Slashdot Mirror
EFF: Cisco Shouldn't Get Off the Hook For Aiding Torture In China (eff.org)
itwbennett writes: In a lawsuit in Northern California that was dismissed in 2014, Falun Gong practitioners alleged that Cisco Systems built a security system, dubbed "Golden Shield," for the Chinese government knowing it would be used to track and persecute members of the religious minority. That case is being appealed, and on Monday the EFF, Privacy International and free-speech group Article 19 filed a brief that supports the appeal. Many U.S. and European companies sell technology to regimes that violate human rights, and if this case goes to trial and Cisco loses, they may think twice, said EFF Staff Attorney Sophia Cope. "In a lot of instances, these companies are selling directly to the government, and they know exactly what is going to be happening," Cope said.
What's next?
Next up, they should sue Booz Allen (Snowden's employer) for violating the rights of millions of Americans, along with any other corporation that sold goods or services to the NSA/CIA/FBI/TSA.
Yes. Sovereign nations do, in fact, have the right to set their own laws.
So how are you going to stop them from committing atrocities?
Oh yeah, that's right... WAR.
Do you want to pay that cost for your moral absolutism? No? Huh, imagine that, your moral absolutism has limits.
So you want to go the Iran/Iraq route with harsh economic sanctions? Well... that deprives those citizens of healthcare and food... tantamount to torture by some definitions. We've also seen the results - North Korea, Iran, Cuba are all still here and their governments still firmly in control.
Right, better to just sue Cisco and feel like you're "doing" something than actually solve the problem.
But why is it the EFF's concern? Shouldn't the EFF be arguing against court actions that encumber data equipment sales?
Are they for electronic freedom, or are they just another leftist grievance profiteer?
Filing Amicus briefs are what organizations like EFF, ACLU and NRA do in cases they want to support or oppose. In this case, I think it depends on the facts of the case which should come out in discovery. It could be that CISCO did in fact have people actually customizing code and hardware to specifically target these groups, in which case they crossed a line that should make them liable.
EFF exists to promote freedom. If companies are actively engaged in suppressing free speech and harming people that are expressing themselves in ways that don't promote violence online then they damn well should be making those companies pay a high price for their unethical behavior. On the other hand if CISCO just provided some technology and it happened to be used for unethical purposes without their active participation then I agree that companies should be free to sell their technology without being liable for how others choose to use it. And EFF would be on the wrong side if they were claiming a broader form of liability. Like saying Ford should be liable if someone it sells a car to decides to mow down a bunch of pedestrians.
The key is whether CISCO crossed a line and whether there is enough evidence that they did in order to trigger discovery which would force CISCO to provide relevant documents and witnesses. Without reading the case I think that is hard to say. But often these types of products come with support packages that could have involved specific customization.