Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blocks Messenger In Five Embargoed Countries
Spooky McSpookster writes "Microsoft has turned off its Windows Live Messenger service for five countries: Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and North Korea. Users in these countries trying to log in get the following error: '810003c1: We were unable to sign you in to the .NET Messenger Service.' Why now, since this flies in the face of the Obama administration's softening stance on Cuba? This isn't the first time the US trade embargo has had questionable outcomes. US-based Syrian political activist George Ajjan created a web site promoting democracy in Syria, only to find GoDaddy blocked anyone inside Syria from seeing it. The article argues, 'Messenger is a medium for communication, and the citizens of these countries should not be punished from such a basic tool because the US has problems with their governments' policies.' What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?"
What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?
About the same as the wisdom of US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication. The ones are about as likely as the others, to end up with a strange feeling on their backsides.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
They don't do what is good for "people" in general and they don't claim to do so.
This is true of every big corporation. It's probably true of any group where liability for actions are taken away.
Simple. They were using the "block country" wizard 4 years ago to do this change, but whomever was doing the blocking, accidentally pressed cancel on the last sheet. Until now, no-one noticed that those countries weren't blocked.
There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
The slashdot article writes: "What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?"
It's not so much that it's a US company, but closed source product.
Microsoft activation has disabled plenty of US citizens who upgraded some components of their hardware that WGA didn't like.
And even if you buy from other companies you're not safe from US sabotage in closed source software. Remember the Soviet Oil Pipeline software bought from a Canadian firm - which had CIA-placed trojans in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage
If you care about your software infrastructure - make sure you have the ability to fix (or hire independent consultants to fix) your software no matter what your vendor does - whether it's something innocent like going bankrupt, or deliberately breaking your infrastructure.
I'm not a lover or hater of MS, but I know when a article is biased.
Right after the writer says "it's not clear that Microsoft was ordered to make this change, so what made the company decide that US-embargoed countries aren't worthy of Messenger? Why now?".
If it's not clear, why assume they chose? Why say they aren't worthy... clearly MS thought they were for some time. MS gets no good from blocking it, they just want users. Maybe their lawyers had been arguing with the government and finally there was a decision.
Noone knows... which means don't conclude anything. More info needed.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
What does this say for the wisdom of non-US citizens relying on US companies for their business or communication?
What does this say about the wisdom of anyone relying on a single provider for their business or communication? The idea of a second source isn't exactly new. If you adopt a technology from a single provider, with no interoperability, then don't be surprised when you realise that their interests are not the same as yours. If you use MSN Messenger and Facebook instead of XMPP and email then you are subject to the whims of these two companies and their legal obligations.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
How pointless, hopefully everyone will switch to something non commercial like Jabber and the only ones to suffer will be Microsoft.
More power to decentralised protocols like XMPP where anyone can run a server, even if all internet access is cut off to that particular country
I believe these countries have gurus who can grab open source software and end up build a versatile system. Who the hell needs Microsoft?
It could be Jabber all the way.
Corporations doing what is best for their owners and share holders is a MYTH. This is one of the biggest myths of the corporate era of history.
Corporations move first to promote the interests of the *corporation* itself. The interests of shareholders is a very. very distant second.
If the shareholders where higher on the ladder you wouldn't see the rush to declare bankruptcy where the common shareholder gets nothing out of the deal.
This reply reminds me of something one my really dumb bosses said to me one time when I was trying to fix a problem I was having in my linux instation.
"Can't you just call Linux and have them fix it?"
Like everything we use has to be centered at some big corporation somewhere...
Also communication systems like WLM enable folks trapped in tyrannical regimes to communicate with the outside world. The ability to communicate with Europeans is an important mechanism for spreading Western values -- human rights, democracies, and simple compassion -- into brutal societies.
On which planet? Here on planet Earth, corporations act in the best interest of one or two board members on a good day, and on the supposed, but completely erroneously assessed, best interest of same board members the rest of the year. The shareholders and employees get shafted regularly. The American and British motor industries appear to act consistently against their own best interests.
Mergers are almost always to the benefit of a few board members, and to the complete detriment of the corporation and its shareholders.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Why do Cuba, North Korea and all get better security due to a lack of access to one of the biggest malware outlets on the planet and we don't?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't know about the other four countries but last summer I was in Iran and USA brands were ubiquitous. For example all the restaurants had either Coca Cola or Pepsi which seem to be the locals' favorite drink. "Bottled in Iran with license from Coca Cola" read the cans, in plain English. And they were less than 50c!
I was clearly on the minority when drinking the local traditional soda, dugh, made with yogurt and mint.
Some locals take offense if asked about the embargo. It hurts their national feelings. "we've been under embargo for generations and we know how to get around it".
Friends who hadn't been to Iran for several years missed the old traditional Persian cola brands. Apparently Persicola and Zam Zam tasted much better than the USA brands. But locals didn't remember when the change had happened.
Similarly local olive and olive oil brands had been replaced with European counterparts. Last news I hear from Iran is that some clerics are getting around the import tariffs and illegally importing cheap Malaysian fruits which are driving local farmers to bankruptcy.
A few years ago the supreme leader abolished an article in the constitution which prevented the government from privatizing core state services. Now Ahmadinejad is eliminating the subsidies for bread, electricity, and gas.
Recently the Iranian government sounds more like the Bush neocon administration than a revolutionary socialist one.
I know that the embargo of Internet services are different to get around from the embargo of physical goods, but many people in Iran already use a VPN and browse with a foreign IP, to get pass the Iranian censorship.
As an individual who currently resides in Syria, I find this simply absurd, but the reason isn't simply Embargoes, it happens to be most embargoed countries do not implement copyright laws pertaining to US (and most non-US) company products. Some might have the spiteful reaction, 'well then they shouldn't be provided any services', while the reason for these companies not getting any copyright rights, is the fact they don't have official representation in these countries for the same reason the embargoes exist, politics.
This brings us to the main reason some services have been denied to the aforementioned countries, Revenue, now because nationals (and residents) of these countries do not abide by global copyright laws, almost all services provided to these countries are either the free in nature, or in the case of non-online products (e.g Windows XP) piracy is the norm.
So as some of you mentioned, its all about politics, what we here see, is a sign that the political status of these countries as embargoed countries, won't be changing any time soon. And the reason is simply, Revenue.
They don't speak Arabic in Iran, you fool.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
I don't think that MS really wants to lose tons of users, because I am from Syria and switching the country in my profile re-granted my access to the Messenger service.
Your Ad here
(I'm a buddhist by the way, posting AC for patriotic Americans with mod points)
How funny! A Buddhist trying to skirt around karma! You should know better.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...