Is Amnesty right? Making the technology is fine, but if we know that it could be used for ill, aren't we bound to not sell to some countries and companies?

in my opinion amnesty and the submitter are completely correct.

however, this argument is no different to the arms trade. every so often in the uk there is a discussion on the UK selling arms to israel or some other country, who then turn around and use them to supress dissidents.

the response to that is just the same as the microsoft response in the article:

"[microsoft is] focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world. However, Microsoft cannot control the way it may ultimately be used."

i don't see any difference here between arms and software. although if anything the arms trade is the more serious offender - taking away someone's freedom of speech is, if you ask me, not nearly as bad as taking away their right to be alive. if the arms industry can (apparently) get away with it, why on earth should the software industry not?

that said, i agree with the amnesty argument. people (and organisations) should be concerned and aware of what their products and technology will be used for. they should NOT be allowed to sell either arms or software to places where they know they will be used imorally or unethically.