Slashdot Mirror


Senators Want To Punish Nokia, Siemens Over Iran

fast66 writes "After hearing about Nokia-Siemens sale of Internet-monitoring software to Iran, US Senators Schumer and Graham want to bar them from receiving federal contracts. They planned the action after hearing about a joint venture of Nokia Corp. of Finland and Siemens AG of Germany that sold a sophisticated Internet-monitoring system to Iran in 2008. According to Nextgov.com, Schumer and Graham's bill would require the Obama administration to identify foreign companies that export sensitive technology to Iran and ban them from bidding on federal contracts, or renew expiring ones, unless they first stop exports to Iran."

392 comments

  1. First uncensored post by McGiraf · · Score: 1, Insightful

    yet here the use DPI for a lot of stuff

    1. Re:First uncensored post by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Off topic? More like insightful.

      Senators want to punish Iran for placing fetters on freedom of speech and democracy? First do something about the NSA running around like the Stasi, the FBI running around like the Gestapo and the TSA from running around like nosy nannies with clubs. Then sort out the "Free Speech Zone" debacle. Then sort out the PATRIOT Act. Then sort out the US government's working on ACTA treaties that are secret.

      Maybe then they can get all high-horsey about freedom in other parts of the world. Until then, calling Iran "unfree" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:First uncensored post by GrpA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Accepting abuses of human rights in other countries is still a bad thing, even if your own government is abusing those very same rights.

      If you don't stand against it openly, even if it is hypocritical to do so patriotically, then there's no reason for those within your own country to desist from their own actions.

      After all, ignoring another country's abuses just because your own country does likewise is even worse than hypocrisy. It's complicity.

      GrpA

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    3. Re:First uncensored post by sigxcpu · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The idea is not to punish Iran, it's to punish Nokia Siemens.
      The US has an embargo on Iran and Nokia Siemens broke it.

      (BTW it's one company, not two.)

      --
      As of Postgres v6.2, time travel is no longer supported.
    4. Re:First uncensored post by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what's annoying is just the stupid grandstanding. They are fine with the EXACT same usage in the US, as the gov't now can arbitrarily declare anybody an enemy combatant, arrest them, hold them indefinitely without charge, and even then transport them out of the country. It's not like congress was briefed on the NSA wiretapping and did something about it. And it's not like ALL internet traffic goes through the NSA's computers (now, whether they can actually do DPI on it all in realtime...).

      But, when the people we have hired to watch our police forces don't bother doing it (I mean really, the FBI doesn't know how many NSL's they have issued OR where all of them went to HAS to be willful incompetence after this many years), and we keep re-hiring them, it's really our problem. We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:First uncensored post by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good points, but we all know the real reason - it's to favour US manufacturers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:First uncensored post by bigtomrodney · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US has an embargo on Iran and Nokia Siemens broke it.

      Nokia Siemens is a joint venture with its headquarters in Finland. The two contributing companies are Nokia, who were founded and are headed in Finland and Siemens were founded and are headed in Germany. The United States of America set an embargo on the country and yet all others are expected to follow - this is what's wrong with the American outlook.

      I'm just glad I've been able to buy Cuban cigars legally in my country all along.

      --
      I never get used to these constant resurrections
    7. Re:First uncensored post by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unfortunately, the embargo does not cover that. European companies like Nokia and Siemens are bound by Council Regulation 423/2007, which forbids the export of the following things:
      - Military goods of any kind
      - Services relating to maintenance, preparation, production or use of military goods
      - Just about anything related to nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles

      I just read through the damn thing (151 pages in the German version) and software is only covered where it is used for the design, operation or maintenance of nuclear enrichment facilities or military weapons, especially guided missiles. Unless I overlooked something (unlikely as the appendices are simple tables) or the embargo is covered by an additional regulation I am not aware of Nokia and Siemens did not violate the embargo.

      The morality of providing filtering technology to Iran aside, I just can't see what the States are trying to accomplish here. They try to punish companies from other countries for something that wasn't illegal at the time. In the best case we have an ex post facto situation with jurisdictional issues, in the worst case we have "screw the rules, we want your money".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    8. Re:First uncensored post by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a possibility that they might be a competitive supplier to a company that has offered financial support to a senator/s for a lucrative tender, and that this is a mechanism to remove them from being able to tender. Of course, I may be totally off the mark, but following the money, this does seem possible.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    9. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and as another step, first stop US companies like google, yahoo, microsoft etc ... helping non democratic countries like china spy their own citizens.

      I'm always amazed at how the US fights against European companies pretending to be for the good of the planet when it's only to get competitive advantage.

    10. Re:First uncensored post by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.

      That's because it doesn't seem to affect their daily routines.

      The main issue is not always whether the current executive powers are trustworthy. It is about putting in place mechanisms that would allow future (would be) dictators to take tight control. Even failed attempts can have nasty effects.

      Yesterday I watched an interviewwith the former head of the British counter terrorism operations. They see the immediate threat, but not the side effects of eroding democratic liberties. Scary. Probably with all the best intentions. Very scary.

    11. Re:First uncensored post by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US has an embargo on Iran and Nokia Siemens broke it.

      Oh? I missed the news then. When did the US annexed Germany and Finland?

    12. Re:First uncensored post by EatHam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Until then, calling Iran "unfree" is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

      Yes, I remember when people went out to protest and were hacked to death by axes, wielded by the National Guard. It was horrible.

      I would say that it's more like someone going into an emergency room with a paper cut and whining about how someone who has just been raped, thrown out of a car at 55mph, run over, lit on fire, then hacked up with machetes is getting treated first.

    13. Re:First uncensored post by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 1

      The morality of providing filtering technology to Iran aside, I just can't see what the States are trying to accomplish here. They try to punish companies from other countries for something that wasn't illegal at the time.

      I'm guessing they are engaging in some good old fashioned: wrap them selves in a flag, stand on a soap box and yell: "We are the defenders of liberty and democracy", type demagoguery while seizing an excellent opportunity to try and improve the competitive edge of US based telco equipment manufacturers by kicking their foreign competitors in the nuts. Politicians around the world do something similar all the time. Not that Nokia and Siemens shouldn't be punished for doing this. It may have been legal at the time but it's morally questionable. Even if you look at it from a totally unemotional standpoint based on the idea that corporations have no morals this sale was stupid thing to do since from a purely monetary point of view it's probably going to cost Siemens/Nokia more money to repair the PR damage this f*ckup has done than they made money from the sale to Iran.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    14. Re:First uncensored post by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh? I missed the news then. When did the US annexed Germany and Finland?
      They didn't that's why the action is hey we won't be buying your shit rather than, hey we're fining the fuck out of you. Really, this is such a non-story. During economic crisis, country uses fuzzy logic to exclude foreign manufacture over domestic one. Fire still hot, water still wet. Just wait for the appearance of the Blue Eagle before you start getting too indignant.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    15. Re:First uncensored post by rpillala · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many in the USA subscribe to a theory of American exceptionalism. They do this consciously or unconsciously. The theory is pretty simple: when America does something, it's OK. This is in line with "If the President does it, then it's not illegal." So when Americans are waterboarded, it's torture and a war crime. When the same thing is done by Americans, it's part of the war on terror, and a policy issue that shouldn't be criminalized. Sure, the participants and those authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques (euphemism has risen to new heights these days) circumvented legal frameworks, but they're not criminals no matter what they did. We need to look forward, not backward.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    16. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are giving these senators more credit than they are really worth.

      The senators are in a tizzy over "sensitive technology", that we all are just about positive is currently in use by the US Government. I think that the bill is aimed at keeping those monitoring technologies as secret as possible to prevent them from getting into prying black-hatted hands who will more than likely rip them apart and render them useless whilst simultaneously confirming the existence of internet monitoring technologies in the North American Internet network.

    17. Re:First uncensored post by schon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't stand against it openly, even if it is hypocritical to do so patriotically, then there's no reason for those within your own country to desist from their own actions.

      No.

      If you denounce it abroad, while not doing anything about it at home, then there's no reason for anyone to believe you're being sincere, and therefore you are actually saying it's a good thing.

    18. Re:First uncensored post by AHuxley · · Score: 1
      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

    20. Re:First uncensored post by schon · · Score: 1

      I would say that it's more like someone going into an emergency room with a paper cut and whining about how someone who has just been raped, thrown out of a car at 55mph, run over, lit on fire, then hacked up with machetes is getting treated first.

      You would be wrong.

      To make your analogy correct, it would be like someone going into an emergency room with a broken arm, and whining about how someone in an emergency room in another country is getting treated first.

    21. Re:First uncensored post by netsharc · · Score: 1

      And don't forget AT&T, spying on US citizens since... oh I dunno, 9/11/2001?

      Oh but wait, that's already been deemed legal.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    22. Re:First uncensored post by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In banking terms, under section 311 of the USA Patriot Act - Yes they are :)
      Effectively, it bars any financial institution from having anything to do with a "Germany and Finland", if they ever want to do business with or in America.
      Its a rather neat law.
      It goes down a degree of separation and stops anyone from dealing with a "Nokia and Siemens" if they ever want to do business with or in America.
      "Nokia and Siemens" would be left doing deals with Iran and only Iran.
      Any company having anything to do with a "Nokia and Siemens" would be treated as "Iran" direct :)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    23. Re:First uncensored post by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1

      The ability for law enforcement to monitor calls is standard in all telecoms infrastructures. That the legal system in Iran is even dodgier than that in the US is irrelevant, I don't see them suffering a huge PR disaster because two ignorant half-wits decide to mouth off in the hope of garnering some apple-pie flavoured publicity

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    24. Re:First uncensored post by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/submission/1029489/The-lowdown-on-the-Iranian-uprising

      The situation in Iran is NOT what the media makes it out to be here. Nor is it what our government would like us to believe.

      Human rights abuses? Maybe, but it's really awfully damned small scale, considering all the coverage. But, it makes for good bandwagon bullshit.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    25. Re:First uncensored post by Skrynesaver · · Score: 1

      Which has been completely ignored by civilised society and at no cost as Europeans continue to trade according to European law with Cuba, Iran and other countries.

      --
      "Linux is for noobs"-The new MS fud strategy
    26. Re:First uncensored post by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      My point is you can't break an embargo if you do not fall under the jurisdiction that called for it.

    27. Re:First uncensored post by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I doubt these Senators know that. Why not tell them?

    28. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accepting abuses of human rights in other countries is still a bad thing

      No it isn't. There is no such thing as right or wrong, only things that are widely recognized as being right and others widely recognized as being wrong, and many others where it is a matter of opinion.
      Let people believe in what they want and rule the way they want.

      Democracy and freedom are not necessarily the best things for humans. As a matter of fact, humankind has been living without them for much more time than with them and done fine.

      The US has no legitimacy in trying to tell people how to live (at least the countries that do so for a religion have one). Leave other countries alone. Pushing democracy (or rather, democracy-make-believe) on all countries is just killing diversity in ways of life.

    29. Re:First uncensored post by mea37 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Expected to follow? No...

      Treated differently depending on whether or not they do follow? Yes, that's pretty much the definition of "embargo".

      If the US were threatening to prosecute the company or its principals for daring to break the embargo, then you might have a point. That's a very different thing from saying "ok, if you won't honor our refusal to do business with Iran, then we also won't do business with you".

      You're basically saying that the US is somehow obligated to provide postiive support (in the form of business) to any given foreign-based company, even if that company does thigns against stated US interests. I don't think it's the US outlook that is broken in this instance.

    30. Re:First uncensored post by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      As long as the people on the terrorist watch list are only kept from flying, but not from buying guns and explosives, the US is still free.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    31. Re:First uncensored post by morcego · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For once (and I'm not American), I find this response from the USA government very reasonable. They are not barring Nokia to do business with companies on the USA. They are not prosecuting them. They are just saying: "if you want to do business with ME, you have to play by my rules".

      Even if all the other points raised here are valid (things the USA do etc), the response itself is a different matter.

      --
      morcego
    32. Re:First uncensored post by initdeep · · Score: 1

      As opposed to those warm soft and cuddly EU ministers who just seem to LOVE every American Company and embrace them with open arms?

      Let me guess where you live..........

      I wonder how thankful all those plain old Joe citizens in the EU are going to be when they discover that their versions of their favorite OS are going to be even more gimped, cost them extra, and not have upgrade possibilities thanks to those oh so smart and forward looking EU ministers......

      It's time for people the world over to stop believing the bullshit that "the evil corporations" are what is screwing them, and realize that the reality is that they love to be screwed, and will happily elect "their guy" to do so.

    33. Re:First uncensored post by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Very this.

      The issue before Congress would govern money spent by this government, and nothing else.

      The United States of America set an embargo on the country and yet all others are expected to follow - this is what's wrong with the American outlook.

      What's wrong with YOUR outlook that MY Senators can't set policy on how MY tax dollars are spent??

    34. Re:First uncensored post by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point is you can't break an embargo if you do not fall under the jurisdiction that called for it.

      And what you're failing to notice is that this is a non-point.

      While they did not technically do anything wrong, they still pissed off the people with the purse strings.

      Were they morally wrong? Probably, but business is business. Ethically, they're in the clear.

      Does this mean the Senate is forced to look favorably on it? Of course not. They still have power over their own budget rules whether the companies at hand are Swiss, German, South African, or even American. THAT is the part you're failing to grasp, from where I sit.

    35. Re:First uncensored post by tixxit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and though Iran is now using their filters to essentially stop all outward communication, I'm sure that was not the initial sell to Nokia. There are a number of countries that heavily filter Internet traffic that the US deals with (eg. China and Saudi Arabia). Even in the States, Australia and the UK, such measures have been proposed as an attempt to "protect the children." Now that the shit has hit the fan in Iran, its all of a sudden a super bad thing and "someone must pay!!!" It is entirely stupid to punish Nokia for something that it could not predict. Can we learn from this? Absolutely, but punishing Nokia doesn't do anything, it is simply the easy way out. The hard work would be talking it out with other countries and trying to set up international agreements barring sales of this type of software (I would hope, just in general, no exceptions...).

    36. Re:First uncensored post by despisethesun · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, are there any companies you refuse to buy from or do business with because of their business practices or who they deal with, despite it all being legal? This is effectively the same thing, it just happens to be a government rather than individuals. There is no fine, they're not blocked from dealing with anyone else in the US, there's no other punitive action, they're just saying "We don't like that you're doing this, so until you stop, you don't get any of our money." It's no different than any other consumer boycott except for the scale.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    37. Re:First uncensored post by Alarash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't see how you could be wrong. Cisco, Juniper, Microsoft, Google, and every high tech US company have been selling exactly the same thing to China for years. Why punish NSN for doing exactly the same thing in Iran? Because US companies lost the deal? I hope this is not the case and these Senators really have the interest of the Iranians at heart.

    38. Re:First uncensored post by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Well if all that stuff happened to them, there's a good chance they're already dead, so curing my paper cut is a much better use of hospital resources than curing death.

    39. Re:First uncensored post by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many in the USA subscribe to a theory of American exceptionalism. ... The theory is pretty simple: when America does something, it's OK. ...

      That is not what American Exceptionalism is about. "American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among developed nations in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and unique origins." - American Exceptionalism.

      The idea of Nixon-style exceptionalism (a priori exceptionalism as discussed in the Wikipedia entry) is held only by a few, and often thrown out as a strawman, like you just did. You can disagree with the notion all you like, just don't distort the expressed views of those who do.

      Condemnation of Iran's actions and punishment of Nokia and Siemens for sanction violations makes sense. Iran is using this technology to directly curb free expression. None of the U.S. government entities mentioned in this discussion do that. They may listen in, but they aren't turning around and cracking skulls as a follow up. Saying that the NSA and FBI are somehow equivalent to Iran's government and militia is ridiculous.

      Americans get waterboarded more often by other American soldiers as part of their training regimen. Is that torture? Should their instructors be thrown into jail for giving them this training? There was no circumvention of legal frameworks, the three people who were waterboarded were done so within the framework of the law. Change the laws, but don't be dishonest about the ones we have. (And no, I'm not claiming the waterboarding was "right" because we did it.) Also, remember that the treatment American soldiers and civilians already get from the enemy includes real torture (stabbing, cutting, twisting limbs until dislocation or until they break, and beheading).

    40. Re:First uncensored post by Zancarius · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you said, and you raise very good points. That's a rare thing these days!

      Condemnation of Iran's actions and punishment of Nokia and Siemens for sanction violations makes sense. Iran is using this technology to directly curb free expression. None of the U.S. government entities mentioned in this discussion do that. They may listen in, but they aren't turning around and cracking skulls as a follow up. Saying that the NSA and FBI are somehow equivalent to Iran's government and militia is ridiculous.

      I'd like to add that the reason some folks are inflamed over the senators' positioning against Nokia and Siemens has more to do with the fact that these are the very people (perhaps not Schumer and Graham personally but Congress as a whole) who have effectively written laws requiring the implementation of these monitoring systems. And then they turn around and condemn these same companies for implementing the monitoring hardware that they were required to by law! Schumer and Graham are politicians, and make no mistake about it: their positioning on this issue is more for the purposes of re-election than for any goodwill they have to the people of Iran.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
    41. Re:First uncensored post by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      And then they turn around and condemn these same companies for implementing the monitoring hardware that they were required to by law! Schumer and Graham are politicians, and make no mistake about it: their positioning on this issue is more for the purposes of re-election than for any goodwill they have to the people of Iran.

      I agree that we can rightly characterize them as hypocrites. I think this is a rare time where international law, doing the right thing, and politics are aligned. Schumer and Graham are really rumbling about U.N. sanctions being disobeyed, not about the human rights violations. I suspect that the human rights issue is simply a "good crisis" they feel shouldn't be "wasted."

    42. Re:First uncensored post by rpillala · · Score: 1

      This is going a little afield of the topic, but I think your last paragraph deserves a documented response.

      As you probably know, when Reagan signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, it became the supreme law of the land, as described in Article VI of the United States Constitution:

      all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      Now, you may be saying to yourself "but a treaty is not self-executing - Congress still has to make a law for it to be United States Law!" This is true:

      Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.

      The Act also required relevant agencies to promulgate and enforce regulations to implement CAT, subject to the understandings, declarations, and reservations made by the Senate resolution of ratification.

      This quotation is from a (PDF) 2004 report that discusses the United States' obligations with respect to the CAT (Convention Against Torture)

      So, since waterboarding is torture (your training example involves consent of the subject and I don't think applies here), there was a law against it, and it was done by the United States, it was and is a crime. The Convention not only outlaws torture in all the participant states, but requires them to investigate and prosecute any incidences of torture found within the borders of any participant states. The Convention creates a universal jurisdiction as well - any participant state has jurisdiction to pursue torturers found in any other participant state. This goes some way towards explaining what's going on in Spain.

      But we need to look forward not backward.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    43. Re:First uncensored post by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      So, since waterboarding is torture...

      Legal opinions to the contrary are what allowed the use of this technique within the framework of the law. Again, change the law if there's wriggle room for something like this to occur. The first two paragraphs of page 5 of the CAT PDF read as follows (boldface added):

      CAT defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person...by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity."

      This definition does not include "pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

      According to the State Department's analysis of CAT, which was included in President Reagan's transmittal of the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent, this definition was intended to be interpreted in a "relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned."

      Indeed, CAT Article 16 further obligates signatory parties to take action to prevent "other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment which do not amount to acts of torture...."

      According to the State Department, this distinction reflected the belief by the drafters of CAT that torture must be "severe" and that rough treatment, such as police brutality, "while deplorable, does not amount to 'torture'" for purposes of the Convention.

      Further, CAT provides that offenses of torture require a specific intent to cause severe pain and suffering; an act that results in unanticipated and unintended severity of pain and suffering is not torture for purposes of the Convention.

      I am not a lawyer, but I can see how this language can be used to reason that waterboarding is not, legally speaking, torture. Fix the law.

    44. Re:First uncensored post by Darby · · Score: 1

      I find this response from the USA government very reasonable. They are not barring Nokia to do business with companies on the USA. They are not prosecuting them. They are just saying: "if you want to do business with ME, you have to play by my rules".

      This could only be reasonable if the US government had cut off all business dealings with Microsoft and Yahoo after they worked to hand over dissidents to the Chinese government and enact the same freaking things over there. If they refuse to hold accountable the people who they actually have a responsibility to hold accountable, then they have no business trying to shove their lying noses into the business of companies who it isn't their responsibility to control.

      It's disgustingly dishonest and hypocritical and is nothing but a cynical attempt at deceiving people into thinking that these scumbags aren't doing the exact same thing at home.

      They're not at all saying, "if you want to do business with ME, you have to play by my rules". They're saying that there are no rules apart from the rule that they will fuck anybody they want to with or without justification.

    45. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's someone writing about a State department report: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/we-are-now-indonesia.html but I haven't found the report itself. I think the specific issue of waterboarding is kind of besides the larger point of torture, but it is strong enough on its own as well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html

      After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.

    46. Re:First uncensored post by Darby · · Score: 1

      Does this mean the Senate is forced to look favorably on it? Of course not.

      Actually it does mean just that since they're doing the same thing here and US companies are doing the same thing in other countries.

      Otherwise we are absolutely justified in calling them and everyone defending them, like yourself, for example lying hypocrites. You might try to make at least a halfhearted attempt to look even slightly consistent and rational if you're going to be trying to call other people on something.

    47. Re:First uncensored post by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      What sour grapes...

      What grounds do you have to call me a lying hypocrite?

      What lies have I told?

      Where is my hypocrisy?

      You claim absolute justification. Pony up, friend.

      If the Senators were considering barring Cisco for this same reason, would you be so vocal in attacking voices like mine? Or is it only some sort of mis-placed America-hate that drives you so?

      Again, the Senate has budgetary powers. They can blackball you if you piss them off. Cope.

    48. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow..what weasel words. 'real torture' huh? I suppose you are in a position to relate different forms of torture against one another? The relative merits of pulling out fingernails, vs knee-capping?

      I hate moral relativists, you make me sick. The original comment is far more accurate in its account of American exceptionalism - as in, 'we (the US) can do as we like".

    49. Re:First uncensored post by Darby · · Score: 1

      If the Senators were considering barring Cisco for this same reason, would you be so vocal in attacking voices like mine?

      No shit, Sherlock. The fact that they haven't done that *first* *before* dicking around with other country's companies is what makes them hypocrites and you one for attempting to justify their pure unadulterated scumbaggery.

      Their jobs are, in part, to go after Cisco, MS, Yahoo, and the rest of the anti-American scum who are using the benefits they receive from my tax dollars in order to engage in the business of censorship and oppression overseas and at home. The fact that they are flat out refusing to uphold their oaths of office by aiding and abetting scum like Cisco and then pretend that they are standing up for American values in order to toss crap at foreign companies who are doing the exact same thing is hypocrisy of the purest form.

      Or is it only some sort of mis-placed America-hate that drives you so?

      No, I love America. That's why I despise scum like these Senators and yourself who so obviously hate every decent thing it ever stood for.

      Again, the Senate has budgetary powers. They can blackball you if you piss them off. Cope.

      And when they do it in such a disgustingly hypocritical fashion I have a responsibility to call them on their deceit, their dereliction of duty, and their contempt for America.
      Similarly, when you defend such anti-American crap, I have a responsibility to call you on your shit.

    50. Re:First uncensored post by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      Good contribution to the discussion. Thank you. (mod parent up)

    51. Re:First uncensored post by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      You're just grumpy.

      I can think of little that is less-American than picking and choosing whom you do business with based on arbitrary reasons. That's true capitalism, and has been around since those guys dressed up like indians and threw tea they didn't own into the harbor.

      There's zero reason for outrage here.

    52. Re:First uncensored post by Chabo · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're being sarcastic...

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    53. Re:First uncensored post by morcego · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with your stance of "if we can't be fair to everyone, then we should not be fair to anyone".

      In any case, this has nothing to do with HOW Iran is using it, or for what. It is as simple as "selling sensitive technology to a country with have imposed a trade embargo on". Doesn't matter if they are using it to oppress their citizens, or to save kittens.

      Last I checked, there wasn't a trade embargo on China.

      --
      morcego
    54. Re:First uncensored post by Darby · · Score: 1

      There's zero reason for outrage here.

      You neither refuted any thing, nor even made a coherent point. But you just run along and keep supporting traitors who are happy to spy on you as they whine about governments spying on their people.

      *You* don't feel gross hypocrisy by elected officials is a problem. That makes you a subject. Citizens worthy of the name actually know enough about history to understand exactly why it is a problem.

      Carry on with your ignorance and delusional self-deception, subject.

    55. Re:First uncensored post by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      *You* don't feel gross hypocrisy by elected officials is a problem.

      That's not correct. I am just not getting all excited about it. I'm pointing out the obvious truth - this is normal behavior.

      This is not 'gross' anything. This is horribly, horribly mild in the realm of American politics. Business as usual.

      Do I feel there should be change? Sure. But I'm over thirty now and am getting used to the 'way things are'.

      My advice to you, and to Nokia/Siemens, would be to anticipate this behavior ahead of time, and route around it. Ala 'cope'.

      Your calling me names, while hopefully making you feel better, does zero to change the reality of the situation. You can rail against the 'whys and wherefores' but the reality does not change. Nor will it until you change the underlying causes, which is way beyond the power of mere mortals.

    56. Re:First uncensored post by BIGELLOW · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that an addicted smoker telling others that they shouldn't start smoking and if they are already addicted to smoking, it would be better for their health to quit... will never be seen as sincere, unless they first quit smoking themselves. Hmmm...

    57. Re:First uncensored post by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Damn, I knew something was fishy with that "Nuclear missile mode" Easter egg management wanted me to put in.

    58. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's hypocritical and shameless about this is that the US government demands the same technologies to be installed on their networks.

    59. Re:First uncensored post by rpillala · · Score: 1

      whoops this was me again - I don't know how I managed to post anonymous

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    60. Re:First uncensored post by rpillala · · Score: 1

      So, as we can see in various sources, the US has called waterboarding torture in the recent and not-so-recent past. Regardless of the specific issue of waterboarding, there is no denying that we have tortured persons in our custody and/or shipped them off to countries where we had every expectation that they would be tortured. Some of these people died and their deaths have been ruled as homicides. But when we do it, Bush can say with a straight face that we do not torture. The real answer is that we do (did), we're just not calling it that. American exceptionalism plays into this as "it's different when we do it because of our unique place in history. There is no moral equivalence between our culture and theirs." Thus, engaging in the same tactics used by the enemy doesn't make us just like them. Nothing would that, because of America's unique place in history.

      It doesn't meet the strict definition of the theory as found in Wikipedia, but it's certainly a logical extension.

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    61. Re:First uncensored post by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      The anecdotes you link to in your anonymous post begin to indicate the problems a society builds for itself when it tries to replace morality with law. The two are not the same thing.

    62. Re:First uncensored post by mea37 · · Score: 1

      That may be many things, but hypocracy it is not. The US is not saying the technology shouldn't exist; it is saying it shouldn't be in Iran's hands. Again, that's what an embargo is.

    63. Re:First uncensored post by bstender · · Score: 1

      ..., and we keep re-hiring them, it's really our problem. We know there's a problem, but not enough people are willing to get together to be able to fix it.

      "fixing it" would indeed require a large number of souls, all of them willing to get very radical, general strikes, persistant marching facing heavy police brutality and large scale arrests etc.

      that's why it hasnt and won't change.

      --
      look sig is kool
    64. Re:First uncensored post by Breez911 · · Score: 1

      What used to be a roaring lion; is now a toothless mut; Iraq has the oil; they can afford to buy; America has few if any $$ (Teath)! For she bit off, more than shee could chew!

    65. Re:First uncensored post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accepting abuses of human rights in other countries is still a bad thing, even if your own government is abusing those very same rights.

      If you don't stand against it openly, even if it is hypocritical to do so patriotically, then there's no reason for those within your own country to desist from their own actions.

      After all, ignoring another country's abuses just because your own country does likewise is even worse than hypocrisy. It's complicity.

      Yo, Garblepuss -- until you're mature enough to recognize that holding the hypocrisy of your own group up to the light is not equivalent to condoning the same fault in others, please just quit posting. Come back when you're all grown up.

    66. Re:First uncensored post by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I think what's annoying is just the stupid grandstanding. They are fine with the EXACT same usage in the US, as the gov't now can arbitrarily declare anybody an enemy combatant, arrest them, hold them indefinitely without charge, and even then transport them out of the country.

      Funny use of words there. To begin with, the US is NOT doing the "EXACT same usage". The EXACT same would have required us to track all the people bitching about Bush winning ('00 and '04), arrest anyone they could catch, especially those organizing protests, declare the opposition "enemies of Christianity" and threaten to kill them all. Oh, and block nearly all internal and external communications, monitoring the remaining holes.

      That's why you added "can" after saying it was the same usage. You know damned well they're not using it in the same way, but you want to grandstand and make it sounds worse than it is to give your side more attention. *yawn*.

      Anyways, I think you're fundamentally off here. Yes, we have some problems to fix in the US. No, what we're doing isn't the "EXACT same" by even the most stretched imagination.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  2. Because Cisco would never do such a thing by topham · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is bull shit. Cisco sold the same type of stuff to China.

    This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.

    1. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by mehtars · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.

    2. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Google and Bing and Yahoo! have all cooperated with China (and other chronic human rights abusers) by censoring their search results.

      I guess the U.S. government is just going to have to fall back to using Altavista for a search engine. Don't forget their motto: "Over one million pages indexed!"

      --
      John
    3. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it's not about freedom or democracy just good old Realpolitik? I don't hate the idea but why not let everyone decide individually if they want to boycott these companies? I'm sure Nokia does more business with consumers in the US than the government and Siemens could be hurt pretty bad if the moral outrage was strong enough.

    4. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by malkir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't hate the idea but why not let everyone decide individually if they want to boycott these companies?

      ...because people are stupid.

    5. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Senators don't appear to be proposing a total ban on these companies, simply a ban on them bidding for government contracts. If you want to, you can still buy their products, but I don't see a problem with a government ban. I just wish it were more evenly applied so that companies selling such technology to any regime that is going to use it to violate essential liberties is blocked from bidding on government contracts.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      It's more bullshit political posturing in the name of control, conveniently hitching a ride on the coattails of an emotionally-charged 'think of the children' type issue, and it's also disgusting hypocrisy.

      Who makes those sekrit black boxes connected to American Telco's fiber splices? Why aren't the telcos and the facilitators of domestic spying being condemned and sanctioned?

    7. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.

      None of the politicians mentioned that this economic protectionism was religious based or had anything to do with nuclear warfare. Though China is a very dangerous military threat to India and is a police threat to its own citizens.

      And from the article:

      Nokia Siemens said in a statement that the equipment it provided to Telecommunications Co. of Iran, the country's fixed and mobile network operator, is designed only to conduct lawful intercept of traffic by law enforcement organizations.

      Unlike in America, where the government and the phone companies can monitor all traffic without legal requirements.

      This hypocrisy is just people being bad and lying out loud about it.

    8. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      I guess the U.S. government is just going to have to fall back to using Altavista [altavista.com] for a search engine. Don't forget their motto: "Over one million pages indexed!"

      No they won't. Google is an American country, so they can bid on American contracts. Only non-American companies are subject to protectionist legislation to protect the children of foreign countries.

    9. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 0, Redundant

      But government is evil.

    10. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by scubamage · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

    11. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they can't really be expected to apply such a policy fairly. You probably need a coalition of some sort between senators who are outraged (or respond to their constituents' outrage), those who support the policy because it helps their foreign policy agenda and those who just want to help out the competition.

      So by it's very nature a consumer boycott should be more fair and tougher to dismiss.

    12. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.

      So basically, this is the US trying to force foreign companies into executing the US political agenda.

      Isreal in it's current form is criminal and cruel and the US did more to destabilize Iraq than Iran ever has. But of course those opinions are counter to the US world, so flag waving morons will refuse to accept them as valid.

      Some senators want to punish a couple of non US companies for selling technology to a country that the US prevents it's own from selling technology to? I hope that Nokia and Siemens ignore them. It looks like another case of US selective policing, and the rest of world is sick of that shit.

      I don't agree with Iranian goverment internet censorship, but not for knee jerk "they are the bad guys" reasons, because I know all to well from recent history that the USA are the badder guys. The USA has negative moral authority. Even with the new administration, you guys have a lot of work to do.

      I really hope Nokia and Siemens say "shove it".

      References to US and USA refer to government/politics, not necessarily you, the people.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    13. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Maybe the Senators should be asking for a hundred billion dollar bond for Nokia to continue operating in the US at all, to be forfeited if they sell anything to Iran again.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cisco learned their lesson as you should recall.

    15. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      This is bull shit. Cisco sold the same type of stuff to China.

      Is it really such simple hypocrisy? I know that hypocrisy is the universal language of politicians, but weren't there were hearings on the matter of Cisco selling tools of oppression to China? I recall that documents were presented at the hearings showing that those tools weren't just marketed as simple tools but specifically as a means to help the government to oppress the people.

      Ah yes, just entering "cisco china hearings" net this as the top item:

      http://www.hunterstrat.com/news/microsoft-cisco-snub-congress-china-hearing/

    16. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Now, now, be gentle to them. It might be just ignorance, living in a bubble.

      They've learned about the properties of standard Nokia & Siemens telecommunications equipment from the news. They probably not even know what "Cisco" is, nevermind that it's a US company.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Individuals may boycott these companies if they wish.
      The bill doesn't ban them from doing business IN the United States,
      It bans them from doing WITH the United States Government.

      In other words, as a unit, the Government would be boycotting these companies.

      I do agree with the double-standard; however, The Chinese Communist Party has been far more accepting of gradual loosening and openness than has the Iranian Mullahs. Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.

    18. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by lsdi · · Score: 1

      People only have what they deserve. It is very harsh, I know. But, the more attention the world give them all, more they threat to kill each other. It is time to let them do whatever they want and kill themselves.

    19. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by mehtars · · Score: 2, Informative

      The US isn't forcing the foreign competition to do anything. All its saying is if they want to continue to sell to Iran, the cannot sell to the US Gov't. That is all. They can, however, continue to even do business in the USA. Iran and North Korea are still the two biggest threats-- one is controlled by a crazed manic depressive dictator, and the other by a group of theocrats hell bent on creating a nuclear weapon.

      Additionally, I am not saying that it was right for the US to go into Iraq in the first place. But to continue to destabilize the region, is probably not in the best interest Iraq.

      I would have to disagree with you regarding Israel. Israel is only acting in self determination after numerous incursions by Hamas, a group funded by Iran.

    20. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      No, but they invaded Tibet and are in the proscess of cultural genocide.

    21. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So basically, this is the US trying to force foreign companies into executing the US political agenda.

      In all honesty, isn't this what any form of boycott is about?

      While there may be hypocrisy in the move I don't think the US government should be forced to use any business any more than the citizens should. Boycotting businesses that work outside of your ethical scope is a fantastic tool and the US government is just another consumer at this point.

      It looks like another case of US selective policing, and the rest of world is sick of that shit.

      And no other countries/consumers base their buying and selling of goods and services based on what other nations are friendly to them? Riiiight. If you're sick of it out of the US you should probably be sick of it in whatever country you reside. Just because your country isn't mentioned in big bold letters on Slashdot doesn't mean that they don't do it.

      I don't agree with Iranian goverment internet censorship, but not for knee jerk "they are the bad guys" reasons, because I know all to well from recent history that the USA are the badder guys. The USA has negative moral authority. Even with the new administration, you guys have a lot of work to do.

      Yeah, because I see the bodies of protesters lining the streets of the states. Get real. If you think they're proposing this because of internet censorship than you've had the wool pulled over your eyes.

      Again, I'm not saying there isn't hypocrisy but you've missed a lot of what is going on here by letting nationalism get under your skin.

    22. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by CaptDeuce · · Score: 1

      This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.

      What trade agreements? The US was given China temporary Most Favored Trade Status 1990 and made permanent in 2001 during the Bush Administration. Conversely, the US maintains trade sanctions against Iran and does not even have diplomatic relations with Iran and has not since 1980. So I ask again, what trade agreements?

      --
      "Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
    23. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is bullshit (forgive linking to a press release, but Nokia Siemens Networks doesn't even make equipment as described).

      It looks like Nokia Siemens sold exactly the things which the USA forced them to include in their system and nothing more. Most of the legal interception requirements have been driven by the US in the first place.

    24. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Informative

      About as stupid as these senators apparently. I mean really....

      Siemens, not bidding on federal contracts?

      Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahaaaaaaaaahahhaahhahahaa

      uh huh mmmmmmmmmmmmmm

      my side hurts now. Maybe these senators don't realize, but either directly or indirectly, you'd be hard pressed to find a federal contract that didn't support Siemens somehow. They're a $120 billion a year company making a gazillion little gadgets most senators never heard of, used in everthing from bulldozers to fire alarms.

      This is all political bullshit.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    25. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      How is Israel in it's current form criminal and cruel?
      Because it is a Democratic society?
      Because all of it's citizens are allowed to vote?
      Because all people who stayed in Israel following it's War of Independence (when it was attacked by 5 nations without provocation) were given citizenship?
      Because it attempts to protect it's people when thousands of mortars and/or rockets are launched upon their homes and schools, by launching a single guided missile at the launcher/mortar site?
      Because it gave up, completely and freely, land which it had held for over 40 years? This land had been intended as a "buffer zone" to help defend against a fourth attack from Egypt, but Israel-Egyptian relations had improved enough that it was (hopefully) no longer needed as such, so they kicked thousands of Israelis out of their homes and gave them to the people who had been trying to kill Israelis for generations.
      Because, every once and awhile, when the Israeli people demand that something be done about the rock/mortar/suicide-bomb attacks, they send in a surgical strike force to attempt to remove the leadership of those attacking the Israeli populace?
      Because it will not guarantee the "right-of-return"? (Definition: All Palestinian refugees are given full Israeli Citizenship. "Palestinian Refugee" definition: A person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a Palestinian refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948[2] regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as refugee camps or in established, permanent communities. "Refugee" definition: A refugee is a person who flees to escape conflict, persecution or natural disaster.) There is no Census of Palestinian Refugees, who now include many individuals who have moved to Palestine with the intend to fight Israel. Estimated number of "Palestinian Refugees": 4.66 million. Population of Israel: 7 million.

      Perhaps you are referring to the failure of the "roadmap"s? It should be noted that while Israel has consistently done much of what was required in these agreements, the Palestinian Authority has never done so.
      Or maybe the occasional destruction of WMD or WMD-production capacity of various nations surrounding nations which have loudly proclaimed their indention to destroy Israel?
      Help me out here.

    26. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by seeker_1us · · Score: 1
      As much as I do not like what China does in terms of censorship and human rights, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

      China is a controlled export country.

      Iran is an embargoed country.

      Legally, there is a big difference between the two.

    27. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would have to disagree with you regarding Israel. Israel is only acting in self determination after numerous incursions by Hamas, a group funded by Iran.

      Agreed. And Hamas is only acting in self determination after numerous incursions by Israel, which is funded by the US.

    28. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

      You are incorrect in your assumption about China. My employer sells exactly that sort of product to them.

    29. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I want to know is who sold the equipment that enabled the illegal warrantless wiretaps and bar THEM from EVER receiving federal contracts, they are the true threat to the American way of life.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    30. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by mysidia · · Score: 1

      According to the article:

      Nokia Siemens said Iran uses the equipment only to monitor phone calls on the country's fixed and mobile networks. [...] the United States and European Union countries require lawful intercept capability on mobile networks.

      "The restricted functionality monitoring center provided by Nokia Siemens Networks in Iran cannot provide data monitoring, Internet monitoring, deep-packet inspection, international call monitoring or speech recognition," Room wrote. "Therefore, contrary to speculation in the media, the technology supplied by Nokia Siemens Networks cannot be used for the monitoring or censorship of Internet traffic."

      In other words, it would seem that the premise as suggested by the article summary "sold a sophisticated Internet-monitoring system to Iran in 2008" is in error.

    31. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by flyingsquid · · Score: 1
      I think it's worth asking: should a corporation be held responsible for the way its products are used? You could argue that the individual is the one who should be held responsible. An individual can pick up a scalpel and use it to perform a lifesaving surgery, or slit someone's throat. The individual can take that laptop and either write poetry or hate speech. Obviously you have to have limits; I don't think any reasonable person could hold a company that makes box cutters responsible for 9/11. They had a reasonable expectation that their products would primarily be used to cut boxes, not to wage jihad. A corporation can't forsee every conceivable use of its products.

      But I think that those words are the key- reasonable expectation. What if a corporation knows precisely how its products will be used? I mean, if the Iranian government makes it clear that it wants to be able to monitor and control internet content, would your company be guilty of helping to suppress democracy? Is it OK to say "we're about the bottom line, not the politics"? If so, then where do you draw the line? What if there's ethnic tension in Rwanda again, and the government calls up and says they'd like to buy a few million machetes? Would it be morally acceptable to make a tidy profit selling tools that you have a reasonable expectation will be used to hack apart other human beings? And if that sale isn't acceptable, then why is selling technology to suppress political dissent OK? I know we all have to make a living, but does the fact that you're being paid somehow make it OK?

      I guess my take on things is that just because a lot of corporations help dictatorships, that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Likewise, the fact that the United States is guilty of domestic spying on a massive scale and has it's own history of suppressing democracy in Iran doesn't mean that Iran can't be criticized... although it *does* suggest that perhaps other nations, with cleaner hands, should be leading the charge here. Nobody's perfect, but that doesn't justify immoral actions- it just means we all have sins to atone for.

    32. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      You don't need a device made by a major corporation to do that. All you need is a basic book on radio theory - easily purchased or pirated - you've got the know how for an EMR detector.

      I imagine, a simple mod to a cell phone would even work.

    33. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Kensai7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it a coincidence that we're talking about a European conglomerate? Would they dare to propose something similar if Cisco was found to be selling such stuff?

      I can sell you mustard ingredients to use it on your sausages. You shouldn't blame me if you gas your kids with it though....

      --
      "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    34. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      the [Chinese] Party's ideals are not driven by religion - fundamentalist or otherwise.

    35. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by michaelhood · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google is an American country

      I just woke up from a nap.. what did I miss?

    36. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by number11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      China is a controlled export country.

      Iran is an embargoed country.

      Legally, there is a big difference between the two.

      Legally, sure. It's simple to create laws to justify or prohibit anything. Legally, a torturer who works for the CIA is a upstanding patriotic citizen, while a torturer who works for Al Quaida is a terrorist and should be killed. Legally, when China executes people to harvest organs, it's unfortunate, while when Germany killed people doing medical experiments on them, it was a crime against humanity. Legally, when American soldiers murdered 504 civilians at My Lai, it was... well, it really wasn't anything since only one served any time at all (4 1/2 months) for the deed.

      Morally, there is no difference whatsoever. Well, the numbers are bigger in China, so the naive observer would think that was more serious.

    37. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by hjrnunes · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can then show when and where exacly did Iran threatened to bomb Israel? I have seen Israeli oficials saying they would bomb Iran and we all (those who wanted to) saw what they did to Lebanon and Gaza. As for "destabilizing" Iraq, are you serious? I thought that one was already dropped from the Evil-Iran-Wants-Nukes-To-Destroy-World-And-Specially-Israel-We-Must-Destroy-Them rethoric for being so fucking ridiculous. But, just in case: Are you aware that Iraq has been invaded by the United States of America in 2003 and is still at war? Perhaps you could elaborate on how one would further destabilize a country at war?

      But hey, let me tell you what's going to happen. US troops will leave Iraq. They will leave it in a state of virtual - if not real - civil war. Once the US troops are out then the real players can start to move effectively. And yes, Iran is one of the players. And yes it is probably the most influencial player. And yes, it's probably going to be the winner in the end. So, Americans gave Iraq to Iran. And guess what the newly Iran-backed Iraq is going to do with the new shiny toys it's going to get? That's right. It's going to turn it's attention to those beautifull oil-rich fields in Kuwait! Then what? USA to the rescue! Again... Way to go! Not to mention they also lost Afghanistan. That one is harder because no one wants it and if they leave, Talibans will have full control of the country just like before the 2001 invasion... If they stay, coalition troops are going to be downed by the thousands each year just like in Iraq... That's pretty much the definition of lose-lose. That's right, defeat.

      So, if Iran is threatening and destabilizing anything then what do you call what the US are doing? Stabilizing and helping? But maybe you are right, maybe we should all listen to Israel and stabilize yet another middle-eastern country... Why not? There's still plenty of money left from the crisis to spend right? *sigh*

    38. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Alphager · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think this is also because Nokia sold more than net limiting technology. Apparently they also sold devices which pick up the EMR's emitted by cell phones which allowed police to home in on any person who has a phone on their person - especially to those who are making calls/texting/transmitting data. To my knowledge such technology is not in use in China (currently).

      This is bog-standard technology implemented in any modern network. It's used by 911-operators to home in on your location if you are unable to speak (or cut off) and used by police to follow suspects (in addition to a GPS-Tracker in the car). There's nothing specialy made for repressive regimes; it's just technology which also may be used to suppress people.

    39. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      And EU punishing Microsoft isn't? Slashdot likes to point out US government hypocrisy but is blind to their own. (If moding is anything to go by.)

    40. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That you say "War of Independance" was 5 nations attacking without provocation is scary. What planet in the Propaganda system is that from? Isreal's whole existence as a place for European Jews to go, even though they are not even descended from Isrealites, by force and against the will of any non Jews in the region is pretty serious provocation.

      The country was started by state sponsored terrorists. It is a democracy only as much as is necessary to maintain US support, and only really for the Jews in practicality. It consistently flouts international law, is continuing to build illegal settlements as a way of claiming land which none of the rest of the world recognises as Isreali. What's the latest position? That Hamas must accept Isreal as a Jewish state? I have nothing against Judasim, like I have nothing Islam, but you cannot critisize Iran for being a theology and defend Isreal.

      Isreal is perhaps the largest single failure of the international community since WWII. Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.

      Isreal is the only nuclear power in the region and has shown time and again it has no respect for borders. More people die on Isreali roads than from rocket attacks, yet Isreal launches attrocities like "Operation Cast Lead".

      All the whining about the actions of the Nazis just looks so hyprocritical. More Russians died in gas chambers than Jews, but Isreal and supporters bang on about it as if the Jews were the only victims. Sure Isreal isn't rounding them up and gassing them, but I would pick life in a ghetto as Jew before the gas chambers over life in Gaza as a Palestinian. Oh, and why didn't the Gypsies get a homeland - oh yeah, they don't go around bombing people and hijacking mass transport...

      While my country recognizes Isreal, I personally don't and I wont acknowledge its right to exist until it shows a massive change in policy and behaviour, starting with full cooperation with international justice.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    41. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Open trade and relations with the chinese works because their govt is corrupt because it just wants power and riches and will do whatever it can to balance the two against it's citizens whether that's another tianmen or largely letting them live their lives in peace if not actual freedom.

      Iran on the other hand literally believes that god himself demands they maim and/or kill anything standing in the path of their aims of nuclear genocide and creating a wahhabist world and nothing you do or say is ever going to change that unshakeable belief that the most important thing is to kill or convert as many nonbelievers as possible.

      In short you can convince someone whose a greedy asshole to give you a lightbulb so EVERYONE in the room can see. You can't convince the guy chewing on pieces of his own face in the corner not to try and rearrange your insides when the voices tell him to.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    42. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by DigitalWallaby · · Score: 1

      Looks like you missed the formation of the United States of Google.

    43. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is useful and co-operative when fiscally necessary.

      Iran is just one letter away from Iraq.

    44. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Razalhague · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [citation fucking needed]

      Seriously, an Anonymous Coward who doesn't even mention the company by name.

    45. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do, however, threaten to bomb Taiwan, and are pretty nasty on some human rights issues...

    46. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by twocows · · Score: 1

      Sorry, AltaVista has been owned by Yahoo! since 2003. There's always Ask.com, though.

    47. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by someonehasmyname · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's worth asking: should a corporation be held responsible for the way its products are used?

      Hell no! The minute they pass that, they'll use it to throw out the 2nd amendment somehow.

      --
      Common sense is not so common.
    48. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      All free countries want power and wealth. China just beat us by figuring how to have everything both ways.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    49. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by maglor_83 · · Score: 1

      Nokia isn't Iranian, nor is it Chinese. They are a Finish company. I've no idea if the US has any trade agreements with Finland.

    50. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shentino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.

      That's the reason it won't work.

    51. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shentino · · Score: 1

      Iraq was better off with saddam than it is now. Saddam was bad and we could have made iraq great. But no, we had to shoot ourselves in the foot by fucking it up. We screwed up, game over. Time to cut our losses and get out before we lose any more troops in what is clearly a civil war.

    52. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by argiedot · · Score: 1

      But Pakistan does threaten to attack India, has done so in the past without provocation and has admitted in the past to be funding militants. Pakistan was still sold F-16s. Pity that Lockheed Martin make so much on government contracts.

    53. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by jacquems · · Score: 1

      There's actually a list of countries, organizations, and individuals that a company that does business with the US federal government must agree not to provide products or services to. Iran is on the list.

    54. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you work for Nokia... j/k sorry.

    55. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      FYI, the Ottoman empire had been selling land and promoting the "holly land" ordeal to the European jews since the 1300's.

      Also, the Jewish religion is not something anyone can just join like Christianity. There is a complicated process and for the most part, most jews don't convert out. I even know atheist jews. What this boils back down to is that there is only a very small percent of people that call themselves Jewish who do no have any middle east heritage.

    56. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by JAlexoi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hm... So we, in Europe, should BAN every single US company from bidding for any government contract because US companies indirectly supported the torture in Guantanamo?
      And by your logic, you should ban yourself :)

    57. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What equipment is that? We have had no illegal warrantless wiretaps in the US. We have had warrantless wiretaps but the legality has never been tried for fact. It won't be either because no one in the know believed it was actually used illegally. They just used it to rail for election and then shut the fuck up and supported the laws.

    58. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict.

      If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism specifically on religious grounds.

      I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?

      What's the latest position? That Hamas must accept Isreal as a Jewish state?

      I believe that accepting Israel as a state - without any further qualifications - would be a good start.

      More people die on Isreali roads than from rocket attacks, yet Isreal launches attrocities like "Operation Cast Lead".

      Israel learned early on - after going through a bunch of wars it didn't start - that the only language its neighbors understand is that of strength. At the same time, given the level of anti-Semitic propaganda in them, should they ever take over Israel, a massive genocide is a clear certainty - so, for Israel, it's quite literally a matter of survival - not just of the state itself, but of the people in it. Hence the strategy - show yourself strong; don't let the bullies off even on minor things; ensure that all opponents understand that retaliation will always come; strike pre-emptively when an invasion is imminent.

      Guess what? It's working - they're still on the map. Can't blame that for it, either - they're very much in a unique situation, with no peaceful border at all. I think the only other country in a similar position is North Korea, and look where that is...

    59. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Xest · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of money in government contracts, rest assured if the US bans Nokia/Siemens from bidding on US government contracts Europe will respond by banning Cisco from government contracts across Europe.

      It's a slippery slope, that's the problem and it IS about protectionism. Would these senators be proposing the same if there was no embargo on US companies bidding for contracts in Iran? If it was Cisco that fulfilled these contracts? Judging by the actions of US companies across the world (e.g. arms manufacturers) the answer would have to be a resounding no.

    60. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Unipuma · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the EU is doing its work, and fining companies who abuse their monopoly.
      http://www.sortedsites.info/general-stuff/eu-fine-telefonica.htm
      (Which, in case you were wondering is an European company)
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aasUT7jU_bd8
      (Also European)

      It doesn't matter what country your company is from, if you abuse the rules, they go after you. They might even go after all those bank bailouts:
      http://www.reuters.com/article/dealAtoms/idUS391610202420090605

    61. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know IMO it wouldn't be a tragedy if Israel were bombed. I mean these countries don't hate Israel for nothing.

    62. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, let's see:

      - Google buying out California after the latter going bankrupt; and also Texas filing their 5th petition to be purchased again, which was predictably turned down by Their Imperial Majesties Sergey I and Lawrence I

      - President of the Persian Democratic Republic of Iran proposing stronger economic sanctions against the Emirate of the British Isles and Northern Europe, after the latter executed another three juvenile offenders for adultery by stoning.

      - A port of DN4E to Microsoft GNU/Hurd (Microsoft's CEO, Richard M. Stallman, demoed it last month)

    63. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      I am absolutely shocked that a pro-Israel post on Slashdot is modded as flamebait. Leftists engaging in underhanded and intellectually dishonest practises instead of responding with counter-arguments? Unthinkable!

    64. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Swithzerland?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't recognize the state, could you please learn to spell it right? My eyes hurt.

      Israel. Israel. Israel.

    66. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Even with all that it's still really the only place in that part of the world with any respect for the rule of law. Remove the far right psychos that would be called Nazis anywhere else and then Israel has a lot of things in it's favour. Things are heading downhill with the aftermath of the last two small wars timed perfectly for elections, but that doesn't mean that things won't improve later.
      It may be the "wild west" now with the "Indians" getting moved onto the reservations and massacred every now and again (or if you wish - cossacks, ghettos and pogroms) but it won't always be like that. You can still get corrupt, evil bastards in charge even in places that pretend to believe in the rule of law, but they have to act like weasels to do it and usually they go too far and lose power.

    67. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But government is evil.

      Yeah right on man! Feudal warlords rule! Somalia is paradise. This government of the people by the people and for the people crap that those fucktard founding fathers came up with ... just pure evil.

    68. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.

      No, it threatens to bomb Taiwan and destabilizes North Korea instead.

    69. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So suddenly every technology company would have to invest millions in technology capable of limiting usage based on intentions, or maybe just build a timemachine and test whether their soft and hardware is to "do evil"?

      Really, unless a total embargo has been put down on a country, even stupid senators will have to accept that companies will sell their products to those countries. If you want them to stop, then embargo the country, don't try to retroactively punish others because you didn't do you job in due time.

    70. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against Judasim, like I have nothing Islam, but you cannot critisize Iran for being a theology and defend Isreal.

      You can, since they are not the same thing. The religions couldn't be more different, and Iran's iron-fisted theocracy is not even remotely similiar to Israel being a Jewish state.

      Isreal is the only nuclear power in the region and has shown time and again it has no respect for borders. More people die on Isreali roads than from rocket attacks, yet Isreal launches attrocities like "Operation Cast Lead".

      You're right, they should have bombed all their cars and roads instead!

      Wait, what?

      And since when is it an "atrocity" that a country launches a military operation in response to an attack on their soil by a foreign power/terrorist organization?

      Predictably enough, your post does not bother to mention anything about the way the Palestinians are acting. It's as if the Palestinians are pure as snow and the Israelis are just tormenting them for shits and giggles. Most of the problems between Israel and Palestine stem from the Palestinians. They have zero desire for any sort of peaceful co-existence with Jews or infidels in general (ah, the wonders of Islam), so any concession that Israel makes is pointless. And even if all your dreams came true and Israel was wiped out tomorrow, then what? You would just get a meaningless third world theocracy that has nothing to offer to anyone, except maybe suicide bombers. Does Palestine even have a culture, or something that doesn't revolve around buying guns and blowing shit up for Allah? Yeah, it's really for Israel to try to deal with people like that.

    71. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Xest · · Score: 1

      Yes it it is real, but it's spelt Israel.

      "What planet in the Propaganda system is that from? Isreal's whole existence as a place for European Jews to go"

      Yes and where do you think those European Jews descended from, or why do you think they were in Europe in the first place? Nothing to do with persecution back in their homeland before Israel even existed?

      Don't even try and pretend it's clear cut. There's a long history of fighting back and forth and persecution back and forth. If you could at least spell the country name right I'd have a bit more respect for your opinion but as you can't do that and as your opinion is horribly ignorant and biased against Israel I can only guess you're yet another victim of the rather good Hamas propaganda machine, a machine whose success stems from the fact it doesn't worry about international law so someone wearing civilian clothes firing rockets or bullets at Israeli's can be turned into a poor innocent civilian gunned down by Israelis just by removing his AK47.

      Frankly I think the Israelis are fucking stupid voting in the government they now have, that really wasn't helpful. I also think Fatah are now probably the most sensible force in the region (bar Egypt and Jordan of course).

      To suggest Israel is the only problem when you have players like Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria in the area just shows outright ignorance of the situation there and it's a sad reflection of how good the terrorist (Hamas/Hezbollah) propaganda machine has become and how stupid Israel has become for playing into their hands all too often. Syria assassinated Lebanon's elected leader, so to pretend the problem is limited to arabs vs. jews is also ignorant. There are far worse players in the region than Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria) but again, there are far better (Jordan, Egypt and nowadays Fatah).

      Again, to suggest it's all about Israel vs. Arabs is stupid - Hamas have made it quite clear that once (if) they destroy Israel, they will then move on to attack the Egyptian leadership and it's supporters (i.e. most the population) also. You'd still have Syria and Iran sponsoring Hezbollah in Lebanon despite the fact the majority of the population in Lebanon even in the face of Hezbollah coercion has voted for a pro-Western government twice now. Lebanon has a perfectly good secular military much like Turkey and so the only reason for Hezbollah's existence is to force the Syrian/Iranian and minority Lebanese viewpoint on the remaining majority of the country.

      Of course, even singling out Israel as a country is ignorant, there was about 3 million Palestinians in Israel, some even in government. Whilst many of those sympathise and/or support the Palestinian goals, they too support their own country over Hamas.

      No, the real problem in the region is murderous religious zealots and they exist in the region amongst Jews, Christians, Sunni and Shiite muslims alike. Dismantling any one country or set of countries would have no effect on the level of violence there, in fact it's been a violent place for the last couple of thousand years at very least. At best you'd need to eliminate Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel, Syria and Iran from the equation to have anything even roughly resembling peace in the region. Even if you could turn them all into atheists and do away with the religious divide and hatred that comes with it you'd still have some battles simply because there is also a scarcity of resources there, although one might argue that the only reason people try and live there in the first place is their spiritual attachment to the area so maybe they would all just realise the majority of the place (i.e. the areas not adjacent to water) isn't even worth fighting over anyway.

      Still, Israel is quite a big player when it comes to technology too and you can be rest assured you're making use of Israeli produced or designed technology when using the internet. If you really want to make a point then maybe you should boycott all their goods including that. Or are you just going to remain a hypocrit and blame the jews for everything whilst simultaneously consuming products of Israel when there are many equally bad, and some worse, some better players in the region who have just as much involvement?

    72. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is bull shit. Cisco sold the same type of stuff to China.

      And never forget what IBM sold to the apartheid government of South Africa.

    73. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would this be the same equipment from the same providers that the NSA had installed in the AT&T frame cores?

      Hmm, yes it would. Its strange that when its for the USA to snoop, its ok but OMG, those evil people snooping on others, that we cant have

    74. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is a controlled export country.

      Iran is an embargoed country.

      Legally, there is a big difference between the two.

      China is engaging in cultural and religious genocide in Tibet.

      Iran wants to do the same to Israel.

      Morally, there id no difference at all between the two.

    75. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which assholes modded this guy so highly? He is spouting so much anti-semitic tripe its ridicous. Firstly, 'even though they are not even descended from Isrealites'. Genetic studies have actually proven that modern Jews have genes with a clear middle-eastern origin. The only people who claim that Jews are not descended from the original Israelites are assholes from the 'Christian Identity' movement, some bunch of fags who promote the idea that white Europeans are the true descendents of israelities in order to further their white power agenda. You idiots need to pay closer attention to what you mod up.

      'All the whining about the actions of the Nazis just looks so hyprocritical'. 78 % OF ASHKENAZI JEWS WERE WIPED OUT IN THE HOLOCAUST. REPEAT 78%.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust . You want to compare that to 1,500 palestians killed in Gaza as a clear result of provocation by Hamas (sending rockets into the middle of reasonably large Israeli cities in clear provocation, i'm sorry, i dont care how liberal you are). What the fuck where they meant to do? What did the USA do when a few missiles were dropped on Pearl Harbour?

        'The country was started by state sponsored terrorists.' Israel was created by international consensus. The US, USSR, Europe and Britian all agreed with the mandate to split the land in two are create two states for the two peoples. It was relatively sparsely inhabited desert land anyway. And if anyone needs there own state its the Jews. The rest of the world has made it pretty fucking clear over the last 2000 years that Jews will never be safe living as a minority in other lands.

      'Sure Isreal isn't rounding them up and gassing them, but I would pick life in a ghetto as Jew before the gas chambers over life in Gaza as a Palestinian'. The reason why Gaza sucks so much is because the idiots chose to democratically vote in an extreme terrorist regime who bases its identity on provoking its neighbours. The people basically voted to have themselves blockaded off. This is the main thing preventing peace in the region. The Palestinians don't want it. They would rather die, throwing endless tantrums than have a functioning civil society.

      And for the record, I am not even a Jew. I am an atheist, with a Jewish atheist father and an Irish Catholic mother. But i have relatives who died in the holocaust because cunts like you were supported by the mainstream back in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, so it scares the shit out of me when I start to see it having so much support now.

    76. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia-Siemens is different company than Siemens. Siemens just owns 50% of it.

    77. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Also, the Jewish religion is not something anyone can just join like Christianity

      Sure I can. I just announce that I'm Jewish, and I'm Jewish. I announce that I'm not, and I'm not. Who's going to stop me? It's not like there's some ultimate authority on Jewishness.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    78. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism

      There's nothing healthy about nationalism.

      the belief that Jews must have a state of their own.

      That's extremely extreme. It's separatism, extreme nationalism and religious supremacy combined.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    79. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by stiggle · · Score: 1

      No - they just back North Korea in their nuclear exploration and their invasion of South Korea. Don't forget their backing of other rebels in the SE Asia area.

    80. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by The+Blue+Daisy · · Score: 1

      Iran is majority shia, not wahabi (like Saudi Arabia - America's bestest friend). Kind of discredits whatever you say, don't it?

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- ----------

    81. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by stiggle · · Score: 1

      You mean Nokia (a cell phone company) sold cell phone technology.

      ALL mobile cell tower systems have the ability to locate with a few blocks a cell phone which is switched on - which is a requirement . Why do you think US criminals & survivalists use disposable phones? So they can't be traced by the US government...

      The US government is just annoyed that a European company got the contracts rather than a US company and so want a semi-legal reason to block those European companies from operating in the US.

      It would be interesting to see how many cellphone operators use Nokia-Siemens equipement in the US.

    82. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by TheP4st · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Somalia is paradise.

      Aye matey, in Somalia there be Pirates. Aaarrr...

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    83. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      It just shows that he hasn't made a detailed study of the middle east and Islamic Sects.
      While the difference between Sunni and Shia, and the difference between most Sunni and Wahabi, is very important to an Islamic individual, from an outsiders point of view they are relatively minor differences.
      It's not like he works for the State department or something.

    84. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by ja · · Score: 1

      China does not threaten to bomb israel ...

      Neither does Iran! And FYI: Repeating a lie infinitely does not - despite the wisdom of Lenin, Göring et al - suddenly make it become true.

      On the other hand, Israel - and not least her most rabid Zionist supporters in the US - has for the last several months gone on record with daily threats to Iran as well as time after time begging the US administration to instigate yet another war in the Middle East. Go figure ...

      --

      send + more == money? ...
    85. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 1

      Not nearly surprised as I am. and the Post I was responding to was marked as "interesting", no less.

    86. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      Sure I can. I just announce that I'm Jewish, and I'm Jewish. I announce that I'm not, and I'm not. Who's going to stop me?

      I suppose you could do that & I doubt anyone would knock on your door and black bag you, however I wouldn't try promoting yourself to the Jewish community that way.

    87. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by EbeneezerSquid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When was this posted, June 30 2004?
      Sounds like the Dem line back during the Bush/Kerry Campaign.
      Considering that Iraq is mostly peaceful now, and well on it's way to a stable democracy, with US troops transitioning to primarily training and support roles. (as dictated by the Status of Forces Agreement).

    88. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      I suppose you could do that & I doubt anyone would knock on your door and black bag you, however I wouldn't try promoting yourself to the Jewish community that way.

      So, "the Jewish community" are like the mob now? Where does their authority to determine Jewishness come from?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    89. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      Also, the Jewish religion is not something anyone can just join like Christianity. There is a complicated process and for the most part, most jews don't convert out. I even know atheist jews. What this boils back down to is that there is only a very small percent of people that call themselves Jewish who do no have any middle east heritage.

      Actually, Jews can't convert out - Judaism doesn't recognise conversions to other religions. (Not sure what the penalty was for following another religion historically - probably death by stoning. Lots of that in Judaism.) In practice, they did anyway. Also, while nowadays conversion in is discouraged, there have been a few successful mass conversions in the past.

      You're probably also right that most of the people that call themselves Jews have Middle Eastern heritage. Genetic studies have had mixed results, but there are hints this is the case. The frequent Zionist claim that the Arab inhabitants of Israel are invaders that took over the land after the Jews left, on the other hand, is almost certainly bullshit.

    90. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by chrb · · Score: 1

      I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)

      To paraphrase, "I don't see what's extremist about White Power either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that White People must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist White Power strains)"

      A nation for a single ethnic group is not a great idea in this day and age. It's unsurprising that other ethnic groups resent the idea.

    91. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the whole conversation or just the last post? I was just going for the same level of generalization as GGP. Point is it's silly to expect politicians to act fairly on this issue: I'd rather trust the "stupid" people than the "evil" government.

    92. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify I don't actually think that government is an evil. Nor that people are stupid in general.

    93. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      So, "the Jewish community" are like the mob now? Where does their authority to determine Jewishness come from?

      At least 3 thousand years of Jewish heritage, tradition, religion, and culture. You want to be accepted as Jewish, you need to understand all of it. I have a Jewish friend who describes it like this:

      Christian go out fishing with a big net and anything caught in the net is Christian.

      Jews go out and when a fish jumps in the boat, they throw it back. The second time the fish jumps in the boat, they think about it and then throw it back. If it jumps in the boat a third time, they decide it really wants to be in the boat & they'll keep it.

      You want to declare yourself Jewish out of the blue, fine, do it. There's a word for people like that - poser. You get to be accepted as Jewish 2 ways - your mother is Jewish, or you work your ass off learning Jewish tradition. Of the 2 it's usually easier to get your Sicilian Catholic mother to convert.

    94. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More Russians died in gas chambers than Jews, but Isreal and supporters bang on about it as if the Jews were the only victims. Sure Isreal isn't rounding them up and gassing them, but I would pick life in a ghetto as Jew before the gas chambers over life in Gaza as a Palestinian.

      The first statement isn't true, and I doubt you even mean the second. Russians had very high war casualties and many died in camps (including Jewish Russians), but they weren't tortured and executed by their own societies like animals. Palestinians are mistreated, but they aren't dropping dead in the streets from starvation and disease, and it is not yet considered socially acceptable to kill them at will.

    95. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about the distinction made between "anti-Semitism" and "discrimination". As if that is worse. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

      Guess what? It's working - they're still on the map. Can't blame that for it, either - they're very much in a unique situation, with no peaceful border at all. I think the only other country in a similar position is North Korea, and look where that is...

      But as long as they keep pursuing their right to existence exclusively through (military) might, they will never be secure. Furthermore, "keep existing" is a goal that can never be achieved. "Living in peace with your neighbours" is. It might seem unrealistic for now, but who would have thought in 1944 that Europe would know peace and stability in 2009?

      Treating the Palestinians badly is not going to help.

      BTW, I've never understood why a people that suffered so much treats their enemies in such a cruel way.

    96. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reason we support Israel: because if Israel disappears we'd be the next target. Period. We don't care about anything else. Besides, the arabs with 9 millions sq kilometers of land are unable to produce anything of value. Why would we help tose arab morons transform a productive land into a useless desert ? Leave the land to those that can make something of it.

    97. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 1

      Iran on the other hand literally believes that god himself demands they maim and/or kill anything standing in the path of their aims of nuclear genocide and creating a wahhabist world and nothing you do or say is ever going to change that unshakeable belief that the most important thing is to kill or convert as many nonbelievers as possible.
      Wahhabism is a sunni off-shoot, it has largely depended on western might to protect and nurture it (think Saudi Arabia and U.S. backing and protection).
      Iran is predominantly shia and Wahhabists look upon shias' with disdain.
      There are reasons not to like what is happening in Iran but wahhabism is not one.

      --
      BM3
    98. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Andypcguy · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the US as a whole. This is the type of stuff Republicans come up with. Republicans are always spoiling for a figh while the Democrats try the diplomatic route.

    99. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dave420 · · Score: 1

      So anyone who sells similar technology to the US government can't do it a second time??

    100. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify I don't actually think that government is an evil. Nor that people are stupid in general.

      Credulous at best, your desire to believe in angels in the hearts of men.

    101. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And directly or indirectly produces most of what US consumers buys...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    102. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      So basically, this is the US trying to force foreign companies into executing the US political agenda.

      No. This is a couple of US senators trying to get the US administration to take a harder line with the Iranian government. This won't actually happen unless the bill is passed by both senate and house and signed by the president. (snowball, hell...)

      More likely the sponsors are just presenting it to make there point and know there is no chance it will pass.

    103. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by gadget+junkie · · Score: 1

      both Nokia and Siemens are very big companies with a big involvement in dealing with governments, So I do not think that they were not aware of the ONLY possible use of what they were selling at the time. It further defies my credulity that their respective governments were not aware as well.
      So, I think that these senators are pushing the wrong button, because they should pressure the governments not to allow that; these kind of companies are so dependent on government contracts that they'd never do anything on open confrontation with their politicians.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    104. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by bjourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Allowing a religious extremist terrorist philosophy like zionism to succeed is always going to be a recepe for conflict. If you're aiming for a quality flamebait, at least get your definitions right. Zionism was originally a secular ideology, and the majority still remains such. On the other hand, quite a few Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism [wikipedia.org] specifically on religious grounds. I don't see what's extremist about Zionism either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that Jews must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist Zionist strains)?

      Zionism is its original form as formulated by Theodor Herzl was pragmatic and not at all religious as it then turned out. He thought that the solution to the persecution of Jews in Europe was to form a homeland for them somewhere in the world. The keyword is "somewhere," some of the proposed homelands where in Madagaskar, Argentina and Siberia. None of those ideas had any traction because you can't just ask a scattered people to go to some random place on earth and start a new land. The idea is laughable.

      It wasn't until they choose Palestine as the new homeland that they got support from the wider Jewish communities. Because the Torah says that is the Israelites home and Jews are the descendants of the Israelite tribes. At which point the ideology turned from "healthy nationalism" to a fundamentalist terrorist philosophy. "The Torah says the land is ours so it doesn't matter if we have to slaughter the existing inhabitants. The Torah gives us the right." The essence of Zionism is just as scary as Iran and they have abused Judaism in exactly the same way that Iran abuses Islam. The only difference is that the western world is much more forgiving of Israel than Iran which is why they can soften their extremist message. Israel is allowed to kill 1200 civilians in two weeks while Iran is boycotted. In both cases it is the fundamentalist crazies that are in control.

    105. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      If a tribe of Native Americans wanted to have their own small section of land to govern would you call them religious extremists interested in "separatism, extreme nationalism and religious supremacy combined" or do you think maybe their a tribe of people that have been F'd over at the hands of history that just want a place they can call their own?

      Not saying either should or shouldn't get what they want but I think what your calling it is way off base.

    106. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by htwf_and_ip · · Score: 0

      Cisco is not mentioned because Iran would not have bought there 1990s implementation of DPI. Nokia and Siemens are leaders at this, Cisco routes and tells it board that it does all things. We all know otherwise, Cisco routes, oh yeah and they can switch. Iran could not control the (Iranian) internet without Nokia.

    107. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Legally, sure.

      Do you somehow imagine that a bunch of lawyers who also write laws would be interested in anything other than "legally"?

      And their own reelection, of course....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    108. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is who sold the equipment that enabled the illegal warrantless wiretaps

      There were no illegal warrantless wiretaps; Congress said as much when they prevented us from going after the CEOs of the telecoms that installed the taps. If you want those wiretaps to be illegal, you'd better fire your congresscritter.

      they are the true threat to the American way of life.

      What American way of life? As far as I can tell, the true American way of life is to use more than your share in a way that leads directly to slavery, war, and torture. The US is still running on the fumes in our tank of Manifest Destiny. Guess what? The American lifestyle has never been sustainable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    109. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Arkham · · Score: 1

      They cannot and should not retroactively punish companies for things they decide after the fact. We don't allow this in our judicial system, and should not in our politics either.

      Not to mention that internet filtering software is hardly "sensitive". It's not even encryption, and there are open-source tools that do the same thing.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    110. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sheph · · Score: 1

      Because if we pull their contracts it would be a whole lot more meaningfull than if a handfull of people decided to stop doing business with them. They ought to include GE as well for what they sold to Iran. Gotta wonder who's side these guys are on. Oh yeah, the almighty buck.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    111. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sheph · · Score: 1

      The problem with consumer boycots is that consumers are fickle. Companies know that. Ok everyone stops buying Nokia. Nokia offers a free case with their phone and offers the package for $10 less than Samsung. Outrage is replaced by "oooooh shiny" and the boycot ends.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    112. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Yeah right on man! Feudal warlords rule!

      Feudal warlords are a form of government, so the fact that they suck does not invalidate the premise that governments suck.

      Thoreau wrote that "'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have." Thornley wrote that "Universal Enlightenment a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or - that failing - nobody will give a damn."

      But we are not prepared for it, and Universal Enlightenment has not yet occurred. So anarchy remains an unstable proposition at this stage of human development. Take a large enough group of people with no government, and at best they'll restrict their hierarchical primate dominance behavior to some form of democracy; at worst you end up with strongman rule.

      We should keep working toward the anarchic ideal (I think it's an asymptotic process and we might never entirely get there), but in the mean time, again with Thoreau, "I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it....How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."

      This government of the people by the people and for the people crap that those fucktard founding fathers came up with ... just pure evil.

      The Founding Fathers were a bunch of slave owners, bankers, and landlords who wanted to remove the hierarchy above them, but still sit on top of the lower classes. Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" was not one of their memes, but is a quote from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; he probably lifted it from an abolitionist minister, Theodore Parker, or from Daniel Webster.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    113. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "creating a wahhabist world"

      lol, wrong branch of Islam.
      And for the post below, I also stop reading whenever someone misspells "Israel."

    114. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if I am a half government subsidized and half publicly taxed hospital I can't buy Siemens HVAC/Medical Air systems, or Siemens X-Rays, or Siemens MRI machines, even if the bids for this equipment from Siemens is half what GE would bid? That seems anti-competitive and thus expensive to the taxpayers.

    115. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by pjabardo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iran wants to create a Wahabist world? Are you crazy? Who wants to create a wahabist world is the dear US ally Saudi Arabia. In a world were wahabists are strong the first victims would be the shi'a, which, as a coincidence, is the main religious group in Iran!!!

      The ironic thing in the present situation of Iran is that western media is portraying the Mousavi guy as a reformer when he openly calls for returning to the teachings of Khomeini!?!. He should know about that since he was prime-minister (a position which no longer exists in Iran) in the 80's, coincidentally, when the worst attrocities of this awful regime were being committed. What were those attrocities? Murdering liberals, socialists, communists and seculars in general in their thousands all over the country, beginning in universities.

      Tne funny thing is that even with such a despicable regime, Iran never invaded or bombed any other country to "the stone age" as many commentators say. On the other hand, Iran was invaded by Saddam Hussein who was doing US's bidding.

      If you want to talk about crazy people hearing voices in their head, Iran appears to be the most "reasonable" place in the wretched Middle East. It is (with Israel) the only country in the region were election results even though rigged in several ways are not known in advance. Hell, it is one of the few places were there are elections!

      If the US wants to "bring democracy to the middle east", it should be simple: start with US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or Egypt. At least they would certainly hear what the US has to say. But I have a feeling that isn't really the objective.

    116. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      Big difference. Iran is an embargoed country. China is not. This means that any country that operates in the United States must not deal with that country or face sanctions. When North Korea became financially embargoed most banks around the world avoided dealing with them because they risked sanctions by the United States.

    117. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bomb or destabilize iraq.

      Actually, Iran -> $ -> terrorists -> bombs -> dead people (US/Iraqi) can be and often is established and followed. The majority of the road side bombs and weapons used by foreign fighters in Iraq (90%+ of fighters) have been funded by Iran.

    118. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      GOD DAMN! I want some of whatever you're having!

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    119. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      But government is evil.

      This government of the people by the people and for the people crap that those fucktard founding fathers came up with ...

      How... quaint. The US really should try that some time. Just for laughs. Over a long weekend or something.

    120. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The bill doesn't ban them from doing business IN the United States,
      It bans them from doing WITH the United States Government.
      In other words, as a unit, the Government would be boycotting these companies.

      Ppfft. All the better for their bookkeepers. Fewer checks triggering NSFs...

    121. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While my country recognizes Isreal, I personally don't

      Which immediately negates all of your crazy ass claims anyway. BTW, what is your crazy ass opinion on illegal US immigration? Please enlighten us, this should be fun.

    122. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      . Gotta wonder who's side these guys are on. Oh yeah, the almighty buck.

      So... the same side as the politicians then.

      Where's the problem?

    123. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You can also claim your king of the US or Europe, who is to stop you. However, with the Jewish religion, there are records kept and you need to do certain things in order to remain within the system. And yes, there is an authority on jewishness. This authority comes when people get married and so on where they recite their blood line.

      The religion works a little different then Christianity, and Islam with islam having a little closer requirements.

    124. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The frequent Zionist claim that the Arab inhabitants of Israel are invaders that took over the land after the Jews left, on the other hand, is almost certainly bullshit.

      I didn't realize this was the case or claim being made by the Zionist. The biggest problem with the jews leaving and spreading out was the Romans insistence on worshiping their leaders as a god in addition to/above any gods of your religion around the same time that Christianity was outlawed by them too. Many jews were imprisoned or enslaved and pushed to the edges of the roman empire.

    125. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by initdeep · · Score: 1

      Do you live in the same world as the rest of us?

      People ARE stupid.

      It's proven every day when they rant and rave against whatever the topic du jour is.

      Also when they decide that they need to be like every other sheeple out there and run right out and buy the latest fad.

      People the world over have a herd mentality and tend toward a lowest common denominator type thinking process in that herd.

    126. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shentino · · Score: 1

      Shit will hit the fan as soon as we leave, I guarantee it.

      Iran's too aggressive to leave things be.

      And what could bolster their image better than a big load of "I told you so"?

    127. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i am honestly confused as to how the parent was modded flamebait and this is modded +4 Insightful.

    128. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Confuse Shia for Wahhabists in an effort to sound all-knowning
      2) Get modded insightful
      3) Fail

    129. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You of course realize that Iran is Shi'ah and Wahhibism is hardline Sunni belief right? Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist, Iran is not.

      Your blatant racism is also disconcerting. You say 'Iran' (as a whole) is populated by madmen who want to enslave the world and if that's not possible then at least destroy it. Yet if you've given any attention to the events of the past few weeks you probably have learned that the hardliners HAD TO RIG THE ELECTION TO WIN. This indicates deep divisions within Iranian society and within the ruling elite, even if you choose to believe that some players are irrational actors.

      You should educate yourself before you open your mouth next time.

    130. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. So why would Siemens risk ALL THAT for so little? They should know better. It is always difficult reconcile Schumer's public vs private, self-serving motives, but Siemens HAD to know this would ruffle someone's feathers.

    131. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally don't and I wont acknowledge its right to exist until it shows a massive change in policy and behaviour, starting with full cooperation with international justice.

      What you really mean is, you won't acknowledge, until each resident of Israel gives up their home to someone from another country. Understood!

    132. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor? YOU sound like a state department employee.

    133. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have nothing against Judasim, like I have nothing Islam, but you cannot critisize Iran for being a theology and defend Isreal.

      Laughable.

    134. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      In the long run China is a far more serious long term competitor to the US than Iran. And they have threatened to bomb and or destabilise Taiwan. They prop up North Korea (and many other nasty governments) - in fact the Taepodong 2 missile NK is threatening to fire at Hawaii has Chinese rocket motors.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2#Second_and_third_stages

      Plus the Chinese government since the 1949 revolution has killed far more Chinese citizens than the Iranian government has killed Iranians.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    135. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      There's nothing healthy about nationalism.

      There's nothing wrong about healthy nationalism. It does not have to be a belief about one's nation superiority - it's merely a guiding principle wherein the state first and foremost protects the interests of its nation, where such interests clash with interests of other nations. Virtually every successful state in existence practices that, and one could argue that it is crucial for survival.

      That's extremely extreme. It's separatism, extreme nationalism and religious supremacy combined.

      I guess the United Nations Charter, which specifically lists self-determination of nations as one of its guiding principles, is an extremist document, then.

      You'll have to explain the meaning of the rest, too. "Separatism" from what, exactly (the word only has meaning in a context of a larger state)? And what the hell is religious supremacy doing there, given that Jews who do not practice (or even vehemently oppose) Judaism still remain Jews?

    136. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by CompMD · · Score: 1

      The F-35 design, engineering, analysis, and lifecycle management is done entirely in software from Siemens.

      Perhaps the senators would like a larger gun with which to shoot their feet.

    137. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase, "I don't see what's extremist about White Power either. It's really just healthy nationalism - the belief that White People must have a state of their own. How is this extremist in and of itself (I don't claim that there aren't any specific extremist White Power strains)"

      White people don't need a state of their own because they already have plenty - pretty much all of the western world.

      Of course, "white power" is a very different thing, too - it's really a belief that white race (not nation; the division is biological, not social) is inherently superior to all other races, and should dominate them all. So you're really just attacking a straw man there.

      A nation for a single ethnic group is not a great idea in this day and age.

      First of all, who spoke about "ethnic groups"? Nation is not the same thing as an ethnic group, even though the boundaries are usually close. A big difference, however, is that you can change your nationality, but not your ethnicity.

      Also, most nations in the world are nation-states, and most of those are in fact single-ethnicity nations. When we speak of "country for a single nation", it doesn't mean that anyone with wrong hair or skin color is rounded and deported or shot. It just means that the nation-state primarily defends the interests and values of the founding nation. For example, Germany is clearly a German nation-state - the sole official language is German, it has certain privileges for traditional German religions, its constitution is uniquely tailored to German historical experience, its immigration laws favor ethnic Germans, and so on. The same applies to virtually every other European country, and, in fact, most other countries in the world.

    138. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about the distinction made between "anti-Semitism" and "discrimination". As if that is worse. Isn't that a form of discrimination?

      It is a form of discrimination, certainly. I'm not sure why you ask, though - "anti-[some nationality]" is a fairly common pattern.

      But as long as they keep pursuing their right to existence exclusively through (military) might, they will never be secure.

      I don't think that a state that has to keep drafting women into its armed forces can be said to be secure, but it beats other alternatives.

      Furthermore, "keep existing" is a goal that can never be achieved. "Living in peace with your neighbours" is.

      You seem to imply that "keep existing" is something that can hold true today but not tomorrow; but surely the same can be applied to "peace with your neighbors"? Israel could probably unilaterally disarm tomorrow, and achieve said peace for a period of a few days - while its neighbors would scramble to prepare the invasion.

      It might seem unrealistic for now, but who would have thought in 1944 that Europe would know peace and stability in 2009?

      To achieve that in Europe, we needed, roughly speaking, to "beat the bad guys" first. Even then, it was largely the insane civilian losses in WW2 that affected the European psyche so that further wars are out of question.

      (and still, look at Balkans...)

      Treating the Palestinians badly is not going to help.

      The problem there is that treating the Palestinians well doesn't seem to help, either. So far as I can see, the other side is not willing to compromise at all. The only solution they agree upon is the complete dismantling of Israel. Of course no political group in Israel isn't going to agree to that, either.

    139. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It wasn't until they choose Palestine as the new homeland that they got support from the wider Jewish communities. Because the Torah says that is the Israelites home and Jews are the descendants of the Israelite tribes. At which point the ideology turned from "healthy nationalism" to a fundamentalist terrorist philosophy. "The Torah says the land is ours so it doesn't matter if we have to slaughter the existing inhabitants. The Torah gives us the right."

      Did you read the link in my previous post? There are Judaist religious texts which say the opposite - that Jews are not to return to Israel!

      The only difference is that the western world is much more forgiving of Israel than Iran which is why they can soften their extremist message. Israel is allowed to kill 1200 civilians in two weeks while Iran is boycotted.

      Have you considered that part of the difference is that Israel was responding (arguably with disproportionate force) to a military attack of a hostile terrorist group on its civilian population, while Iran cracked down on unarmed peaceful protestors after rigged elections? Can you truly not see the difference?

    140. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the world turned upside down, and you were searching for loose changes.

    141. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by chrb · · Score: 1

      Of course, "white power" is a very different thing, too - it's really a belief that white race (not nation; the division is biological, not social) is inherently superior to all other races, and should dominate them all. So you're really just attacking a straw man there.

      There is a very thin line between "white power" and "native born" nationalism. Most of the European far-right nationalist parties have moved away from blatant racism and now talk about a homeland for "the native people of this country" brought about by "voluntary" repatriation. However, scratch beneath the surface and the people are the same..

      First of all, who spoke about "ethnic groups"? Nation is not the same thing as an ethnic group, even though the boundaries are usually close. A big difference, however, is that you can change your nationality, but not your ethnicity.

      Of course ethnicity is a part of it - when people speak of Israel being a "Jewish state", they aren't talking about a state for the multi-cultural residents of Israel - they are talking about either a state for people who are ethnically Jewish, or who are followers of Judaism, or both.

      Also, most nations in the world are nation-states, and most of those are in fact single-ethnicity nations.

      I question whether most states have a population consisting of one single-ethnicity. Most of the previously white nations have seen some degree of immigration and are now multi-cultural. The Wikipedia article on multiculturalism demonstrates that most of the Western and Eastern world is multi-cultural. The U.S. is not a single-ethnic nation, it has multiple ethnic and cultural resident groups, and there are no special immigration laws for particular ethnic groups. Neither is the U.K. The laws in both do not favour a particular ethnic group - in fact the opposite - there are laws in both to ensure that ethnic groups are treated equally in the eyes of the government and law. A white person has no more right to residency in the U.K. than a black person, and a follower of Christianity has no more right to reside than a follower of Islam. I am not as familiar with German law, but I suspect it is the same since the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

    142. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against Judasim, like I have nothing Islam, but you cannot critisize Iran for being a theology and defend Isreal.

      Perhaps the word you are looking for is Theocracy.

      While my country recognizes Isreal, I personally don't...

      ... and it shows. Your tirade was scored +4 insightful, yet I find it very trollish.

      For instance, your comment comparing death rates. Did you also know that more people have died from second hand smoke in the US, in one year, than from being deployed in Iraq over the course of the occupation? That more french were killed by US munitions in WWII than by the Germans? That more people prefer Mindy's cheesecake to her strudel? (Don't believe me? Look them up! Do your own research for a change!)

      But hey, this is slashdot. You get points for "a car analogy".

      why didn't the Gypsies get a homeland

      Did they ask for one? Did the Romani, who you are likely referring to? Again, it seems unlikely that you really want an answer, or you would do your own research.

      And before you choose the option "live in a Warsaw ghetto before the gas chambers", you might also recall that the residents there didn't have the option to leave freely when the gas chambers came about. Since you're expressing an opinion knowing the historical outcome, I suggest you reconsider. Or find a counselor.

    143. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      China does not threaten to bomb israel or destabilize iraq.

      But unlike Iran it actually has the means.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    144. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by bjourne · · Score: 1

      Did you read the link in my previous post? There are Judaist religious texts which say the opposite [wikipedia.org] - that Jews are not to return to Israel!

      And the Koran says not to kill. Details like that has never stopped fundamentalists.

      Have you considered that part of the difference is that Israel was responding (arguably with disproportionate force) to a military attack of a hostile terrorist group on its civilian population, while Iran cracked down on unarmed peaceful protestors after rigged elections? Can you truly not see the difference?

      Which in one case ended up with a number of protestors locked up, in the other case with 1200 civilians killed. Can YOU truly not see the difference?

    145. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by lusiphur69 · · Score: 1

      This is modded insightful? Wow, how far Slashdot has fallen.

      Since we have dropped off the face of logic, you might as well shit-can this whole thing. The stupid mob has taken over and we have inflammatory nonsense like what is posted above.

    146. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This no-bidding rule is very easy to work around. Do you think any bidding was involved in the the AT&T spying program? How do you bid on something that doesn't even exist?

    147. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      And the Koran says not to kill. Details like that has never stopped fundamentalists.

      Most Jews (and most Muslims) aren't fundamentalists. Your point is?

      Which in one case ended up with a number of protestors locked up ...

      And killed. We still don't know the real numbers.

      In the other case with 1200 civilians killed.

      1200 is the total number of people killed, both civilians and enemy militants. It would also be lower if Hamas didn't use human shields (I mean, schoolyards are perfect spots to launch missiles from, right)?

      In general, people get killed in a war, including civilians - it's unfortunate, and generally avoided in modern warfare by civilized countries, but it happens nonetheless, especially in urban operations. An easy way to avoid this is to avoid the war - say, by not provoking it by repeatedly launching anti-personnel rockets against civilian targets for prolonged periods of time.

    148. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong about healthy nationalism. It does not have to be a belief about one's nation superiority

      How can nationalism not be a belief about a nation's superiority? That's exactly what the word means.

      I guess the United Nations Charter, which specifically lists self-determination of nations as one of its guiding principles, is an extremist document, then.

      Pretty much. People should have the right to self-determination. Nations are a fiction, an artificial construct that should have no relevance in a global, multicultural society.

      You'll have to explain the meaning of the rest, too. "Separatism" from what, exactly (the word only has meaning in a context of a larger state)? And what the hell is religious supremacy doing there,

      Separatism from non-Jews. You're talking about Israel, and asking what religious supremacy has to do with it? Are you kidding? A country that practices rampant discrimination against non-jews?

      given that Jews who do not practice (or even vehemently oppose) Judaism still remain Jews?

      What does this have to do with anything? "Jewish" is still a religious designation, whether one is practicing or not. Why should religious discrimination be accepted?

      And why can't non-practicing Jews disavow Judaism and not accept that label? It's very extreme to impose this on people, even if they don't want it. It's almost like the Mormons who claim many dead people as Mormons, who were never actually Mormons. They may say it's so, but it doesn't make it reality. Jewishness is an artificial construct.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    149. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      It depends on if they want to exclude and discriminate against others, as the Israelis do. From my experience with indigenous Americans, they are quite welcoming of others, and their whole philosophy/religion is about sharing the earth, not owning it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    150. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      At least 3 thousand years of Jewish heritage, tradition, religion, and culture.

      So, years of bullshit and fiction, basically. Again, I ask, who does the authority reside in? "3 thousand years of tradition" is not a person or an authority.

      You want to declare yourself Jewish out of the blue, fine, do it. There's a word for people like that - poser. You get to be accepted as Jewish 2 ways - your mother is Jewish, or you work your ass off learning Jewish tradition. Of the 2 it's usually easier to get your Sicilian Catholic mother to convert.

      Do you see how pathetic that is?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    151. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by dangitman · · Score: 1

      And yes, there is an authority on jewishness.

      So, who is he or she?

      This authority comes when people get married and so on where they recite their blood line

      So, Jews have the equivalent of a Pope, and he turns up to everybody's wedding? I've never heard of that. Who is this guy?

      The religion works a little different then Christianity, and Islam with islam having a little closer requirements.

      The very idea of a religion having "requirements" is absurd, as they are all simply fictions. Jews may believe very strongly in their nonsense, but that doesn't make it true.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    152. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Islam: check
      Violent and extremist branch of islam: check
      Sunni or Shia side: fail

      Whatever, i don't particularly care whether they're sunni or shia, the operative part is that they're violent extremists who believe in a god given mandate of kill or convert.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    153. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      No, not really, it does however show that you fell victim to the fallacy that because I made a clerical error in referring to a violent extremist branch of Shia by the name of the violent and extremist branch of Sunni everything I said is discredited.

      It's kinda like arguing whether you just got shot by an AK47 or an AKM. Sure there's differences, some of them fairly important in terms of comparing them as guns, but your sucking chest wound won't go away just because you called it an ak47 when it was an akm.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    154. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How can nationalism not be a belief about a nation's superiority? That's exactly what the word means.

      According to Wikipedia, nationalism is "an ideology, a sentiment, a form of culture, or a social movement that focuses on the nation". This is fairly close to the meaning in which I've seen it used elsewhere. I've no idea where you've got the "superiority" definition from - in any case, it might be used by some, but it's definitely not the widespread definition of the word.

      Pretty much. People should have the right to self-determination. Nations are a fiction, an artificial construct that should have no relevance in a global, multicultural society.

      You go tell that to Palestinians. When they reply they're alright with the fact that their nation is a fiction and has no relevance, we can proceed.

      Separatism from non-Jews.

      By your definition, every single nation-state in the world - and that's most of them - is separatist, because it practices separatism from people who are outside their borders.

      If you're one of those guys who believe in world without borders, global peace and understanding, lion and lamb together, and other such things in foreseeable future, then just say so, and I won't bother you anymore (because then we clearly don't have any common ground for reasonable discussion).

      You're talking about Israel, and asking what religious supremacy has to do with it? Are you kidding? A country that practices rampant discrimination against non-jews?

      A "Jew" is not a religion. Son of one Jewish and one Arab parents would still be a Jew to Israel law, even if he is also a practicing Muslim. In practice, this is simply jus sanguinis, which is widely used outside Israel as well.

      What does this have to do with anything? "Jewish" is still a religious designation, whether one is practicing or not.

      It's not. The etymology of the word may be that, but in modern parlance "Jew" is an ethnicity and nationality first, and religious affiliation second. In addition to that, Israel citizenship laws do not follow the religious Halakha definition (matrilinear descent). About the only controversial thing about them is the conversion clause, which lets anyone without Jewish descent convert and then claim citizenship. In case you're not aware, it has been a subject of numerous court cases that have restricted its application, and many inside Israel (including religious Orthodox leaders) would rather see it being removed altogether.

      And why can't non-practicing Jews disavow Judaism and not accept that label?

      Everyone is free to make the choice for himself. If Mordechai Vanunu prefers to not call himself a Jew, it's certainly his right, and so is to request others to do the same in his regard as a gesture of politeness. But words as such have meaning defined by their use by people in general, and you cannot expect to be able to alter this meaning in the interests of political correctness. For the English word "Jew", the modern meaning is national, not religious. Some languages (including my native one) actually have distinct words for Jew-as-in-nationality and Jew-as-in-religion, which are used accordingly.

    155. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      You want to declare yourself Jewish out of the blue, fine, do it. There's a word for people like that - poser. You get to be accepted as Jewish 2 ways - your mother is Jewish, or you work your ass off learning Jewish tradition.

      The matrilinear qualification for Jewishness has nothing to do with scripture or the exegesis of scholars.

      It was an imposition by the Romans after their occupation of Judea as a tributary kingdom, in the 1st century, BCE. When the kingdom became a Roman province, sometime after 63 BCE, the requirements of the Roman census called for the enumeration of Jews, as a distinct population. As with other subject peoples under Roman law, this determination was made by declaration of the mother's ethnological identity.

      All other forms of heredity and lineage of the ancient Hebrew and later Aramaic peoples are patrilinear, as described by scripture and validated in practice through the scant historic record. After all, Abraham was 10th generation in descent from Noah, and 20th generation in descent from Adam in the Torah. The line of mothers in this, beyond the story of Eve, is not even considered worthy of record by the compilers in Babylon. The names of Noah's sons are recorded as important - the name of his wife is obscured to record.

      What other colonial imposition has been so rapturously embraced as a part of Jewish tradition so completely, that it has become the central argument in answering the fundamental question, "Who is a Jew?" In fact, determining who is a Jew by matrilinear derivation is unsupported by the Patriarchs and Prophets. It runs contrary to the examples of the righteous in the Torah, and is likely contrary to the command of G?d.

      This Roman principle has been used to make modern scriptural arguments about the issue of Abraham through Sarah and Hagar, to support current geo-political agendas in Palestine and the Middle-East. It can be quickly determined that these are specious arguments that run contrary to the law of Moses, used for condoning fratricide. In the view of the scripture, all that is important about Issac and Ishmael is that they are both the sons of Abraham, while the matter of maternal portion is merely incidental.

      Not until the Christian era, where the Roman law becomes a "fact-on-the-ground", do we first discover matrilinear assignation. Jesus is described as "Joshua ben-Miriam" by Jews and some Christians. This was an appellation preferred by Jews, as it stressed a non-divine origin of the supposed Prophet and Messiah, contrary to Christian claims and in conformity with the adoption of Roman census definitions. After the 1st century CE doctrine of Virgin Birth became popular, Christian usage of "ben Miriam" neatly avoided the question of a parental relationship with Joseph for the Christ - who was theologically determined to be sired by G?d, alone. By this time, determining Jewishness by the mother's bloodline had passed from a draconian imposition to folklore and custom. It is not endorsed by prophecy or scholarship, theology or revelation.

      I think, in short, that the claim of many - if not the majority - of those who identify themselves as "Jewish" has little actual validity, when using the standard established from Abraham through his descendants. This self-declaration of Jewishness, which you dismiss as posturing, differs little from the reality of self-declared Jewishness that derives from the application of a Goyish law, to ancestors lost in history.

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    156. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      So, years of bullshit and fiction, basically. Again, I ask, who does the authority reside in? "3 thousand years of tradition" is not a person or an authority.

      You are correct, it's not an authority or a person. It is however a standard against which the community itself will measure you and, ultimately, it is the community itself which will determine if you are accepted as a member or not. Do you think Charles Manson will get invited to dinner frequently if the Pope appointed him a Cardinal?

      To point out the absurdity of your insistence on a central authority to define membership, who approved your membership as a nerd or a geek? As a troll, you fulfill a long standing traditional role within the community and as such, probably are accepted in that role.

      Do you see how pathetic that is?

      Pathetic? Hmm, Isolationist, Elitist, Xenophobic? Yes, yes, and yes. Pathetic, nope.

      To belong to any community you have to meet it's standards, in very few communities is that standard so low as to rely solely on your profession of inclusion. If you find that pathetic, so be it. The rest of us find that it helps build a community based on common ground.

    157. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So, who is he or she?

      he/she is the church- the traditions and values that you will be expected to demonstrate to any other jew. You can't just say "I'm a jew" unless you are one and you aren't going to be a jew unless you were born into it or took a lengthy process to convert.

      So, Jews have the equivalent of a Pope, and he turns up to everybody's wedding? I've never heard of that. Who is this guy?

      Lol.. I can tell that you have absolutely no concept. No, I didn't say anything about a pope or pope like person. I'll tell you what, walk into an actual temple and ask what you need to do to convert and then come back. Practicing jews generally marry inside the religion and they know when someone is faking it. They take the traditions of the religion very seriously.

      The very idea of a religion having "requirements" is absurd, as they are all simply fictions. Jews may believe very strongly in their nonsense, but that doesn't make it true.

      The only thing that is absurd is your complete and total lack of understanding of what a religion is or how they operate. You also have no proof that any religion of any kind is fiction, the best you can come up with is innuendo and insinuation with probabilities. That doesn't make what you think to be true.

      It would seem to me that if you were going to talk about a religion, you would at minimum be educated about it enough to have a valid opinion or point. You have no idea about which you are talking about and you are just making an ass of yourself. Good job there Skippy.

    158. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      For the English word "Jew", the modern meaning is national, not religious.

      Not where I come from. Jew is usually about the religion.

      But your point about common usage of the language is interesting. You do know that the creation of Israel was an anti-Semitic act, right? Given a strict an original definition of the word, the USA invading Iraq and persecuting people with tea towels on their heads for a while there, that was anti-Semitic too.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    159. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not where I come from. Jew is usually about the religion.

      Where you come from, how would a Christian or Muslim child of Jewish parents be referred to?

      But your point about common usage of the language is interesting. You do know that the creation of Israel was an anti-Semitic act, right? Given a strict an original definition of the word, the USA invading Iraq and persecuting people with tea towels on their heads for a while there, that was anti-Semitic too.

      I know the original meaning of "anti-Semitic", and how the word was effectively hijacked. But, yes, it's another good illustration - despite the original meaning, it would be pretty silly today to argue against the established definition of that word, which, for better or worse, is not really what it should mean etymologically.

    160. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 1

      Your entire post made no mention of international law, which was the criminal bit, nor did it you address the disproportionate nature of Israeli response to rocket attacks, cruel.

      You made no argument that addressed my point, you challenged it and then rolled out the usual pro Israel propaganda crud.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
    161. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because towelheads need murdrin'

    162. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      You were doing great up until "Persian Democratic Republic of Iran". Any country with Democratic Republic in their name is a dead give-away that its communist.

    163. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it wasn't the intention?

    164. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a device made by a major corporation to do that. All you need is a basic book on radio theory - easily purchased or pirated - you've got the know how for an EMR detector.

      I imagine, a simple mod to a cell phone would even work.

      Damned right. This is nothing new.

      Years ago, concert staff roamed the aisles with devices that pickled up the emissions from normal cassette recorders. If they found one on you, out you went. Without the tape.

      Also many years back, cable/sat company trucks used to drive the streets with gear to detect demodulation of signals by non-subscribers. Fortunately, at the time, the **AA had not yet blazed the trail with notions of insane statutory penalties for such fucking around.

    165. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      You can, since they are not the same thing. The religions couldn't be more different, and Iran's iron-fisted theocracy is not even remotely similiar to Israel being a Jewish state.

      Yes, Muslims can kill everyone except the women and children when they conqueror a city, whereas Jews aren't supposed to spare the women and children.

      Seriously, the differences in the two religions are less to do with anything fundamental to the religions themselves, and mostly due to outside cultural influences. The Torah is... not even close to a nice, fluffy text full of kindness and light. Islam was actually an improvement in many areas; it's just that Jewish culture has been heavily influenced by Western ideas, in particular the Enlightenment.

    166. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      Did they ask for one? Did the Romani, who you are likely referring to? Again, it seems unlikely that you really want an answer, or you would do your own research.

      I doubt they want one. However, they would've liked an end to the general persecution - which was, at the time, much more widespread and accepted than persecution of Jews in most Western states - and it didn't happen. (They're still suffering from it today in many Western countries, and it's seen as acceptable in a way that anti-Semetism just isn't. Meanwhile, Jewish pressure groups shout about anti-Semetism and invoke the Holocaust any time someone as much as hints at criticism of any of Israel's actions - and it works!)

      To be honest, one big reason Israel's founding succeeded is that Jews weren't all that badly treated in most Western states at the time; there were some fairly wealthy and influential Jewish figures, particularly bankers, who were able to provide finance and push for political support.

    167. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      Because it is flamebait?

      For example, are you aware how many Israelis have been killed by Qassam rocket attacks since 2001? 15, total.

      If only 15 Palestinian civilians are killed as collateral damage from the Israeli targetted assassinations the comment is trying to justify in a month, it's considered a quiet month in which nothing remarkable happened. In fact, if twice or even three times as many are killed, it's still considered a quiet month. A lot of the time, the news doesn't even bother reporting it happened.

      Also, the claim that Israel is wonderful because its founders gave citizenship to all the Palestinians they couldn't drive out in their campaign of ethnic cleansing citizenship (as second-class citizens)? Pure flamebait. Let's turn a blind eye to the bit where they forced the Arabs from their homes, confiscated their houses and land (even if they got citizenship) and turned it all into Jewish-only land which they were ineligable to rent or live on. Take a look at the actions of the JNF sometime.

    168. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      Because it is flamebait?

      Sure, naturally. Anything that runs counter to leftist dogma is flamebaiting at best, trolling at worst.

    169. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      Yes, Muslims can kill everyone except the women and children when they conqueror a city, whereas Jews aren't supposed to spare the women and children.

      I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

      The Torah is... not even close to a nice, fluffy text full of kindness and light. Islam was actually an improvement in many areas

      You are confusing theory (or rather, your personal interpretation of theory) with reality.

      it's just that Jewish culture has been heavily influenced by Western ideas, in particular the Enlightenment.

      Which is something that Islam has been unable and unwilling to do, and there is at present no reason to think that that will ever change.

    170. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      ...the name of his wife is obscured to record.

      I'm guessing it was Joan...

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    171. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.

      Before "engagement" with China, we had an economy whose pinnacle of achievement wasn't measured in burgers-per-hour.

    172. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      Yes, Muslims can kill everyone except the women and children when they conqueror a city, whereas Jews aren't supposed to spare the women and children.

      I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

      Take a look at how the early Muslims conquerored. Now take a look at how the early Jews claimed to have conquered Israel. Finally, take a look at how Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, used this to claim indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in the Gaza Strip - even a million! - was not only morally OK, but had to be done. (I think his leaflets calling for this were widely distributed within Israeli synagogues.)

      The Torah is... not even close to a nice, fluffy text full of kindness and light. Islam was actually an improvement in many areas

      You are confusing theory (or rather, your personal interpretation of theory) with reality.

      Note the "was", but yes, it was an improvement. For example, did you know that, if a Jewish women's husband goes missing and is suspected to be dead, she can't ever remarry because if he turns out to be alive, she and her children and her children's children and so on will be outcast as unclean? The same does not apply to men. Islam dodges this problem and many more (whilst introducing, or at least codifying, some other sexism related to who can divorce and when).

      Islam was also worse in some respects - it had fundamentalist tendencies from the get-go - and more militaristic (though that's partly because it was new). The most obvious difference, of course, is that it removed or simplified all the really bizarre and impractical religious requirements. Oh, and it reduced the grounds for stoning and capital punishment in general. (I think Jews at the time had mostly abandoned stoning, but it would only have taken one fundamentalist movement...)

      it's just that Jewish culture has been heavily influenced by Western ideas, in particular the Enlightenment.

      Which is something that Islam has been unable and unwilling to do, and there is at present no reason to think that that will ever change.

      Yeah, that's the *actual* big difference between Islam and Judaism/Christianity, at least in theory. There's a strong Jewish tradition of finding ways of avoiding inconvenient religious laws, something Islam is fundamentally opposed to. (Christianity is just a mess - it's heavily based on tradition and political convenience. Catholicism is particularly bad.) Note that the underlying religious laws do not change - the Torah says it's OK to mass-slaughter civilians in war, so it will always be OK as long as your rabbi agrees. Also, all the restrictions - limits on what foods can be eaten, activities on the Sabbath, and even the prohibition on gay sex - never go away.

      In practice, the recent changes are due to secularisation - including Jewish secularisation - and religion was reluctantly dragged along for the ride. If similar secularisation happens in Islamic countries, the same will probably happen in the end, whatever the Koran may say on the matter. It'll be a bloody battle, but it always is; the Enlightenment was relatively clean only because religion was already weakened from other bouts.

    173. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      Take a look at how the early Muslims conquerored. Now take a look at how the early Jews claimed to have conquered Israel. Finally, take a look at how Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, used this to claim indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in the Gaza Strip - even a million! - was not only morally OK, but had to be done. (I think his leaflets calling for this were widely distributed within Israeli synagogues.)

      "Early Muslims were pretty cool guys, or at least that's what I believe, but take a look at this contemporary Jew who said some crazy shit! This proves for realz that Muslims are saints and Jews are blood-thirsty demons from the lowest reaches of Hell itself!"

      Note the "was", but yes, it was an improvement. For example, did you know that, if a Jewish women's husband goes missing and is suspected to be dead, she can't ever remarry because if he turns out to be alive, she and her children and her children's children and so on will be outcast as unclean? The same does not apply to men. Islam dodges this problem and many more (whilst introducing, or at least codifying, some other sexism related to who can divorce and when).

      No, I'm sure theory still isn't the same thing as practise. We could take a look at how Muslims treat women in reality and compare that to how Jews treat women in reality, but that would reflect very, very poorly on Muslims, so it's better if we don't go there.

      Islam was also worse in some respects - it had fundamentalist tendencies from the get-go - and more militaristic (though that's partly because it was new). The most obvious difference, of course, is that it removed or simplified all the really bizarre and impractical religious requirements. Oh, and it reduced the grounds for stoning and capital punishment in general. (I think Jews at the time had mostly abandoned stoning, but it would only have taken one fundamentalist movement...)

      Muslims still practise stoning (and other form of violence and torture). To my knowledge stoning was rarely if ever practised by Jews or Christians. Also, Christianity and Buddhism were once new too, yet they were not militaristic at all. Islam is militaristic because it was founded by a warlord.

      There's a strong Jewish tradition of finding ways of avoiding inconvenient religious laws, something Islam is fundamentally opposed to. (Christianity is just a mess - it's heavily based on tradition and political convenience. Catholicism is particularly bad.) Note that the underlying religious laws do not change - the Torah says it's OK to mass-slaughter civilians in war, so it will always be OK as long as your rabbi agrees. Also, all the restrictions - limits on what foods can be eaten, activities on the Sabbath, and even the prohibition on gay sex - never go away.

      Looking at some ancient religious laws or other crazy shit and going "you know what, fuck this" is one of the things that makes Christianity and Judaism superior to Islam.

      In practice, the recent changes are due to secularisation - including Jewish secularisation - and religion was reluctantly dragged along for the ride. If similar secularisation happens in Islamic countries, the same will probably happen in the end, whatever the Koran may say on the matter. It'll be a bloody battle, but it always is; the Enlightenment was relatively clean only because religion was already weakened from other bouts.

      A similiar secularization is not going to happen in Islamic countries. Whereever Islam and secularism meet, secularism is almost guaranteed to yield. Ataturk tried to make Turkey secular, but despite his efforts (and the continuing efforts of the military) the country is slowly but surely sliding towards Islamic fundamentalism. Many other relatively secular Muslim countries are undergoing the same process. Muslim immigrants who come to the West do not become secular, and neither do their children. In fact, they actively work to destroy secularism and replace it with Islam.

    174. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      "Early Muslims were pretty cool guys, or at least that's what I believe, but take a look at this contemporary Jew who said some crazy shit! This proves for realz that Muslims are saints and Jews are blood-thirsty demons from the lowest reaches of Hell itself!"

      Strawman. Early Muslims were a bloodthirsty bunch, just not any more so than early Jews. Islam was a touch more moderate and inline with other beliefs than Judaism and Christianity in some surprising places, but that's all. Also, a former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel is not just any Jew - he was the religious leader of all Sephardi Jews within Israel for a full decade-long term. He's still fairly influential for that reason. (Finally, I'm not comparing with Jewish beliefs arbitrarily; it's pretty obvious that Islam was strongly influenced by them.)

      No, I'm sure theory still isn't the same thing as practise. We could take a look at how Muslims treat women in reality and compare that to how Jews treat women in reality, but that would reflect very, very poorly on Muslims, so it's better if we don't go there.

      We could, but it has surprisingly little to do with Islam, to be honest. For some reason, all religious fundamentalist movement lose grasp of all the non-hellfire and hatred aspect. From what I can tell, a lot of the really awful treatment of women actually violates Muhammed's teachings.

      Muslims still practise stoning (and other form of violence and torture). To my knowledge stoning was rarely if ever practised by Jews or Christians. Also, Christianity and Buddhism were once new too, yet they were not militaristic at all. Islam is militaristic because it was founded by a warlord.

      No, early Christianity wasn't militaristic because, if it was, the Romans would've crushed it like a bug. As soon as Christians came into positions of power and Christian nations started being established, it suddenly became a whole lot more warlike. In fact, this was one of the earliest changes to old and inconvenient beliefs that Christians made. (Buddism is totally irrelevant to this discussion - it's an unusual religion, and more importantly it has no relation to the Judeo-Christian tradition that Islam belongs to.)

      You're right that Christianity and Judaism don't do stonings anymore - Christians because of Christ's teachings, and Jews for reasons I'm unclear on. I suspect the invasion of Israel and the subjugation by the Romans, together with the destruction of all the Jewish courts that could pass such sentences, didn't help. (Also, Christianity unfortunately doesn't forbid other things, like say executing starving peasants for stealing food to feed their family. Not one of the nicer periods of British history, that.)

      There's a strong Jewish tradition of finding ways of avoiding inconvenient religious laws, something Islam is fundamentally opposed to. (Christianity is just a mess - it's heavily based on tradition and political convenience. Catholicism is particularly bad.) Note that the underlying religious laws do not change - the Torah says it's OK to mass-slaughter civilians in war, so it will always be OK as long as your rabbi agrees. Also, all the restrictions - limits on what foods can be eaten, activities on the Sabbath, and even the prohibition on gay sex - never go away.

      Looking at some ancient religious laws or other crazy shit and going "you know what, fuck this" is one of the things that makes Christianity and Judaism superior to Islam.

      In theory. Except that's not what happens. Jewish women still can't divorce without their husband's permission (even if they're brutally abused), and if they do remarry, practicing Jews still have to cast them and their children and their children's childen etc out. The Jewish community can pressure the husband to agree, but that's all. All the ancient religious rules are still there, it's just the worst aspects are w

    175. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      We could, but it has surprisingly little to do with Islam, to be honest.

      It has everything to do with Islam.

      For some reason, all religious fundamentalist movement lose grasp of all the non-hellfire and hatred aspect. From what I can tell, a lot of the really awful treatment of women actually violates Muhammed's teachings.

      It only appears to be fundamentalism because you think Islam is supposed to be like Christianity.

      No, early Christianity wasn't militaristic because, if it was, the Romans would've crushed it like a bug.

      It wasn't militaristic because Jesus wasn't militaristic.

      Also, Christianity unfortunately doesn't forbid other things, like say executing starving peasants for stealing food to feed their family. Not one of the nicer periods of British history, that.

      I didn't know contemporary Christians believe in executing starving peasants for stealing food.

      Christianity is, in theory, a bit better. In practice, it took forking the entire Christian church (leading to some very violent secratarian fighting and persecution) to get minor reforms entirely consistent with Christ's teachings in, and the threat of Christianity losing all relevance to get more major changes in. Even then, Christianity and especially Cathoicism are majorly out of sync with popular morality, and there are Christian fundamentalist movements with significant influence still pushing the nasty stuff while ignoring all Christ's kinder, fluffier teachings totally.

      Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Christians are no different from everyone else, because they are everyone else. You've apparently been conditioned into thinking that only those who shout scripture from the rooftops are Christian.

      I'm afraid that's not how it works.

      I'm afraid that's exactly how it works.

      Turkey has influential Islamic fundamentalists, yes, but have you taken a good look at what's been happening in the US lately? The Christian fundamentalists there aren't exactly any better, and they have significant power. Secularism isn't just a magic wand you can wave and make all the evil religious nutters go away.

      Christian fundamentalists are a storm in a teacup, completely irrelevant. They are also completely different from Islamic fundamentalists, you can't even compare them.

      The reasons Muslim immigrants don't become secular are more interesting than you suggest, too. Loosely speaking, there's a tendency for the first generation to make some effort to integrate, and to be religiously pious but moderate. Then their children grow up and discover they don't fit in, don't have a place in society, aren't welcome. They take the obvious solution, and turn inwards, towards Islam and Islamic fundamentalism - often of a sort entirely alien to their parents.

      The reason why they don't fit in, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome is because they go out of their way to ensure that they don't fit, don't have a place in society and aren't welcome. Then they blame it on everyone else, cry a river of tears and stage a riot.

    176. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      We could, but it has surprisingly little to do with Islam, to be honest.

      It has everything to do with Islam.

      Sorry, but it really doesn't have that much to do with Islam. It's more a result of the culture in Arabic states. As Judeo-Christian religions go, Islam is relatively decent when it comes to things like women's rights, marriage and sex (not that this is saying much!). In practice, this was actually followed about as well as Christ's teachings about things like peace, forgiveness, and the poor.

      It only appears to be fundamentalism because you think Islam is supposed to be like Christianity.

      No, it's very much a fundamentalist movement analogous to Christian fundamentalism. The origins and exact beliefs differ, of course. (There have also been corresponding modernist movements within Islam, but so far they haven't done too well.) You've got your standard selective interpretation of scripture, interpreting all the brimstone, hellfire and hatred bits literally - even extending them - and ignoring the justice and kindness aspects. Then there's the holier-than-thou pressures built around these with increasingly violent repression of suspected non-believers. Escalating "religious" restrictions (often with little basis) act to cement the power of the religious leaders. Violence against women becomes accepted, even expected (oddly enough the religious leaders are always male).

      (Islam itself is also a fundamentalist religion, but not in the same sense as modern religious fundamentalism. Ask your local theology/history expert for more details.)

      No, early Christianity wasn't militaristic because, if it was, the Romans would've crushed it like a bug.

      It wasn't militaristic because Jesus wasn't militaristic.

      Maybe. As I recall, there were similar Jewish messianic sects at the time that were more militaristic. The way the Romans treated them made their treatment of Christianity seem positively benign. A fair chunk of Christian teachings were concealed for this reason, as I recall.

      I didn't know contemporary Christians believe in executing starving peasants for stealing food.

      They don't - and to be fair, Christian movements were helpful to putting an end to this sort of thing. It's not something Christianity forbids, either.

      Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian morality, and most Christians are no different from everyone else, because they are everyone else. You've apparently been conditioned into thinking that only those who shout scripture from the rooftops are Christian.

      Yes and no. Western civilisation and Judeo-Christian morality were closely linked, though how is complex and can be viewed in many ways. (I say "were" because the Enlightenment and more recent changes were strongly secular in nature, with religion weakened and desperately playing catch-up.) Prior to that, moral ideas came from within Christianity - but that was inevitable, because that was the only way they'd be allowed. Indeed, due to the way society was structured, moral discourse and learning only happened within the control of the Church.

      There are moral beliefs that came from in Christianity, yes, but most of the ones that survived were either fairly universal and could have come from another religion or are highly controversial and at risk of dying out.

      Christian fundamentalists are a storm in a teacup, completely irrelevant. They are also completely different from Islamic fundamentalists, you can't even compare them.

      No, they're neither irrelevant nor fundamentally different. The press treats them a lot better than their Islamic equivalent - because they're not "other" in the same way, and pissing them off is unwise - and so you don't hear that much about their worst beliefs. Make no mistake, though - they w

    177. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it really doesn't have that much to do with Islam. It's more a result of the culture in Arabic states.

      Islam is their culture.

      As Judeo-Christian religions go, Islam is relatively decent when it comes to things like women's rights, marriage and sex (not that this is saying much!).

      What the fuck have you been smoking? When it comes to women's rights, Islam is as bad as it gets.

      No, it's very much a fundamentalist movement analogous to Christian fundamentalism.

      Christianity != Islam.

      You've got your standard selective interpretation of scripture, interpreting all the brimstone, hellfire and hatred bits literally - even extending them - and ignoring the justice and kindness aspects.

      It only seems selective to you because you think the Quran is exactly the same as the Bible, which is not the case.

      They don't - and to be fair, Christian movements were helpful to putting an end to this sort of thing. It's not something Christianity forbids, either.

      That is a ridiculous argument. If Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid something specific, it's acceptable?

      No, they're neither irrelevant nor fundamentally different. The press treats them a lot better than their Islamic equivalent - because they're not "other" in the same way, and pissing them off is unwise - and so you don't hear that much about their worst beliefs. Make no mistake, though - they want to turn the US into a theocracy, treat women as inferior, see violence against wives and kids as A-OK, and fully intend to wipe out the gays and convert the non-believers, with force if necessary. (Except the Jews - need them around to be slaughtered at Armageddon.)

      Blah blah blah. They are meaningless and in no way comparable to Islamic fundamentalists.

      If by that you mean "try and fit in, but aren't willing to abandon their religion and culture entirely and convert to Christianity like Good People(tm)", then yes, exactly that. I suspect I have been trolled.

      Fitting in means complying with the laws and values of the country they live in. If that means abandoning their religion and culture, then that's what they're going to have to do. If they're not willing to do this, then they are not willing to fit in.

    178. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by makomk · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it really doesn't have that much to do with Islam. It's more a result of the culture in Arabic states.

      Islam is their culture.

      *headdesk*. No, their culture is an Islamic one. That's not the same thing at all. Islam is one influence, but so are older cultural norms and traditions, and newer ones created from whole cloth. (The same is true of Western "Christian" culture. IIRC, there are other Christian cultures out there that are very different, possibly even closer to Islam, but still very much Christian.) Not all Muslims or Westerners seem to quite grasp the distinction.

      As Judeo-Christian religions go, Islam is relatively decent when it comes to things like women's rights, marriage and sex (not that this is saying much!).

      What the fuck have you been smoking? When it comes to women's rights, Islam is as bad as it gets.

      That would be because, as it turns out, religion is of mixed effectiveness as a source of morality. It works fine as a method of social control, which in turn can be used to control morality, but it's the religious leaders doing it and not the religion itself. This causes problems.

      Christianity != Islam.

      And? I'm not saying it is. There's a certain amount of similarity due to common origin, though.

      You've got your standard selective interpretation of scripture, interpreting all the brimstone, hellfire and hatred bits literally - even extending them - and ignoring the justice and kindness aspects.

      It only seems selective to you because you think the Quran is exactly the same as the Bible, which is not the case.

      Sigh. You already know I don't think that. The reason it seems selective to me is because there are rules in the Koran forbidding some of their shit (many of which don't have a Biblical counterpart).

      That is a ridiculous argument. If Christianity doesn't explicitly forbid something specific, it's acceptable?

      Yes, if you're using Christianity as the sole arbiter of morality. If it doesn't, it's not that much good as a moral framework, is it now? (Islam does forbid punishing the poor from stealing to feed themselves. It also punishes other theft with amputation, mind.)

      Blah blah blah. They are meaningless and in no way comparable to Islamic fundamentalists.

      Meaningless? They're one of the really major, important electoral blocks in the US - not to mention in some significant positions of power within both the Republican party and the current US government. Most of the US Protestant and Baptist community is fundamentalist or at least heavily influenced by it. I admit, they're not quite as bad as the worst of the Islamic fundamentalists yet, but that's not saying much. (A lot of the really nutty Islamists seem to be more inspired by terrorism and fear than Islam.)

      Fitting in means complying with the laws and values of the country they live in. If that means abandoning their religion and culture, then that's what they're going to have to do. If they're not willing to do this, then they are not willing to fit in.

      Yes, but for the most part they are complying with the laws, and as far as possible the values. The trouble is, the values of many Western countries seem to include "all Muslims are scum" - does this mean they should abandon their religion? And would you have said the same things about Jews a century or so ago? (In case it helps you make up your mind - Jews lived in their own areas, had set up their own courts and police forces, didn't socialise with non-Jews, and were forbidden from turning over other Jews to the state's law enforcement on penalty of death and from giving testimony in the state's courts by Jewish religious law. Oh, and the Jewish courts didn't accept testimony from non-Jews or women.)

    179. Re:Because Cisco would never do such a thing by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      No, their culture is an Islamic one. That's not the same thing at all.

      Actually, it is.

      That would be because, as it turns out, religion is of mixed effectiveness as a source of morality. It works fine as a method of social control, which in turn can be used to control morality, but it's the religious leaders doing it and not the religion itself. This causes problems.

      The religion itself mandates that men treat women like shit.

      Sigh. You already know I don't think that. The reason it seems selective to me is because there are rules in the Koran forbidding some of their shit (many of which don't have a Biblical counterpart).

      I guess you've never heard of abrogation. It is also rather revealing that the majority of Muslims don't believe in peaceful Islam.

      Yes, if you're using Christianity as the sole arbiter of morality.

      Except nobody does this. How is this even relevant?

      Meaningless? They're one of the really major, important electoral blocks in the US - not to mention in some significant positions of power within both the Republican party and the current US government. Most of the US Protestant and Baptist community is fundamentalist or at least heavily influenced by it. I admit, they're not quite as bad as the worst of the Islamic fundamentalists yet, but that's not saying much. (A lot of the really nutty Islamists seem to be more inspired by terrorism and fear than Islam.)

      The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists is like the difference between your neighborhood's Neo Nazi gang and Nazi Germany.

      Yes, but for the most part they are complying with the laws, and as far as possible the values.

      Not really.

      The trouble is, the values of many Western countries seem to include "all Muslims are scum" - does this mean they should abandon their religion?

      Very few people have anything against Muslims or Islam. The majority of Westerners would kill themselves before saying anything that contradicts multiculturalist ideology. Politicians and the media are no different. The people who understand that Muslims are a threat only feel that way because of actions taken and words spoken by Muslims. Any reputation that Muslims lose is strictly their own fault.

      And would you have said the same things about Jews a century or so ago? (In case it helps you make up your mind - Jews lived in their own areas, had set up their own courts and police forces, didn't socialise with non-Jews, and were forbidden from turning over other Jews to the state's law enforcement on penalty of death and from giving testimony in the state's courts by Jewish religious law. Oh, and the Jewish courts didn't accept testimony from non-Jews or women.)

      Is there some reason why I shouldn't have said the same thing about Jews a century or so ago, if they were acting in a manner equivalent to that of contemporary Muslims?

  3. Screw technology ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, let's not forget which country ARMED a bunch of our now-enemies - that would be U.S.

    Just sayin' ...

    1. Re:Screw technology ... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Most of our current presumed enemies were either armed by the Soviets and Chinese (North Korea), or developed their own military industries by initially illegally copying from the Soviets and/or the US (China, Iran). Venezuela is modernizing using largely Russian technology, and has been trying to figure out how to get rid of its F-16s to US enemies without violating transfer agreements. Most of the rest (primarily terrorist or insurgent groups) use weapons that are either stolen from wherever they can find them, or produced in knock-off machine shops (AKs, RPGs, and Katyushas).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Screw technology ... by macshit · · Score: 1

      Venezuela ... has been trying to figure out how to get rid of its F-16s to US enemies without violating transfer agreements.

      Why, incidentally...? Just to be a dick?

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:Screw technology ... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Most of our current presumed enemies were either armed by the Soviets and Chinese

      Okay, so you're saying the US *didn't* arm Afghanistan, so that the brave band of Mujahideen freedom fighters could release their country from the shackles of the eeeevil Russkies?

      Maybe you should read the transcripts of some of Reagan's speeches on the matter. Or just watch Rambo III. Either way, you should brush up on your recent history.

    4. Re:Screw technology ... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It seems like virtually all Venezuelan foreign policy is designed for the express purpose of trying to annoy the United States.

    5. Re:Screw technology ... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I never said any such thing. I'm quite aware of the actions of the US government during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, a war that was far more complex than most people realize.

      However, the Taleban are largely not the successors of the Mujahideen. Former Mujahideen fought on their side, but that was in many cases because the Taleban were the ones in power. The Taleban were armed largely by those countries that saw them as legitimate, especially Pakistan. Since 2001, the Taleban's arms come from illegal shipments or manufacturing paid for by private donors and the profits from the Taleban's drug trade.

      At what point does the US arming someone fall away as arming its enemies? The Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan twenty years ago. Whatever weapons were sent to the Mujahideen are not likely to be the primary weapons being used in the fighting now, especially since most of them were used up in the civil war that followed the Soviet withdrawal.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    6. Re:Screw technology ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like virtually all Venezuelan foreign policy is designed for the express purpose of trying to annoy the United States.

      If that's the case it's at least it is achieving the main goal. I still don't see how this type of policy will benefit anyone in Venezuela over the long-term, other than Hugo Chavez of course (and even that is questionable).

  4. Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless you're in Iran in which case it's the other way around. Or since neither of these companies are US based companies do we have to decide if the EU likes the US today before they can negotiate contracts?

    1. Re:Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      There is the "us" and there is the "them". What is confusing you ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    2. Re:Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is the "us" and there is the "them". What is confusing you ?

      Is a multinational company that's based outside the US but happens to do business here an "us" or a "them"? I lost my scorecard and can't figure it out anymore.

      As a side note, evidently the equipment sent to Iran is standard telephone switching equipment with digital wiretap capabilities - the same hardware mandated by the US & most other governments.

    3. Re:Selling to the NSA is good but Iran is bad by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Please refrain from using complex arguments. Complexity has a known liberal bias. Let's stay objective.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  5. Yes that makes sense by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Internet monitoring equipment should only be allowed to be sold in "free" countries, like the US... er...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Yes that makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Those two-faced motherfuckers sure don't complain when snooping gear and software is sold to them to spy on us.

    2. Re:Yes that makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fixed that for you: Internet monitoring equipment should only be allowed to be sold by the only "free" country, the US... er...

    3. Re:Yes that makes sense by BIGELLOW · · Score: 1

      The existence of Internet monitoring equipment by itself is not enough to declare a country oppressive. No more than the existence of freedom to bear arms is enough to declare a country murderous. It's how you use such tools and the scale by which abuses are discovered that determine the morals of a government.

      Could the riots in Iran ever happen in the U.S.? Sure. It's possible because we are all human. Could someone end up in the Presidency that the people are certain they didn't actually vote in? Sure. It has happened. Any systems that humans invent are going to be flawed. Putting aside the paranoia which might use these facts to paint the U.S. as being "no better than Iran" dismisses the fact that Iran's democracy is a fallacy, even moreso than the U.S.'s. In Iran, even if the vote by the people had gone the other way, the clerics have the power to completely override the vote. They only need to declare that the people clearly went against God's will.

      So, given the difference... there should be a line where certain monitoring software should be allowed and where the same monitoring software should not be allowed. For instance, certain equipment may only be sold by companies to law enforcement and not to citizens. Clearly there are already lines drawn between who should have this equipment and who shouldn't have it. I cannot legally put a light-bar on my car which would appear to impersonate a police car. It's the law and it is a reasonable one. A person needs to pass their background check before being allowed to own a weapon, and this makes sense. A person also needs to pass a driving test before being allowed on the road in a motor vehicle. It makes sense. So, it also makes sense for the government to be OK with selling monitoring software to local police forces but not be OK with selling the same monitoring software to a country where there is proof their police forces are marching through the roads, indiscriminately smashing windshields of parked cars with batons without any mention by the government that these police officers will face justice for these actions. There are documented cases of people being beaten while laying on the ground surrounded by several officers in riot gear, yet you don't see the government at any level calling for the same kind of inquiry as we had with the Rodney King situation. The fact of the matter is, while bad things do happen in the U.S., at least there is some sort of sign that the government attempts to investigate wrong-doings, attempts to right wrongs, and attempts to change laws to adapt to the problems that are found. In Iran, the country is pretty much at the mercy of the clerics who have an all-encompassing override for anything that would be considered democratic.

      Also, some argue that because the U.S. government doesn't go after China for the same reasons, that they should either leave Iran alone... or also go after China equally. This is rarely a valid argument when it comes to law. Take, for instance, the situation of speeding on a highway. When you get pulled over for speeding and you tell the officer "I was going the same speed as everyone else. Why did they get away with it? I shouldn't have to be punished for the rule that clearly everyone was breaking." Expect to get a ticket. If you go to court with that same argument, expect to keep the ticket. It simply isn't a valid argument. Being punished due to breaking a rule isn't about what everyone else is or isn't doing, it's about the rule you broke.

      In any case, it's not like the government is imposing sanctions. They are simply saying that the U.S. government is choosing not to give money to one set of companies while being OK with giving money to other sets of companies. It's no different than when you decide Walmart is evil and stop shopping there. Nobody should force you to have to shop at a company you aren't happy with, so the government shouldn't be forced either. Sure, someone could point out j

  6. fucking hacks, both of them by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where's the blockage of federal contracts to AT&T for spying on American citizens? U.S. officials have a complete lack of self-awareness on issues like spying, detention & torture:

    "I have more than two hours of video footage showing Sheikh Issa's involvement in the torture of more than 25 people," wrote Texas-based lawyer Anthony Buzbee in a letter obtained by the Observer.

    The news of more torture videos involving Issa is another huge blow to the international image of the UAE . . . . The fresh revelations about Issa's actions will add further doubt to a pending nuclear energy deal between the UAE and the US. The deal, signed in the final days of George W Bush, is seen as vital for the UAE. It will see the US share nuclear energy expertise, fuel and technology in return for a promise to abide by non-proliferation agreements. But the deal needs to be recertified by the Obama administration and there is growing outrage in America over the tapes. Congressman James McGovern, a senior Democrat, has demanded that Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, investigate the matter and find out why US officials initially appeared to play down its significance.

  7. It's only fascist when they do it by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the same equipment they sell to the US, UK and others, and they're in compliance with UN and EU regulations. Why is it suddenly evil and deserving of punishment when another government decides to use it?

    1. Re:It's only fascist when they do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the American Government didnt think of it first?

    2. Re:It's only fascist when they do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. News of this would certainly spread like wildfire on the Internet. Unless the government had some way of stopping it.

    3. Re:It's only fascist when they do it by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Iraq?

      Oh, that's right, foreigners aren't human.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings/, a while ago, but the regiem hasn't changed. Got more corrupt.

      --
      I don't therefore I'm not.
  8. That's awfully EU of you, Americanski by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just like the Europeans, think they can tell countries what to do, and when. Well, FUCK YOU, I say, FUCK YOU !!

    1. Re:That's awfully EU of you, Americanski by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Well, FUCK YOU, I say, FUCK YOU !!

      Foghorn Leghorn, is that you?

  9. free markets a bitch aint it? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the hypocrisy boggles the mind

    --
    i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
  10. Better to let them communicate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, isn't it better to let the citizens there to communicate in the first place? There wouldn't have been organised rallies of this magnitude if they hadn't bought Evil NokiaSiemens network equipment.

    Like the Nokia rep said, if you sell communications gear you automatically also sell an ability to intercept and monitor.

  11. Wow... by danking · · Score: 1

    This is damn hypocritical.

  12. meanwhile by uepuejq · · Score: 2, Funny

    at&t has now recompounded with cingular to form voltron

  13. Well.. by diewlasing · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...I'm glad to see Republicans standing up the tyranny of the increasingly repressive American Gov...wait....

    ---

    I guarantee you these are the same people who want to restrict freedom of information to protect the children here in the USA.

  14. The inconsistency is a good one. by evil_arrival_of_good · · Score: 1

    Sold too USA good, sold to Iran bad is a good inconsistency because of another level: Iran is an unpopular theocracy using the technology to sustain their reign. Even factoring in the likely illegitimacy of G W Bush's reign, the rulership in the USA has never been as sustained/entrenched unpopular regime as that of Iran. It is Apples and Oranges, and one should not get the technology.

    1. Re:The inconsistency is a good one. by mano.m · · Score: 1

      Yes, but who watches the watchers?

      --
      Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
  15. Banning Open Source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "According to Nextgov.com, Schumer and Graham's bill would require the Obama administration to identify foreign companies that export sensitive technology to Iran and ban them from bidding on federal contracts, or renew expiring ones, unless they first stop exports to Iran."

    We're banning Red Hat, why?

    1. Re:Banning Open Source. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      We're banning Red Hat, why?

      Because Schumer and Graham want people to think that the government is actually in charge.

      It's really quite cute, in a "retarded puppy menacing a Toyota" sort of way.

  16. Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by GrpA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As far as I'm concerned, multinational corporations deserve this and have done so for a long time.

    They are crying foul that by selling the tools of oppression to one government, they jeopardize their chances to sell their wares to another.

    That's not hypocrisy on behalf of the governments. That's just politics.

    And they do have a choice to avoid this - by staying out of that market.

    No one forced them to sell systems to allow oppressive regimes to track and crack down on dissidents. They came up with that product all by themselves. And they most certainly would have been aware of what their product was going to be used for.

    If all they sold was phones and phone systems, they wouldn't be in this mess, so I really don't see a problem with the US Government deciding that if Nokia supports it's political enemies, that it shouldn't benefit from US government contracts.

    Corporate pariahs's deserve to be treated as such.

    I don't like what the US government is doing itself in the area of human rights abuse, but I have to admit that I support it on this matter.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    1. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by chill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about selling to non-oppressive regimes? These systems, and similar ones by Cisco, Alcatel-Lucent, Narus and others are in widespread use throughout the U.S., Europe and the rest of the "free world".

      Been there, installed that.

      Hell, I know of one system that uses a MySQL database to store the warrant and tap info. The interface is an Apache module. The front end is rather ugly closed source GUI written in Israel which sends the info via an HTTPS POST.

      Narus' key products were based on Snort and Wireshark, just on custom super-computer class hardware.

      Gotta love FOSS. With all the hacking tools available for Linux/BSD, including source code, who needs custom code?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do have to provide this technology if they want to sell mobile phone network equipment at all. There's a mandatory "lawful intercept" capability that you have to implement if you want to get the gear licensed. That goes for US, UK and EU as well as "axis of evil" countries.

    3. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by KTheorem · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like my boycott of stores that I know openly supported Prop 8 only on a governmental scale. Nokia et al. made deals that the US government thought were counter to it's own interests and goals and so it is finding itself in the position of the US government boycotting them.

    4. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the blade cut both ways? OpenSSH? OpenSSL? GnuPG/PGP?

    5. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by GrpA · · Score: 1

      Yes, and I'm well aware of this requirement, more than most people.

      However it's one thing to meet this requirement within the required laws of the host country and another thing entirely to provide and market software and devices that actively enhance human rights abuse through these laws.

      The latter might be something the "client" government desires, but that doesn't excuse the actions of the corporations who chase this business through provision of such systems.

      If Nokia and others persist in creating Brazen Bulls then perhaps it is only fitting that they too receive the same reward as did Perillos.

      I don't have much sympathy for them.

      GrpA

      --
      Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    6. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by japa · · Score: 1

      I don't like what the US government is doing itself in the area of human rights abuse, but I have to admit that I support it on this matter.

      GrpA

      The US government would have more credibility if they'd start with US companies and then go after the international ones. Or at least target both at the same time. And besides there are many countries with questionable record in human rights. One of the lesser known, but incredible bizarre is Turkmenistan, a mall country with lots of oil & gas. The previous leader came up with Ruhnama, which is an absurd government propaganda book disguised as mandatory religion. Foreign companies get advantage in Turkmenistan if they translate the book to their language and Turkmenistan gets another propaganda victory. The US version was translated by John Deere (the tractor company). There are other big US companies in Turkmenistan, againt the companies' own ethical rules.
      Have a look at a documentary 'Shadow of the holy book'.

      The whole thing is so unreal that it's absurd..

      Ps. Yes, you can find Siemens also from Turkmenistan...

    7. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by chill · · Score: 1

      Not really. These tools are designed to ensure privacy and you'd be hard pressed to find a use for them to "suppress" a people.

      There are a lot of tools designed to test -- and break -- security. They have tons of valid uses. The idea that countries like Iran, Burma and China can't get their hands on the same tools the U.S. and Western nations use for "legitimate law enforcement" simply because Congress says "don't sell to the bad guys" is laughable. It assumes no nation in the world is going to resell the tech. It also assumes that the "evil" nations are populated solely by idiots, who will never come up with any tools like this themselves. A quick looks at all the Chinese names on math and science papers lately will put that to rest.

      My argument was the definition of "oppressive regime". Britain's surveillance society; the U.S.'s suspension of habeas corpus, no-knock warrants and warrantless wiretapping; and the German data retention and "hacking" laws make it hard to tell where to draw the line. And no matter where it is drawn, governments and their employees find a way to dance back and forth over it at will.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as a non-oppressive regime. All political regimes are inherently oppressive by their very nature.

    9. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by david.given · · Score: 1

      No one forced them to sell systems to allow oppressive regimes to track and crack down on dissidents.

      Remember, software doesn't censor people. People censor people!

      How come selling software to places like Iran is considered bad, while selling arms and nerve gas to places like Iraq isn't?

    10. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If Nokia and others persist in creating Brazen Bulls then perhaps it is only fitting that they too receive the same reward as did Perillos.

      The irony is that they are being persecuted by the USA for including features that are required in the USA. So, tell me who's the oppressive regime?

    11. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      That's not hypocrisy on behalf of the governments. That's just politics.

      Hypocrisy is the very essence of politics, at least in US it seems to be.

    12. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood my post. I'm saying open source giveth and open source taketh away. Just as snort and other open source tools can be used to hinder rights/freedoms/etc., other open source tools can be used to bolster such rights. Each is simply a tool to be used, with the use up to the user.

    13. Re:Don't be so quick to defend the corporations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a mandatory "lawful intercept" capability that you have to implement if you want to get the gear licensed. That goes for US, UK and EU as well as "axis of evil" countries.

      Yep, all due to the wonders of the US CALEA. OTOH, there used to be export restrictions on strong encryption. A given product had to provide a lower grade encryption option for export. Why not apply that same process to export of this kind of shit? At least for Cisco, et al., even if we have no control over foreign vendors.

  17. Political opportunism by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 1

    Political opportunism by Graham, and naivete by Schumer. Both companies are in compliance with international law. How can you punish a company when you never even told them it was wrong to begin with? The hardware and software in question is usually marketed for corporate use, where they have every right to use it. Maybe it would be better to outlaw the use of such software by governments?

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
  18. Maybe it would be better to outlaw by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 1

    Maybe it would be better to outlaw the use of this kind of technology by ALL governments. It should be perfectly legal for corporate use.

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
  19. Maybe a good internal but not international agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't choose to act as credible open-market proponent AND choose legally codify preferential selection on basis of political opinions when your own companies have actual competition.

    Of course US and its politicians are not the only country doing this kind of idiotic double talk, but it's one of the very few big that don't seem to get seriously injured in international politics and open markets by consistently pushing others to accept their own internal idiocies.

  20. Turnabout is fair play. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is just more bullshit for the U.S. government to work around trade agreements they've signed in the past.

    I warned Europeans on this board that protectionism was coming with a Northern Democrat sweep... but oh no, Obama was the man. Bet you'll miss Bush when you can't sell a bucket of screws to the USA. I'm really crying for you...

    I'm by no means an Obama fan, but it's about time we had an administration that did something about it. Have you looked at the US trade deficit lately? The whole world is screwing the USA and has been for decades.

    Free trade is just like socialism.. one of those ideas that seems good on paper but screws up in practice. Adam Smith, Karl Marx, you are both as wrong as you are dead!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europeans already find it difficult to sell buckets of screws in the USA because of a perverse form of protectionism known as the "English" system of measurement.

    2. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by Allicorn · · Score: 4, Funny

      I warned Europeans on this board that protectionism was coming with a Northern Democrat sweep... but oh no

      Yep - damn those Europeans for voting Obama in.

      --
      OMG!!! Ponies!!!
    3. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yep - damn those Europeans for voting Obama in.

      IF they could have, they would have. Obama's ratings in Europe were in the 90% range, at the same time he was in Ohio talking about how he was going to undo free trade. Says a lot about how informed Europeans -really- are.

      Bush may not have been the style of guy that Europe prefers, but economically, his commitment to free trade made it possible for many European economies to be export driven. Obama will begin the unwinding of that.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is screwing the USA? Last time I checked, a trade deficit means other countries are shipping you more goods than you're shipping them.

      Who's the one doing the screwing here? Your currency needs to lose a lot of value to equalize things, but none of you are prepared to face the consequences. You're just riding on the fact that it's the world's reserve currency, but eventually the bubble will pop...

    5. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 1

      I know you think that is a bad thing, but frankly, US consumerism supporting US manufacturing isn't exactly a bad thing.

      What it does to other economies around the world isn't really the US governments purview. Ultimately, "free trade" never existed, and it never will until the world is under one unifying government.

    6. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You needn't look at Europe. Obama's popularity here in Canada is insane - it's almost as if I see him more often on TV and newspapers than I see the local prime minister. Meanwhile, they complain loudly about "Buy American" campaign...

    7. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      I know you think that is a bad thing, but frankly, US consumerism supporting US manufacturing isn't exactly a bad thing.

      I'm totally against free trade. It's a failure and a myth. I was in favor of it strongly. We tried it. It didn't accomplish its stated goals, so its time to move on.

      --
      This is my sig.
    8. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Who's the one doing the screwing here? Your currency needs to lose a lot of value to equalize things, but none of you are prepared to face the consequences. You're just riding on the fact that it's the world's reserve currency, but eventually the bubble will pop...

      Even more proof the world is screwing the USA. The fact is, if free trade actually worked, the dollar would have gradually declined and the markets would have done their job. Instead we have a bunch of folks over in Japan, South Korea and China playing mercantile games and hoarding dollars to prop up the currency, so they can f--- us some more.

      Let the bubble pop! Then everyone will see what a bullshit deal free trade is, the USA can go back to being isolationist, and let the world engulf itself in regional wars.

      --
      This is my sig.
    9. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      Bush may not have been the style of guy that Europe prefers, but economically, his commitment to free trade made it possible for many European economies to be export driven. Obama will begin the unwinding of that.

      Are you joking? His commitment and wisdom brought us a worldwide economic collapse. Banks and companies collapsed like Lehman Brothers, Citibank, Fortis, Northern Rock, Kaupthing, GM, Chrysler... an estimated 3 million unemployed in the US (worldwide - nobody knows). Not to speak of US casualties in Iraq (about 4000) Iraqi deaths (est. at more than 1 million).

    10. Re:Turnabout is fair play. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "Imperial" measurements, which is the correct term for inches, feet, miles etc. For some reasons you Americans don't like using the correct name.

  21. Makes sense to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran is our enemy, so we're going to give a hard time to businesses that give nice things to Iran.

  22. Re:Maybe a good internal but not international age by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm not sure why anyone is allowed to export hammers and nails to Iran, let alone cell phone equipment. I'd ban all trade with country, and pass a law making it a criminal offense to sell even indirectly anything to them, with crippling fines that would put even a company like IBM out of business.

    Let the Butchers of Qom develop their own surveillance equipment.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  23. Oh I see by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Speaking up in favor of protestors is seen as meddling but sending out a strong signal that if you sell anything hi tech to Iran your stuff will be shunned by the U.S. will have no impact whatsoever.

    The horse may have left the barn, but if we nuke the barn from orbit we can be sure no future horses will even be born. Or something like that.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  24. Godwin's Law by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    IBM, allegedly, collaborated with the Nazis.

    Corporations making a quick buck through trading with 'the enemy' is nothing new.

    1. Re:Godwin's Law by cenc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    2. Re:Godwin's Law by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      Ford as well.

    3. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM, allegedly, collaborated with the Nazis.

      Corporations making a quick buck through trading with 'the enemy' is nothing new.

      Yawn. Nationalized corporations cooperating with the government?! What a shocker. Get over it.

    4. Re:Godwin's Law by copponex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, buddy. That's just ancestral indiscretion. It's not like GW Bush or his father helped start wars that conveniently profited themselves and their friends.

      Wait a second...

    5. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he is George Bush's father and George Bush's grandfather at the same time!

      scnr ;) - Just can't get over the total lack of imagination some people have when choosing their childrens' names...

    6. Re:Godwin's Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and so that makes it OK??

    7. Re:Godwin's Law by cenc · · Score: 1

      yea, those apples did not fall far from the tree.

  25. Re:Maybe a good internal but not international age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look how much well kinds of tactics have worked against North Korea and Cuba. These strategies have intended effects only against countries that are really already free enough not to be hard-handed anyway. On those where citizens' freedoms are insufficient, they just cause more trouble to everybody except the leaders.

    And, no matter how hard it might be to accept, opinions of US government, mainly driven by domestic power struggle interests, are not unanimous international opinion. In this case it might not be pretty, but still - it's hard to sell this kind of trade treaty exceptions for instance to EU when the primary reason is obviously local company lobbying of opportunistic local politicians.

  26. Instead of whining about this by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Let's do something useful. Fire up a proxy and get it into the queue. Start up a TOR node. Get to work on WAP firmware that enables a wireless mesh network. If you know somebody in-country, buy up a bunch of Micro-SD cards in decent capacities and mail them in, stuffed with downloaded videos of protests so that in case they don't have them they can share them around. Even in the absence of networking, microSD cards are a discreet way to distribute large amounts of information. If you receive mail from somebody in-country, check the package thoroughly for concealed data cards and publish what you find.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  27. Pointless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll just spin off a division to handle it instead.

    And its not like they probably haven't sold same equipment to US government...

  28. Uncompetitive Country by lsdi · · Score: 2, Informative

    Those actions turn the US into a less competitive country and will not stop people from having cell phones, software, etc wherever they live. I don't think Nokia cares very much about federal contracts right now.

  29. and in Germany? by Tom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, now that we here in Germany have introduced Internet censorship (via the crazy Zensursula von der Leyen law, your choice whether "crazy" applies to the law or the person) - will the US senators punish the companies that supply the infrastructure for that as well?

    Oh wait, Germany isn't a "rogue country", right? We don't go by facts, we go by political climate, don't we?

    I'm looking forward to an embargo...

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:and in Germany? by batrick · · Score: 1

      I believe it will depend on how Germany decides to censor their traffic. Usually the U.S.A. only decides to use economic sanctions when censorship is being used for I(negative) political purposes. The government generally doesn't care about conservative censorship. It is rather unfortunate the Internet is becoming less free with each passing year.

    2. Re:and in Germany? by dbcad7 · · Score: 2

      Usually the U.S.A. only decides to use economic sanctions when censorship is being used for I(negative) political purposes.

      They use sanctions to try and obtain the political result they want.. For example trying to stop nuclear research.. Censorship, like it or not, is each countries own business.. and in fact you can say the same for the individual states in the US..

      You know what is strange ?.. There are people (not saying you, so don't freak), that on the one hand want everyone to be the same and live the same and have the same government.. and then on the other hand they will be living in fear of the "One World Government".. My opinion is to let people live the way they want.. If it doesn't work they will change it, and if they don't they must not want it enough, and who am I to make them ?.. I in fact love traveling and seeing differences.. It would be pretty boring if every place was the same.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  30. Ok by Toonol · · Score: 1

    It wouldn't hurt my feelings to punish companies that sell products that are specifically designed to oppress nations, but we also need to punish American companies that do that. Including censoring information, and disclosing information to help those regimes violate rights.

  31. Two choices by mellestad · · Score: 2

    America needs to decide a)Iran is a horrible regime and should be treated as such, which included cutting off any business or country that profits by selling to it, or b) leave them alone. This is all wishy-washy jerking off after the fact. None of this tech is classified or sensitive, so you can't say they were selling them weapons grade material or something. You can't punish a corporation after the fact when the did not break a single international law. These spineless half measures reek of hypocrisy.

    1. Re:Two choices by lsdi · · Score: 1

      I think the world should let them alone, along with Israel, North Korea, etc. The more attention they get, more they want. They will change their minds after 3 days of nuking each other.

  32. "Four feet good! Two feet bad!" (Animal Farm) by fluch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As far as I have heard Nokia and Siemens did just sell the same technology they are forced by the "good countries" to implement already for years. So what is the problem?!

  33. Power to the people! by DJ+DeFi · · Score: 2

    ..Shit.

    --
    You cannot warp because you are warp scrambled.
  34. The filtering/logging might not exist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If it weren't for CALEA: http://www.fcc.gov/calea/. Nokia/Siemens might have said "no, it's to costly to implement something like this so you can take it or leave it." Instead the system was already in place, tested, and working and sat right on top of their existing offerings as dictated BY YOU.

            I'm certainly not condoning companies from doing business of this sort *coughCiscocough*, but the hypocrisy makes me sick. Why don't go after other counties that do something similar to what Iran is doing and go after the companies that built those networks. Oh wait, because that's EVERYBODY.

            These guys are such douchebags and don't even understand the consequences of their actions could be. The fact is that sure, Iran could have been sold this equipment without the filtering or logging, but would they have bought it knowing they had 0 control over it? Doubtful. Because there's 1 fact about the internet that held true time and time again, as long as the wire isn't cut you cannot stop it. By having companies like Cisco or Nokia/Siemens doing the installs, the free world automatically gets a leg up on the situation because we know exactly how they work and can help those that want a free voice get around it. The engineers that even built the systems are on our side, they know what's going on and while they do not condone it, the end game is that if people are given the ability, they will find a way.

            The alternative is these countries doing a few things. First no internet, nobody would have access. Not even filtered access. This doesn't help anyone. They would become completely and totally cut off from everybody except for whatever their state "media" spews out. Or the other possibility is that they would have had their own in house guys do it. If it were something that they absolutely needed, and they needed to have total control over it, they would have had their own engineers design the equipment and software to implement their cell/internet network. This would have a couple issues, firstly being they could break it for the rest of us, see the Pakistan/Youtube incident. Another issue that would exist, is that their engineers would have likely seen the issues with the current implementation and improved upon it by providing a far more intrusive filtering/logging that would ultimately cause the deaths of many many more people.

            I do not like it anymore than the rest of you, but the fact is, is that as long as there exist a means in which one can voice their own opinion freely they will find a way. What we saw from Iran is the people finding that way. Had Iran not had the means, it wouldn't have happened at all. It's like the Tiananmen/Google thing that comes up every so often. Does it make Google evil to filter it? Maybe. But the alternative is not having Google in China. You know what you can find on Google in China? A way to bypass the Great Firewall.

  35. Re:Maybe a good internal but not international age by mano.m · · Score: 1

    Taking away basic necessities will be the right punishment for the villainous common people of Iran for democratically deciding to deny themselves basic human ri-... wait, wha-?

    --
    Karma fed to this user will be promptly burnt. Be warned; be wary.
  36. Heaven forbid by kalpaha · · Score: 4, Informative

    How dare they sell equipment to implement legally required (and specified by ETSI and 3GPP standards) capabilies for the mobile networks: http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm

  37. Re:Maybe a good internal but not international age by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    You know, it wasn't tanks and bombers that brought down the Iron Curtain. It was blue jeans and rock'n'roll. Western consumer society may be easy to sneer at, but in the long run it's proven to be one of the most powerful forces for liberalization the world has ever known.

    As a practical matter, if we try to cut off exports to Iran, I guaran-goddamn-tee you the Iranian government will still get its hands on all the goodies it needs, but the Iranian people will be SOL, and any chance they have of freeing themselves (how exactly do you think we heard about the election fraud, anyway?) will vanish forever.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  38. Re:The Grotesquely Ugly Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes but, iranian girls are extremely hot

  39. THIS IS THE ONLY RELEVANT POST SO FAR by da_matta · · Score: 5, Informative

    As stated in the linked article:
    - It's a piece of standard 3GPP (=GSM) equipment for lawful intercept, i.e. to allow law enforcement to wiretap calls (according guidelines set by local law).
    - It only handles voice calls and does not allow internet traffic monitoring, let alone deep packet inspection.
    - The equipment is compliant with EU and UN export regulations

    Also, it's much less of a privacy threat than the mechanisms currently in place in US, UK (and I'm sure EU).

  40. Re:Maybe a good internal but not international age by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Uh no, it wasn't blue jeans and Beatles tapes, it was the United States bankrupting the USSR. Containment was an incredibly expensive policy for the West, but in the end, the USSR could not compete, and we sure the hell weren't exporting advanced electronics to them (though they ripped plenty off).

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  41. Erlang by rr00 · · Score: 1
    Hereby I declare:

    Ericksson does not supply a murderous and suppressive theocracy with telecom equipment.

    Therefore, Erlang != Evil.

    1. Re:Erlang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ericsson does the very same as Nokia Siemens Networks.

      Erlang = TNSDL

  42. Nothing Special by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet monitoring is not some complicated undertaking, anyone can do it. This is now some tech limited to few countries. Huawei for one will lap up these contracts. As far as a banning Nokia and Siemens from Government contracts is concerned then you would have to bar US companies like Cisco and Brocade first, and I don't see that happening, so this is another non issue that will take up needless time and media space and get some folks needlessly excited paying the cursory lip service to freedom and such.

  43. selling weapons is fine by kwikrick · · Score: 1

    what about the scores of US companies that have sold and are selling weapons to Iran, to other hostile, dictatorial and oppressive regimes and to third world counties. WTF! In my book that is much worse than what Siemens and Nokia did. Oh, but these are not US companies.... so that makes it alright then. Hypocrits.

     

    --
    assignment != equality != identity
  44. Somebody in Washington DC... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...must be upset because due to the embargo (Iran is in the "rogue countries" list) american companies cannot export those same censoring techologies to Iran. What better occasion than this to blast EU companies that are not subject to US laws? What a bunch of hypocrats...

  45. The movie is a good one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Watchmen.

  46. Nokia needed US approval!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last time I checked Iran is one of a handful of countries still on the OFAC shit list. Any US company or intermediary there of must explicitly obtain an export classification and license from the US state department to sell anything in Iran.

    Assuming this was done properly by Nokia it is absurd to penalize Nokia for selling something the very same government must have OK'd in the first place.

    I'm not a fan of US companies enabling foreign governments to crack heads but this kind of retroactive grandstanding seems to be more about political positioning than genuine concern for the actions of US companies. If people in the US government really cared permission to sell these systems to Iran would have been denied in the first instance.

    1. Re:Nokia needed US approval!? by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "I'm not a fan of US companies enabling foreign governments to crack heads but this kind of retroactive grandstanding seems to be more about political positioning than genuine concern for the actions of US companies."

      Nokia is a Finnish company. Siemens is a German company. Nokia Siemens is a cross-border Finnish/German joint venture. None of these players are "US companies". They simply sell to the US, just like they sell to Iran.

  47. Protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) I work for Nokia and am as worried as anyone else by this. However, I happen to know things are not as black and white as some would like to believe here.
    2) I happen to know that said technology requires certain hardware components developed only by US companies. Nokia outsources a lot of stuff. In other words, some big well known US companies worked around the embargo to make Nokia Siemens products work. Hardware, support, etc courtesy of US companies, no doubt for a fat profit.
    3) In general, US companies make shitloads of money working around their own governments embargos.
    4) The embargo is not world wide. Europe has been trying to normalize economic relations with Iran for years. Nokia is a European company and, like it or not, was complying with all applicable regulations. The only violations of the embargo here were by US companies delivering essential components on site in Iran (through a well financed network of middlemen operating from various countries).

    So singling out foreign companies is a form of protectionism and has little to do with protecting the people of Iran. Don't be to surprised to find some big US telco companies quietly backing and lobbying for these measures. They have a lot of interest in prolonging the situation where domestic US telco market is protected from foreign influences like Nokia, which is a market leader outside the US.

  48. Read your bible every day, dear senators! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Matt 7:3

    For those not wanting to bother, it's the part about beams in your eye and splinters in that of another one.

    Hey, I just want to give them something they can understand, considering how many politicians ride on God and his will into the house, I'd say they should know the good book, eh?

    OK, snideness aside. Do you think this is about "freedom of speech" or similar bullcrap? It's about power. It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell. Neither Siemens nor Nokia is a US company. It's simply an attempt to find out whether those companies rely heavily enough on US government contracts to actually bend over to US government's will.

    And that's the shameful part. IF it was about free speech, I'd be very happy for such a bold and outright good move. Similar actions taken in the US lead me to the conclusion that this is not the case. Else, why care for the splinter in someone else's eye?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Read your bible every day, dear senators! by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Matt 7:3

      Matt? Was he the 15th apostle or something? The guy with the holy gravity bong, who brought sweet bud unto Jesus and droveth a Camaro?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    2. Re:Read your bible every day, dear senators! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matt 7:3

      Matt? Was he the 15th apostle or something? The guy with the holy gravity bong, who brought sweet bud unto Jesus and droveth a Camaro?

      Yes. He was redacted out because he was a black man.

    3. Re:Read your bible every day, dear senators! by BIGELLOW · · Score: 1

      It's the attempt to dictate to foreign companies what they may or may not sell.

      I fail to see what "dictating" is happening with this. They aren't telling these companies who they may or may not sell to. They are only saying we aren't going to buy from you. That's it. Should the government have the freedom to pick and choose who they give money to, or do you suggest there should be some sort of dictating that needs to happen here?

  49. So hypocritical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whilst I think it's horrific that they sold such tools, isn't the same types of equipment used in the US and UK? What about the IWF? Great that they're speaking against their actions, but first maybe they should ban such equipment in the US.

  50. Fat Little Piggies by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Momentarily distracted from feeding at the trough of public funding and corporate sponsorship, squeal briefly about some situation that makes them uncomfortable. Fortunately they do not have a very long attention span and should be distracted shortly. Perhaps.... now. They can never be interrupted from their meal for very long in any event.

    The difference between here and Iran? I can call the fat little piggies out and... probably won't be labeled a terrorist and sent to Gitmo. Fox news might call me an America hater, but they're the ones wishing for more suffering on the American people because they must be punished for not voting Republican in the last election. Fox news hates America more than the Iranian leadership ever could.

    The similarity between here and Iran? I can call the fat little piggies out all I want and it won't change a goddamn thing. And whether I vote this fat little piggy or that fat little piggy in to office, they're all just fat little piggies in the end.

    At least the Iranian people can still get worked up about such things. I hope they can resolve their problems without a lot of people getting killed. They don't deserve to be killed just for wanting their voices to be heard. No one deserves that.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  51. Ridiculous by agw · · Score: 1

    Siemens sold the same stuff to Germany/German operators.

  52. Where's the cite for Nolia supplying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if their company is doing this sort of thing, they CAN be found out.

    Why do you think Tor net was created? What Wikileaks tries to do and ask yourself if slashdot will do the same for them.

  53. So long as all instances are punished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great. Punish Nokia for supplying monitoring equipment to Iran. But let's not stop at Nokia, or Iran for that matter.

    All companies supplying monitoring equipment to any country would be more all encompassing... the problem being that the executive of most western countries love this sort of equipment and it is probably installed in some anonymous block near you already.

    This attempt to punish Nokia is not about freedom. It is about preventing cooperation with a country which stands up to the US.

  54. Well Duh by Arimus · · Score: 1

    Fine so long as all companies and countries are punished equally for 'censoring' the internet

    So any company involved in Australia, China, Britain, Germany and god knows how many more should all be banned equally...

    Oh and ban the US companies that would be involved in the 'drop the internet' red button idea reported in stories yesterday.

    In fact, I know, lets ban everything.

    --
    --- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
  55. Because, Obama and Congress flubbed this one by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    they waited too long before jumping on Iran for the handling of the election. I am really getting worried we are going to see a poll driven Presidency, far worse than Clinton. When the election news in Iran first starting coming out the White House was amazingly silent on the matter, worse even as evidence of demonstrations and government brutality started coming in all they could muster is some comment along the lines of "we support some of the people provided it does not offend the leadership"

    When the polls shifted, in other words, public opinion in the US became news, suddenly the White House and now Congress (Read: Democrats in Congress) have changed their tune. Suddenly Iran is now bad. Apparently they figured out in six months what Bush knew coming in, that many countries don't give a rats ass if your nice to them, its a shine of weakness and they will exploit it.

    Hence companies who acted within the law must be made pariah's because it gives the appearance that government is taking action to support the will of the people. Look, this is no different than Obama and Congress vilifying legal holders of GM/Chrysler debt just so they could pay off their union buddies and get control of two major manufacturers.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  56. Lawful Intercept by funkboy · · Score: 1

    I think the scariest think about all this is the fact that the Lawful Intercept features that the Iranian national telecom and every other 3G operator on the planet have in their equipment areFEDERALLY MANDATED, and the legislators in question are obviously unaware of or blatantly ignoring this fact.

    Not that this is news, but the right hand of the US Govt obviously has no f'ing clue what the left hand is doing. They obviously want some good PR by poo-pooing some companies that were doing business with Iran, and Nokia Siemens easily fell to hand. They didn't bother to do their homework, and now Nokia Siemens has a huge mess on their hands as a result of a lot of people with very loud voices being f'ing clueless about telecoms.

    NEWS FLASH: IF YOU WANT TO CUT OFF THE FLOW OF MONEY TO THIS OPPRESSIVE ILLEGITIMATE IRANIAN SHAM GOVERNMENT, PUT PRESSURE ON THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY THEIR OIL AND GUNS ELSEWHERE OR FACE SANCTIONS

    This is really basic stuff, and we've done it before. All their money comes from selling oil and weapons. Anyone messing with anything else is trying to make themselves look good for political reasons.

  57. Two words: by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    "farm machinery"

    Them Ir-anians. Ya can't trust 'em!

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  58. Thanks Nokia, Siemens by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    For connecting Iran to the rest of the world. Without your network equipment their communication with the outside world would be that much more limited. It's a shame that Iran chooses to abuse the monitoring and filtering solutions provided with your equipment, but I know that many Iranians are grateful for the fact it is available for them to use at all.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  59. hypocrisy in action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about the warrant less wiretapping and the abuse of foreign journalists by the dept of imagination and the TSA here at home?

  60. nice - first force then blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    first the companies are forced to include interception APIs into there hardware (cf. ETSI papers), which is very nice for 'lawful interception'. but now it is bad because the iranians do the same stuff with the same hardware? hypocrites. the same hardare would not even be allowed in Europe or US without the interception APIs.

  61. Israel Gaza Massacre by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    Look forward to the bill by Schumer and Graham banning companies that sell to israel after their massacre in Gaza and increasing their illegal occupation of the Palestinian State.

  62. Incredible hypocrisy by toby · · Score: 1

    And this is the country that won't lift a finger to prosecute those companies complicit in warrantless wiretapping of its own citizens.

    Not to mention the broad range of human rights abuses by the USA.

    --
    you had me at #!
  63. Waitaminnit by Akita24 · · Score: 1

    I thought we were supposed to hate governments (the embodiment of all evil) and embrace unchecked and unrestrained capitalism and free enterprise (the embodiment of all good). You mean letting the no-conscience, no-morals, everything-in-the-name-of-one-more-dollar isn't a good thing either? Say it isn't so.

  64. Pot and Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the Pot calling the kettle black... The US needs to grow up a little bit.

  65. Gotta be local? by Improv · · Score: 1

    I would not be surprised to find these same senators lauding the homegrown Christian censorship software that's installed in libraries and the like.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  66. Clearly, by toby · · Score: 1
    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Clearly, by EatHam · · Score: 1

      I wasn't born yet, therefore that never happened.

  67. Turn off FOX News by toby · · Score: 1

    And read an actual fucking newspaper, dumbass. (And yes, that means a non-USA, non-filtered news source. Ironic to be dissing Iran when you dipshits live in a fantasy world all your own.)

    --
    you had me at #!
  68. so your argument is by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    horrible atrocities in the name of vile ideology in other countries is tolerable to you, because it makes for nice vacation pictures

    that's some nice human conscience you got there

    you know japan is a pretty wacky place to visit, and it shares a lot of the same legal standards as western countries. but according to you, that means it must be boring because its the same

    you really need to rethink what you wrote above, right now it is pretty facile, self-serving, and shallow. you're the spitting image of the clueless westerner

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:so your argument is by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      horrible atrocities in the name of vile ideology in other countries is tolerable to you, because it makes for nice vacation pictures

      First off.. who are you (or who am I) to decide if an "ideology" is vile ? .. and who said anything about atrocities ? ... The point is, if a people of a country want to have a certain type of government that is up to them.. You may find that governments policies and actions not up to your standards, but that is the way they want it.. In the US, we have decided that mixing religion and the government doesn't work.. I agree with it, because we have so many various religions here, as well as people with no religion.. But if a people in a country that has a majority religion wants to do that, that is their choice.. Religion often has some strict rules and harsh punishments associated with it.. and it may be strange or seem unfair to you, but that is the way they want it.. and just as our system says not to impose a religion on others, it says not to restrict a religion.. why would you do that for a country that is not yours ?

      My "human conscience" is just fine.. I don't kill people if they don't do what I want them to.. I follow the laws of the country I live in, and the countries I visit.. The laws in the country I live in that I don't like, I work to change.. In the countries I don't live in, I have no say.

      Well if you are the westerner "with a clue".. I am happy to be clueless.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  69. Dick Cheney's Halliburton also did deals with Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are we going to ban government contracts with them ?

  70. It is definitely the fault of the anti-government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interception can be used against the government. Like what Vodafone did in Greece (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_telephone_tapping_case_2004-2005). It is definitely the fault of the anti-government people of Iran that they failed to use what Nokia Siemens Networks provided.

  71. Re:It is definitely the fault of the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A more technical article on the Greek affair: IEEE article

    A more proper conclusion is that it is the fault of US not to take advantage of what Nokia Siemens provided them.

  72. Re:First uncensored post Not only is it grand- by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    standing, it's plain fucking stupid. Where were these people when Nortel and Intel and others operating in or organized in the US selling similar equipment to China and having it BUILT IN CHINA, too, enabling China to clone the technology in factories and produce extra shit off-hours, off-books. Talk about the feeling of calling the kettle black.

    I think these political types are making noise because China buys US dollars and props up the US (but for military budgets China's a great foil), but Iran just happens to be the newest (or current) election irregularities "bad guy" to keep the rest of us here "distracted". If they keep rattling Iran, something will backfire (whether or not related to Iran meddling in Iraq... Iran isn't the ONLY government "meddling" in near or far-away countries...).

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  73. The New Odd Couple by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1

    US Senators Schumer and Graham - talk about an Odd Couple!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  74. i am a human being by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "First off.. who are you (or who am I) to decide if an "ideology" is vile ?"

    i have a conscience

    the junta in burma is vile

    based on the way they treat their citizens

    if you see someone stabbing someone in the street, do you not call the police because you have no right to judge what is going on? same facile, lobotomized position as saying no one has a right to judge the varying crimes of regimes in this world

    "The point is, if a people of a country want to have a certain type of government that is up to them"

    the point is, moron, the PEOPLE of burma DON'T GET A FUCKING SAY. and when monks march to protest this, the regime MURDERS THEM

    wake the fuck up you shallow sheltered prick

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i am a human being by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Whatever dude.. I am sure it is beyond your closed mind to accept as fact that there are 55,000,000 people in Burma and 400,000 in the military.. and that if a majority of people wanted change, they could make it happen.. In your world, the only ones supporting the "regime" are the regime itself. The country is reportably 89 percent Buddhist, and apparently in order to get into the military or the government you have to be Buddhist.. Seems to me that's the way they want it.. If an uprising for change is to succeed, then the majority of a population needs to be behind it... I think it is you who is sheltered in disbelief that people could choose to live in a way unacceptable to you.

      Your name calling is real intelligent by the way.. and really changes my mind towards your way of thinking.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
  75. JUST LIKE THE IDOIT, MORON LIBERALS TO . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YET ANOTHER IDIOT, MORON , DEMOCRAT IDEA - kill business, capitalism, etc!!!

    Government needs to stay out of business and personal affairs!

    No new taxes!

    No increases in taxes!

    No hidden taxes! You know: climate legislation; health care reform; stimulus; bail-outs, etc.

    Once again, I beg you:

    Impeach obama and all democrats! Remove the czars, they have no oversight (management)!

    Do not let the criminal organization acorn or any of its' affiliates take any part in the census!

    Do not let sotomyer become a supreme court justice! She has been over-turned too many times and for not following the law! We do not need any empathetic or sympathetic judges at the supreme court!

    Deport all illegal aliens! They are alread criminals - they crossed illegally!!

    No government run health care plan! No government funded health plan! Reduce the rediculous judgements in mal-practice cases!

    Return funding to hydrogen transportation projects! Yeah, you green idiots - no battery waste! and fewer polutants!

    Allow new and expanded nuclear power plants! They are safe - the French use them! One by-product is hydrogen which can fuel vehicles! Now there is your cheap energy!

    Restor funding for the Yuca mountain nuclear waste storage facility and stop the requirement that each state build thier own! Each state building there own is Yet Another Idiot Moron Democrat Idea (YAIMDI)!

    Repeal all laws passed since the innaguration!

    Get the idiot moron so-called comedian al franken out of the senate!

  76. You can't beat _his_ wife; only _my_ wife by smchris · · Score: 1

    How dare you sell technology to _another_ country to oppress their people -- you unfaithful bastards?

  77. Disinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It constantly amazes me the sheep who blindly follow the US Government...not everything they say is gospel people...use your own bloody minds and think for once. This is not about some IDS' sold to Iran...this is about disinformation and building hatred towards a country as a whole in order to justify future offensives...sigh, nobody ever learns from history do they.

  78. Technology Evaluation Centers is selling to Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TEC (www.technologyevaluationcenters.com) deals with Iran. It is not high tech, but technology, never-the-less.

    They may fall into the Nokia - Seimans situation.

    Anonymous