[LINK] Up Against the Firewall [China]
Wed Nov 13 00:07:48 EST 2002
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:14, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> Technology companies should avoid the Chinese Internet pledge and the
> national ID contract, and should take credit for their restraint.
> Corporations like Microsoft, which fought China on encryption and won,
> should guard their U.S. flank by spearheading a collective statement
> expressing concern over China's Internet censorship and surveillance.
> There's safety in numbers--no single corporation should bear the brunt of
> the Chinese leadership's anger.
Two things I find really amusing about this story:
1) It's entirely possible that Nortel, Cisco, et al have not produced
special tech for China - the US and related countries have been
demanding censorship tech for a while now, I'm amused they didn't seem
to realise that the tech in question can be just as easily rolled out
for China as for America, and wielded in similar but heavier manner to
this effect. This has been known for a very long time, and is one of
the myriad of reasons people have opposed censorship tech.
2) Meanwhile, America refused to sign the last treaty re: landmines,
because (one presumes) a significant portion of US corporate money comes
in from the arms races in various places - including manufacture and
supply of land mines and similar. I find it amusing that censoring the
'net, when done by China, rates as a higher concern than the landmines
that are still being planted in various places around the world.
> "Voluntary," "corporate responsibility," "trust"--these are our words, not
> theirs. The Chinese leadership just pirated them. There's still time to
> drop the denials, adopt a unified strategy, and do business as if our words
> had meaning.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
More information about the Link