Slashdot Mirror
Censorware Vendors Can Stop Mid-East Dealings
The Wall Street Journal published an article Monday listing the Western-made Internet censoring programs used by several Middle Eastern governments, in countries that filter what their citizens can access on the Web. Like a similar 2011 report from the OpenNet Initiative, hopefully this listing will shine a spotlight on the problem, and make it easier for human rights groups to call for these companies to stop aiding censorious governments.
However, I wish that the article had quoted someone giving a rebuttal to the several companies which claimed, "Once the customer buys the product, we have no control over it," as stated variously Netsweeper, Blue Coat, and McAfee (which makes Smartfilter). For a product that relies on continuous updates provided by the software company, this claim, of course, is nonsense. Unfortunately, the claim seems to go unchallenged so often, that there's a risk that it will start to affect policy -- people may believe that we can't regulate how American censorware is used by repressive countries, so we shouldn't even try.
Some background: When a customer buys a standard network filtering program like Websense, SmartFilter, or Blue Coat, the product comes with a built-in list of websites to be blocked by the software. (The customer can select or de-select categories of sites to be blocked, like "pornography" or "gambling".) The purchase of the software typically comes with a year or two of free updates to the blocked-site list. The software vendors employs a combination of human reviewers and (more often) automated crawlers to scour the Web looking for new sites that fall into their categories, and add these sites to their database. Customers who are within their subscription period can download periodic updates to this blocked-site list. After a customer's initial free subscription period runs out, they can opt to continue purchasing updates to the database. If they don't, then the product will continue to work, but the blocked-site list will be frozen (except for any new sites that the customer finds on their own and adds manually to their own blocked-site list).
Once the blocked-site list is frozen, the filtering product becomes ineffective against any user making a serious effort to get around it. This is because there are many mailing lists like mine that mail out new proxy sites every week (a proxy site is a site which contains a form that allows the user to access third-party Web sites indirectly, usually to circumvent Internet blocking). And as long as the user can access at least one unblocked proxy site, they can access any other blocked site by going through the proxy. So when a censorious regime stops updating their blocked-site list, the product becomes ineffective almost immediately. (For that, I suppose, the blocking companies should be grateful to us proxy site makers, since we make it necessary for their customers to keep renewing their blocked-site subscriptions year after year.)
So, even if one were to accept the (highly dubious) claim that the software vendors didn't realize what was going on when a foreign government approached them to buy their software, once they realize that their software is being used to violate the rights of the country's people, they can easily stop providing updates to that customer. This can be done by either (a) blocking the IP addresses that the customer uses to download the updates, or (b) blocking any further updates using that customer's license key. (Each installation of a blocking program like Websense comes with a license key unique to that customer, and the program has to submit the license key to the download server in order to download the latest update to the blocked-site list. If the customer's subscription runs out or gets cancelled, no more updates.)
This is roughly the situation that exists in Iran. The Iranian government claims to use McAfee's Smartfilter to filter Internet access for their citizens, despite McAfee's claim that they don't sell to Iran because of the embargo. But the evidence suggests that while Iran may have once acquired Smartfilter along with a copy of their filter list that was current at the time, they're not getting regular updates to the blocked-site list. From corresponding with Iranians and testing the filter through a server located inside Iran, I've found that most of the proxy sites we mail out never get blocked at all in Iran, even as they eventually get blocked in countries like Bahrain and Kuwait that are using Smartfilter with a subscription to the blocked-site database. The proxy sites we mail out that do get blocked in Iran are usually blocked a few days later than they are in Bahrain and Kuwait. This suggests that the Iranian censors are finding and blocking new proxy sites by ad hoc methods, and that they're not as effective at it as American censorware companies. So the Iranian situation proves two points: that Western blocking companies really can prevent a foreign government from using their products (well, duh), and that this restriction actually works, in the sense of making the country's filter less effective.
So when a McAfee spokesman told the WSJ reporters, "You can add additional websites to the block list; obviously what an individual customer would do with a product once they acquire it is beyond our control," that's true only in the most literal sense. Yes, Bahrain can add human rights web pages to their list of sites blocked by Smartfilter, and McAfee can't stop them, but the effectiveness of this block depends on the Bahrani censors using Smartfilter to block new proxy sites as well, which McAfee continues to aid them in doing, as a matter of choice.
Websense, incidentally, announced in 2009 -- in response to an earlier ONI report describing how their software was used to censor Internet access in Yemen -- that they would stop providing censoring software to the Yemeni government. But ONI's current report claims that the Yemeni government continued to use Websense into 2011, and Websense declined to comment. Maybe the Yemeni government was using Websense with a "frozen blocked-site list" -- but the ONI report includes at least one instance where a site that was un-blocked by Websense (the opennet.net domain itself!) became un-blocked in Yemen shortly afterwards. So maybe Websense just lied about canceling the Yemenis' license.
Could some censorious country like Yemen continue using the Websense filter -- with a continuously updated blocked-site list -- even after Websense truly tried to cut them off? Possibly, but it would probably be more trouble than it's worth. Yemen would have to set up a shell company outside of their own borders, with an overseas bank account, in order to purchase the software. Then after Yemen had installed Websense on their servers, they would have to download the updates indirectly by going through an anonymizing proxy set up in some other country as well. And if Websense ever found out which of their customers was a shell company used by the Yemeni government, they could cut off that customer's license, and the Yemeni censors would have to start all over again. It's probably safe to say that most Middle Eastern countries wouldn't find this worth the trouble. (After all, Iran could do everything I've just described, but apparently they haven't; they still seem to be using Smartfilter with an outdated copy of the blocked-site list, and adding new proxy sites to their blacklist manually.)
So far, proposals to ban American censorware companies from selling to foreign governments have not gotten off the ground -- and now with several Middle Eastern countries using or looking at Netsweeper, we'd have to get Canada on board as well. But at the very least, let's start calling out censorware companies on the canard that "We just sell the software and have no way of controlling who uses it." The companies know that foreign governments are using it to censor their own people, and they can cut them off as customers any time they want to; they just don't.
If the American military will agree to stop selling all these oppressive regimes jets, tanks, weapons, and training--all us software developers will agree to stop selling them software.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"If Congress and the President will agree to stop selling all these oppressive regimes jets, tanks, weapons, and training--all us software developers will agree to stop selling them software."
Fixed.
Either way, saying I'll stop being bad if you stop first is simply childish shit.
...being ridiculed for attempting the impossible task of preventing the export of encryption software. How is this different?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
As long as investors care more about quarterly profits than corporate ethics, this type of shit will never stop
Isn't it what captialism is all about?
You sell your product, you get profit, you don't give a fsck.
If the American military will agree to stop selling all these oppressive regimes jets, tanks, weapons, and training--all us software developers will agree to stop selling them software.
The American military is often ridiculed for their role in strengthening oppressive regimes. These companies, on the other hand, actively deny their role in suppressing the free speech rights of other countries' citizenry. Whether or not they are legally permitted to supply that software is not the point; they should be held publicly accountable for their actions, and rightfully face any resulting backlash.
"there are many mailing lists like mine that mail out new proxy sites every week"
Websense Category is Filtered
Hasn't this always been the case?
At the end of the day, the fact remains that if they do not do it, someone else will. Yes, that sounds like a bad and facetious argument, but unfortunately, it is a true one.
Now, one could argue that there is no need for the bigger companies to do this (e.g. McAfee), but the smaller ones will take whatever they can to survive (an unfortunate reality of capitalism). And if the bigger ones don't, then they could stifle the smaller ones (i.e. we are not doing this, you shouldn't, so where do you draw the line?).
At the end of the day, it is up to each individual country to determine, and the people to seek such rights from the government. Liberty should be earned -- and unless a civilization is mature enough to realize this, and fight for it, they will be stuck in a rut.
And unfortunately, once-enlightened societies such as the US are quickly giving up their liberty because newer generations have a fundamental lack of understanding of liberty, and what it takes to keep it.
"Free as in markets" often has comparatively little to do with "free as in freedom", and most corporations don't even care about "free as in markets"; because that implies low barriers to entry for their competitors...
And a couple of days before he left, the old president dropped his censorship all-together, trying to calm things down.
A couple of weeks after he left, the new gouvernment back then tried to restore the censorship again, just porn sites and the likes of 4chan. They were met with a new angry mob though, and now they dropped it alltogether.
Point is, I don't think that the people's mob will accept censorship again... For now....
Dears, I am one of the guys who have been phoned by Paul (writter of WSJ article), it was like an interrogation which i really didn't like at all. he didn't take my opinion at the end. My friend Mishary Alfaris (his name in the report) told me that Kuwait was having an unfiltered internet and the ISP voluntarily implements filtering to attract customers then it was adopted by the government. the cultures different between US and Middle East, in my country (Saudi Arabia) we want the filtering and to prove this the regulator put a site for requesting blocking or unblocking a site. 90% of the requests ask for blocking sites. yes there is some political site that are blocked but i think it represent 1% of the whole internet and i would accept it. for me I would thank U.S. products for providing us with clean internet.
There are enough free and/or open-source censorware packages out there that banning companies from selling their own solutions isn't going to do very much. At best, it stands to induce the makers of these open-source packages to close up their licenses. Somewhat worse on the scale would be if these countries started writing their own filters. Worst of all would be if they start buying things like Green Dam from countries where suppression of information is not just accepted but outright valued.
In other words, the current situation sucks, but it sucks less than most of the alternatives, and the only truly better alternative -where censorware is banned worldwide for all purposes- is never going to happen. At least transactions which take place in the open are known quantities.
It is NOT the job of a software vendor to control foreign governments. Nor is it their job to decide if its product is being used in an "approved" manner.
If the government wants to try to control this, I think that a law would have to be passed. I guess that such a law would introduce all manner of additional powers and controls that the gov't could then use to curtail the rights of its citizens.
Also, this:
"It's probably safe to say that most Middle Eastern countries wouldn't find this worth the trouble."
LOL really? It's probably safe to say that the author can't back up that opinion.
The Censorware vendors shall stop dealings whatsoever. Censorship is lame.
No matter what the social ill, it's always America's fault. Those evil foreigners are never responsible for their own actions. It's always, all about America. Middle east problems would go away if America would just fall in line.
Let's imagine the opposite situation: what if Websense refused to sell to Arabs? Would this headline be plausible? United Nations Human Rights Council condemns American companies after refusing to sell software on basis of race. Don't believe me? There is always a way...remember, it's all about America. Try another ripped-from-the-headlines sample: The U.S. intervention in Libya has nothing to do with meeting humanitarian goals, and everything to do with reasserting Western domination in a region that has long suffered the effects of colonialism and imperialism.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Somebody's worried about US companies selling censor software to countries to whom we also sell bombs and warplanes. Talk about the Skewed Geek Perspective!
Free Speech is not a global " human right." If you live in a country where it is respected, be thankful. If you live in a country where it is not, and it is meaningful to you, move.
Why not stop textile manufacturers from selling cloth to Sharia-governed countries? We all know that they'll just use it to make those evil burqhas...
Sounds like software just went to war with politics!
It's like the mind going AWOL, it's there somewhere
If the American military will agree to stop selling all these oppressive regimes jets, tanks, weapons, and training--all us software developers will agree to stop selling them software.
We at Umit Project are trying to at least arm people with real time notifications on world wide connectivity. During the blackouts in egypt, the best weapon to get internet back was having the whole world to know what they did, how they did and when they did. International pressure forced them to withdraw this attempt, and it worked. More about this project here: http://www.umitproject.org/?active=gsoc&mode=ideas#1
Do you honestly think that Websense could "cut off" Yemen or anyone else from using their service? The article author claims that although Yemen has set up a country-wide censorship system, that they would just give up if Websense stopped sending them updates because it is too much trouble to continue. Really? It would only take a credit card and an IP address in another country to get around this. In fact, this has probably already happened, since Websense has already claimed to have tried to cut them off.
The claim that you don't like being interrogated has nothing to do with the fact that you should be interrogated. Ethically challenged people usually think that they are, for some reason, deserving of special treatment and that we should all look the other way. If the people of your country actually want to be kept in the dark then they can hide themselves in the dark. Self important people like you and your friend do not have the right to determine what adults can and cannot view. (and pushing it on the ISP does not count as we all know how "voluntary" that actually is in backwater countries.) fortunately, as the news is constantly showing, the people of the middle east are getting tired of being held back by the ignorance and intolerance of people like yourself.
Never assume malice.
Doing a "special update" for selected client software is not as simple as it sounds, and unless it's already incorporated into the product such a release would require significant development efforts. Simply cutting them off, effectively terminating their user license, would probably require legal action. It COULD be done, but who is expected to pay for it?
...it feels like I've just found out that the police man investigating a burglary at my house is really in the pay of the thief.
Of course, as a foreigner living in China, I'm all to aware of the reality and hypocrisy of police corruption. It is as rife here in China as corporate corruption is in the US. The key difference is that the Chinese people know their system is corrupt where as the US populace seems blinkered. Not that it makes any difference as both groups, Chinese and US, advocate the continuation of their own systems to the damnation of all others. Neither facing the truth that both systems are two sides of one coin, abet a fake coin that looks like gold but is filled with tin, lead, false dreams and lost hope.
I think there is a fundamental problem equating countries to enterprise level clients. While they do share similarities, I don't see any reason why a country such as Iran couldn't develop their own web crawler to add sites to their blocked list. Yes, they currently have the support of US companies, but I'm dubious as to the necessity. Should the companies refuse to provide updates, innovative countries will not hesitate to circumvent that minor difficulty.
Here I always thought that is was whitey's fault no matter what or whose problem it was...
... before the Iranian government finds http://www.peacefire.org/circumventor/ and starts adding those proxy servers to their blocked sites list?
"If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet"
I think I'll start marketing a web content filter called "Paranoia." It won't actually do anything, but by telling your users/citizens that you are, and can monitor everything they do, they would be more worried about it than getting a blocked-site message. It would be like one big TOS that said "Feel free to do whatever you like, as long as that is within the bounds of whatever we feel is appropriate/acceptable. We reserve the right to redefine appropriate and acceptable as appropriate and without additional warning."
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
I agree your fix is more accurate.
Either way, saying I'll stop being bad if you stop first is simply childish shit.
Not really. And in fact, US weapons sales have saved many a life. One of things people seem to be in a hurry to ignore is that, if the US didn't make those sales, they very likely would be made by our enemies, or at least rivals. Which likely means France, Russia (both of which had military such exports to Iraq - even after the ban and no fly zone), China, North Korea, so on and so on.
Furthermore, many complex weapon systems can be disabled after the fact. For example, the US sold numerous F-14s and associated weapon packages to Iran before their revolution. Before US contractors left the country, all planes and weapon systems were inert. Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Yes, it would be nice if these weapon sales didn't occur. But its simply not realistic. This is especially true after the fall of the iron curtain. Literally, almost everything Russia developed is currently available on the market. That's one of the reasons why reports of missing warheads were so alarming.
Ultimately, it means if the US doesn't make these sales, others, who will do who knows what with the money, will. And even beyond that, even sales of weapons such as the M16 is beneficial because while AK and ammo are a dime a dozen, M16's and ammo are not. While there is cheap ammo available for M16s, they function very well on cheap ammo - see M16's record at introduction in Vietnam for more information.
So contrary to the childish and nieve world view of weapon sales, realistically, having the US (or at least a friendly Western power) make these sales is frequently to everyone's advantage.
I don't understand how a company that sold the software has any choice but to supply the updates. It is their legally-binding obligation to do so unless specific terms of the agreement under which the goods were sold are violated. I don't think a single one of these agreements mentions government usage to stifle freedom.
Funny really, we can give them 'financial aid', which they are then 'encouraged' to spend on guns and tear-gas (mostly from US vendors as the 'aid' packages require) to use on their own populations, but if they begin to act all sovereign, we can shut down their other purchases like software?
Oh, my...talk about hypocritical....
...the countries from pirating the censorship software and carrying on with their nefarious deeds?
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
infringes on your free speech? Well you can't have kiddy porn so are people infringing on your rights?
No? Or is it based on what you consider right and wrong? Can we apply all our ideas of right and wrong on another society? Oh sure I agree there are some things that should not be tolerated that we might get 90% of the world to agree on, however the big problems are
1) we don't all have the same values
2) we are asking corporations to do something our own government won't do
I understand #2, it is far easier to go after someone who can't jail you, activist tend to take the path of least resistance these days which is to attack big corporations instead of the governments which enabled them
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You're telling me a government can't use another outside copy of the filtering software, update and get the new filtering list from McAfee, and then apply it to their "blocked" copy?
The proposal above will do nothing to stop oppressive governments from taking advantage of blacklists created by western companies. These adversaries can simply request updates from fully-supported jurisdictions and forward them privately to filters running on their gateway routers. The filters are made up of bytes. Bytes can be copied. If adversaries are already pirating the software itself, they can certainly pirate updates to the software.
Yes, yes, you can try using some kind of traitor tracing technique to figure out who might be leaking blocking lists --- but it's a cat and mouse game, and these regimes have more resources than you do.
Look: in a larger sense, antipathy toward western hardware and software companies is misplaced. To internet censors, filtering is an existential imperative, especially in light of the recent unrest in the middle east. No cost is too great. If our adversaries need to sign up with multiple expensive dummy accounts in order to receive filter lists, they will. If they need to break DRM, they'll do it. And if all that becomes too expensive, they'll just switch to open source and home-grown filtering solutions. Currently, they use these filtering products because they're cheap, not because they're essential.
We all want to stop internet censorship, but haranguing individual companies over the misuse of their software won't do it. Circumvention works. Alternative routing works. Political pressure works.
Internet censorship is a real problem. While it may feel good, hysterically screaming at corporations does nothing to solve it. Let's talk about thing we can to actually help.
(Note: I have a bit of experience in this area.)
Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
Which reminds me - is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons used by Russia? Specifically, any weapons or equipment sold to other countries was enough to keep the foreign countries happy, but not powerful enough to be a long-term threat to Russia (e.g. armor-piercing ammo was used with sub-par charging powder, and thus bounces off Main Battle Tanks.)
There's another side, a bit more onerous than "well, everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't they buy from US??".
That side is that these are international contracts, that when breached, have lots of implications for other contracts/contractors in that country. Arbitrarily killing someone's important software (to them) is as good as aiding the enemy in their minds. The paradox is that you can't censor this software, and no guidelines or international law covers what to do when something you've sold is abused by a foreign government to the perceived problem of the US government or its people.
Do you believe that oil drilling is bad? Should we censor software and equipment that does that? Should we stop searches that produce results that we don't like?
Can you sell to GB, whose human rights record is occasionally dubious? Or can you say no to South Africa, whose record until a couple of decades ago was abysmal? Should Israel get it, but not Egypt?
You open a can of worms if you start turning off or refusing to ratioanally update software to various regimes. If they should be quaratined, as I believe the McAfee-Iran citation is claimed, the McAfee has a clear 'out' by government fiat. If not, who's to say that Jordan is worse than Syria or Bahrain?
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"If the American citizens will agree to stop selling all these oppressive regimes jets, tanks, weapons, and training--all us software developers will agree to stop selling them software."
Fixed again.
Mundus Vult Decipi
The ONLY statement that clearly says it all on multiple levels. Thank you!! Everything else BS.
An offer from Israel is an offer no company can refuse. It is illegal to say no. Howdya like that??
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Egads.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I don't understand how a company that sold the software has any choice but to supply the updates. It is their legally-binding obligation to do so unless specific terms of the agreement under which the goods were sold are violated.
Most of the software TOS I see say something like "we don't warrant this software to do anything, and have the right to change these terms whenever it strikes our fancy". So much for "legally-binding obligation".
But even leaving that aside, companies are under no obligation to accept a renewal order. "Sorry, sir, that serial number does not qualify for an update subscription."
number11
posting AC because I've moderated
is there actual information about "export-grade" weapons
I don't know of any reference.
It is important to keep in mind "export-grade" does not mean inferior. For example, the Apaches which the US has exported to Israel are actually superior to what the US flies in many ways. While they don't get the same software load, different doesn't mean inferior. My understanding is, the "quality" of the export has more to do with who is receiving the goods rather than the mere fact its being exported.
Holy shit. That's the most disturbing thing I've read in a long time. What the hell happened to liberty of conscience in this country?
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
An offer from Israel is an offer no company can refuse. It is illegal to say no. Howdya like that??
Citation required. I see no part of that law which prohibits a company in the US from saying "no" to any offer of purchase or sale from Israel. The prohibition is that the reason must not be based on a boycott requirement from an outside company.
Do you have a specific citation within 760 that supports your claim?
I'm in the market for web-blocking software. I have X choices and one has recently decided upon complaints from organization B that organization A's block list is inhumane and they prematurely end their support contract with organization A. Guess which one is not going to be the top of my list. Censorship is bad, but if I buy software to support a business decision and I have reason to believe the software vendor will break that specific functionality because I may run afoul of their undocumented rules then I'm going somewhere else.
For example, the US sold numerous F-14s and associated weapon packages to Iran before their revolution. Before US contractors left the country, all planes and weapon systems were inert. Had it not been for US sales, they would have been in control of fully operational Su27s or Mig29s.
So couldn't the same thing be done with software? Sell it to dictatorships, but if a nonviolent revolution starts, turn off the program.
Tara Maya
The Unfinished Song: Initiate
Conmergence: An Anthology of Speculative Fiction
Oh come now. You should know how they do it
15 C.F.R. 760.2 Prohibitions
(a) Refusals to do business
(3) Refusals to do business which are prohibited by this section include not only specific refusals, but also refusals implied by a course or pattern of conduct. There need not be a specific offer and refusal to constitute a refusal to do business... emphasis mine
Pretty slick, huh?
You think these people don't have it all covered? When does the charade end?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
When we talk about file sharing software, slashdot usually advocates the vire that the software is cool, people pushing it are cool - and not responsible for the minority of users that are misusing it. For filtering software however, argument seems to be software is bad, people pushing it are bad, AND responsible for the minority of users misusing it.
Pretty slick, huh?
When you leave out the part about refusals being based on a boycott requirement, yes. The section you picked from has context, which you clearly have ignored for some reason.
If the law said what you think it does, then nothing would stop an Israeli firm from offering to buy gold bullion from a gold dealer in the US for $1/oz. He can't say no, according to you.
Further, according to you, any company that does NO overseas business would be violating this law through a pattern of refusal, but unfortunately, that simply isn't true.
What the law REALLY says is that a company in the US cannot agree to boycott restrictions as part of dealing with an overseas company. Look at all the examples they provide. I've not seen a single one that talks about orders from Israel, only from countries that are participating in the arab boycott. It certainly does not say that I must do business with anyone from Israel or go to jail.
Now, if you have a specific citation that says otherwise, please provide it. Simply ignoring the context of a sentence isn't an adequate citation.
Don't be absurd. Nothing about says you have give anything away. Anyway, I thought you read the thing. There are other sections* of the statue that I didn't post, that validate even more my original premise. And... it's not just companies. Read the definitions, specifically "person".
The 'examples'..."They are illustrative, not comprehensive." nuff said there
Regardless of what section 10 says, it just means enforcement will not be equitable and politically motivated. In other words, they can just make shit up to put you out of business and in jail if they feel like it. It will be abused just like RICO. It is a law for the specific benefit of one country that is not the United States, or maybe it is now and nobody told us..
*(9) Agreements under this section may be either express or implied by a course or pattern of conduct. There need not be a direct request from a boycotting country for action by a United States person to have been taken pursuant to an agreement with or requirement of a boycotting country.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Don't be absurd. Nothing about says you have give anything away.
Nor does anything say anything about having to do business with an Israeli company. But that hasn't stopped you.
By the way, buying something for $1/oz isn't "giving it away", it is a sale just as valid as any other. If this law really says what you pretend, they why isn't all our gold over in Israel already?
There are other sections* of the statue that I didn't post, that validate even more my original premise.
So cite them. I cannot read your mind as to what you think says what you think it says. If you can cite them, that is.
The 'examples'..."They are illustrative, not comprehensive." nuff said there
I didn't say they were comprehensive, and you know it. I said none of the example deals with not being able to say 'no' to an order from an Israeli company. For a law that you claim makes this business mandatory, you'd think there would be one example that shows it. There isn't.
Regardless of what section 10 says, ...
Yes, regardless of what the law actually says, you'll keep up the charade and try to whip up hysteria.
It will be abused just like RICO.
Right. It's been in place since what, 1977, and you see so many lawsuits about it. More FUD on your part.
It is a law for the specific benefit of one country that is not the United States,...
That very well may be, but it certainly doesn't mean you can't say 'no' when doing business with an Israeli company as you claim. I'm not debating the value or justification, just countering the ridiculous claims you made about the law.
And once again, the one section you quote HAS A CONTEXT that you are clearly ignoring. The refusal to do business MUST be based on a boycott request -- but no, it doesn't have to be a direct request. It can be one like "vessels used to carry goods must be certified to enter Bahrain docks" (as one example used). Israeli vessels, specifically, don't meet that requirement, so that's an indirect boycott request.
Another example was services provided "as specified in the laws of the destination country", which, again, is an indirect boycott request when the laws of that country include an Israeli boycott. But all it takes to get around that is to add a clause "unless US laws contravene" or words to that effect, since US law prohibits (contravenes) the boycott laws of the destination country.
But you have to read the examples to understand this.
Now, if you have a cite for a part of that law which clearly says "you can't say 'no'" to an offer of business from Israel, provide it. If it is just more of the same ignorance of the context, please stop.
I cited sections 3 and 9...
It doesn't have to be any of that... As I illustrated previously...
Every person that engages in any export business is covered by the law. The state department dictates how you will do business overseas. One of those dictates is that you cannot refuse to do business with Israel, period. It does not say anything about price. However, if you were caught charging higher prices (which could be construed as 'refusing' business) to Israel, watch out. If such a thing is merely implied, as stated in section 3 and 9, you're can get in a heap of trouble. It's spelled out in black and white. The conditions for considering what a boycott with Israel are intentionally vague.
More FUD on your part.
You're astroturffing. Please stop. You shouldn't take that route.. Don't pretend you don't know what's behind this kind of crap...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I don't know what these licenses cost or how much investigation is going into the license purchasers background although it would seem that the suggestion that you can simply block all the IP addresses in Iran at least from getting updates is a bit ridicules. One probably only needs a proxy server in a non-restricted country with a subscription (assuming anonymous purchases or purchase via a proxy corporation) would allow a country like Yemen to continue to receive updates. Maybe the software updates check the hardware. Still... we are talking about governments with $$$$ here. They can use proxy corporations (subsidies) in other countries to purchase such gear on behalf of these criminal regimes. Both hardware, software, and licenses. I also have to ask even if they can prevent the purchase of hundreds of these devices what prevents these criminal regimes from using a single device and checking all available new domains which come online on just one device in a third country to find out which new domains are restricted by said device? Once they have the list they can manually (probably autmatically through scripting) update all said devices which were purchases pre-the-ban.
Last I checked "the west" is not the only player in the game. The "Great firewall of China" seems to be enough proof of that (scarily enough it's feature list probably puts any other similar piece of software to shame).
Creating scarcity will only lead to a black market for the stuff.
I have seen quite a few pieces of web filtering software and most have a user controlled list to compliment the automatic list. The simple reason is that a single list cannot work for everyone, even categories can be too broad.