Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China 642
gexen writes "According to this article in The Guardian, 'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'."
Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Microsoft doing the violating, it's the people using their software.
Is open source software never used for anything bad?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Funny)
You're right, possibly the worst case being here [caldera.com]. For some reason the site seems down right now though...
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Informative)
caldera.com A 216.250.128.12
sharp@bart sharp $ hostx sco.com
sco.com A 216.250.128.12
That might explain it.
Worst Slashdot headline in history? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you feel if they were building those networks of censorship here?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you're one of those simpletons who can't see beyond their own time and their own borders, then comparing the great AMERICAN state of Texas to China with regards to human rights might actually seem sensical. If you were an idiot, I mean. It's too bad this country seems to be filled with the sort of simple, non-logically-thinking, irrational, US-centric, self-righteous voter that would make such asinine comparisons. And to think - they're otherwise fairly intelligent. Check out the Slashdot community, for instance. It's filled with such politically naive and unnuanced people who really are otherwise intelligent.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, the company doesn't always know how the user will use it, and can't control that, but if they know what will happen then the ethical thing would be to refuse services. It is really too bad that companies are more worried about the next quarter than how their actions will go into history books.
Would any software or network company think that history would treat them well if they sold software and equipment that was used to round up and massacre dissidents? Heck, many US companies dealt with Germany and in my opinion, openly abetted in human rights abuses, although I will grant, none of those companies caught sufficient hell for what they did, but now is a time to start.
Why would it be so wrong to scale that down to lesser crimes against humanity?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
AI has been attacking the Chinese government for decades. And don't be a complete moron here man; no one is trying to stop MS for creating good technology, only for selling it to a poli/econ system that MS wouldn't want be constrained by in their wildest dreams. The hypocricy is ludicrous. MS wouldn't exist if the US had similar laws and systems that China has.
The worst part is, its profitable for Western companies for China to remain communist, because it makes it easy to engineer sweetheart market deals with a nicely centralized economic engine such as the Chinese government. I'm all for free trade and such, but if you knowingly sell technology that will be used for human rights abuses, regardless of the legal status of the move, to me that doesn't make that company much different from the government that requested it. They are apparently both morally A-OK with the concept of human rights abuses if it furthurs their individual agendas, and thats precisely the mentality and value set that the UN sets out to combat, whether you're company or government.
But don't worry, I see your point. Going for self is the agenda we should all protect with every once of our beings. You can't blame somebody for trying to get richer or more profitable, just because it involves squashing political thought and human rights
Here's an easier solution: all parties involved are guilty to varying degrees. There's a reason why we have laws that punish those who knowingly help people to commit crimes.
But don't let that stop you from pouring energy into fighting an organization that wants to help stop human rights violations but lacks your wisdom and knowledge. Now *theres* a group of people who deserve to be on the receiving end of your activism.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Funny)
You're correct on many levels.
Re:WHAT ?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
People needs to be able to make a distinction between by a producer making a product that might be abused, and a producer that tailor a product for human right violations.
I do not claim that Microsoft does that, but bear in mind that Microsoft is a champion of DRM (under various names) to control and monitor users. So I would not put it past them to do what Amnesty International suspect them of doing.
DRM is all about producer control using private keys that you, the user, has no access to. Contrast this to Cryptography [openbsd.org] where strong cryptography can be used to ensure your privacy and that you are in control.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, but they have a history of monopoly abuses, and are in fact convicted as such. In France they're even convicted for IP theft.
Bear in mind that both MS and Bill Gates give millions of dollars to worthy causes round the world.
Bear in mind the hefty tax breaks they get as well. Nice PR at US taxpayers expense.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you arguing with the tax law that allows charitible contributions to be deductible? Or just when it is used by Bill Gates?
This is one tax law that makes sense to me and should not be demonized.
Paying taxes is similar to giving to charity: you are contributing part of your income for the benefit of others. Donating to a charity gives you more control/choice over how those funds are used. It is not a "tax break"; the net amount given to others is still the same.
The world isn't black and white, and Bill Gates is not 100% evil. You may disagree with almost everything he does, but it is simple-minded to classify his every action as "bad".
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that a few "good" actions justify the many "bad" actions. I'm just saying that they exist.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because MS supports DRM doesn't mean that they are an evil company. Bear in mind that both MS and Bill Gates give millions of dollars to worthy causes round the world.
And what, I wonder, is your opinion about the pedophile who gives away all those lovely lollipops?
Count me among those who think it is inappropriate to use bookkeeping metaphors in place of ethical standards. There are no books where wrong actions can be balanced by right actions. Evil behavior is evil behavior and must always be opposed, even when done by someone who does Good Deeds too.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
I never tire of hearing about the 'generosity' of a 'rich person' - i.e., movie star, CEO, you name it - who gave $5000 to a charity - while pulling away from the curb in a car that costs $150k. Not that he/she shouldn't be able to buy that car, I'm just pointing out that $5k from that person is like $5.00 from me (who drives a $5500 truck) and nobody is crowing about my philanthropy.
Add to that the fact that one would be hard-pressed to find any corporate entity that doesn't donate money to charity, and it's easy to see that there is some benefit in monetary terms, be it through the percieved goodwill of the populace or tax deductions based on those contributions.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing in these reports is "ridiculous". The claims that AI makes are well documented, and are justified concerns about human rights violations. Most of each report is concerned with what the Chinese government is doing, and not with what anyone outside of China might be doing to aid and abet these crimes. They do not acuse foreign companies of human rights violations, but they do ask that those companies exercise some responsibilty when they sell products to China. Comments from the companies in question make it quite clear that they are not even willing to ask whether their products will be used for censorship purposes, let alone refuse to do business when the answerr is "yes".
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
An Amnesty International report has cited Microsoft among a clutch of leading computer firms heavily criticised for helping to fuel 'a dramatic rise in the number of people detained or sentenced for internet-related offences'.
So pretty much Gates an MicroSoft are evil because they made Windows and people use it to go on the internet sometimes, and some of those people commit crimes on the internet.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
How we, as 'liberators' have seeemed to ignore China after Tiananmen Square confuses and alarms me.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
You people are scum and I'm glad we're not aligned with you anymore.
See how easy it is to spout crap?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:3, Troll)
Yes!
haven't you watched how the anti-gun nuts use that same stance to sue gun manufacturers and make it extremely difficult for legitimate gun buyers to buy guns?
how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this? If we are instantly guilty for the actions of a few idiots and morons then Microsoft
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:4, Insightful)
The actions of "gun-nuts" usually involve trying to decrease the possibility of dangerous weapons making it into the hands of those idiots and morons you mention. For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities. Does that say something about your self-image?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes. Any legislation aiming to restrict the sale or possession of firearms to those who should* be allowed to have them will necessarily inconvenience those poeple somewhat.
In attempting to secure any sort of system, there is always always a tradeoff between effectiveness and ease of use. Many of us on Slashdot accept the inconvenience of keying in an eight-character password (upper- and lower-case letters and numbers, no words please!) one or more times per day to control access ot our computers.
I spent some time in the United States as a student a few years ago. I had to make three trips to the local Social Security Administration office (and fill out copious amounts of paperwork) to acquire a Social Security Number so that I could report my scholarships correctly to Uncle Sam. Again, an apparently necessarily inconvenience to ensure that taxes are paid and that visiting students are legally in the country.
"Gun control" legislation has similar aims. The laws exist to restrict the sale of weapons to appropriate individuals (not insane, underage, or a known criminal; other restrictions may exist by state). Legitimate buyers are inconvenienced, but it is nominally the price of making the system more secure.
Whether this goal is achieved is another question, and whether the system is particularly efficient yet another. To abandon all attempt at gun control isn't the solution--it would be akin to the Social Security Administration giving up on checking ID when issuing SSN cards (because identification can be forged) or to Microsoft responding to exploits by announcing that they were removing all password-checking from their operating systems.
*I will leave the discussion regarding who should have access to firearms for another post.
your selective .sig (Score:3, Interesting)
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The sentence is a little hard to understand, as it is not even grammatically correct - it's a runon sentence, which makes sense only if joined like:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, requires that the right of the people to keep
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:3, Interesting)
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals. I don't know what the statistics are in the USA, but in Australia a lot of the murders committed with guns were by people who didn't previously hav
Re:The other side of reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is off-topic, I know, but tell me what the following all have in common:
Here's a hint: In all of the above, the US government met a lot of well-armed locals and beat them completely.
As a thought experiment, ask yourself: Under what circumstances could the US population be persuaded to rise up against its government? Arresting large groups of people and holding them without trial? Nope, it happened to people of Japanese descent held during WW2, and is still happening today in Gitmo Bay, Cuba. How about widespread illegal search and seizure? Nope, the "war on drugs" is still alive and well. How about restricting freedom of speech? Nope, we're fine with putting you in a "free speech zone". How about removing the right to vote? Prepare for a repeat of Florida circa November 2000 later this year. After all, it was the pro-gun guy who won, right? Not even the Patriot act, the most over-reaching insult to the Bill of Rights to date, has caused even a hint of a threat from gun owners that I've seen.
The only thing which would motivate gun owners to act is the one thing that they have in common: they would act if the US government tried to take their guns away.
Ye have heard it said in the past: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Verily I say unto you: Guns don't protect civil rights; people protect civil rights. This is something that gun owners as a whole appear to have no particular desire to do.
This reinforces something that I've believed for a long time: Gun owners don't, as a whole, care about civil rights. At best, they care about one civil right. So long as the US government doesn't tread too far on that particular "right", they can get away with pretty much anything else. Take my free speech, take my free assembly, take my vote (it's not like I was using it anyway)... but you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, that's why I have concerns with Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon CPU chip; the Chinese government might have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that could make tracking of Internet surfers even easier than many people think. (wagging fingers)
Re:You are correct! (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can say is that if I were a Chinese dissident I would spend a lot of time compiling my software from source code (and from non-Chinese repositories as well).
The fact that Red Flag Linux is based off of Free Software does not mean that the version of Linux pre-installed on the computer has been hacked with a back door. In fact, who exactly is going to enforce the GPL against the Chinese government? Do you honestly think that RMS is going to waltz up to the head of the Chinese state and say, "we bel
you say "guns don't kill, people do" ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody can demiss the right to anybody to use free software, but Microsoft can control it sales. I guess it's two very different thinks to let a country develop a repressive politic or to sell them software that help them to do it - and make profit with it.
Re:you say "guns don't kill, people do" ? (Score:2)
Actually I was just annoyed that the headline implies something quite different from the article.
Off topic for computer folks (Score:3, Funny)
It's fine regular folks get their AND?OR logic confused. Computer people never should. It ain't an OR. Guns AND people kill people.
Have a Nice Day!!!
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2)
What about the computers running the software? I'm sure that the chinese government is not using generic parts in them. So in that regard every company that supplied parts for the computers running said mi
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2)
What is this 'Gate' of which you speak?
And also, how does this justify the headling 'Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China'?
Re:It is slanderous (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, but Amnesty International isn't saying that... it's just the slashdot headline.
Amensty International are saying Microsoft 'should take more responsibility', not 'are violating human rights'... there's quite a big difference.
Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Hmm, can't say I have... but maybe Microsoft is partially responsible, I don't know.
A lot of companies seem to say "we're a business, we have to be profitable, ethics don't apply to us"... the world would be a better place if people realised that money isn't a valid reason to ignore morality.
No problem (Score:2)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
But the *whole point* of OSS/Free Software is that they won't need to. They can just hire a bunch of programmers, who can take as much Free code as they need, make whatever modifications or additions as they need, and create the tools themselves.
There are a great number of applications, frameworks, toolkits and libraries available under open source-type licences. The goverments don't have to "approach the open source community", the open source community is supplying all the building blocks right now.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that it should be the user of the tool, and the use to which it is put, that is judged, not the maker of the tool (with obvious exceptions for extreme cases). I'm just pointing out that open source software can be used for this sort of thing just as easily, in part because of its principles of openness and freedom. Kind of ironic, really.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Funny)
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to show you two exhibits, and two only.
Exhibit One: Microsoft Bob
Exhibit Two: Clippy.
Now, I think you can decide for yourself if MS makes custom software for the sole purpose of abusing people.
You Honor, the prosecution rests.
fp! (Score:5, Insightful)
How MS is responsible for that, I can't figure out...
Prosecute the criminals, not those who make a product and have that product abused by criminals..
Re:fp! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not the current USA policy in this matter.
Its been a growing trend (Score:5, Insightful)
Its easier turn a blind eye to personal accountability when there's a highly visible (evil) corporation to blame.
(No, I don't intend this as flame-bait, and I don't know Bill Gates personally.)
Guns/knives/WinNt/burgers don't kill people, people kill people.
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
No Details (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's just the Slashbots over-reacting as usual (Score:2)
It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:2)
Seriously though, this does seem a bit unfair on Microsoft this time.
Re:It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:2)
Done.
Re:It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:2)
If their software can't censor internet access, then the majority of public schools and libraries can't use it.
INteresting, I think, that Microsoft can make software that censors the internet and sell it to the US and to China. What does that really say?
Re:It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:2, Insightful)
What's your point? That very same argument can be applied to any sort of trade, and nobody is arguing that gun manufacturers are being dis
The problem with Amnesty Inernational (Score:2, Insightful)
They are against Nixonian engagement (trade with China), against embargos/sanctions (Cuba), and against military intervention to overthrow murderous dictators (Iraq).
Too bad Amnesty just likes to whine and doesn't have any solutions.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont blame microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft Dissident Tracker (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the Guardian (Score:5, Informative)
The Observer has a record of stupid and ill-informed articles such as this. In one famous case it published the photo of the boss of Demon Internet, calling him a 'child pornographer', since child porn could be found in nntp feeds that Demon carried. Demon, like Microsoft, countered that it couldn't be held responsible for the actions of it's users.
HH
--
Re:Not the Guardian (Score:2)
And slashdot has a record of reprinting them. Glorified link farm of inflammatory hype. Does slashdot even have staff writers, let alone reporters?
Can I mod the article as flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS may have a lot of problems, but I don't know how they are supposed to know a priori that certain software they sell is going to be used for human rights violations. And frankly, I think the software would be pirated even if they refused to sell it.
Inflamatory Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Also this headline violates the "too many pointless capitals in a sentance" rule, me thinks.
Microsoft Shouldn't Be Held Liable (Score:5, Insightful)
"...United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure..."
The UNHR code says businesses SHOULD seek to ensure their products will not abuse human rights. It doesn't say is they HAVE TO.
I also have to agree with Microsoft when they say that they shouldn't be held liable for the way people use their software. It is like suing a golf club manufacturer because china uses their specifi c model to beat dissidents.
---------------
Re:Microsoft Shouldn't Be Held Liable (Score:2)
They known that in western society a company which violates some U.N. stipulation will be harrased and condemed, while they, in there semi-fascist/dictatorship can continue running the country, and their corrupt companies however they see fit without any U.N. resolution effecting them in the least.
The U.N. continues to pass BS resolutions related to human rights when
Re:UN vs. Human Rights (Score:3, Informative)
And what is wrong with that exactly?
If the rights could not be exercised contrary to UN policies, there would be something sinister about article 29, however it clearly states purposes and principles, not policies.
The principles of the UN are clearly laid out in the UN charter [un.org].
Don't read the article (Score:5, Informative)
Here's [amnesty.org] an article at the Amnesty International website (dated 28 Jan 04) if you want more. This is the only mention of MS on that link:
***************
Amnesty International remains concerned that in their pursuit of new and lucrative markets, foreign corporations may be indirectly contributing to human rights violations or at the very least failing to give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments. In its first report on State Control of the Internet in China, Amnesty International cited several foreign companies (Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems), which had reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China.(29) [...]
(29) Amnesty International: People's Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA 17/007/2002, November 2002.
***********
Well now I'm really confused. That report is over a year old, and there doesn't seem to be anything newer than the link I gave on this topic. It sounds like the Guardian picked up the story because it mentioned Microsoft (but not Intel - hmmm, what is the software running on?), even though the source for the MS reference is old.
Much as I dislike MS, (Score:2)
It's a pity that AA (who despite the badmouthing above) are a well-meaning organisation, have tried for the sensationalist argument here. A real pity - it'll reduce the effectiveness of their statements in the future.
The other point is that it's in the (spit!) Observer, not the Guardian. The observer is the best advert for not cutting down trees that I ever did see, an
Open Source Equally Culpable (Score:2, Interesting)
As a coder, one of the things that makes me feel a little squeamish about the GPL is giving up the right to tell people they can't use my software for certain purposes. I'd rather my code not be used by the military to blow people up or by the KKK to serve racist webpages.
Umm free speech.... (Score:2)
Same story with the military, for our military at least.. they protect us, not violate.
Oh, and if you dont like it, dont publish under a 'free use' license... pretty simple.
Re:Open Source Equally Culpable (Score:2)
KKK to server racist pages = yes ok.
I'm no racist, in fact I'm jewish, but free speech is paramount.
I don't like the trend of tool blaming that's been going on for years. Colt is not responsible when someone commits murder with one of their guns. Ford is not responsible when someone drives a F-150 drunk and kills somebody. Just because a tool you may or may not have made was used for bad things, doesn't mean its your fault in some way. I could get a hammer at home dep
This just in! (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, did the conversation go like this or something?
China: Hello? We need OS package for five hundred government computer!
Microsoft: Alright, would you like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional?
China: Whichever one better for trapping dissidents!
Yes, and IBM... (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither seems to have had any impression on the company over the long haul, unforutnately.
Re:Yes, and IBM... (Score:5, Funny)
And they managed to do this even before the most primitive vacuum-tube computers were built! The wonders of temporal distortions. I hear Hewlett-Packard supplied the mainframes to track runaway slaves in the 1850s.
Re:Yes, and IBM... (Score:3, Informative)
Here:
cbs news [cbsnews.com]
or better yet, here:
google/ibm [google.com]
and for Ford:
ford/anti-semite [google.com]
I wonder how specific . . . Open Source (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder how specific the "Microsoft Human Rights Abuser 2003" software and the Cisco stuff mentioned really is. It doesn't really take esoteric tools to keyword search sites, monitor net usage, and filter them out with proxies and firewalls.
After all, companies have been doing this for years on their internal networks, is this just a scaled up version?
From the article:
Software doesn't kill people... (Score:5, Funny)
Mindless M$ bashing? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGASA170052004 [amnesty.org]
"In its report, the organization also refers to several companies, including Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems, which have reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China. Amnesty International fears that by selling such technology the companies did not give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments."
Things to note:
1. There are many other companies mentioned here too.
2. If they did not buy the technology from these companies they would have gotten it from OpenSource for free.
3. Its not about profits. Its about using technology for "evil", which OpenSource stuff can do.
Chinese Gov (Score:2)
Chinese-made alternative isn't any better... (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone here know about Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon RISC CPU? Given that both are sanctioned by the Chinese government, you have to really openly wonder does the Chinese government have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that will allow them to quickly track Internet usage with Red Flag Linux and the Dragon CPU-based hardware.
China must decide for itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
What should the USA do? Ban the sale of any product which could be used to violate human rights? Or change the software so it opperates differently? I think this is a problem for the Chinese people, not USA companys.
If we were selling guns, then the solution would be to stop selling them. But software is not the same. The end user has to decide how to use the software. There are choices.
I also think soverign countries have a right to decide their own values. For change to occur, those who want change must vocalize it in the open, not wisper it in the dark. Then the rest of the country has a right to decide if they want change. Who are we to decide that for them, and treat them like a child? If the people of China want change bad enough, they will fight for it.
Or maybe we can just get Miscrosoft to tweak the EULA. ;)
no good.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The title made me skip a heartbeat and prepared me to grab a gun and start screaming, but all it actualy said was that Micro$oft $oftware was used to abuse rights in China.
Duh, someone wanted an article about nothing and he got it!
If Microsoft abuses human rights because its product abuse human rights, then what does H&K and other weapon producers do? What about Nike which pays 14 cents an hour for shoe manufacturing in Malaysia, without giving a shyte about enviromental damage.
Dont misunderstand me, im generally as anti-Micro$oft as it gets, but this is absurd.
IBM and the Holocaust (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem with all these large companies is their choice to hide behind the almighty buck. Capitalism reigns supreme. `Hey, what is it any of my business if you use my product to harm or kill people? Just as long as you pay up.'
I'm not implying that companies are responsible for finding out every last detail of how their product will be used when they sell it to a customer. However, I do think that turning a blind-eye to how their product will be used when it's fairly obvious that it will be employed in unethical ends is wrong.
Article is a large hairy TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Chinese violate human rights using MS software, well, it's not MS's fault. The Chinese are said to be heavy proponents of Linux and are developing their own distro. What happens in China is not Linus' fault either! Slashdot folk wisdom is right on this one: blame the person, not the tool. I can barely imagine the next article... "China uses gloves to slap dissidents; glove manufacturers blamed"
I know human rights abuse is a very serious issue and people die over such things. I think it's irresponsible to trivialize it by blaming a software manufacturer, even if it's MS.
OK, rant done. Go ahead, mod me down
Software is a tool.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that the Chinese government chooses to use Microsoft's product to track down and punish people who don't think like they do. But, never thought I'd say this, it is NOT Microsoft's fault that the Chinese government has chosen to use their products in this fashion. Just remember that they could have chosen to use OSS instead.
In other news... (Score:2)
Man, I like to blame by burnt breakfast on MS, but I think they
In other news (Score:3, Funny)
Is Free Software Innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
Re:Is Free Software Innocent? (Score:3, Interesting)
US CALEA law forces equipment vendors to do this (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that CALEA is about making the technology capable of snooping rather than authorizing that snooping to be done. In the US, it takes further bad legislation like the Patriot act to authorize the snooping. CALEA just makes it (too) easy.
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Guess I'd better sharpen my skates, hell is freezing over.
Hmm... (Score:3, Funny)
So they've started doing it over there now, have they?
Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdotters (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is the only way our criticisms of Microsoft's stagnant software ever gets taken seriously... I think they do listen to us sortof...
The road to DRM, or "Give me an f'ing break!" (Score:3, Interesting)
But this is just nuts. Let me think this through...
Now we WANT MS to track people, to investigate them and to make sure they aren't doing anything wrong with their products? And who should determine what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing? MS?
And if they add DRM to all their products, is it OK that you can't activate a product unless you certify that you won't kill anyone, spy on them or otherwise abuse their civil liberties?
Man, talk about a no-win scenario for a big corporation. We hate'em if they intrude on us too much, we hate them if they don't intrude ENOUGH apparantly.
Sorry, MS didn't do a damned thing wrong here, and saying otherwise in this one instance is just plain nuts.
What about Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations... (Score:4, Interesting)
"International Law" is a fiction. (Score:4, Interesting)
Laws get passed by legislatures & monarchs. We don't have an international legislature or an international monarch, now do we? So, we can't really have international laws.
Maybe someday we'll have a world government but not now.
What we have in the real world are Treaties. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries. In reality the treaties are almost NEVER symmetrical. As an example, the US/UK pass a tax treaty. Well at the negotiating table, the treaty said W, X & Y. Put when parliament passed it they didn't like W. So, the UK law passed by parliament says V, X & Y. Same type of silliness in the US Congress. They don't like what the negotiators did and pass the US law with W, X, & Z. So, now we have "treaty" but they don't match.
The most important thing to notice here, is that no international law was passed, only 2 national laws. One for the UK. One for the US. I can't go into a US court and sue over the fact that the UK law lets me have rights to V, X & Y, because this is the US and our law says you have rights to W, X, & Z. Vice versa for the UK. I can't go into NZ and sue on either the treaty, the US law, or the UK law. Why? Because the treaty was never a law, it was merely and agreement "in principle" made by bureaucrats. The US law is a US law and therefore unenforceable in NZ. Same with the UK law.
So, you see, the "international law" really isn't very international at all. It is merely a group of inconsistent laws cobbled together from a bunch of countries.
It gets worse, since this "international law" is merely a group of national laws that have no effect outside the jurisdictions of those nation states, any country that doesn't pass a similar law isn't bound by that "international law." And nothing stops a nation from changing its laws. So, if the UK doesn't find the tax treaty to its advantage, it can easily pass a new law revoking the old V, X & Y law. Laws based on treaties aren't any more important than laws NOT based on treaties. If the US doesn't like that the UK revoked the law it really only has two options: change the US law, or suck eggs.
There is no International body that forces a nation to have a particular law. We have a few administrative courts that can "suggest" the types on retaliatory laws passed by the offended country, but no real involuntary enforcement mechanism on an international scale. This is really why armed conflict (one nation imposing its will on another) is still a part of international relations.
So, if the US (or any other country) is "violating an international law," the quickest and LEGAL solution to the "problem" is to just repeal the US law enacting the treaty.
"International Law" is a nice short hand phrase, but so is "treaty." And treaty is closer to what actually happens in the real world. At least a document called a "treaty" was put tighter at some point. No one with any power ever actually wrote something entitled "international law." When someone talks to me of "international laws," I know they either (a) don't know what they are talking about, or (b) have an agenda and are selecting the phrase as part of a rhetorical device and not based on facts.
Nitpicking the nitpickers (Score:2)
Re:Unfounded Allegations -- Open Questions (Score:3, Insightful)