Siemens, Nokia Helped Provide Iran's Censoring Tech 280
An anonymous reader writes "The Wall Street Journal has an article about Nokia and Siemens selling the censoring technology to Iran's government. Do you believe that the public relations damage to these companies can persuade them from selling this kind of technology to other dictatorial regimes?" I don't believe there will *be* any PR Damage, and that makes me a little sad.
Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unless... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the world will wake up and think of them as "evil" unless they're told to think of them that way.
This is a good time for another couple companies to step in and blast away.
it's the kind of world we live in ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'll start to boycott them like I do with... (Score:4, Insightful)
... Cisco... ... after finding out they collude with the Chinese government for censorship and spying.
Look how much that's slowing them down!
Re:Not unless... (Score:3, Insightful)
All countries, as far as I'm aware, mandate some sort of monitoring and/or censorship from the communications companies which operate within them, whether it's US delivery companies, UK ISPs etc. Why single out Iran? Are you saying Nokia shouldn't operate in Iran; they should break the law there; what?
Re:it's the kind of world we live in ! (Score:5, Insightful)
agree. That, and if we were to have some sort of a committee to decide who could sell what to whom overseas, (beyond existing limits to say, military technology) we'd never be able to get anything sold overseas.
Is it really up to the public to decide who I can do business with overseas? I think not.
Surprise surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Needless to say, Motorola manufactured chips used in land mines. IBM manufactured some nasty stuff for WWII. There will be no PR fallout from this. Nobody wants to know.
More propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
"It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection."
So in other words a European venture sold a bunch of equipment to Iran for network usage and (also FTFA)
If you sell networks, you also, intrinsically, sell the capability to intercept any communication that runs over them."
It sounds like a beat up to me. What would the story be if a US company had sold the equipment to Iran? (yeah I know .. trade embargo etc) This story smells of sour grapes.
And weapons... (Score:1, Insightful)
Nokia aren't doing anything wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
All they're doing is selling the Iranian government some mobile telecommunications infrastructure. What the government decide to do with said infrastructure is entirely their responsibility.
Sophistry, I hear you say? Only about to the same degree as that moron who was arguing with me here, that the author of the World of Warcraft Glider bot should not be sued by Blizzard; because he wasn't doing anything against the rules himself. All he was doing was creating a macro generation program; what other people did with it was entirely their own responsibility.
It almost never happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology isn't the Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet if you poll the Iranian population, you will find that the majority of them would support censorship. The same thing would happen in China. Censorship has been with us for as long as there as been communications. I'm not saying it's alright or that censorship is a good thing. Freedom of speech is actually a pretty radical ideal and one that isn't universal outside of the western societies. Even in the US that right is constantly under threat from different sources. At the end of the day it is our believe in the value of freedom of speech that keeps it alive. Look at how often this issue comes up on Slashdot and how people are all up in arms about it. The EFF is constantly busy fighting for it. Didn't some very wise man once said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."? If Iran or China is to have freedom of speech, their people must be convinced of its value and necessity. Until that happens, denying them the technology would lead to them either developing their own or just not connecting to the Internet. I am not sure the latter is actually better.
Re:More propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
You are using those phrases out of context (although the second one is BS). The equipment they sold them is for deep packet inspection - is there any *good* use for that equipment?
Re:it's the kind of world we live in ! (Score:5, Insightful)
agree. That, and if we were to have some sort of a committee to decide who could sell what to whom overseas, (beyond existing limits to say, military technology) we'd never be able to get anything sold overseas.
Is it really up to the public to decide who I can do business with overseas? I think not.
You damn well bet it's up to the public, if they so decide it is. Who exactly do you think grants corporate charters? Santa Claus?
We, as the public, have a shameful record of actually expecting, much less enforcing, that corporations be expected to behave in an ethical and appropriate manner. However, we do have every right to demand it if we'd get off our asses and do it. We give them the charter, we grant the limited liability, and usually, we pay a substantial portion of that nine-digit bonus the CEO got last year too. Sometimes, many members of the public are even part owners of the company via stock purchase. So yes, the public has say over corporate behavior, in a much more general sense than just overseas conduct.
Now only if we would start to use that on a regular basis. I can dream, can't I?
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them (Score:4, Insightful)
When we start long bloody wars or we burn heretics, then come and talk.
Until then you are just spouting mindless hyperbole.
Ultimately, your hyperbole is it's own most convincing disproof of itself.
Re:Surprise surprise, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.
Re:Party Talk (Score:1, Insightful)
" People are selling tools. The problem is how those tools are used. There are evil shit-heads all over the world. That does not mean the tools themselves are evil.
This is precisely why censorship of ANY form is bad.
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq was technically a democracy as well. It's just that Saddam happened to get 100% of the vote every time.
"Democracy" isn't the first word to come to my head when describing Iran... the recent events have done nothing to suggest otherwise.
Just like any other company... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not as if they probably only got the contract because American companies such as Cisco are forbidden from selling such equipment to Iran.
My point is that I do not believe there is a company in the world that would pass up this kind of contract. Do I disagree with it's use? Of course I do.
But I fail to see why Nokia and Siemens should be demonised anymore than any other company in the world - at the end of the day the only difference here between Nokia/Siemens and any other networking company is that those guys got the contract - it didn't mean others didn't bid and it doesn't mean others like Cisco wouldn't also bid if they had the opportunity to.
Rather than focus on chastising company x for the fact company x sold something to country y which was used in a bad way we should be chastising big corporations in general for this sort of behaviour. It's a problem that extends far far beyond just Nokia and Siemens and we can't expect Nokia and Siemens to change their ways if no one else will else it puts them at a major disadvantage and is like committing corporate suicide.
Re:Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it's the kind of world we live in ! (Score:3, Insightful)
As all but the last have an interest in selling disinformation to the masses, or just irrelevant "news" I believe you're SOOL.
Maybe if you can get Amy Winehouse to do something unhygenic with one of their products, you'll get the ball rolling.
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
"Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy."
By that definition, so was the USSR and China. I mean, they say they are a democracy, and votes are held, are they not?
Of course, the fact that there is another set of people who get to pick and choose the candidates, have their own army and police forces, and are NOT elected is wholly irrelevant, isn't it?
Re:Like the Nazis (Score:1, Insightful)
companies should be able to sell nuclear weapons or parts for one to anyone they like.
The argument relies on the fact that the tools sold by the corporations have many uses, where only one or some are evil by our standards. I think it would be hard to argue that nuclear weapons have any uses other than killing. (Note that I am not talking about nuclear technology, but nuclear weapons.) But maybe you could use nuclear weapons to blast hills and mountains to build roads...
Yahoo (Score:1, Insightful)
Just ask Yahoo [bbc.co.uk] how they feel about "PR damage" from shipping reporters [wikipedia.org] off [wikipedia.org] to [wikipedia.org] prison [wikipedia.org] in China.
(a strongly worded letter from congress just doesn't hurt that much)
so what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny how we react differently to other technology. We say that P2P is not only for copyright infringement, but also for other uses. We say that hacker tools are also used by security researchers and consultants. Whenever the politicians or the mainstream press try to demonize a technology, we are the first to show that it's not that simple.
But with technology that hits one of our sweet spots - censorship - we turn around 180 degrees? And wish the companies PR backlash? Why? Are we doing anyone a favour? Should not the anger about censorship be focussed on those who engage and support censorship, and not the technology?
Re:Party Talk (Score:4, Insightful)
No.. Technologies are not value neutral. You can brush your teeth with a pistol, and you can kill someone with a toothbrush, but each is clearly better suited to the other task.
Censorship technology presupposes that there's an authority that knows better than you what you should be allowed to see. This is the source of the problem, and designing technology to support it _is_ a problem.
Re:Like the Nazis (Score:1, Insightful)
"In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool."
That's untenable and I'm sure you know it.
My question would be - is the company selling them products which are normally useful (but can be used for evil purposes) or are they selling products designed to be used for censorship?
If it's just that Nokia and Siemens designed the telecommunications network, and the normal management tools _can_ be used to censor, track, or shut down parts of it...I'd be inclined to blame the end user.
If Nokia and Siemens said, "hey, our new CensorWare 3.0 would go great with that PBX you just bought" ... I'm more than happy to blame the maker. Designing a tool that can not be used for any ethical purpose doesn't clear you of responsibility.
If this is about "deep packet inspection"...well, I'm not so sure I'd consider DIS to be an innocent technique. Is there generally any real reason why DIS is important for regular network operations and maintenance?
Re:More propaganda (Score:4, Insightful)
DPI is very useful for security scanning and network monitoring. Would you make security tools illegal? Like nmap in Germany?
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite.
"Free market" forces don't deal with Tyrants, and they shouldn't. That is the responsibility of the oppressed. Lasting change won't come about externaly, it must happen internally. Note Afghanistan and Iraq, which we attacked for our own interests. If those had both been civil wars, triggered internally, the countries would probably be well on their way to their own freedom instead of being "iffy" like they are now.
Oppressed countries don't have free markets, they have tyrants stealing the majority of what they produce to further oppress the people. If a tyrant allowed the markets in his country to be open and free, guess what would happen. That's right, they'd have vastly greater liberty! You probably wouldn't be able to call the leader a "tyrant" or a "despot" either. It would be more like "benevolent ruler", because freedom to trade requires a few things, like freedom of speech (in a practical sense, not a bill of rights sense), freedom to travel, etc. These breed other freedoms that these rely on, and pretty soon the government, regardless of what kind of government it is, becomes a smaller and smaller part of life.
Free markets on a global scale don't take into account the internal market of a country, other than in the sense that there are avenues of trade that simply will not exist into or out of an oppressed country. That doesn't mean there will be NO avenues of trade, just fewer and they will be controlled by the government.
To flip the whole thing around, you can't have complete liberty if you don't have the freedom to trade. If you aren't free to trade to whoever you want, whenever you want, then you aren't completely free.
That said, complete freedom produces incivility and is counter productive. If it were possible to give everyone in the world 100% liberty, you'd have a perfect world for all of about 10 seconds, probably less. It would immediately degenerate into anarchy, which only provides freedom for those who can take it by force. In a sense, even they aren't free.
Ideally the governments role should be to maximise the individual liberties of its citizens. This requires restrictions on interactions between people, but only for the purposes preventing the imposition of another's will on the individual.
In fact, the result of any "free market" will always be a corporatocracy or at least a close working relationship between widespread tyrannical governments and the most powerful corporations.
It's not a free market if the government prevents individuals from competing. Assuming the "tyrannical government" is not preventing individuals from getting together and competing with the large corporation, in a free market system the corporation topples when becomes less efficient than what a smaller group of individuals can produce. This can take some time, but it always happens.
Look at the banking and insurance industry, that big crash? That was the market self adjusting, attempting to eliminate the "most powerful corporations" when they pushed the market too far. And what did socialism do? It went in and rescued them, taking billions of dollars from the citizens to shore up the corporations. The market can't eliminate a corporation if the government props them up!
Further (and this is a slightly different issue) Capitalism will always result in some form of slavery.
If you want to see slavery (which occurs based on the morals head of society, and has nothing to do with the market) on a mass scale, go take a look at the USSR and their Communism. You were told where to work, when to work, what you got, and any attempt to change this made you a criminal. You'd sure as hell better stay in line, or the KGB will come take you away. China was the same way when they attempted to go pure Communist, but had to re-introduce captitalism or face collapse. If Communism, the only alternative socio-economic ideology, is so great, why does the Chinese government have to block access to information about the outside world?
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:3, Insightful)
If the market, when left to itself, didn't tend to form monopolies, there'd be no need for an organisation to prevent that happening.
You seem to be confusing failure to prevent with collusion.
In a truly free market, there'd be no FCC to block competition. Something that doesn't exist can't collude with anyone.