimes themselves are being proactively supported by places like China, Russia, or Venezuela.

Re:Hmm?

[overbaud]

"Let's not pile on this company in undue haste." your obviously new around here. Jokes aside (and this isn't directed to Sontas) what do all the soap boxers propose? We drag Burmese officials into a US court? That we drag a US company into a US court about software used in Burma? That we take Burmese officials into a Burma court? Please... this is one of those things that can't be policed, and if it could wouldn't be. Push comes to shove Burma will just shutdown all communications, the power switch is a fantastic censorship device.

Re:Hmm?

[GigG]

The US laws limiting the sale of "weapons" aren't really designed to protect the the people of other countries they are to protect the US. If that wasn't the case it would be against the law to export fast food.

Re:Hmm?

[composer777]

Like most of our (US) foreign policy, it's a business decision. Freedom, democracy, and human rights are far down on the list of priorities, if they ever make it onto that list. If it comes down to spreading capitalism or democracy, capitalism comes first. If it comes to a decision between creating a free country, or a source of profits, profits come first, always.

Re:Hmm?

[Fred_A]

If the headline doesn't make it sound like President Bush personally made a phone call to make sure that a US firm, no doubt owned by Halliburton, has tech support people on site helping with deployment, raping villages on weekends, and sending back container loads of gold and diamonds to Dick Cheney's gardener, who buries them in the back yard under a tree shaped like the Masonic logo... well, then, that's just not a slashdot story then, is it? Hey if you know more than what is divulged by the article you should submit your own story. This sound promising !

Re:Hmm?

[oliverthered]

that was my point exactly.

Re:Hmm?

[Gigaflynn]

hold on! the lighter isn't sparking, here pass the matches! QUICK!!!

Re:Hmm?

[Seumas]

Yes, well done, moderator. I am a troll for making a completely spot-on satirical comment.

Go back to digg.

Re:Hmm?

[magarity]

I have just read the current sanctions section of that link and notably absent is ANY restriction on the selling of arms to the goverment...If anyone wants to prove this to be incorrect then please be my guest. Post a quote from the document proving me wrong
 
Because the link above is to a summary of the newest batch of sanctions. What you need is the Treasury Dept's complete list:
 
  537.517 Noncommercial, personal remittances.
(a)(1) U.S. depository institutions,U.S. registered brokers or dealers insecurities, and U.S. gistered money transmitters are authorized to process transfers of funds to or from Burma or for or on behalf of an individual ordinarily resident in Burma in cases in which the transfer involves a noncommercial, personal remittance, provided the following conditions are met:
(i) The transfer is not by, to, or through a person whose property or interests in property are blocked pursuant to 537.201(a), except as explained in 537.404 of this part; and (ii) Total remittances to the territory of Burma in any consecutive 3-month period do not exceed $300 per Burmese household, regardless of the number of individuals comprising the household.
 
So you might get US Customs to let you export weapons to Burma but the Treasury won't let you get paid for them unless you find a local who is willing pretend it's a personal family transfer and to send it to you in chuncks of $300 per calendar quarter.

Re:Hmm?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Burma is under an arms embargo, as well as other sanctions, by the US, and EU, and they have been for quite a while now. These sanctions have been getting stricter over time as they have been amended. Here is a link to ITAR: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/docs/ITAR/2006/ITAR_Part_126.pdf and list of embargoed countries by the US http://pmddtc.state.gov/country.htm

Arms sales by the US are used as a political tool more than anything. It isn't about protecting an economy or jobs. Remember that the emborgoed countries are portrayed as threats, and by doing so this props up domestic arms production. It is a trade off. The US has China(a massive market for weapons sellers) embargoed as well, but they spend huge amounts of money on Naval weapons systems that operate in the Pacific. Either way the defense contractors make money and keep people employed and fat and happy in important congressional districts.

The countries supplying weapons to Singapore are the usual suspects of China, Russia, and North Korea. India, Singapore, and Israel have also been supplying the junta.

Re:Hmm?

[Virgil Tibbs]

mod up

Re:Hmm?

[Ash Vince]

So you might get US Customs to let you export weapons to Burma but the Treasury won't let you get paid for them unless you find a local who is willing pretend it's a personal family transfer and to send it to you in chuncks of $300 per calendar quarter. Or I arrange to have the payment sent to my numbered account in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland or any other country that allows the banking industry to operate without government intervention.

Re:Hmm?

[sgholt]

oh yeah...vote Demo.....errr...socialist! That is the way to freedom.

Re:Hmm?

[magarity]

I don't get it - the tone of your first posting suggested you were irritated government was not more forceful in telling companies where they could and couldn't sell their merchandise and now the tone of this post suggests you think government should cut back on telling banks how they could and couldn't do business. Which is it? As for myself, I know that economic sanctions just don't work against dictators / juntas. Sanctions only make things miserable for the common citizen.
 
Anyway, nevermind the money trail; someone else has already posted the list of goods (including weapons) that are embargoed as well the movement of money.

Re:Hmm?

[Ash Vince]

I was (still am) irritated that companies in the west quite frequently make money by selling arms to dictatorships that use those arms to stay in power against the wishes of the people who live under their rule. Companies like BAe Systems make huge profits by selling to countries like Indonesia who have an appalling human rights record. I know you can always make the argument that if we don't someone else will but that still doesn't make it any less morally wrong.

I am especially against schemes like the Export Credit Guarantee Department which underwrite these sales so that if the people in said country manage to oust the dictator from power before payment has been made then British taxpayers money is used to pay the bill and then the cost (plus interest) is added to the countries national debt.

In this manner the people who get rid of the dictator end up paying for the weapons that were used to suppress them. I think that if a western company is willing to do business with a country that is on the brink of collapse it should do so at its own risk.

One example is various companies supplying Saddam Hussein with arms (and the Falluja 2 chemical weapons plant) shortly before he invaded Kuwait.

Here are some links:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/040.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,908426,00.html

Although these links only mention British involvement President Reagan was also a supporter of Saddam when he was fighting Iran so American companies were also involved. Here is an interesting photo of Saddam and Reagan shaking hands, not that it proves anything by itself:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Here are some other random links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0DC123DF936A35751C0A963958260
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/31/world/main534798.shtml

Re:Hmm?

[friendklay]

The company was "investigating" this issue since 2005. The software is still used. And the sale rep of Fortinet himself (Benjamin Teh, from the Malaysian Office of Fortinet)was present in Burma promoting the use of Fortigate. I believe the article below provide a more accurate picture: http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5167 http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=5074

Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay more kdawsonfud!

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

take your Blackwater, Inc. ass elsewhere

Re:Yay!

[Applekid]

Yay more kdawsonfud! Unless the censorware is actually authored by the US government, I don't see what "US-Made" has anything to do with it.

When was the last time you heard of Windows, the Big Mac, and the Credit Card as "US-Made"? All have done damage to the world at large.

Another vote for kdawsonfud.

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that someday you will see that the world is not as black and white as it seems to you right now.

This is news?

[scgops]

Seriously, why would this surprise anyone?

This just in, companies are legally selling the same Internet filtering software used by companies, libraries, etc., to Burma, and the government is using the software for its own purposes.

Websense, one of the Internet filtering "censorware" companies mentioned in the article, had a partnership in place with Cisco starting over a decade ago to integrate URL filtering into Cisco PIX firewalls. That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.

Re:This is news?

[tqft]

Truly old news
http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001270.html

Re:This is news?

[timmarhy]

because guns kill people, filtering out goatse.cx and tubgirl does not.

Re:This is news?

[scgops]

Should you be able to sell arms to Burma?

Yes. I'm a capitalist.

Is there much of a difference between selling "censorware" and guns to a foreign government? Probably not, other than the specific words likely to be used by the permanently hyperbolic press to describe the sales.

Re:This is news?

[G Fab]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.

It's not your fault if you're not aware of just how oppressive and violent the government is there (how could anyone keep up with all the monsters in the world?), but it's pretty bad there.

And no disrespect intended, but being a capitalist does not mean being a nihilist in business. There is absolutely no sense to that idea. Capitalism was invented by Karl Marx, by the way, as a way of describing the absence of an economic system. In other words, nature.

In favoring free markets, there is no reason not to disincentivize barbaric governments.

But I agree with you insofar as you make no distinction between this type of software and bullets.

This is like selling rat poison to Hitler. Sure, there could be a legit use if we bury our heads in the sand. Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy. Generally speaking, there is a broad category of things that are inherently about control. Weapons and this software are included.

Re:This is news?

[Chibi Merrow]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler. It's not your fault if you're not aware of just how oppressive and violent the government is there (how could anyone keep up with all the monsters in the world?), but it's pretty bad there.

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal. It's immoral, yes, and I wouldn't do business with someone selling guns to the Burmese government... But that's the proper response in that case: don't do business with someone who's business practices you find disagreeable, don't legislate them out of existence...

And no disrespect intended, but being a capitalist does not mean being a nihilist in business. There is absolutely no sense to that idea. Capitalism was invented by Karl Marx, by the way, as a way of describing the absence of an economic system. In other words, nature.

1) Marx didn't "invent" capitalism any more than Newton "invented" gravity, he described a system he already observed and gave it a name. 2) People such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. also described essentially the same system well before Marx.

In favoring free markets, there is no reason not to disincentivize barbaric governments.

If you're denying someone the ability to trade with a party, it's not a free market any more. Let the market deal with it; if people care about the people in Burma, they won't do business with a company supporting that government. Better yet, start selling the people of Burma weapons...

This is like selling rat poison to Hitler.

Hi Godwin.

It's not my business how someone uses a product I sell them. It's your business who I'm selling to, though. If you don't like who I do business with, then don't do business with me. People like Hitler have a habit of ending up dead, and if my only customer base is megalomaniacal homicidal dictators, I'll run out of customers pretty fast...

Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy. Generally speaking, there is a broad category of things that are inherently about control. Weapons and this software are included.

Weapons are just as much (if not more so) about breaking controls and defending freedoms than enforcing them and taking them away.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah - it's great to see the US exporting something we can charge for! We NEED to sell a lot more to balance our budget.

Perhaps we could become the world's specialists in torture and human oppression? Looks like it's a growing market....

Re:This is news?

[G Fab]

yeah yeah yeah, Godwin. Except that I'm exactly right to make the banal observation that selling rat poison to Hitler is a special problem. Some things can uniquely be used to control. We can't forsee the future, but we can use as much sense as we can to limit software that prevents human rights workers from exclaiming their distress.

Morality is the basis of law. What else are we supposed to base our laws on? Efficiency? That's utilitarianism. If we know something is immoral to a level that is outrageous, then we make it a felony. This helps to adjust the market, of course, so that it is not cost effective to sell weapons to bastards.

Adam Smith was describing nature. Marx was inventing the concept of capitalism to describe the problems he saw in our system. What Marx explained was certainly not to be seen in Adam Smith's account. I understand I'm being unclear. Think of it like this: Adam Smith was the scientist describing Ted Bundy's physical body. Marx was the guy pointing out, for the first time, that Ted Bundy was doing specific things that were bad.

I don't understand your comment about selling weapons to the freedom fighters in Burma (if there are any left). What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Specifically as a comparison to censorship software. Are you claiming that somehow this software, in the right hands, can overthrow the Burmese government?

I think you got lost in the analogy and forgot it wasn't real (China gives weapons to the Burmese government for free, etc)

Re:This is news?

[Chibi Merrow]

yeah yeah yeah, Godwin. Except that I'm exactly right to make the banal observation that selling rat poison to Hitler is a special problem.

Then at least be creative and use Pol Pot or something... :)

Some things can uniquely be used to control. We can't forsee the future, but we can use as much sense as we can to limit software that prevents human rights workers from exclaiming their distress.

Lots of things have undesirable uses. Medicines are a good example of that. I'm not saying that a company should be selling the Burmese government ANYTHING, I'm just saying it shouldn't be illegal.

Morality is the basis of law. What else are we supposed to base our laws on? Efficiency?

How about on protecting rights? If you're doing something that doesn't violate someone else's rights, why should it be illegal?

This helps to adjust the market, of course, so that it is not cost effective to sell weapons to bastards.

Are you kidding? It's infinitely more cost effective to deal in illegal merchandise than legal. Look at the Columbian drug cartels or Al Capone for good evidence of this...

Think of it like this: Adam Smith was the scientist describing Ted Bundy's physical body. Marx was the guy pointing out, for the first time, that Ted Bundy was doing specific things that were bad.

Or Aristotle described (badly) how gravitation worked and Newton actually came up with the language (math) capable of describing the system fully... Until Einstein poked holes in it, but that's not the point. Marx came up with terminology for it, but he was still describing a system that existed in some form or another in the real world, not one that he created.

I don't understand your comment about selling weapons to the freedom fighters in Burma (if there are any left). What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Specifically as a comparison to censorship software. Are you claiming that somehow this software, in the right hands, can overthrow the Burmese government?

Well I was actually originally responding to the assertion that selling weapons to Burma is/should be illegal, the bit about blocking software was just an aside to me. You can buy secondhand PIX boxes with web filtering in them, or you can come up with your own solution to the problem pretty easily in house... Actually giving the software to the dissidents probably would help, they could deploy it themselves and try to find the holes in it.

Re:This is news?

[G Fab]

Good points.

I just like to rag on Hitler.

It's an interesting perspective to see black markets driving up the price as evidence that it is more cost effective. You're right... but this still makes like harder for the subject of the prohibition (the drug user or Burma for censor software). Still... my fault for putting it in the perspective of the seller. I think it could be argued that it's not more cost effective for black marketers. Al Capone did not do as well as Anheuser-Busch does. Though Al being a thug benefited from the black market, the sellers at large and in general did not benefit. That's my argument anyway.

re: the general moral issue, I think it's tough to agree on what rights the Burmese have against us. It's nice to talk about justice as fairness or universal principles or rights, but laws are meant to do two things: express outrage and regulate. If society funds X outrageous enough, then it outlaws it. All those constitutional issues are hogwash; we would overcome them if we were outraged enough. the regulation argument is easier (but less helpful). I simply think that selling Burma this technology is something society ought to be pissed off about. And if you want to discuss it about rights, it's easy to claim that there is a universal right to live in a society where fascists do not censor my communication about what they are doing (and thus, there should be a ban on selling the means for that censorship to fascists). Who knows?

Re:This is news?

[dr_d_19]

That's how far from new this concept is. Burma could have bought all the parts they need used on eBay.

The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.

If I hadn't ratted on Anne Franke, my neighbour would have anyway, right?

Re:This is news?

[Chibi Merrow]

It's an interesting perspective to see black markets driving up the price as evidence that it is more cost effective.

It's not just more cost effective because the price has gone up. Once you've decided that you're going to engage in an illegal business, then there's no reason to follow legal business practices. Labor standards? Payroll taxes? Import tariffs? Minimum wage? Why bother? You're already doing something you'll go to jail for, so save the cash on compliance as well...

Al Capone did not do as well as Anheuser-Busch does.

No, but he benefited more directly from his liquor sales than the executives at AB do. I'll bet his profit margins are way better. He didn't have to bother with any pesky labor laws, import regulations, taxes, etc... That's what they finally got him on, after all, tax evasion. The only reason the Columbian drug cartels can stay in business is that their product is illegal. That lets them ignore laws in making and selling it and means they can charge whatever they want since there's no real market forces to keep them in line. If it were legalized, the costs of complying with labor standards, import laws, sales tax regulations, consumer safety, etc. on top of the fact that now anyone can do it, not just people willing to kill other people, would mean they couldn't turn the kind of profits they're used to making.

the general moral issue, I think it's tough to agree on what rights the Burmese have against us. It's nice to talk about justice as fairness or universal principles or rights, but laws are meant to do two things: express outrage and regulate. If society funds X outrageous enough, then it outlaws it. All those constitutional issues are hogwash; we would overcome them if we were outraged enough.

You're right, but that doesn't mean that's the way things are supposed to be. Legislation written for emotional reasons is almost always bad legislation. Look at all the suggested laws after Columbine, etc. Some people find drug use to be morally outrageous. Some people find alcohol to be morally outrageous. Some people find pornography to be morally outrageous. Once we start accepting that something being "morally repugnant"--as opposed to infringing on someone else's rights--is a good reason to to legislate it out of existence, we start down a bad path that could see homosexuality, fast food, and violent movies being felonies... Yes I'm being absurd, but you get the point.

I simply think that selling Burma this technology is something society ought to be pissed off about.

I think the fact that we haven't just assassinated the bastards in charge over there is something society out to be pissed off about. But being pissed off about something is different than passing law based on it.

And if you want to discuss it about rights, it's easy to claim that there is a universal right to live in a society where fascists do not censor my communication about what they are doing (and thus, there should be a ban on selling the means for that censorship to fascists). Who knows?

Freedom of expression is one of those inalienable human rights and anyone denying someone one of their most basic rights should be the enemy of all human beings on this planet. Regardless, filtering software, like VCRs, guns, medicine, fertilizer, etc. has legitimate uses. The fact that something COULD be used for evil is not a good reason for it to be banned--that's a pretty common refrain around here, at least. :)

All in all, I respect your points and I understand where you're coming from. I just really don't like this trade embargo BS--- 1) it doesn't work, and 2) it interferes with free markets. If someone is honestly bad enough that we're going to cut relations with them we should just take them out, not stand around twiddling our thumbs.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler."

Is that anything like a semi-trailer?

But seriously, the Americans sell stuff to warlords all the time. It's funny that you mention Hitler because Americans really did sell him stuff prior to the entry of the USA into WWII. Remember the lend/lease system? How about cash and carry trade?

I'll let you go check wikipedia now

Re:This is news?

[Asic Eng]

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal.

Why not? Please can you explain the benefit why that should remain legal?

But that's the proper response in that case: don't do business with someone who's business practices you find disagreeable, don't legislate them out of existence...

Again - can you please explain the benefit of that?

Let the market deal with it; if people care about the people in Burma, they won't do business with a company supporting that government.

Neither me, nor anyone else on earth has enough time to evaluate the business practices of every single company they buy goods from, and of the suppliers of every single company they buy goods. The amount of information required to make such decisions in every aspect of live is ridiculously large.

Let's look at the facts here: if the market would solve these problems, the Burmese government would not have this software. They do, and that means that the market is not going to solve the problem. If you want you can blame the public at large for not caring enough about Burma - rather than those who don't have enough morals not to sell them the stuff in the first place. This doesn't really matter - regardless of the reason - fact is the market has provably not solved the problem. Why would you expect different results in the future?

Re:This is news?

[hey!]

Well to be honest, unless we're at war with them (or they're at war with one of our allies), no, selling stuff to them shouldn't be illegal.

Well, maybe there's a third hand here, somewhere between trying to satisfy everyone's sense of political correctness, and waiting until we are actually at war with a country to stop selling them bullets to stockpile against us.

I would say that the right standard is whether allowing such sales is against the common interest of (in this case) Americans. It's not an easy or clear standard, but it's the right one.

Sometimes the interests of the country are to allow morally repugnant trade to go on, specifically because it engages and exposes the parties to shame, and the constant stress of staying above the line of acceptability. That worked in South Africa. It must have been a tremendous relief to travelers from that country, to go from being visitors from a pariah state to visitors from a country admired for making a difficult transition to a more democratic society.

Other times the interests of the country would be better served by outlawing trade with friendly countries, where those countries are ruled by unstable and oppressive regimes. The Shah of Iran comes to mind. The paranoia of the Iranian government looks to them like historical realism.

If you're denying someone the ability to trade with a party, it's not a free market any more.

If the people involved on the other end of the transaction don't have liberty, it's not really the free market either. We've just put the inefficiencies where we don't see them.

Re:This is news?

[mediocre_man]

I'll bet the trucks they carried the monks away in had some US made parts too. Oh the shame.

Re:This is news?

[mi]

The problem isn't the fact that this is new technology. The fact is that Websense or anyone else could have denied Burma the purchase. But they won't, because they don't care about anything else but profit. THAT is the problem.

Khmm, this reminds me of the arguments in the file-sharing debate... When content-owners were going after the makers of the software used primarily to exchange copyrighted media files (against the wishes of the copyright-holders), all of the freedom-loving Slashdotters were defending the said software-makers. Software is just a tool, it was said — it can also be used to download Linux distributions (a fraction of 1%, I strongly suspect). You can't sue the software-makers (nor the web-site hosters) — sue the individual abusers instead. That was the cry, and the gloating over how difficult it would be to nail such individuals made the moderators reach for the "Insightful".

Now comes a story about a maker of the software, which is used legitimately world-wide, and we are bashing them to smithereens over a (perfectly legal) sale to a rogue customer — which may still be using it. Says the article: "if a connection found to exist in 2005 still holds."

If I hadn't ratted on Anne Frank, my neighbor would have anyway, right?

Come, come, let's not get hysterical (and approach the Godwin Law's boundaries).

Censoring software is not killing anybody — it prevents (or makes difficult) an activity, that did not even exist during the revolutions of the (very recent) pre-Internet past...

Re:This is news?

[ultranova]

1) Marx didn't "invent" capitalism any more than Newton "invented" gravity, he described a system he already observed and gave it a name. 2) People such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. also described essentially the same system well before Marx.

While both Smith and Marx describe the same system, the point of view is very different. Smith considers the system beneficial, seeing it when everything is working well, while Marx sees it during a catastrophic failure situation caused by the Industrial Revolution and the resulting simultaneous high barriers of entry - the capital needed to build a whole factory required to be competitive - and large oversupply of labour and naturally draws the obvious conclusion that it is the root of all evil and must be destroyed for the sake of mankind.

Both views are, of course, incomplete. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to get enamored with extremes, so we have free-market fundamentalists on one side and communists on the other, both trying to both trying to push their economic religion rather than actually thinking what happens to be the best decision in any given situation. Meanwhile the scoundrels and petty thiefs are taking advantage of the fighting and filling their own pockets by abusing the legal system, patent, and copyright systems - the ones who aren't engaged in outright stock or accounting scams, selling weapons for dictators, or launching wars for profit, anyway.

Re:This is news?

[l4m3z0r]

Of course we shouldn't sell weapons to Burma. You're kidding, right? That's like selling bullets to a semi-Hitler.

I take a bit of an issue with this. It requires that we take a side in a conflict that largely does not concern us. It also assumes that we are in such a position of moral superiority that we should in fact dictate who can and should own arms. My personal position is that we should sell arms to anyone who wishes to buy(revolutionary groups in burma as well) such that we give the tools necessary to enact change(namely arms) without making moral decisions about whats happening a few thousand miles away.

Im sure detractors will say well we should make moral decisions and point at Hitler as an example. Well truth be told we did not get into WW2 over any moral issue and we never have/never will. Moral issues are icing on the cake for a war that is started for economic or political(ie lust for power) reasons.

Re:This is news?

[l4m3z0r]

Let's look at the facts here: if the market would solve these problems, the Burmese government would not have this software. They do, and that means that the market is not going to solve the problem.

This predefines Burma having this software as objectionable. So of course you can point at it and say something bad just happened free markets don't work. But ultimately that is a stupid argument, because you've already decided the conclusion and are defining the argument around it.

Ultimately, this is a issue for Burmese courts(or the burmese people through use of arms or other method to achieve revolution). Does the burmese constitution if any allow for cencorship of its people. If so then you have no standing to argue that its bad and should be illegal to sell said software to them. This happens time and time again where the people of western countrys think that all countries have the same protections we do. They don't and ultimately its no business of ours what another country or person decides to do with the products we sell them.

Think of it this way, if I sell you a pitchfork and you stab someone with it, have I committed murder? No I have not. If i write software that can be used for censorship, and someone who buys it uses the software for that purpose have I committed censorship? Hell the same group of people here who are yelling loudly that it should be illegal to sell that software get all uppity about not being able to export encryption algorithms, free speech they say! Who cares if terrorists can use it to hide from us, its not the fault of the software programmers. Why is it that this is suddenly a case of fault and that it should be illegal(FWIW I think we should be able to export any encryption software without restrictions and conversely we should be able to export any good without restrictions)

Re:This is news?

[Stanza]

People like Hitler have a habit of ending up dead, and if my only customer base is megalomaniacal homicidal dictators, I'll run out of customers pretty fast...

Actually the problem is that people like Hitler have a habit of trying to make lots of other people end up dead...

Re:This is news?

[dr_d_19]

Now comes a story about a maker of the software, which is used legitimately world-wide, and we are bashing them to smithereens over a (perfectly legal) sale to a rogue customer -- which may still be using it. Says the article: "if a connection found to exist in 2005 still holds."

Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound. Global corporations using child workers in vietnam doesn't neccessarily break the law.

Censoring software is not killing anybody -- it prevents (or makes difficult) an activity, that did not even exist during the revolutions of the (very recent) pre-Internet past...

Of course not. Neither was ratting on Anne Frank (if I am to continue my analogy). Someone else did the killing.

Re:This is news?

[redscare2k4]

Should you be able to sell arms to Burma? Yes. I'm a capitalist. From a market perspective, you're right. That's why many people don't consider capitalism a good system. When all you care about it's profit, morality goes down the basin. Of course, in a perfect world with a perfect capitalist system, that would be self-regulated. As other ppl have posted, those with morals would stop making business with companies that sell guns/censorship sw/whatever to such a government. But we know it just doesn't work that way.

Re:This is news?

[mi]

Legal doesn't neccessary equal morally sound.

Uh-oh, "morally"... Morally the music-trading sites (like Napster) are indefensible too — except on Slashdot, which insists, the individual abusers should be targeted, not napsters themselves.

Of course not. Neither was ratting on Anne Frank (if I am to continue my analogy). Someone else did the killing.

Nobody "did the killing". Anne died of malnutrition at the camp. Her father survived, for example. But ratting the family out meant condemning them to gross hardships of the camps. Sale of sensorship software does nothing of the kind. So, no, you should be continuing your (mis)analogy.

Re:This is news?

[Valdez]

Sell Burma medicine, food, heating oil, basic things like that. Don't sell them weapons or tools whose main purpose is to impose policy. Right. Because control of things like medicine, food, and heating oil has never been used to impose policy.

I believe the term you seek is "Hydraulic Empire"

He who controls the spice...

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice the sanctions don't mention weapons, so it's OK in our government's eyes.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/94113.pdf

Re:This is news?

[JasonTik]

Really, everyone has a habit of ending up dead... It's just a matter of time >:)

Re:This is news?

[webcite1]

A sad state! This could be used to sever the flow of information to and from the USA as well!

Re:This is news?

[rtb61]

There is nothing 'morally' wrong with sharing ideas, in fact there is everything 'morally' wrong with attempting to block the sharing of ideas regardless of the media used. Censorship enables the worst abusers of humanity to hide, to stay out of the public light, to avoid prosecution and to continue their evil immoral practices.

Infringing copyright does not deny anybody anything, all it does is break the artificial government enforced monopoly. You don't want people to use your ideas, then to be blunt, keep them to your self, we wont mind, honest ;).

Re:This is news?

[Asic Eng]

This predefines Burma having this software as objectionable.

Of course it is - what the Burmese government does to it's people is well known. Any one of us could see what selling this software to them would mean.

Look at the facts before us: (1) the market was free (2) Burma was able to buy the software. If markets being free was sufficient to prevent Burma to get the software, then it wouldn't have happened. Of course it's easy to make this argument after the fact - that's because it's already happened. What's not easy - and not rational - is to claim now that (1) is sufficient to prevent (2) - we already have proof to the contrary.

burmese constitution if any allow for cencorship of its people

You do realize that Burma is a violent oppressive dictatorship, right? Almost by definition the courts provide no recourse for the people, and whether the constitution was dictatorially shaped to remove the rights of the Burmese people, or whether it officially has them but are ignored in practice ... this has no moral implication whatsoever.

[...] where the people of western countrys think that all countries have the same protections we do.

That's silly - of course they don't have the same protections - that's why we feel the moral obligation that we should act. That's a precondition for your "market" theory as well: if the people didn't feel that moral obligation, there is no way they would shape their buying decisions accordingly.

if I sell you a pitchfork and you stab someone with it, have I committed murder?

Depends - if a known murderer comes to you and asks for the most suitable pitchfork to stab a person with... Well you are not technically a murderer maybe, but your acts are immoral to the extreme.

US-Made Censorware

[Anonymous Coward]

Translation: you can use photoshop to draw a black rectangle.

Re:US-Made Censorware

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Or make a spiral effect.

Re:US-Made Censorware

[martinX]

Or an unspiral effect.

Re:US-Made Censorware

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Doh!

Export restrictions mainly cover encryption

[Airw0lf]

I really don't understand why that's not illegal...isn't this why there are so many restrictions on where certain programs can be legally downloaded? That's usually due to encryption capabilities of the software being "exported." IIRC, there used to be export versions of IE that were limited to 56-bit encryption due to US export laws which classified certain types of encryption as a "weapon." But I think that's pretty much a non-issue in the developed world nowadays. Someone could correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Export restrictions mainly cover encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's an issue anymore: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BNO/is_1999_Oct/ai_55899565

--beckerist

It's quite OK

[JonathanR]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. The thing that isn't allowed, is for general populations to have free access to encryption, anonymising and other clandestine enabling technologies that prevent governments from suppressing populations.

I don't see what the legal or moral issue is here...

Re:It's quite OK

[Camael]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. I quite disagree. More accurately, in a country that respects the rule of law, the general public may in certain limited circumstances allow their government to censor or suppress certain types of information, for example secrets which impact on national security, or financial information crucial to the nation's economy.

Perhaps what you meant to say was governments which are not popularly elected and which are not accountable to their citizens can by rule of force censor and suppress their populations who can do nothing about it.

Perhaps you will begin to see the legal or moral issue here if it was your blog or email being censored.

Re:It's quite OK

[d12v10]

I think you missed the sarcasm in GP's post, sir

Re:It's quite OK

[Enlightenment]

Are you kidding? Allowed? What is this higher authority that confers on governments the right to do such things? Governments don't have such authority just by virtue of being governments, you know. They derive all their authority from the consent of the governed. Providing freedom from suppression is one of the goals of government, since it exists only to serve the governed.

This means that the right to arbitrarily censor and suppress populations is never possessed by governments, especially when the governed are overwhelmingly rising up against such oppression. (Here I'm equating suppression with oppression. Oppression is "the state of being kept down by unjust use of force or authority," so it fits quite well.)

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Re:It's quite OK

[Enlightenment]

Er, if the parent was being sarcastic, then it wasn't successful as sarcasm because there are people out there who actually think like that.

Re:It's quite OK

[JonathanR]

Governments don't have such authority just by virtue of being governments I think you need to take some history lessons, and see things from a global perspective, rather than a 20th century US viewpoint.

Re:It's quite OK

[Enlightenment]

If John Locke and Voltaire had been Americans, and if the framers of the United States Constitution had lived in the 20th century, then I would have said you have a point. However...

Re:It's quite OK

[Atario]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. The thing that isn't allowed, is for general populations to have free access to encryption, anonymising and other clandestine enabling technologies that prevent governments from suppressing populations.

I don't see what the legal or moral issue is here...

Either you're a troll most wily, or else a moral vacuum. You don't see what the moral issue is of it being legal for a US company or person to aid in the oppression of the people of another country? Really?

Re:It's quite OK

[Tim C]

I think this is the word you're looking for.

Re:It's quite OK

[mrjb]

Governments are allowed to censor and suppress their populations. The thing that isn't allowed, is for general populations to have free access to encryption, anonymising and other clandestine enabling technologies that prevent governments from suppressing populations.
You are being cynical, right? I hope that this is the case and it was recognized by those who modded you +4 insightful. Governments are supposed to rule country for the good of the people. This is where they derive their power from. If a government does not act in behalf of the people it rules, it has no right to be in that position of power, and should be brought down. Oh and by the way, 'for the good of the people' does not mean 'whatever the government decides is for the good of the people'. Let the people think for themselves.

Re:It's quite OK

[mh1997]

Whether the GPs post was sarcastic or not, why was this modded offtopic? Perhaps the problem is that Carmael's answer was polite and rational - two traits that many on slashdot lack?

Re:It's quite OK

[Daimanta]

Thankfully we have people who think that you can revolt for whatever reason you like.

Re:It's quite OK

[tietokone-olmi]

Sarcasm on the internet: a dead form of art since September 1993...

Re:It's quite OK

[freeweed]

Where's the (+1, Sad but True) moderation option?

I wouldn't narrow it down so specifically to the US though. Canada's been pretty dang nice as far as oppressive governments go.

Re:It's quite OK

[ultranova]

Are you kidding? Allowed? What is this higher authority that confers on governments the right to do such things?

Judging by this story, the Almighty Dollar, acting through its servants, the US corporations, and justified by the often-demonstrated creed of capitalism that might makes right.

Re:It's quite OK

[ultranova]

Oh and by the way, 'for the good of the people' does not mean 'whatever the government decides is for the good of the people'.

Of course not. It means "what is good for the bottom lines of large corporations."

Re:It's quite OK

[redscare2k4]

What is this higher authority that confers on governments the right to do such things? Those guys with assault rifles and big sticks.

Re:It's quite OK

[Mister Whirly]

"Oh and by the way, 'for the good of the people' does not mean 'whatever the government decides is for the good of the people'. Let the people think for themselves."

"The government" is people. There is no such entity that is "the government" - it is just people making decisions about (and often for) other people.

Re:It's quite OK

[Enlightenment]

Heh. There's a difference between having the power to do a thing and having the right to do it.

Re:It's quite OK

[demachina]

"Either you're a troll most wily, or else a moral vacuum. You don't see what the moral issue is of it being legal for a US company or person to aid in the oppression of the people of another country? Really?"

Well considering the U.S. government has been known to engage in oppression, and you presumably don't have an issue with U.S. companies working with the U.S. government I'm not exactly seeing your point. The U.S. government using U.S. telco's to spy on its citizens is the obvious latest example. Rendition, especially when it snatches innocent people, which it has, is some pretty serious oppression too. One innocent guy was snatched, disappeared without word to his family for months, and was probably tortured to a degree tried to take it to the U.S. courts. The U.S. courts threw his completely valid case out because what he was complaining about was a government secret. His only crime was his name was the same of some Islamic militatnt the U.S. did want to torture. That is both some serious oppression and stupidity too.

The U.S. government has propped up dozens of brutally oppressive right wing dictators over the last hundred years. As long as they were anti communist they could oppress, murder and torture with U.S. assistance and blessing. Its REALLY hard for the U.S. to be all holier than though about repressive regimes since it helped to install so many over the years. The only repressive regimes the U.S. dislikes are the ones that don't do what the U.S. tells them to like Saddam from 1990 on, he was fine before that, and Panama when the U.S. invaded them because they stopped being a U.S. stooge.

The point is government oppression happens all over the place all the time and pretending you can draw a line here and say this is OK and this isn't is folly.

Here is a thought experiment. Let's say tens of thousands of people were to try to march through the streets of Washington D.C. demanding the overthrow of the Bush administration because the elections thats installed them in power were suspect to say, they've been violating our Constitution wholesale and getting away with it, started a war based on lies that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and are destroying the U.S. economy. They might be ignored if it was empty hand waving and speeches and they went home. If the marches happened everyday and started to challenge the authority of the government I can assure you the Bush administration would be throwing thousands of people in jail, and breaking some heads, just like the Burmese government is. Its what governments do when their power is challenged. Obviously the Burmese government is among the worst on the planet, but the Chinese government is pretty bad too and we do business with them on a massive scale. Where exactly are you going to draw the line on governments its OK to do business with and those that aren't.

A lot of people and countries might be of the opinion doing business with the U.S. is morally reprehensible, at least as long as the Bush administration or one like it is in power and as long as the U.S. is engaged in the cruel follies like the occupation of Iraq.

Re:It's quite OK

[dwye]

Once again, alas, that there is no sarc or irony tag.

Perhaps, if the ID had been JonathnSwift, the other respondents would have got it?

Re:It's quite OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Allowed by whom?

"Allowed" means nothing. You have no perception of real political power.

Re:It's quite OK

[Lunzo]

I think the current Burmese government get their power from their tanks and oppressive police state they've set up, not some mythical mandate of the people. The current regime there weren't elected. You do realise that not every country is a democracy, don't you?

Well here's a thought experiment. Let's say you're a Burmese citizen who wants democracy for his country. I suppose you could find a group of like minded people and conspire together to overthrow the government, either by force or peaceful protest. You'll note that the latter didn't work that well when attempted recently, although it did remind the rest of the world of the situation there. So that leaves us with using force to overthrow the government. How are you going to get weapons? Are people going to join your side? How do you know that there aren't government spies or informers who will imprison you before you can even do anything of significance. And after years of bloody insurgency will you really remember the democratic ideals you were fighting for, or will you have forgotten them and become the new tyrant?

Note I'm not saying I condone oppressive regimes, or police states, I'm just pointing out reality. Democracy isn't easy to get if you haven't got it, and the usual solution of "overthrow the government" isn't so easy in the real world. Back on topic - The free world shouldn't be encouraging oppressive regimes, but should put pressure on them to listen to their people and embrace democracy and the freedoms we take for granted.

Re:It's quite OK

[mrjb]

I think the current Burmese government get their power from their tanks and oppressive police state they've set up, not some mythical mandate of the people. The current regime there weren't elected. You do realise that not every country is a democracy, don't you? Yes, I realize that. As the Burmese government do not represent the people, then, it is in the interest of the majority living there that they should be brought down.

Disgraceful

[Camael]

It would be a massive disgrace if this news was true.

An excerpt from the source article:

It's hard to know exactly what happened on a technical level, but politically, it seems pretty clear at this point. The monks and other activists began their protests. The military did not crack down right away, I believe because they feared the impact of citizen journalists posting images and videos of brutality to the Web. The military decided that they were going to take more-severe steps, so they cut access to the Internet through the ISPs, particularly in cities like Yangon and Mandalay. They also cut off access to cell service and otherwise.
This is what's going on in Burma http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2007/09/28/myanmar-internet-blocked/

Internet cafes were closed down. Both MPT ISP and Myanmar Teleport ISP cut down internet access in Yangon and Mandalay since this morning. The Junta try to prevent more videos, photographs and information about their violent crackdown getting out. I got a news from my friends that last night some militray guys searched office computers from Traders and Sakura Tower building. Most of the downtown movement photos were took from office rooms of those high buildings. GSM phone lines and some land lines were also cut out and very diffficult to contact even in local. GSM short message sending service is not working also. Burma is blacked out now!

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

Re:Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this guy funny - this must be what they call sarcasm, eh?

Re:Disgraceful

[Anonymous Coward]

What about all the business that's done with China? Hmm? The last few USian Regimes seem to be pretty happy with things just the way they are. how they could care about Burmese censorship.

My dog ate my password.

Re:Disgraceful

[scgops]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

I'll assume you meant in general, not just the sale to Burma.

Filtering software continues to sell because companies don't want to risk sexual harassment lawsuits from people who've accidentally seen someone else surfing porn. Or from someone who has seen one jpeg spam too many and decides to try to hit the lawsuit jackpot. If you want to get rid of filtering software, you'll need to get rid of the lawsuit-friendly environments that make filtering software a reasonable investment for companies seeking to limit their exposure.

In the case of filtering software sold to Burma, that's what resellers are for -- plausible deniability. Avoiding responsibility for a sale made by a third party is pretty easy. The reseller has it pretty easy, too. After all, they're just the middleman. They didn't create the software and have no influence on how it gets used. People are great at rationalizing just about anything to make themselves feel okay.

Re:Disgraceful

[Asic Eng]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product?

Oh that's easy:

1 - the market must be free, the business man's only obligation is to grow the wealth of the shareholders. If it's immoral, then society should take care of making it illegal.

2 - the free market will solve all the world's problems, so we can not legislate anything.

3 - if the market does demonstratably not solve a problem, well then it's because people didn't sufficiently care about it.

Neat, no? You can do whatever you want, and feel great about it - there is just nothing else you could possibly do, but strive to put more money in your own pockets. Even if it can be shown that doesn't work for society, it's still not your fault.

Re: Disgraceful

[Black Parrot]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product? Yes, ethical companies would be making cigarettes or providing "security" service in Iraq.

Re:Disgraceful

[RealGrouchy]

How can any company with a shred of ethics or morality excuse the sale of their filtering product? Well duh, the paragraph you cited said that Burma is blacked out. So there's no traffic to unethically filter!

See, perfectly ethical!

- RG>

US made guns used to oppress Burma

[iamacat]

US, Russia and France, among other countries, export massive amount of munitions to rather flakey "allies" willing to pay good money. It's a certainly that some american guns made it to burmese military through secondary market. Shouldn't we clear this up first, before going after software that can not be used by people to kill people quite as directly as guns?

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[aadvancedGIR]

As a sanction to the Burma junta, french compagnies are frobidden to deal with burman small businesses, but Total has a few large oil drilling contracts there, and some even say that the money from these contracts saved the junta at least once.

I bet this is a general trend (we all remember the iraki embargo in the 90's that resulted in tens of thousands children death by lack of food and medecine and the continuation of Sadam reign), the public intention of the west is to fight against dictatorships, but the action is twisted in a way that actually helps the dictatorships by hurting their population (and give a few billion to large corps in the process).

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a "certainly" that "some" Americans guns are in Myanmar, but you have nothing to back it up? This is nothing more than speculation.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[timmarhy]

Fuck. i knew it had to be those megza corperations and the white man that was to blame!

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how them thar fishy foreign countries are actively distributing "massive amount of munitions to rather flakey "allies"" but when the source is the US it's suddenly only "some" guns secondhand.

Bias much?

Now go look up who the major arms exporter in the world is and who it exports to.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Chibi Merrow]

It's a certainly that some american guns made it to burmese military through secondary market.

Why would they bother? You can get ten soviet guns that are just as good (or arguably better) for the price of one American gun, secondhand or not.

Hell I just want an M1911, and I've paid less for cars than what some people are asking...

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell I just want an M1911, and I've paid less for cars than what some people are asking...

I want a PS90, but some fruit loop in my country has decided that it's a pistol and has classified it as such. Since it is a very long pistol, and holds more than 10 rounds, it's illegal to own one.

It's similar for P-90 BB guns: they're classed as automatic firearms, and the police consider them to be a major threat to the public, so it is illegal to own one of those, too.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Cosmic AC]

GP said: "US...export[s] massive amount[s] of munitions to rather flakey 'allies'".

Get some sleep or something.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Chibi Merrow]

I want a PS90, but some fruit loop in my country has decided that it's a pistol and has classified it as such.

A pistol? Are you serious? Based on what, exactly? What country, for that matter?

Since it is a very long pistol, and holds more than 10 rounds, it's illegal to own one.

Even though they make 10 round magazines for it? That's crazy. I mean, the Chinese knockoff AK-47 I had was legal to hunt with as long as I used the 5-round mag... That reminds me, I need to get a larger capacity mag for my 742 before some crazy congressman decides to reinstate the AWB...

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

A pistol? Are you serious? Based on what, exactly? What country, for that matter?

I'm serious. I live in New Zealand. A friend of mine is a member of the local pistol shooting club (pistols are highly restricted firearms here), and while I was there one day getting some sounds (44 calibre Desert Eagle, 9mm Beretta) for a project I was working on, I mentioned to my friend that I'd love to own a PS90. He turned to the guy next to him, and asked if that was a legal firearm here. The guy replied that it's classified a pistol due to its length (it's something like an inch shorter than the minimum legal length for a rifle), and is illegal.

Even though they make 10 round magazines for it? That's crazy. I mean, the Chinese knockoff AK-47 I had was legal to hunt with as long as I used the 5-round mag... That reminds me, I need to get a larger capacity mag for my 742 before some crazy congressman decides to reinstate the AWB...

I *think* you'd be allowed to use that, on the condition that it was not capable of firing in automatic mode, plus you'd need a special category licence for a military style firearm.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

(we all remember the iraki embargo in the 90's that resulted in tens of thousands children death by lack of food and medecine and the continuation of Sadam reign)

Yes, we do remember... how Saddam let this happen under his reign. Not that he cared or anything, he was just another tinpot dictator or some such.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

*replies to self*

A PS90 is 667 mm (26.2 in) in length, and in New Zealand "pistol means any firearm designed to adapted to be held and fired in one hand. It includes any firearm that is less than 762mm in length."

Before you ask if we have drugged out hippies running the country, yes, I think we do.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Chibi Merrow]

pistols are highly restricted firearms here

Of course, they're the easiest weapon to defend yourself with... :P

I *think* you'd be allowed to use that, on the condition that it was not capable of firing in automatic mode, plus you'd need a special category licence for a military style firearm.

Yeah it's semi-auto, a company in California specialized in importing them as sporting rifles years back... Good gun. Someone screwed up the firing mechanism on it, though, before I got it... Would occasionally fire two-round bursts due to the bolt not sliding home properly and setting off the second round. Would usually then eject the third round without firing and bend it in half in the breech. Kinda scary, actually...

Military style? I'd love to see how they define that. Any bolt action 30 caliber rifle could be argued to be a knockoff of the K98, and that's obviously a military weapon...

A PS90 is 667 mm (26.2 in) in length, and in New Zealand "pistol means any firearm designed to adapted to be held and fired in one hand. It includes any firearm that is less than 762mm in length."

My first shotgun (single shot .410) wasn't 762mm in length, it was only 28". That's patently ridiculous. They gonna call that a pistol, too? I'm assuming they're talking about barrel length, here, since total length is meaningless... You can always put a stock on a pistol to make it ten feet long if you wanted to.

Before you ask if we have drugged out hippies running the country, yes, I think we do.

Well, at least the scenery's nice? And I've had it claimed the school systems are good, too...

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if "Wahhabism" is the problem. While yes, a bunch of terrorists have come from a background of study in it, the scholars of the ideology are pretty solid in condemning the acts. Wahhabi scholars were among the first to condemn suicide bombing decades ago. I'd say its a subset of them that cause the trouble, though I don't agree with the entire movement.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, they're the easiest weapon to defend yourself with... :P

I'm told that the scariest two things at the pistol club were one guy whose Glock pistol malfunctioned, and it went full auto. He lost control and it took his pinky off. (He drove himself to hospital.) The other was a bunch of foreign students, who wanted to get a 44 Magnum revolver for the car. Apparently, they wanted it to impress girls...

Yeah it's semi-auto, a company in California specialized in importing them as sporting rifles years back... Good gun. Someone screwed up the firing mechanism on it, though, before I got it... Would occasionally fire two-round bursts due to the bolt not sliding home properly and setting off the second round. Would usually then eject the third round without firing and bend it in half in the breech. Kinda scary, actually...

It sounds like it, especially if you weren't expecting it. That's what my friend did with his pistols. He started my ex- off with the Beretta, move her up to a 40 calibre pistol, and then finally let her have a shot with the Desert Eagle. I set my camera on timer, and got a wonderful profile of her reaction. She thought the same as I did when he did that to me. "It's only a fractionally larger round, it won't be that bad!" But she's 30kg smaller than I am, and that's a powerful handgun. I thought she was going to kill me when I sent her the reprint.

Military style? I'd love to see how they define that. Any bolt action 30 caliber rifle could be argued to be a knockoff of the K98, and that's obviously a military weapon...

I think one of the characteristics required for a military style rifle is a rifle with a pistol-style grip on it. I have the feeling that, if you throw a curved mag on your rifle, it's classified as a military style one. (They're just making stuff up, now.)

My first shotgun (single shot .410) wasn't 762mm in length, it was only 28". That's patently ridiculous. They gonna call that a pistol, too? I'm assuming they're talking about barrel length, here, since total length is meaningless... You can always put a stock on a pistol to make it ten feet long if you wanted to.

It could be either. A lot of what they come up with has little to no basis in reality. There's more information on the NZ Police website about licencing and classifications, I really don't know too much about it myself.

Well, at least the scenery's nice? And I've had it claimed the school systems are good, too...

The scenery is great, but I think it is pretty much anywhere you could go. As for the schools, they used to be. We've got a nasty case of "make it easier so the grades look good, and you don't hurt anyone's feelings."

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[ghyd]

At the same time communication may help to save many lives. "Quite as directly" doesn't seem very important to me in the context where information could save lives and self respect for occidental people. Heard about Burma in the news much those last days ?

Freedom doesn't matters anything serious for occidental countries. Money, oil, hypocrisy, do.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[mastershake_phd]

we all remember the iraki embargo in the 90's

I always wondered where that game took place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikari_Warriors

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Asic Eng]

Shouldn't we clear this up first, before going after software that can not be used by people to kill people quite as directly as guns?

That's a false dichotomy - there is no reason you can't do both, outlawing the software sales doesn't hinder your efforts to prevent them from getting weapons.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[Agripa]

My first shotgun (single shot .410) wasn't 762mm in length, it was only 28". That's patently ridiculous. They gonna call that a pistol, too? I'm assuming they're talking about barrel length, here, since total length is meaningless.

There were similar issues in the US after the NFA (National Firearms Act) was passed in 1934 placing restriction on machine guns among other weapons. Occasionally, .22 rifles would show up with barrel lengths of 16 inches that were actually smooth bore. BATF figured these were actually short barreled shotguns and would use possession without the tax stamp as a felony to persecute dealers and owners. In the US for shotguns the barrel length has to be 18 inches or longer and the overall length has to be 26 inches or longer. Anything else is a short barreled shotgun which has additional restrictions and of course all of the violations are instant felonies.

Re:US made guns used to oppress Burma

[iamacat]

Is our government good at handling even one thing at a time well?

OSS? Anyone?

[scgops]

I guess the Burmese government hasn't heard of open source software.

bah

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the worst articles I've ever seen on /.

The US makes firearms that are used by countries to suppress their populations.

Why does this surprise anybody?

Censorware doesn't censor people. People censor people.

Re:bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Firearms don't suppress people. People suppress people.

(Modded troll in 4.. 3.. 2.. 1..)

Re:bah

[Chibi Merrow]

The US makes firearms that are used by countries to suppress their populations.

No, US firearms are a bit too expensive and require a bit too much maintenance for two-bit thug governments to bother with, really. Especially when AK-47s are so damn cheap. Hell, look at Iraq, you'd think we'd of turned them into a client state but they're still using AKs...

Re:bah

[CmdrGravy]

You think the military rulers of Burma are short of money ? With the resources of an entire country at their disposal I rather think not and suggesting that they make carefully balanced purchases based on the relative costs and merits of a product rather than the size of the bribe from the vendor is also a little far fetched.

Re:bah

[Chibi Merrow]

You think the military rulers of Burma are short of money ?

No, but I think they'd rather spend the money sniffing cocaine off the tits of a $10k/hour prostitute than an overpriced easily broken toy from the US when they can get ten sturdy, equally functional tools practically for free from an old Soviet satellite state.

Please note I am not disparaging US rifles, just pointing out that they're not what most thugs look for in a weapon. They're designed for a well disciplined, organized, and funded fighting force, not murderers, insurgents, and rapists...

With the resources of an entire country at their disposal I rather think not and suggesting that they make carefully balanced purchases based on the relative costs and merits of a product rather than the size of the bribe from the vendor is also a little far fetched.

Actually after looking into it, it looks like they produce a licensed variant of the H&K G3 (which is German) as their main battle rifle, so they don't buy their guns from anyone.

Re:OSS? Anyone?

[LingNoi]

Interesting point.

How would the GPL deal with this? The GPL says you can not limit the use of the software from a specific group. So you wouldn't be able to say "The military can't use this software" because it limits who uses the software... is this an issue for anyone else?

Nevermind Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

Our own phones are all tapped, and we the "free" people of the US can't do squat. Burmese are "oppressed?" Nevermind them, sort out our house before worrying about internet access of a people on the other end of the globe.

Re:Nevermind Burma

[conureman]

Yes, we certainly have no right to interfere with free enterprise here in America. Proud Patriotic Persons all know that no law has ever impinged on any one's freedom here in the U.S.A. It just wouldn't do to start now by trampling the rights of some blameless corporation. It isn't like we have any right to complain about brutal slaughter of unarmed civilians by their own government, when we sort of encourage that all over the place ourselves, either. At least some one's getting a buck out of it. Or is that why Fortinet is looking into this? I wouldn't put it past those thugs to be software pirates too.

Re:Nevermind Burma

[RevHawk]

See, this is the problem. The world isn't very big anymore. Sorry. We're just not isolated. The clean our house before we even think about another's really isn't a great idea. Why? Because it's all connected! Oppression anywhere is a threat to civil rights anywhere... The fact that we can excuse what's happening in our country just shows how bad it's gotten. Other countries do this regularly, and our government likes to help them out. Still...people just don't care. Why? Good question.

Re:Nevermind Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

People need to stop spewing this "the world is small" crap. Yes, it has gotten smaller because of technology. But, until I can go to work on another continent and be home in time for dinner in Arizona the world is still a pretty big place.

What happened to "information wants to be free"?

[Sontas]

So what? Let me guess, we're supposed to get all hauty over this "criminal injustice" of a piece of software being used by an enemy state in a way we wouldn't like. Yet we'll cry "let the information/code/whatever be free" when it comes to encryption software, despite the fact that it is used by criminals, enemy states, and even terrorist groups. Hell, we'll tie ourselves in knots trying to make sure our criminal and military intelligence services can't overcome those encryption tools despite their use by the enemy. Actually, we tie our intelligence services hands behind their back even when they get lucky enough to find a criminal enterprise not using the encryption tools, too.

Let me guess, we're upset now because this software is inherently "evil" whereas encryption software is inherently "good", or at least benign. "Blocking software? Why that's used to stop the flow of information and it's used to oppress. Of course it shouldn't be making it's way from the US into our enemy's hands." Maybe we should throw on a good old, "Damned neocon's!" or "Corporations profiting by their export of legalized digital oppression! Same old story."

Give me break. If we're going to support free use and access for the one (PGP, for instance) aren't we logically bound to support the other, since the basis of the support was that programs are neither good nor bad and that information/code/software yearns to be free? Sure, lament their use for evil purpose, but lets not go all "this shouldn't be allowed to happen" or "there should be a law against it". At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.

Frankly

[G-News.ch]

I consider it much less of a problem if its only a software product, as opposed to some hypocritical "liberation-invasion". They will handle themselves, just give them a little bit more time, with or without censorware.

Re:OSS? Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How would the GPL deal with this? The GPL says you can not limit the use of the software from a specific group. So you wouldn't be able to say "The military can't use this software" because it limits who uses the software... is this an issue for anyone else?

Well the GPU folks didn't want the military using their software so they modified the GPL.
http://www.linux.com/articles/56426

There is also the SLUC license:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLUC

I'm sure there are probably others out there who would not wanting the military using their software either.

Re:OSS? Anyone?

[Bert64]

They used to use dansguardian a few years ago...

Censorship and guns

[Askmum]

How is this different from countries oppressing people using US-made and -funded guns?

Re:Censorship and guns

[Anonymous Coward]

It's different in many, mostly obvious, ways. It isn't, however, worse.

Re:Censorship and guns

[east coast]

How is this different from countries oppressing people using US-made and -funded guns?

US guns have also liberated people.

Or do you blame the Soviets every time someone is killed with an AK?

If that's the way you think of it I'd say you're likely an American. It's popular in America today to blame the producer of a tool instead of the user who uses it for destruction and corruption.

Frankly, it's a sickening trend since it diverts attention from the real issue.

Re:Censorship and guns

[Askmum]

If that's the way you think of it I'd say you're likely an American.

Nope. And I'm not blaming the producer so much (although I am entirely against guns) as I am blaming the funder.

Re:Censorship and guns

[ssrs396]

In Soviet Russia (and most of the rest of the world) AK-47 (not M16) oppresses YOU!

Re:Censorship and guns

[RealGrouchy]

How is this different from countries oppressing people using US-made and -funded guns? Why would it need to be different?

Both are bad; neither should be allowed, even if they are not both illegal.

- RG>

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[Tim C]

Just to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, there is a moral difference. Encryption software can be used by the bad guys, but it can also be used by the oppressed to get their message out. Content filtering/blocking software can only be used to restrict access to information - there's no way to use it to spread information.

So, it's perfectly possible to preach that information "wants" to be free* and be for software that can help that in difficult situations, while still being against software that can only be used to restrict information.

(* Although dropping the advocacy for a moment, I've always hated that phrase)

At least not unless you're willing to split the moral/ethical hairs for all the "good" software too.

Again playing Devil's Advocate, we do that already with all sorts of objects and services; why should software be any different?

Crapware isn't new

[flyingfsck]

US made spam blasting software and MS Windows Vista is also used world-wide to oppress people.

Re: Crapware isn't new

[Black Parrot]

MS Windows Vista is also used world-wide to oppress people. Presumably you refer to the people who got stuck with it on their computers.

Burma runs google?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who knew?... I guess they are like china-lite...

The Abuse is News.

[Erris]

Seriously, why would this surprise anyone?

It's not a surprise, but a light should shine on the the whole situation so that we can know the consequences of a non free internet. If people know how bad internet filtering really is, it will be denounced and eliminated. People in the US are more likely to demand network neutrality if the opposite is associated with a backwater where monks are murdered in cold blood.

It is also shocking that US companies would continue to do business with Burma. The market is tiny, so there's not even a good economic explanation for it. The backlash from that business is going to cost them much more than they could ever earn. Even GWB is repulsed by Burma.

Re:The Abuse is News.

[CmdrGravy]

People in the US would do well to learn what the people of Burma and other model states around the world are already well on their way to learning. As the song says "Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose."

Guns are Not Important.

[Erris]

Shouldn't we clear this up first, before going after software that can not be used by people to kill people quite as directly as guns?

No, the software is more important. You may recall the 1994 Rwandan Genocide where the primary weapon was machetes, an intentionally cruel method of murder. What's being demonstrated in Burma is that a non free network can be used to target and eliminate unarmed dissidents. The guns are secondary.

I blame George W. Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Democrat and loyal Slashdot user, I blame the Jew puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin

Instead he blows the heads off children in Iraq for his amusement.
Oh well, every dead soldier is one less Republican vote and one more victory for us Democrats

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[malsdavis]

...of a piece of software being used by an enemy state...

Are we at war with Myanmar or something? What makes them an "enemy state"?

Censorware tyranny

[dgun]

They should release it under the GPL. Then it will be free, as in freedom.

"News for Nerds"

[argent]

This is Slashdot, not the NRA.

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[Opportunist]

Software that allows me to dictate what happens to my data == Good
Software that allows you to dictate what happens to your data == Good
Software that allows me to dictate what happens to your data == Bad
Software that allows you to dictate what happens to my data == Bad

See the difference?

Huh?

[blackdew]

(i'll probably get modded into oblivion for this, but...)

What's exactly the difference between:

1) RIAA saying bittorent is bad because you can download pirated music with it.
2) CIA saying encryption is bad because terorists can use it.
3) The slashdot crowd saying filtering software is bad because you can censor burman internet with it.

Isn't that hypocritical? What happened to "guns dont kill people, people kill people"? am i missing something?

Re:Huh?

[The Second Horseman]

What's exactly the difference between:

Because bittorrent and encryption are communications enabling technologies, and internet filtering software is a communications censoring technology? Much as I often disagree with the Slashdot conventional "wisdom" on things, I'm not seeing a philosophical inconsistency here.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know about Slashdot conventional wisdom, but it seems to me that encryption belongs to the domain of software that I use, and am free to use as long as I dont intrude on the freedoms of others. Internet filtering software (at a personal level, for example firewalls) also belongs to this category. The problem happens when software is used to encroach on the freedoms of other people, as in this case.

Yeah, right

[orzetto]

Let the market deal with it

One day, people will realise that this sentence belongs in the same league of:

This ship cannot be sunk
640K will be enough for everyone
We have superior firepower, the Vietnamese will lose
We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down
History has ended

Market is powered by greed. Greed may improve the economy, but if you think greed is going to do any good to democracy, well you're in for a surprise.

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

Greed may improve economy up to a point. While the entirety of the economy may improve, an imbalance will be created. That is the essence of greed.

At some point, if we have no oversight or just fail to provide adequate oversight, we will recreate the robber baron conditions that will eventually cause another depression. The collapse will cause a swing back to socialism for a while. Don't forget, we had nearly 60 years of socialism in the United States of America. The reason it worked was that we still had a democracy. We enacted a change as people got fed up with socialist policies. Everyone else that had socialism had dictatorships or oligarchies and those economies collapsed because the ones in charge weren't capable of allowing the change to happen. We are swinging towards free market capitalism, but as soon as that sours enough of the public, the public can vote for a swing back towards socialism.

It will probably take 60 years for this cycle to run its course, as the old men who lived through socialist policies die out, and the youth grow up not knowing or remembering what socialism was like. The swing towards free market capitalism is likely a result of the current older generation not remembering or knowing what the robber baron era was like. The grass is always greener on the other side.

Re:Yeah, right

[RealGrouchy]

Let the market deal with it One day, people will realise that this sentence belongs in the same league of: I thought it already was, hence Stephen Colbert saying it so often.

- RG>

If the US doesn't deliver it, someone else will

[Britz]

so the US should, because otherwise US companies will loose. We have seen this with Iran and their nuclear power program. Because of stupid restrictions Pakistan and Russia now supply the Iranians. No more boundaries for US companies for those only hurt the US economy.

Re:If the US doesn't deliver it, someone else will

[Black Parrot]

so the US should, because otherwise US companies will loose. We have seen this with Iran and their nuclear power program. Because of stupid restrictions Pakistan and Russia now supply the Iranians. Yeah, we can only sell it to countries that aren't members of the non-proliferation treaty.

OFAC on Burma

[rlp]

OFAC (US Office of Foreign Asset Control) has a guide on the US laws relating to trade with Burma. (link):

There is no prohibition on the exportation of goods and services other than financial services to Burma.

Note: there are restrictions on imports from Burma. Perhaps the law should be changed (to prohibit certain or all exports).

Re:OFAC on Burma

[monkaru]

I think it should be all exports. The U.S. is on very shaky moral ground when it comes to Myanmar and it's well past time the U.S. stood up and said "we aren't supporting the regime in any way now and we can prove it". Otherwise, when the day of reckoning comes, all the U.S. will have to show is this: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/corporate_accountability/corporateArticle.asp?ObjID=lrRSFKnmmm&Content=45 and some pretty lies. America is far from alone in having Burmese skeletons in their closet so, please don't think I'm singling out the U.S. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0189406220071001

Couple of facts about Burma

[rlp]

1) China is one of the largest trading partners with Burma
2) Burma has lots of oil reserves, China does not.

Next time you see some proposed UN sanctions against Burma vetoed by China - you'll know why.

Re: Couple of facts about Burma

[Black Parrot]

1) China is one of the largest trading partners with Burma
2) Burma has lots of oil reserves, China does not. 3) China pwns the US economy.

Next time you see some proposed UN sanctions against Burma vetoed by China - you'll know why. And the US government will, at most, cry crocodile tears.

Re:Couple of facts about Burma

[freeweed]

3) China likes having more repressive regimes around that make them look not quite so bad.

Re: Couple of facts about Burma

[superpulpsicle]

If this really is about oil. I think is time we innovate cars that use real alternate fuel. Iraq was bad enough.

Re:Couple of facts about Burma

[Anonymous Coward]

3) There is no country called Burma.
4) There is one called Myanmar.

Re:Couple of facts about Burma

[ShawnX]

If you accept that the junta are legitimate government, sure. But In my world, Myanmar is Burma until the PEOPLE of Burma decide otherwise.

Be careful chosing your filtering products

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries should be very careful when picking filter software, if any.
On a country level, most of the USA companies who deliver for those purposes are controlled by the NSA, so while you think you're implementing an espionage device for your own population, in fact you've just connected your country into Echelon. I guess the "good" news is that the American government has complete data harvesting and filtering control over Burma (and, in fact, over most European countries and a number of more around the world).

pointless

[m2943]

Trying to stop censorship by pointing fingers at the manufacturers of filtering software is pointless. You can put together an Internet censorship platform out of open source components: no sales, no "made in USA". And it would be really bad if you couldn't: an evolving, open Internet requires being able to manipulate traffic at the packet level.

If the US wants to stop censorship and human rights abuses in Burma, it needs to do it the traditional way: persuasion, politics, trade, and/or military.

Re:pointless

[monkaru]

One day there is going to be an accounting for what has happened in Myanmar. The Junta has oppressed its people, trafficked heroin, amphetamines, ecstasy and young girls to the fleshpots of Thailand and, just to rub in how evil they are, have imprisoned an angel for going on two decades now. The whole while the world has done nothing more than shake its collective head and "tsk-tsk" the Junta. When the day comes, and it will, when everyone and dog is looking for absolution for turning a blind eye to Myanmar (that's exactly what is happening. Pretty words mean nothing)it would be nice to be able to say "Well, at least we refused to sell them so much as a bar of soap, never mind computers and/or software". Sure China or Russia or Iran may those sell things to the regime but, at least, you can walk away with something resembling clean hands. So, if this issue causes the U.S. Congress to revisit sanctions against Myanmar and possibly start considering sanctions that actually hurt then it's probably a good thing. Don't think I'm just pointing my finger at the U.S. Many other countries; including my own, Canada, have equally bad records for having sanctions against Myanmar that amount to little more than window dressing. So, yes, block sales of software, any software, and computers and EVERYTHING eslse. Do it now.

Re:pointless

[m2943]

One day there is going to be an accounting for what has happened in Myanmar.

I wouldn't bet on it; far bigger crimes against humanity have been committed and are largely forgotten.

old street fighter buddy

[omfglearntoplay]

It's sad. I had an old friend from Burma who moved(?) to the US. He was damn good with Ryu/Ken. I think he was more of a "Ken" player... anyway, sucks that his home country has a bunch of pyschos running the gov't and probably half of his family are there.

Re: old street fighter buddy

[Black Parrot]

anyway, sucks that his home country has a bunch of pyschos running the gov't Yeah, a lot of us here in the USA can sympathize with that.

Opportunity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this surprising? Any time there is an opportunity to make money, for evil or good, someone will be there to provide the service, period.

It's human nature, and humans do anything to make money.

-AC

What the Civilization games have taught us

[Hoi Polloi]

If the Civilization games have taught us anything, one thing is that you can still keep trading with hostile governments and frequently at a bigger profit. The other is keep your triremes near the shore.

Re:What the Civilization games have taught us

[Anonymous Coward]

This far in the tech tree, we call them "aircraft carrier battle groups".

Of course theres also counter-tech called "chinese submarines" and the like, but that means theres also counter-counter tech...

ethics

[celle]

Ah, american moral standards in action. Isn't raw greed with no ethics wonderful?

Re:ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because there's no greed and immorality anywhere else in the world. The U.S. learned everything it needed of both subjects from mountains of world history. It almost makes one think that it's just a common human flaw...

dumbass

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[SIIHP]

"See the difference?"

No because there is none, it's all zeros and ones.

On a slightly less confrontational note, you're pretending the tool is what matters, when it's the use of the tool that is the problem.

OP was correct, you just don't like it.

How to make it right

[raoulortega]

Of course, if it was Open Source, and used the GPLv3 license, then everything would be okay.

Then you're not lookng hard enough

[SIIHP]

"Because bittorrent and encryption are tools, and internet filtering software is a tool?"

Fixed that to clear up your confusion.

The ability to use internet filtering software for positive purposes directly parallels the ability to use bittorrent to distribute non-infringing content.

wow. slow news day?

[c6gunner]

Other newsflashes:

1) European union using American made operating systems! Stay tuned for more!
2) Chinese web filters running on US made systems! End the oppression!
3) North Korean propaganda machines run on US made computers! Film at 11!

Those Americans sure are some 3v33l d00dz!

BLACKLIST THE PEOPLE WHO PROGRAM THIS

[justdrew]

and any companies that make it. There's no reason why people developing this shit should just walk away with a nice pay check. Shame them for life.

Re:BLACKLIST THE PEOPLE WHO PROGRAM THIS

[ShinmaWa]

You are absolutely right. Next time I'm in the market to buy software that filters and/or logs and/or spies on internet traffic, I'll be sure not to buy from THESE guys.

Sum of All Fears.

[Neanderthal Ninny]

Like the movie "Sum of All Fears" in which the terrorist get a nuclear bomb and detonate it in the US and the US finds out the plutonium used in the bomb came from the US. This is case is not using the device against ourselves but against the innocent. Like anything we make we need to make sure that the criminals, be it an individual or an entire country, doesn't get a hold of it and use it for evil purposes. However we should "ban" devices or ways since this will punish the innocent also since most people use the device or way for legitimate purposes. This method of banning the device or way is no worst than Burma(Myanmar) is banning them from speaking their minds against a dictatorship.

Re:Sum of All Fears.

[Anonymous Coward]

make sure that the criminals, be it an individual or an entire country

Isn't that a bit of an overgeneralization? I'm not aware of any country that is composed entirely of criminals.

Re:What happened to "information wants to be free"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a fool, slashdot is made up of many people. Chances are the folks who say info must be free aren't the same people who're saying this is bad.

What about GPL software?

[dottyslashdottydot]

I was in Burma two years ago, and know for a fact that they use Dansguardian, a GPL licenced product. I was surfing the web at one of their internet cafes, and kept coming up with the 'site blocked' message with the Dansguardian name all over it. So, even if companies were banned from dealing with Burma, nothing can stop the junta from downloading and installing open source solutions, or even pirated copies. Killing monks doesn't bother them, why should a bit of 'stolen' software?
Interestingly, in some tourist areas, many internet cafes openly advertised that they had hotmail and other popular email sites (all banned by the govenment), which they were able to get to by using proxies. Like I said, that was 2 years ago, and I'm sure those same cafe owners aren't being so open now about the ways that they can get around government consorship.

Re:What about GPL software?

[stratjakt]

WILL YOU GET WITH IT AND START HATING AMERICA

i mean duh, this isnt a tech site.. this is just a "hate america" blog

ARR america how dare you

america invented teh comptuers bad guys use! fuckin america mass produced the first getaway cars and also somehow fucked up the moon by landing on it

fuckin ass hole america arr!

Re:Listen, Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Most dissidents refer to it as Burma, the name Myanmar is a political tool used by the ruling junta. Those against the junta like to say "Burma" to highlight their view that the ruling government is illegal.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion