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."

79 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    7. 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).

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.
    16. 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"
    17. 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?

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    21. 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."
    22. 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.

    23. 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.
    24. 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.

    25. 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 :)

    26. 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...

    27. 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

    28. 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)

    29. 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.

    30. 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).

    31. 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.

    32. 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.

    33. 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.

    34. 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
  2. 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 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. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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 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.
  6. 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.
  7. meanwhile by uepuejq · · Score: 2, Funny

    at&t has now recompounded with cingular to form voltron

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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 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...

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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!!!
  15. "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?!

  16. Power to the people! by DJ+DeFi · · Score: 2

    ..Shit.

    --
    You cannot warp because you are warp scrambled.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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

  21. 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).

  22. 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.
  23. 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!
  24. 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."
  25. 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
  26. 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)
  27. 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.
  32. 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."
  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. 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.

  37. 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...).

  38. 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.

  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).