Cisco Helps China Keep an Eye On Its Citizens

So who are the British government's suppliers? by John+Hasler · 2011-07-05 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

n/t

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 05:35 · Score: 1

??? non sequitor I fancy ???

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Gordonjcp · 2011-07-05 06:07 · Score: 1

One of the things that amazes me about the US is that there is blanket CCTV coverage, and people refuse to believe it's there.
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:23 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
Seriously, not sure why or how you can make that claim. It's definitely not blanket, and even in major cities it tends to be rather spotty. Traffic cams, sure, but most other coverage is from private security footage that the police have to ask for if they want to even investigate a major crime. Only place there is blanket coverage by the government is in/ near government buildings. Also, possibly Washington DC.
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by GigG · 2011-07-05 06:26 · Score: 1

I guess that depends on your idea of blanket and US for that matter.

--
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Gordonjcp · 2011-07-05 06:32 · Score: 1

So, pretty much the same as the UK, then?
You do *know* that the ridiculous figures of something like 1500 cameras per person in the UK was entirely made up by a tabloid journalist, don't you? What they did was count up the number of cameras in a short stretch of a busy street in a rough part of London - all the bookies, off-licences, and even more unsavoury places - and multiplied by the total distance of all the roads in the UK. If the figure was even remotely accurate, it would mean that on every single bit of road in the UK right down to a farm track, you'd pass a camera every 50' or so.
If you don't think that *every* major city in the US isn't bristling with cameras, I don't know what you must think the things on top of poles must be. Some sort of funny glass bird feeder, possibly.
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by EdIII · 2011-07-05 11:19 · Score: 1

Unless you watched Eagle Eye and though it was a documentary, the vast majority of the CCTV networks are of poor quality and not interconnected at all.
I get your point, but the truth is that I have seen the quality of the video in my city on the traffic cams, and unless they are really hiding something, I can't figure out how you could even get a license plate off a car with it. In any case, that is the only known interconnected system in my city.
Everything else is private. I manage several branch offices with CCTV of much higher quality and I can tell you that I don't echo the feed to Metro for their amusement. We only keep stuff for 30 days anyways with a nightly cronjob removing the data.
What is happening in China and the UK is much much different. It is a coordinated effort to watch the citizens and invade their privacy. Yes, their privacy is a reasonable expectation even in a public place and I have tried again and again to explain to other Slashdotters that you cannot treat a government, your neighbor, and the bum on the street as equals when it comes to information and the power to exploit said information.
I am upset, because Cisco is a US company and if we are truly not hypocrites and defenders of Freedom and Human Rights, then why are we helping another country to create a system used to oppress their citizens?
Of course... what am I talking about. The number of people that have died in the last 50 years from US manufactured weapons is a lot damn higher than the number of cameras we are installing........ In fact how many US servicemen have died in Afghanistan from weapons funded by the US?
Our behavior makes it pretty clear. We are not really that serious about Freedom or "exporting Democracy", and are willing to apathetically let it all go down the drain while helping the other countries in the world to the same to its citizens or far worse .
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Gordonjcp · 2011-07-05 18:46 · Score: 1

What is happening in China and the UK is much much different. It is a coordinated effort to watch the citizens and invade their privacy
As a previous poster said, [citation needed].
In what way does half a dozen video cameras in the centre of a city, and half a dozen cameras spread out around some of the more notorious motorway junctions infringe my privacy?
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by EdIII · 2011-07-06 11:17 · Score: 1

As a previous poster said, [citation needed].
Seriously? Citation needed? This is common knowledge at this point.
The UK government has made it clear that they have a massive coordinated effort aimed at reducing crime (watching the citizens). How many Slashdot stories, or CNN, BBC news stories do I need to link too on this?
As far as China goes..... I think that they have made it quite clear and not just with cameras. They have people looking at instant messages, the Great Firewall, etc. If you really need a citation to know that the Chinese Government uses many forms of surveillance to monitor their citizens, quell disturbances, and "maintain the peace and stability" of their country.... I don't think some citations will help you understand that.

In what way does half a dozen video cameras in the centre of a city, and half a dozen cameras spread out around some of the more notorious motorway junctions infringe my privacy?
It infringes your privacy because we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when perform our daily activities, even in public. I said reasonable.
If you and I are on a motorway, or in a park, we have a reasonable expectation that nobody is recording is visually or audibly. In a parking lot in a grocery store, we know that we are probably on a camera, but not being listened to. We also reasonable expect that the recordings are destroyed within 30 days and only used when a crime has occurred.
Additionally, you should expose yourself to game theory.
It is basically this simple:
1) A homeless person. They overhear your conversation or notice that you come to the park regularly.
2) A normal citizen. They also overhear your conversation or notice that you frequent certain places on a regular basis or engage in activities with specific people.
3) Law enforcement. They are recording your conversations in addition to video, but also recording all known instances where you are identified. As well as all of your friends, families, and acquaintances. On the roads they are recording each license plate as it stops and passes through the lights at high speed. So not just your static points, but your paths between points.
4) A very large corporation. As part of their free services they have drones regularly scouting the city and recording visual and aerial images and then storing it such a way that it can cross referenced, searched, and data mined effectively.
5) A government intelligence agency. Collects data from all the large corporations through laws (Patriot Act) and then runs its own drone program, and even without one, collects all footage and data points from the cameras in the park and the motorways.
There is a very simple concept. Relative Power.
The homeless person is mostly concerned with where he/she will sleep and eat. Maslov's Pyramid at work. Highly doubtful that he/she will be able to take advantage of any information gained by their surveillance of you or knowing who you are with due to a chronic lack of resources and likely ignorant and unsophisticated. Having a tawdry affair? :)
The citizen has more resources. They are mobile and might be able to take advantage if they were so inclined. Once again, highly dependent on the situation.
Both the homeless person and the citizen are highly constrained by Law Enforcement though. To harm you, abridge your rights, or otherwise interact with you in an unlawful way puts them at risk of incarceration, loss of resources (fines), and whatever other consequences I am leaving out.
Law Enforcement can keep the information as long they want. Possessing resources and IT staff they can gain access to software and platforms that allow them to search for specific people... or heck... even just browse (like the UK) looking for anything that might be a crime or a gateway to an investigation. Abuses are likely, have occurred in the past, and will occur in the future. I c
Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-06 12:46 · Score: 0

Where I'm from in America, there is coverage that blankets the downtown area and many neighborhoods have "blue light" cameras.

at least they are... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:30 · Score: 0

selling them firearms.

Re:at least they are... by kelemvor4 · 2011-07-05 06:40 · Score: 1

No, AC is just a troll.... successful one based on your response.

Same Old Cisco by eldavojohn · 2011-07-05 05:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

In 2008 it was revealed that The Great Firewall of China was just a huge opportunity to them to sell more routers. In May, Falun Gong sued them. Even shareholders have been uneasy with Cisco's fervent complacency and complete lack of human rights doctrine. I think as far back as 2004 we've discussed the Amnesty report naming Cisco.

I think this is just more of the same. They sold China the equipment for the great firewall and you are surprised that Cisco is chomping at the bit for the next big project? The only headline newsworthy enough would be if Cisco refused to make a buck on the grounds that their product will obviously be used to repress peaceful foreign citizens or keep 1/6 of the world's population censored.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:Same Old Cisco by h4rr4r · 2011-07-05 05:33 · Score: 0

Champing at the bit, not chomping. English, learn it.
Re:Same Old Cisco by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-05 05:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the spirit of idle curiousity, I have to wonder if Cisco is purely an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck, or whether their higher-ups actually get the warm and fuzzies from the fact that they are on the leading edge of Benthamite dystopia technology?

They could, certainly, just be swallowing their doubts and keeping an eye on the bottom line; but nothing says that the people within the corporation are having to battle pangs of conscience in order to do what is profitable.
Re:Same Old Cisco by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2011-07-05 05:37 · Score: 1

Chomp is a variant of champ, which makes both forms valid...

English, learn it.
Quite so.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 05:43 · Score: 1

Oxford Dictionary:
chomp:
see champ
:)

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

... is purely an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck,

Well, that's the sociological description of a corporation: legally, a sociopathic person.
Which then brings up another question - if one has to conform to the norms of said corporation, does that make one a sociopath?
For example, if you're working for a large corporation that makes a product that harms the public and you are the one who denies that there is anything wrong or you are a scientist that has to come up with "data" that refutes others findings of said harm, doesn't that make you a sociopath too?
Or just to "fit in" with said sociopathic corporation makes you a sociopath?
Which makes all of Cisco's employees sociopaths?
Re:Same Old Cisco by hedwards · 2011-07-05 05:50 · Score: 1

It's "chomping at the bit" in America, not "champing at the bit." In fact "champ" in that context isn't a word that anybody over here recognizes in that context.
(I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.
Re:Same Old Cisco by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-07-05 05:53 · Score: 2

And in the end, it really doesn't matter, publicly traded corporations are by definition amoral, sociopathic, profit-only-seeking entities. Because, of course, if they WEREN'T, they "could be" sued by their shareholders for not being amorally sociopathic enough. So the greedy assholes at the top of the corporation have all the moral cover they need to do anything they want which isn't demonstrably illegal - because if they don't do it, someone else (another amoral sociopathic corporation) will. The only place the kind of managerial hand-wringing you're suggesting comes into play is in puff-piece business interview journalism, one step removed from a press release. Here in the States, we've created a society where the only first-class citizens (the corporations and the very wealthy) are by definition sociopaths.
Re:Same Old Cisco by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-07-05 05:55 · Score: 1

I see what you did there -- you forgot to close the parenthesis :)
Re:Same Old Cisco by CastrTroy · 2011-07-05 05:56 · Score: 1

While you are technically correct, the majority of people use chomping. I know that doesn't make it right, but just because you are right, doesn't mean people won't look at you like you have 3 head when you say "champing at the bit".

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:02 · Score: 1

Thats not exactly true. Maybe in some idealized abstracted world it would be, but we live in a real world where corporations are made of and work with and for real, feeling people. Hence, corporations that DO act like amoral sociopaths get boycotts, government legislation, etc. Perhaps not as much as one would wish, but still. Because of this, many companies do try to be genuinely good corporate citizens and treat their customers well. And of course, some companies even go so far as to do so just because they want to be good. (Google: "Don't be Evil". May not succeed, but at least their stated motto is to try.)
Re:Same Old Cisco by h4rr4r · 2011-07-05 06:15 · Score: 1

The majority of people are always idiots. Does not mean I have to be one too.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:33 · Score: 1

Oops, to late.
Re:Same Old Cisco by CRCulver · 2011-07-05 06:35 · Score: 1

The meaning of words is determined by usage, and usage naturally changes over time. This has been recognized for over a century now, ever since Saussure discovered l'arbitraire du signe. If the majority of people are saying "chomping at the bit", that doesn't mean that they are idiots, it just means that the English language is changing like all languages do.
Re:Same Old Cisco by kelemvor4 · 2011-07-05 06:43 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure the only proper use of the word champ is in reference to the champ hamburger. All other uses are just not as tasty.
Re:Same Old Cisco by John+Hasler · 2011-07-05 07:09 · Score: 2

And, of course, corporations, being abstractions, don't do anything. Their directors, officers, and employees do.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Same Old Cisco by 228e2 · 2011-07-05 07:24 · Score: 1

^This.

The majority of people have a rather sad IQ. Why would I follow them off of the cliff?

--
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Re:Same Old Cisco by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 07:42 · Score: 1

I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.
I'm sure that your corrections will prove your superiority in the end.

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-05 07:52 · Score: 1

I think it is mostly that they are doing exactly what their shareholders want and fulfilling their fiduciary duty. So the short answer is option 1:

an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck
.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Same Old Cisco by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-05 07:56 · Score: 1

The corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits. Look at Wal*Mart, people boycott them all the time, but it still makes economic sense for them to not care since complying with the demands of the boycott would be less profitable than just ignoring them.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Same Old Cisco by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 07:59 · Score: 1

Why would I follow them off of the cliff?
Off of? WTF?
Why would I follow them off the cliff?
is sufficient, surely?

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
Re:Same Old Cisco by mnot · 2011-07-05 09:12 · Score: 1

You *do* realise that the Intertubes go further than the US border, don't you?
Re:Same Old Cisco by danlock4 · 2011-07-05 09:36 · Score: 1

(and you forgot to open them ;) just teasing! {

--
To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
Re:Same Old Cisco by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:21 · Score: 1

Cisco sells communications hardware. What's wrong with selling more?
Re:Same Old Cisco by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-05 13:23 · Score: 2

That is certainly the correct model for Cisco Systems, Inc.(which is why I classified my question as "idle curiosity"). I'm just curious, though, are the relevant Ciscolings, as they go about their dirty work, trying to comfort themselves or patting themselves on the back? Is their little internal monologue going through some sort of "Well, if we don't, Alcatel will..." rationalization? Is somebody growing awkwardly tumescent in their corner office at the 'utopian' vision of discipline and social order that he is blessed to be a part of?

It doesn't seem likely to have much effect, one way or the other, in terms of how Cisco behaves, I just really want to know how the people who actually make 'Cisco' do things feel about what their incorporated hive organism is up to...
Re:Same Old Cisco by shadowofwind · 2011-07-05 13:30 · Score: 1

From my experience working in the defense/surveillance industry, its mostly greed, injected with a dose of power-lust. For the most part, people don't have to fight moral qualms because they just don't ask themselves those kinds of questions.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Concerned+Onlooker · 2011-07-05 15:10 · Score: 1

In fact, you're all wrong. It is chomp, but it removes a byte or bytes, not a bit.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re:Same Old Cisco by wisty · 2011-07-05 16:05 · Score: 1

^ bys
Re:Same Old Cisco by ILongForDarkness · 2011-07-05 16:16 · Score: 1

I think at some level networking equipment companies in general suffer from this problem. For example appliances that track employees internet usage beyond simply acting as a firewall to protect company resources. Boss says sure check your bank account at work on your break, it helps have a reasonable quality of life. But then someone even higher up has decided that they will monitor everything everyone does. Or filtering sites based on some automatic algorithm that decides bad or good. In my experience it ends up with any forum where anyone has used a word that is offensive is blocked. This in turn filters how even handed the information your employees get about products they are looking at for your company. Ie. if it is a fucking piece of shit I want to hear about it and know why that person said that. i might not agree with it but if I'm never allowed to see it but can only see all the positive marketing bullshit out there because there is no swearing on that site it is crazy. I even get MSDN and the like occasionally blocked because again someone might have said something offensive, or it is a "forum" well duh it is also how I figure out how to do things sometimes.
Re:Same Old Cisco by Akima · 2011-07-06 04:11 · Score: 1

I love this discussion! I don't think I can contribute anything useful to it though. If a person (human person that is - not one of those fictional ones) has not realised by now just how bad Corporations are and just how much better the world would be if we completely removed the Corporate legal structure which allows these aberrations to come into being then there is nothing that can be said to wake up them up from their perpetual slumber... except maybe The Corporation http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

ad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:32 · Score: 0

there is an add for CCtv security on this page... just saying

Money! by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Stuff the ideals, stuff the responsibility, stuff the "doing the right thing", we want money & we don't care how we get it.
Bah!

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.

Re:Money! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:56 · Score: 0

This is the inherent problem with capitalism, the right thing and the profitable thing are, more often than not, opposite things. Of course the other end of the spectrum, communism, introduces a whole other set of problems.
One of the worst things to ever happen was for companies to become publicly traded. Their priorities shifted from being beholden to their customers and (gasp) their employees to the share holder being the absolute bottom line. Hence, we have crap like this going on. Screw morals, screw ethics, screw our employees, screw 1/6 of the world, we've got share holders to answer to.

I dont see the story by Osgeld · 2011-07-05 05:33 · Score: 1

So what? Cisco has a good track record on these type of things in US cities, just go ask your mayor about his traffic cams and security around city hall

this crap doesnt run on bubble gum and wishes ya know

Re:I dont see the story by CastrTroy · 2011-07-05 05:41 · Score: 1

And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders. So unless it is illegal to export these products to China, they would be in the wrong to not sell their products to China, since they probably make quite a bit of money from them. The only reason they wouldn't sell their products to China would be if it caused customers to leave based on the fact that they were selling to China. I don't think most of their major customers care in the least about them selling to China. Some might even see it as a good thing. "If it's good enough for the Chinese government, it's good enough for me" could be one outlook I could see from many customers..

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:I dont see the story by hedwards · 2011-07-05 05:52 · Score: 2

That's perfectly legal and not at all dodgy, however providing the technology for an oppressive regime to spy on its citizens is definitely dodgy by any reasonable standard.
Re:I dont see the story by chemicaldave · 2011-07-05 05:56 · Score: 2

And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an (unofficial) obligation to operate abroad as it would at home. US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US, so why should we allow companies to do the same?
Re:I dont see the story by Sir_Sri · 2011-07-05 06:02 · Score: 0

technology tends to be agnostic. P2P and photocopiers aren't illegal, but using them to spread classified material is.
Cameras are just that, cameras. They can be used to oppress dissent, help catch criminals, manage traffic, create an atmosphere of fear, monitor air quality and any number of other things. Some of that is good, some of that bad.
If technology is going to be used for something illegal, unethical or the like it should fall to governments to ban its import and export. China has a perfectly legitimate market for millions of home routers. Cisco should not be put in a position of saying 'well, we won't export this to you because we don't like you, but please have some home routers, we like you enough for that', especially if their competitors would not face the same restrictions.
Re:I dont see the story by v1 · 2011-07-05 06:05 · Score: 1

Cisco has an (unofficial) obligation to operate abroad as it would at home.
Sounds like that could be paraphrased as "Cisco has a moral obligation to..."
But Cisco you see, is a company. And companies have no moral obligations, other than greed, on behalf of their shareholders.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:I dont see the story by CastrTroy · 2011-07-05 06:16 · Score: 1

They aren't doing anything illegal. All their doing is selling tools. What people choose to do with those tools is up to them. Cisco has no control over what the end user does with the items they sell. And as others have mentioned, the US, UK, and others are using the exact same devices to do the exact same thing to their own citizens. Why is it all right for the some countries to do this but not other

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:I dont see the story by Osgeld · 2011-07-05 06:46 · Score: 2

so cameras that spy on US citizens is ok, but cameras that spy on china citizens is dodgy...
thanks for clearing that double standard up
Re:I dont see the story by lbgator · 2011-07-05 06:49 · Score: 1

... US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US...
Really? The US should put warnings on planes bound for Amsterdam then.
Re:I dont see the story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:59 · Score: 0

It is legal in the US to shout ethnic slurs due to the first amendment. It is illegal to do so in Canada and in most of the rest of the world and can get you in jail.
Here's a newsflash for you - you cannot operate violating the law of the land you operate in. It is not up to the companies to dictate what law they operate under. It is up to the government of the land to dictate these laws to the companies. Companies that don't like it can get the fuck out. That's all.

US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US, so why should we allow companies to do the same?
The opposite is true as well. But then you either want free trade or you want import duties.
And here's another newsflash - the Great Firewall of China is not illegal in the US. On the contrary, what do you think Echelon is?? China is at least in the open about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

In 2001 the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence.
Re:I dont see the story by sgt_doom · 2011-07-05 07:38 · Score: 2

"And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders."
Oh...give it a rest already, David Brooks clown clone. That's the same exact argument members of Hitler's Third Reich gave for their humans-into-ovens mandate. No corporation is obligated to support dictators and totalitarian governments, whether in th USA or in China, etc.
Re:I dont see the story by chemicaldave · 2011-07-05 08:02 · Score: 1

They do. I believe it's stated in your passport. More specifically, it's in the US Code. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, 7, which states that the US has jurisdiction "(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States."
Re:I dont see the story by hedwards · 2011-07-05 09:16 · Score: 1

It's hardly a double standard considering the scale of the human rights abuses in China versus the US.
I know it's cool to hate the US, but seriously grow up, the comparison you're trying to make beggars belief. It's astonishing to me that you don't see the difference between a country that regularly locks up political dissidents and a country which by and large doesn't do so. As bad as things have been in the US lately we still aren't anywhere near the level of human rights violations of China.
Re:I dont see the story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:17 · Score: 0

So unless it is illegal to export these products to China, they would be in the wrong to not sell their products to China, since they probably make quite a bit of money from them.
Many of these products are already made in China.
Re:I dont see the story by hedwards · 2011-07-05 09:19 · Score: 1

Except that they were allegedly selling the equipment specifically for the purpose of spying on the citizens. I take it you haven't been following the lawsuit that was filed against them. This isn't a case of providing equipment that's later modified for nefarious purposes, this is a case where they've been sued for allegedly providing materials specifically too spy on political dissidents.
It remains to be seen how strong the case is and whether they'll be found liable, but it's hardly a matter of providing hardware that was repurposed.
Re:I dont see the story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:22 · Score: 0

So US law really does trump EU law and the laws of other countries as well?
Re:I dont see the story by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:24 · Score: 1

Not even a little bit. They have an obligation to comply with the laws of jurisdictions that have jurisdiction over them. Unless the US says "you can't sell to China", they can sell to China.

Would you expect a company to sell 110v60hz equipment in Europe, just because that's how they do it at home? Should they not sell cars that don't meet US safety regulations abroad? Etc.?
Re:I dont see the story by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:28 · Score: 1

For US citizens. I'm not sure if pot laws count, but it is certainly illegal for US citizens to go outside the country to violate laws they would be subject to inside the country. Like sex tourism, slavery, money laundering. I don't know where the legal line is, however.
Re:I dont see the story by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:34 · Score: 1

Nor are they obligated NOT to, unless they specifically are. Would it be unsavory? Sure. But I think the spin here is that communications is the great equalizer, and even if the Commies try to stop everything, some stuff will get through.

Anyway, if the Commies were really intent on maintaining the purity of the minds of their subjects, they'd just get the bolt cutters and snip the cables leading out of the country. No, they simply want to smack down dissidents. And the chinese can do that any number of ways. Not selling them routers won't stop that one whit. So why not repatriate some of the USD that we are sending over there? That's the goal, right? Sell more of our shit to them.
Re:I dont see the story by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:36 · Score: 1

Well, duh. All commercial networking gear has that ability. It wouldn't be any good for anything if it didn't have that capability.
Re:I dont see the story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 11:22 · Score: 0

Negative, the goal is to help them since the multinationals have already relocated both their production assets (factories, jobs, etc.) and their capital assets (investments, FDI, etc.) there, it is simply to expedite their overall plan. Some further tech to further their totalitarian goals -- concurrent with the goals of the Transnational Capitalist Class -- furthers the aboslute monopolization of everything. sgt_doom
Re:I dont see the story by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-05 12:00 · Score: 1

On one hand, we have cameras located in public areas that help enforce laws enacted by a democratically elected government representing the will of the people.
On the other hand, we have networking equipment that is used to censor private Internet connections, and in particular to directly and explicitly suppress political speech and reports of abuse by an authoritarian government.
Yeah, it's totally the same thing.
Re:I dont see the story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 19:12 · Score: 0

so cameras that spy on US citizens, British citizens, and most of the developed world's citizens, is ok, but cameras that spy on china citizens is dodgy...
thanks for clearing that double standard up
I fixed that so that it reflects reality instead of being another typical anti-US rant.

cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative

The human oppression network

Re:cisco by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 17:38 · Score: 0

Cisco kit is all made in China so whats the problem?

Doh by Finallyjoined!!! · 2011-07-05 05:37 · Score: 0

sp: sequitur

--
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.

Re:Doh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:47 · Score: 0

Is that really that important that you needed to post it. I guess if people refrained from posting trollish pedantry here there'd be like 5 posts.
Re:Doh by biodata · 2011-07-05 06:53 · Score: 1

Trollish pedantry is the woman in the red dress. It reminds us we're human.

--
Korma: Good

You people are such hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love how people are bitching about Cisco on this deal all while using their Apple products assembled in China, wearing their name brand clothing made in China, and sitting comfortably in their chair made in China.

If you want Cisco to be so idealistic, why don't some of you people do the same and boycott products made in China too? Yeah, didn't think so.

I just pwned you all.

Re:You people are such hypocrites by hedwards · 2011-07-05 05:54 · Score: 2

Probably because it's nearly impossible to find goods that are completely without ties to China. Thanks to the labeling requirements, you can think you're buying American and really be paying for most of the work to be done in some undisclosed nation.
Re:You people are such hypocrites by rezalas · 2011-07-05 06:27 · Score: 1

I agree on all points, except my chair, which is custom made by my brother who also built my desk. Other than that I'm really just being an asshole, so please continue.
Re:You people are such hypocrites by swalve · 2011-07-05 10:37 · Score: 1

Undisclosed nation, perhaps. But not China. They have a requirement that everything made there must be identified as such.

Nothing to see here.... by compucomp2 · 2011-07-05 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

just more American/Western hypocrisy from Slashdot. Typical. The British have done the same thing in their cities, and it's not like America is totally averse to the idea (red light cameras, anyone?) Clearly, it's evil and oppressive just because China does it and China refuses to knuckle under to Western imperialism.

Re:Nothing to see here.... by idontgno · 2011-07-05 05:53 · Score: 1

If you're laboring under the impression that the criticism is "China is doing it, BAAAAD... The West is doing, it, YAAAY!"... you haven't been paying attention.

China refuses to knuckle under to Western imperialism.
Oh. That's interesting. I didn't notice until just now that you were using the Troll Safeword of the Day. <wink> Right. Carry on.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Nothing to see here.... by Nadaka · 2011-07-05 06:14 · Score: 1

Correct. When china does it, we speak out and sigh, ultimately knowing we don't have the right to force China to respect its people and their rights. When our own country does it we speak out and anguish in despair, ultimately knowing that we don't have the force to right our nation to respect its people and our rights.
Re:Nothing to see here.... by swb · 2011-07-05 08:15 · Score: 2

So do you work for the Chinese Propaganda Ministry in its Countering Anti-Chinese Rhetoric in Western Blogs department, or do you just freelance for fun?
What part of the arrest and detention of Ai Weiwei was the result of Western Imperialism or the defense of China?
No, the subject is not off-topic, as the problem with Chinese use of surveillance technology isn't the surveillance per se (although it is a problem in the West and in China), it's the use of that technology to buttress a ONE PARTY STATE that actively runs a POLITICAL GULAG and ARRESTS, IMPRISONS AND EXECUTES its citizens for threatening the hegemony of the COMMUNIST PARTY.
Re:Nothing to see here.... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-05 12:04 · Score: 1

red light cameras, anyone
I haven't heard of red light cameras being used to suppress freedom of speech or intimidate dissenters. That sounds like a fairly novel and creative application - can you share the specifics? Some examples?

Clearly, it's evil and oppressive just because China does it
No, it's evil and oppressive because it targets fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech. It's equally evil and oppressive when other countries - be it Russia, Turkey, UK or US - do it. It just happens that China tends to do much more of that.

About time... by mspohr · 2011-07-05 05:48 · Score: 1

Sounds like they are catching up with the rest of the developed world. London is probably the most famous for its network of surveillance cameras but most major cities are installing these things as fast as they can fund them in spite of the lack of evidence that they do anything to deter crime or capture criminals. I think the desire to keep track of people is a universal government proclivity.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

Re:About time... by bjdevil66 · 2011-07-05 06:33 · Score: 1

That's the weirdest part is that there's clear proof that cameras do not deter crime or help solve it. The only other reasons a governmental unit would put them up is control by fear or if there was a lot of dirty money changing hands - neither of which is a good thing.
Why do people tolerate it? Are they just uninformed? Willfully ignorant? Afraid of the boogeyman? What?
Re:About time... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Why do people tolerate it? Are they just uninformed? Willfully ignorant? Afraid of the boogeyman? What?
I think the correct answer is all of the above. There are those who don't know, those who think it won't ever capture them, and those who want a be all end all security product. This is the same reasons we get crappy laws like the PATRIOT ACT and a nice TSA grope or irradiation when we want to fly.

--
Time to offend someone

Not a big deal by WindBourne · 2011-07-05 05:50 · Score: 2

Cisco IS a chinese company. Their top ppl are Americans, but all of the manufacturing is done in CHina. So, this is just China spying on Chinese.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:11 · Score: 0

Ha ha, you're funny. But it's still bullshit. Cisco is based out of America. Kick Cisco's office presence out of this country, then I might take you seriously.
Per Wiki below

Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO, SEHK: 4333) is an American-based multinational corporation that designs and sells consumer electronics, networking, voice, and communications technology and services.
Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-07-05 06:13 · Score: 1

Cisco IS a chinese company. Their top ppl are Americans, but all of the manufacturing is done in CHina. So, this is just China spying on Chinese.
Like Apple and most other technology companies, Cisco's manufacturing is out-sourced. They don't own any manufacturing facilities of their own.
Your last sentence is correct despite that.

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Cameras do not prevent crime by gweihir · 2011-07-05 05:54 · Score: 0

In some cases they can help finding who was responsible, but that is it. Criminals are generally stupid and are not deterred by an increased risk of getting caught. Consequentially, cameras are not a crime prevention measure, even though vendors falsely like to claim this. It is just the usual marketing lies taking something that seems obvious (but is false) to promote a product.

On the other hand, cameras do serve to make people feel spied on, so they do serve the obvious goal of reducing political opposition. And Cisco is in this because they do not (as so many others) have any corporate ethics. They would probably also help in building concentration camps if enough money was in it.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:04 · Score: 0

This.
If cameras prevented crime, convenience store and bank robberies would have been eliminated years ago -- and installing red light and speed cameras would be a money loser.
Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by royallthefourth · 2011-07-05 06:08 · Score: 1

They would probably also help in building concentration camps if enough money was in it.
IBM is always ahead of the competition...
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by John+Hasler · 2011-07-05 07:14 · Score: 1

Criminals are generally stupid and are not deterred by an increased risk of getting caught.
Right. That must be why so many robberies are committed right in front of policemen.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by sgt_doom · 2011-07-05 08:05 · Score: 1

Doesn't it truly strike you as ludicrous, when so many Ameritards repeat that tiresome phrase about criminals being so stupid? Especially since the bank/oil cartel gets away with virtually everything? I mean, since when did anyone from JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BankofAmerica, Citigroup, Blackstone Group, Fortress, Citadel Management, AIG, Carlyle Group, etc., etc., go to jail? After the S&L meltdown, over 1,000 banksters were convicted and many went to jail. Criminals appear to get away with virtually everything today.
Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by gweihir · 2011-07-05 09:33 · Score: 0

Indeed.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:Cameras do not prevent crime by gweihir · 2011-07-05 09:35 · Score: 0

Ah, my comment was limited to crime where cameras are believed to make a difference. Of course corporate crime is something else entirely. These people are amoral, greedy scum, but typically highly capable.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Obligatory Judas Prest by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:04 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvEDAg6MWw

Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do

You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there

I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
Theres nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Protected. Detective. Electric eye

Boycott on Cisco and Cisco related products by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:05 · Score: 0

Rather than ranting on about Champ vs Chomp, we should think of a boycott on Cisco and Cisco related products. like the boycott on SA products because of apartheid.

Open Surveillance, Anyone? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · 2011-07-05 06:06 · Score: 1

I think surveillance isn't bad, so long as it is public and open.

http://www.brainonfire.net/blog/surveillance-for-the-public/ - only result I could find quick google.

I like to think of open surveillance as "big family", as opposed to "big brother".

Can't find any studies or implementations at this moment, but I like to imagine it would work. Still, it feels like this idea is ripe for hole-shooting-into.

--
Read my Very Short "Stories"

Re:Open Surveillance, Anyone? by John+Hasler · 2011-07-05 07:16 · Score: 1

> Can't find any studies or implementations at this moment...
Of course not. Knowledge is not power. Secret knowledge is power.

--
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.

Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? by haruchai · 2011-07-05 06:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

Isn't Huawei up to the task of network surveillance or are the Chinese looking for more tech to steal?

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Re:Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:58 · Score: 0

Isn't Huawei up to the task of network surveillance or are the Chinese looking for more tech to steal?
Cisco probably has a deal where instead of getting paid in cash Cisco gets paid by China cracking down on companies making counterfeit Cisco routers.
Re:Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 07:17 · Score: 0

Oh. Oh. Oh. I know this one...
Yes.
Re:Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? by haruchai · 2011-07-05 11:30 · Score: 1

Hmm, guess that would be a win-win for Cisco and China.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body

Aw, how cute by davidbrit2 · 2011-07-05 06:33 · Score: 1

They call them "citizens".

umm...so....? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 06:43 · Score: 0

Is Cisco looking for some reward for making China the preeminent nation on earth?
I'm a little slow, so I'm confused by the tone of TFA.

Identify the money source by sgt_doom · 2011-07-05 08:01 · Score: 1

"They don't own any manufacturing facilities of their own."

And whose money do you think paid for all those foreign factories, production facilities, R&D labs, training centers, call centers, etc., which those jobs are either offshored to, or created anew at? That would be USAID, US foreign aid from various sources, presided over by the Wall Streeters who once bounced back and forth between the Street and government positions, but now USAID, like so much of the former US gov't, has been privatized (90% for USAID, BTW).

fucken bastards by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:10 · Score: 0

That's why I can't shoplift in peace.

Big thanks, Hasler by sgt_doom · 2011-07-05 08:13 · Score: 1

Thank you. I always despise people who mindlessly repeat something without ever giving it some critical analysis first. If knowledge were power, then scientists and geniuses would be meeting at the Bilderberg, not just the bank/oil cartel boys (with their social information system lackey twits, of course).

Re:Big thanks, Hasler by FrozenFOXX · 2011-07-05 08:49 · Score: 1

Thank you. I always despise people who mindlessly repeat something without ever giving it some critical analysis first. If knowledge were power, then scientists and geniuses would be meeting at the Bilderberg, not just the bank/oil cartel boys (with their social information system lackey twits, of course).
I'm not really interested in hopping into a perfectly good argument here but I feel compelled to note that "knowledge is power" doesn't actually specify the KIND of knowledge. Knowing how to get two atoms to combine in a particularly useful fashion may, depending on your goals, not get you the kind of power you desire. If you're looking to control a country knowledge of political opposition's activities would be far more useful. If you're looking to cause massive amounts of devastation then the former would be quite a bit more useful in the form of a bomb.

--
"Just a fox, a whisper."

Priorities by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:34 · Score: 0

As a U.S. citizen, I care a lot more about Target getting away with scanning people's driver's licenses than I do about China spying on its citizens.

No problem. F5 switches are just fine for my needs by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 08:45 · Score: 0

Cisco is a dieing breed anyway. Their cost is not justified in most cased IMHO. Just say NO to Cisco...

As much as I hate to say it... by frank_adrian314159 · 2011-07-05 08:48 · Score: 1

Since the equipment is manufactured in China, it isn't as if the government couldn't just have the factories supply them with as many gray market units as they need.

--
That is all.

Miscommunication by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 09:25 · Score: 0

"a citywide network ... cameras that officials say will prevent crime but that human-rights advocates warn could target political dissent."

These are actually the same thing in China.

Share Price by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-07-05 10:05 · Score: 1

Cisco's share price is currently very low--significantly undervalued, and with several markets at risk. If they want to attract shareholders, big new business opportunities go a long way toward doing that. It would take a really remarkable company to turn down this kind of business opportunity for ethical reasons.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!

Cisco is doing nothing illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-05 13:34 · Score: 0

But, frankly neither did IBM when it provided the systems (software/hardware) to the Nazi's so that the trains could run on time and become a more efficient killing machine.

The real situation is that money, in and of itself has no moral compass. Corporations, if they want to make money, can act in one of two ways morally, and make money, or immorally and make stupid amounts of money. If I was the president of Cisco, I would probably choose the latter. At some point though, you have to look in the mirror and look yourself in the eye. If you can still do that after that decision ..... I'm not sure if I could..... but than again, I'm not in that position ......

Advice sought by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-07-05 23:37 · Score: 1

After I smash my Cisco (Lynksys) router to bits with a sledge hammer, what alternative should I get (that will run Tomato, please)?

Meanwhile, at Bing by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-07-05 23:42 · Score: 1

Microsoft is getting into bed with Baidu to help provide sanitized English language search results.

All that's left is for Larry Ellison to announce an Oracle-based organ harvesting solution for the Central Committee vivisectionists from the deck of his yacht.

Surveillance cameras are yesterday's news by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-06 05:03 · Score: 0

If you want to know about the truly most outrageous human rights abuses -- which are going on right now in the USA and Europe -- start researching the modern mind control program(s) being carried out. Today's "undesirables" are being subjected to some truly horrific experimentation and electronic torture using technology that is probably years or decades away from being declassified for public commercial use. I pray that somebody out there with the power to affect change will eventually take notice and do something to help put a stop to these outrageous abuses. For more info here is a good place to start: https://startingpage.com/do/metasearch.pl?q=%22jordan+maxwell+related%22

Slashdot Mirror

Cisco Helps China Keep an Eye On Its Citizens

121 comments