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.
Correct, according to this article from the BBC [bbc.co.uk]: "Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
Isn't it to be expected that the world's largest provider of cellular phones is better at providing connectivity devices than censorship devices?? At some point, some executives decided that a communications device with degraded service is better than no communications device at all. When you consider the utility of a cellular device, then subtract the censorship laws, you still are better off than when you started. We should be praising Nokia in particular for working around the laws of Iran and providi
"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 maj
There won't be any PR damage, unless people make a huge stink out of it. 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.
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?
Why single out Iran? Are you saying Nokia shouldn't operate in Iran; they should break the law there; what?
I'm guessing a lot of people reading this have the former in mind: information technology companies in the industrialized world shouldn't operate in countries that place restrictions on political speech to the extent seen in the countries on which the United States already has sanctions. In the 1980s, near the end of South Africa's counterpart to the U.S. "Jim Crow" era [wikipedia.org], there was an effort to boycott companies that did business in South Africa: disinvestment [wikipedia.org] was a result.
South Africa is a good example of the western world wielding sanctions (economic and otherwise) for good effect but I think it's worth considering the differences between Iran and South Africa.
The South African ruling classes valued their place in the western world and it hurt them to lose that relationship. I'm not sure the same can be said of Iran, I think a large proportion of them would be quite happy to have the west as an enemy they can blame for their woes, there is no good relationship to be lost, only the ability to make everyday Iranians poorer.
As far as Nokia and Siemens goes I think it's also worth thinking about how their technology is also empowering everyday Iranians. No doubt some of the footage and messages being passed around in recent days comes from Nokia/Siemens equipment. I'd bet their overall effect is a net benefit in terms of freedom so asking them to avoid selling anything to the country would be a mistake.
Information technology will empower the Iranian people no matter how many barriers the Iranian government may hope to put up more and more stuff will leak through. I agree that we should pressure companies to stay clear of ethically dubious things the government there does but avoiding the country entirely would be a mistake.
These are capitalist corporations. Their goal is to make money. People are willing to buy censorship technology (just look at any government office). Why do you act shocked that this is happening?
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.
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?
Yeah, it's a dream. In order to get the populace informed regarding what they are entitled to do, what their rights are, and what they should expect in return, you'll need to get hold of their attention, and that means a slot in the adverts of Britain's Got Talent, front page of The Sun, or get Jeremy Vine to argue counter-points with you.
As all but the last have an interest in selling disinformation to the masses, or just irrelevant "news" I believe you're SOOL.
Yeah, those pesky bastards in Germany doing business with unfriendly nations, while the glorious Ronald 'Iran-Contra [wikipedia.org]' Reagan did not at all organise weapons shipments to Iran. Not all all. No sir...
"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.
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?
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.
There's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market, and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it's going to be used to suppress the populace. This is known as "unethical behavior," something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about. It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they don't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.
Sadly, we've come to accept most modern corporations as pretty much ammoral when it comes to stuff like this, and they're rarely ever held accountable in any meaningful way. The bulk of the population will no more hold this against Nokia/Seimens than they will hold Volkswagon responsible for its early Nazi roots (does it invoke Godwin's Law to mention that?), Yahoo/Google responsible for selling out dissidents in China, etc., etc.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22, @08:14AM (#28420589)
Anyone who professes to that an imaginary being is responsible for everything is insane and doesn't deserve any benefit of science. Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, Galileo Galilei, and the other great minds have saved more souls and advanced humanity further than any Mullah, Pastor, or Priest of any faith. The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't deserve cell phones or any other bit of technology. Yeah, it's a rant, but I'm just tired of religious nut jobs of any type forcing their superstitions on anyone else.
It just occured to me that I Godwin'd this story already, but this is just like when IBM sold adding machines to the Nazis to help them tabulate Holocaust victims.
Way I see it, who cares? The corner store selling smokes isn't to blame for the lung cancer - ultimately the smoker is. Except it's even more generic than that.
- Siemens sold network technology to Iran - the same you'd use for all sorts of network admin - and they used it to censor. That's Iran's bad. - IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others). That's the Nazi's bad.
In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool.
I was going to advocate the same position in my own reply until I realized that taken to the extreme, this position has some problems. If we say that the tool makers are always guilt free, then companies should be able to sell nuclear weapons or parts for one to anyone they like. Fine. Then what happens when those weapons are used? We can argue that the companies are blameless still and ultimately the guilty part is the country that chose to use the weapons. At that point, who cares about moralistic arguments? If millions of people died because a company sold the tools necessary to do that, the company is going to ripped to pieces. Furthermore, is it right for a company to sell the tools to someone if it knew the tools would be used for something bad? I don't think it is. I guess my point is that whether a company is guilty or not depends a lot on whether it knew or could have know that its actions will lead to bad consequences. It's not fair to blame someone for something that couldn't have been foreseen. However, purposely enabling an evil deed is another story.
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.
The question has to be asked: why does this matter? Iran would still do its own thing.
In this case, they had the product, so why not buy it? That's not such a hard thing to understand. This is like saying "omg Raytheon makes missiles!" which is no surprise to anyone. What about their clients? What about their unofficial clients? Even those aren't a surprise.
Sure, we may not agree with Iran's internet policy, and yes, the vendor may take a portion of the blame in an incident, but I hardly see Iran's isolationism as the fault of any one company.
Seeing as how most of the footage we get out of Iran is from mobile phones and such, is it any surprise that they'd ask a mobile phone maker for help? Business is business, and in this case, it's easy to pin the responsibility on the buying party.
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.
...or is this just the media cynically cheering-on a 'peoples revolution' so that they can fill out their news cycles. So far I haven't heard of any widespread election tamporing, some anecdotal stories, unlike in some other elections. I could have missed it though.
Honestly so far I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction in the west sympathising with the disgruntled minority voters because clearly 'Iranians would never vote for that evil, west-hating dictator, so it must have been rigged'.
One thing I DID hear through some media analyses is that up until a few months ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the favourite to get elected, then he made some fumbles, made some comments, and his standing in THE ELECTION POLLS significantly reduced, and the opposition got giddy. Well that can either be a realistic reflection of the voters intentions, or it could just be a backlash that gets put to the side when it comes to making the final and long-term decision in the voting box.
So, is there any evidence of election rigging yet?
PS, I'm not apologising for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just that suggesting that, maybe, he is popularly supported. I know that when I watched a recent doco about Iran I was surprised that their society was much more modern and free than I felt that I had been led to believe. PPS I'm not saying it wasn't rigged either, just that in the large amount of media I have seen on it, it is all about rallys and protest, not of massive vote rigging, feel free to point out something concrete on the contrary.
"In 50 Iranian cities [timesonline.co.uk] the number of votes cast in this month presidential election exceeded the number of eligible voters, the state's election watchdog admitted today. "
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?
Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy. Most of the other countries in gulf region(Like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) are under family dictatorships and worse tyrannies. And US/EU governments and corporations sell everything including weapons to them. I think this is far worse than selling technology to Iran.
Precisely - this is just a case of 'who do we like today' verses 'who do we dislike today'. The western world was all for selling Iran complex military machines (F-14s with AIM-54 Phoenix missiles among other things) when the country was under the Shah dictatorship, to the extent that there was a huge panic when the Shah was deposed. Infact there still is a huge panic about those weapons, take a look at the extent the US went to to ensure the Iranian air force did not benefit from blackmarket spares stolen from museums when the US Navy retired their F-14s from active service.
Same time Queen Elizabeth II is. At least the office of head of state in Iran is up for election, however rigged and preposterous that could be. Also, the "Assembly of Experts", which has elected him, can dismiss him.
> Iraq was technically a democracy as well. It's just that Saddam happened to get 100% of the vote every time.
Iran democracy is way better than Iraq(old) one. For e.g even now the candidates who are dead against president Nejad were allowed to contest. And as I said in previous post, other countries like Saudi have NO election at all ! They have even worse filtering of internet. I am typing this from Saudi where even some of google pages are blocked(like language tools). What is the point in selling everything to these countries and bitching against selling something to Iran ?
> "Democracy" isn't the first word to come to my head when describing Iran... the recent events have done nothing to suggest otherwise.
Thats because western media are showing a very biased story of the Iran issues. Were the western reporters and observers able to see any solid evidence of rigging the election ? I doubt. The reason Nejad won the election with such a huge margin is because of his popularity among rural mass. The so called "reformist's" influence is confined to Tehran and surrounding areas only.
Thats because western media are showing a very biased story of the Iran issues. Were the western reporters and observers able to see any solid evidence of rigging the election ? I doubt. The reason Nejad won the election with such a huge margin is because of his popularity among rural mass. The so called "reformist's" influence is confined to Tehran and surrounding areas only.
Catch up to today's events. The Guardian Council has had to admit that in 50 cities there were more votes cast than people eligible to vote. Other sources say the figure may be as high as 120 cities and 110% of the total electorate.
All to elect a puppet. Yes, a puppet. The power remains with the clerics, they decide who are acceptable candidates after making it quite clear what boundaries are acceptable for those seeking the position.
Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy
Who are you kidding? One un-elected guy has godly powers. He can do anything he likes.
Every "election" that happens, candidates are screened for loyalty to that unelected guy and Islam, if found not loyal enough, they are barred.
And democracy is not just about elections. What is democracy without freedom of speech? freedom to peacefully protest? etc.
I'm baffled by your idea of what constitutes a democracy. "It sucks less than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so it's a democracy!"
Iran used to be a quasi-democracy, after the recent "election" (read coup) Khamenei gave a big fuck you to people and said we're not even going to bother counting votes anymore.
Then how come candidates like Mousavi came to election and won the second place ?
Mousavi was supposed to be the dummy candidate. He also accepts the concept of Supreme Leader, at the very least verbally. Should he have said otherwise he would have been barred too. Seems like you don't know anything about "election" process in Iran.
There were initially hundreds of candidates, they were all barred. That is not a free election.
Show me solid evidence like international observers findings for the "coup" in election . Then I would believe you. Because frankly speaking, I have not seen anything other than reports about "protests"
International observers were barred from monitoring election, even candidates own monitors which by law should be present at every stage of voting and counting vo
Iran is clearly no more a democracy than the Soviet Union. It requires more than holding an election to be considered a democracy, the outcome of the election has to actually reflect the way people voted. No one in any election anywhere wins every district across an ethnically (and otherwise) diverse population by the same margin, and yet that is what the Iranian government (which is actually the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) is claiming happened in this last Presidential election.
To call it one or the other would be incorrect. It has parts that are Theocratic (Supreme Leader and group of clerics overseeing everything) and Democratic (elected President, etc).
"Oh, lots of people. We have ISP customers from around the world."
"What do they use it for?"
"You know, censoring kiddie porn sites, blocking mail spammers, and so on."...
I think that's a pretty good description of what this is about. 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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22, @09:41AM (#28422067)
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.
Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Point! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:5, Informative)
"Western governments, including the UK, don't allow you to build networks without having this functionality."
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hell NO! They'll Probably Use As A Selling Poin (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it to be expected that the world's largest provider of cellular phones is better at providing connectivity devices than censorship devices?? At some point, some executives decided that a communications device with degraded service is better than no communications device at all. When you consider the utility of a cellular device, then subtract the censorship laws, you still are better off than when you started. We should be praising Nokia in particular for working around the laws of Iran and providi
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is nothing special about what they did...
Exactly. Besides, Nokia LGPL'd Qt. They could invade Iran, and still keep good PR.
Re: (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 maj
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.
Re: (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?
Remember South African apartheid? (Score:5, Informative)
Why single out Iran? Are you saying Nokia shouldn't operate in Iran; they should break the law there; what?
I'm guessing a lot of people reading this have the former in mind: information technology companies in the industrialized world shouldn't operate in countries that place restrictions on political speech to the extent seen in the countries on which the United States already has sanctions. In the 1980s, near the end of South Africa's counterpart to the U.S. "Jim Crow" era [wikipedia.org], there was an effort to boycott companies that did business in South Africa: disinvestment [wikipedia.org] was a result.
Parent
Re:Remember South African apartheid? (Score:5, Interesting)
The South African ruling classes valued their place in the western world and it hurt them to lose that relationship. I'm not sure the same can be said of Iran, I think a large proportion of them would be quite happy to have the west as an enemy they can blame for their woes, there is no good relationship to be lost, only the ability to make everyday Iranians poorer.
As far as Nokia and Siemens goes I think it's also worth thinking about how their technology is also empowering everyday Iranians. No doubt some of the footage and messages being passed around in recent days comes from Nokia/Siemens equipment. I'd bet their overall effect is a net benefit in terms of freedom so asking them to avoid selling anything to the country would be a mistake.
Information technology will empower the Iranian people no matter how many barriers the Iranian government may hope to put up more and more stuff will leak through. I agree that we should pressure companies to stay clear of ethically dubious things the government there does but avoiding the country entirely would be a mistake.
Parent
it's the kind of world we live in ! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
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?
Parent
Re: (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 so
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, those pesky bastards in Germany doing business with unfriendly nations, while the glorious Ronald 'Iran-Contra [wikipedia.org]' Reagan did not at all organise weapons shipments to Iran. Not all all. No sir...
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!
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.
Re: (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: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?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the technology it's the people who put it to use.
Parent
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's an ocean of difference between selling a product on an open market, and selling a product directly to a dictatorship when you know it's going to be used to suppress the populace. This is known as "unethical behavior," something corporations and the Pentagon know nothing about. It requires a person or a group of people to have a real set of values that they don't violate on a regular basis for power or profit.
Often these things come back to bite one in the ass [casi.org.uk]:
As late as July, 1990, one month before
It almost never happens (Score:5, Insightful)
Let Their Big Friend in the Sky Help Them (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who professes to that an imaginary being is responsible for everything is insane and doesn't deserve any benefit of science. Jonas Salk, Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, Galileo Galilei, and the other great minds have saved more souls and advanced humanity further than any Mullah, Pastor, or Priest of any faith. The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't deserve cell phones or any other bit of technology.
Yeah, it's a rant, but I'm just tired of religious nut jobs of any type forcing their superstitions on anyone else.
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.
Parent
Like the Nazis (Score:5, Interesting)
It just occured to me that I Godwin'd this story already, but this is just like when IBM sold adding machines to the Nazis to help them tabulate Holocaust victims.
Way I see it, who cares? The corner store selling smokes isn't to blame for the lung cancer - ultimately the smoker is. Except it's even more generic than that.
- Siemens sold network technology to Iran - the same you'd use for all sorts of network admin - and they used it to censor. That's Iran's bad.
- IBM sold adding machines - they'll count anything - and the Nazis used them to count Jews (and others). That's the Nazi's bad.
In short, don't blame the maker for the use of the tool.
Re:Like the Nazis (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Business as usual (Score:3, Informative)
The question has to be asked: why does this matter? Iran would still do its own thing.
In this case, they had the product, so why not buy it? That's not such a hard thing to understand. This is like saying "omg Raytheon makes missiles!" which is no surprise to anyone. What about their clients? What about their unofficial clients? Even those aren't a surprise.
Sure, we may not agree with Iran's internet policy, and yes, the vendor may take a portion of the blame in an incident, but I hardly see Iran's isolationism as the fault of any one company.
Seeing as how most of the footage we get out of Iran is from mobile phones and such, is it any surprise that they'd ask a mobile phone maker for help? Business is business, and in this case, it's easy to pin the responsibility on the buying party.
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.
technically iran is not dictatorship (Score:5, Informative)
well technically Iran is a democracy
with democratic elections
and president elected by people.
obviously there are problems
and problems with ballot counting,
however Florida also had ballots accounting problem...
I do not say Iran is a happy place to live
but it is more open than many think.
do you think manifestations would happen in North Corea ?
do you think people would be able to play WoW or use Twitter in many Burma ?
So is there any evidence of election rigging yet? (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly so far I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction in the west sympathising with the disgruntled minority voters because clearly 'Iranians would never vote for that evil, west-hating dictator, so it must have been rigged'.
One thing I DID hear through some media analyses is that up until a few months ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the favourite to get elected, then he made some fumbles, made some comments, and his standing in THE ELECTION POLLS significantly reduced, and the opposition got giddy. Well that can either be a realistic reflection of the voters intentions, or it could just be a backlash that gets put to the side when it comes to making the final and long-term decision in the voting box.
So, is there any evidence of election rigging yet?
PS, I'm not apologising for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, just that suggesting that, maybe, he is popularly supported. I know that when I watched a recent doco about Iran I was surprised that their society was much more modern and free than I felt that I had been led to believe.
PPS I'm not saying it wasn't rigged either, just that in the large amount of media I have seen on it, it is all about rallys and protest, not of massive vote rigging, feel free to point out something concrete on the contrary.
Re:So is there any evidence of election rigging ye (Score:5, Informative)
"In 50 Iranian cities [timesonline.co.uk] the number of votes cast in this month presidential election exceeded the number of eligible voters, the state's election watchdog admitted today. "
Take that as you will.
Parent
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:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Surprise surprise, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Surprise surprise, really? (Score:4, Informative)
Same time Queen Elizabeth II is. At least the office of head of state in Iran is up for election, however rigged and preposterous that could be. Also, the "Assembly of Experts", which has elected him, can dismiss him.
Khamenei ran against Mohammad Reza Golpaygani, winning by two-thirds of the votes [wikipedia.org].
Parent
Re: (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.
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Iran democracy is way better than Iraq(old) one. For e.g even now the candidates who are dead against president Nejad were allowed to contest. And as I said in previous post, other countries like Saudi have NO election at all ! They have even worse filtering of internet. I am typing this from Saudi where even some of google pages are blocked(like language tools). What is the point in selling everything to these countries and bitching against selling something to Iran ?
> "Democracy" isn't the first word to come to my head when describing Iran... the recent events have done nothing to suggest otherwise.
Thats because western media are showing a very biased story of the Iran issues. Were the western reporters and observers able to see any solid evidence of rigging the election ? I doubt. The reason Nejad won the election with such a huge margin is because of his popularity among rural mass. The so called "reformist's" influence is confined to Tehran and surrounding areas only.
Parent
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats because western media are showing a very biased story of the Iran issues. Were the western reporters and observers able to see any solid evidence of rigging the election ? I doubt. The reason Nejad won the election with such a huge margin is because of his popularity among rural mass. The so called "reformist's" influence is confined to Tehran and surrounding areas only.
Catch up to today's events. The Guardian Council has had to admit that in 50 cities there were more votes cast than people eligible to vote. Other sources say the figure may be as high as 120 cities and 110% of the total electorate.
All to elect a puppet. Yes, a puppet. The power remains with the clerics, they decide who are acceptable candidates after making it quite clear what boundaries are acceptable for those seeking the position.
Parent
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Iran, regardless of all the shortcomings and issues IS a democracy
Who are you kidding? One un-elected guy has godly powers. He can do anything he likes.
Every "election" that happens, candidates are screened for loyalty to that unelected guy and Islam, if found not loyal enough, they are barred. And democracy is not just about elections. What is democracy without freedom of speech? freedom to peacefully protest? etc.
I'm baffled by your idea of what constitutes a democracy. "It sucks less than Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so it's a democracy!"
Iran used to be a quasi-democracy, after the recent "election" (read coup) Khamenei gave a big fuck you to people and said we're not even going to bother counting votes anymore.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then how come candidates like Mousavi came to election and won the second place ?
Mousavi was supposed to be the dummy candidate. He also accepts the concept of Supreme Leader, at the very least verbally. Should he have said otherwise he would have been barred too. Seems like you don't know anything about "election" process in Iran. There were initially hundreds of candidates, they were all barred. That is not a free election.
Show me solid evidence like international observers findings for the "coup" in election . Then I would believe you. Because frankly speaking, I have not seen anything other than reports about "protests"
International observers were barred from monitoring election, even candidates own monitors which by law should be present at every stage of voting and counting vo
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Surprise surprise (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Party Talk (Score:5, Interesting)
"...so, what do you do?"
"I sell net censoring software."
"Really? Who buys that stuff?"
"Oh, lots of people. We have ISP customers from around the world."
"What do they use it for?"
"You know, censoring kiddie porn sites, blocking mail spammers, and so on." ...
I think that's a pretty good description of what this is about. 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.
Parent
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.
Parent