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

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

US-Made Censorware

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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.

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!

Censorship and guns

[Askmum]

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

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?

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.

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.

Censorware tyranny

[dgun]

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

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.

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

[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>

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: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.

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: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?

[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.

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: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.