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."
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.
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?
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.
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:
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?
the hypocrisy boggles the mind
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
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?
Yea, so did George Bush's grandfather:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
Living in Chile
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.
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...
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!
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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...).