Microsoft Not the Only Firm Blocking IM Service To US Enemies

ericatcw writes "It was reported last week that Microsoft had cut access to its Windows Live Messenger instant messaging service to citizens of five countries with whom the US has trade embargoes. Now, it turns out that Google and, apparently, AOL have taken similar actions. According to a lawyer quoted by Computerworld, even free, downloaded apps are viewed as 'exports' by the US government — meaning totally in-the-cloud services such as e-mail may escape the rules. Either way, there appear to be a number of ways determined citizens of Syria, Iran, and Cuba can get around the ban."

Comments

hurt the wrong people more

[xzvf]

Ironically, banning these communication tools will more likely hinder dissidents in those countries far more than government. The dictatorial governments already have control over many traditional forms of communication and by introducing these new forums, the US would actually make it harder for them to control their population.

Re:hurt the wrong people more

[RiotingPacifist]

Unfortunately the blame doesn't lie with ms/aol/google (a sad day for /.) this time the problem is purely political ( a happy day for /.), the government needs to define "exports" better so that methods of communicating are allowed (even if you forbid encryption).

Re:hurt the wrong people more

[timeOday]

I always thought the Internet would make wars awfully awkward, since you could be in direct, person-to-person contact with the civilians on the other side. At least a few of them are bound to put up facebook pages chronicling their hardships, in English, for all to see. (And to be fair, foreign propagandists are sure to create sympathetic shills as well - though as long as the pictures of slaughtered children are real, I'm not sure the identity of the supposed grieving mother really matters).

So I guess this practice will help shield us from that little inconvenience.

Re:OK With Me

[polar red]

It's hard to change your government when outside forces keep interfering. examples are : big corporations paying warlords (with weapons) in exchange for mining rights; foreign governments placing people in government and supplying them with money/weapons ...

Re:OK With Me

[polar red]

another example : a foreign much bigger country places your country in isolation, thereby giving the dictator a means to control the population by antagonising the big country. (CUBA)

Re:OK With Me

[oneirophrenos]

I understand that not everyplace has a representative democracy with regular, free elections like the US, but except for the worst dictatorships that rule by force, the government must remain popular with the people!

You are kidding yourself. An ordinary person has very little influence on who and what comprises the government, especially in countries where anti-government sentiment is met with force and violence. That Western companies seek to undermine the few remaining means of free communication that these people have is, frankly, irresponsible.

Re:OK With Me

[zwei2stein]

Ehhh ... no.

Citizens of those countries being able to comunicate with rest of the world and see&compare how people live elsewhere will cause change. That is reason why their cowerment attempt to censor internet. US of A does not need to help them with that.

Big Bad Common Foreign Enemy targeting them too on the other hand ... well, ignorant masses are easy prey to propaganda.

Re:"U.S. Enemies"?

[AlHunt]

>Really curious - can any slashdotters enlighten me as to why the Cuba / USA situation continues?

Because it seemed like a good idea at the time and backing off now would mean Davey beat Goliath. American politicians aren't willing to admit they couldn't bully a tiny island nation 90 miles off the coast.

In a word - ego.

Enemy Communications

[alcmaeon]

Also ironically, wouldn't it be better for the U.S. to have all its enemies' secret communications running through servers in the U.S. so we could just eavesdrop anytime we wanted to with no hassle. Or the U.S. thinks the IM doesn't serve any strategic purpose, which makes one wonder why it needs to be embargoed.

Re:OK With Me

[m.ducharme]

Don't you see the point? To use your own example, one of the methods by which the North Korean government maintains power over its people is to block access by those people to things like the web, e-mail, IM, etc. If you keep the people incommunicado, then you can more easily keep them under control.

If the US prohibits its corporations from providing things like IM, e-mail, etc to the people of repressive governments, it's basically helping those governments maintain control over their own people. If the goal of the US gov is to subvert repressive governments, denying the people of those nations access to communication with the rest of the world will not achieve that goal. If on the other hand the goal is to dehumanize the people of those countries, making it easier for all of us to accept wars with those countries, well, blocking communications would certainly help accomplish that.