Thursday, November 10, 2005
Western Corporations role in Chinese Repression of Dissent
Critics Press Companies on Internet Rights Issues - New York Times
Recently there has been a campaign waged by human rights activists to point out that the transnational corporations that provide both the hardware and the software for networking are at least indirectly aiding governments that wish to monitor and control information flows and dissent. The information infrastructure of the digital revolution is designed primarily to speed and facilitate the flow of data across the net, however, there are real security concerns that need to be addressed in the design and creation of a national and international network. When these security features are used for legitimate purposes by governments to protect their national security there is no problem. On the other hand, authoritarian governments can use these same monitoring, filtering and control functions to run a police state, stifle dissent, and arrest cyber-dissidents.
Cisco systems, a major provider of networking technology has come under fire for helping to build a network infrastructure in China that the state uses to control and arrest political dissidents. At a recent share holder meeting a proposal was put forward by a minority group of stock holders proposing a company "human rights policy."
Cisco's position is that they are selling China the same technology that they sell to other customers around the world and that they cannot held responsible for what is done with that technology. Cisco works with governments and police forces around the world to set up networking systems that coordinate security efforts. Just what kind of law enforcement they are facilitating is not Cisco's responsibility. What responsibility do software and technology companies have when it comes to preventing their powerful tools from being used for repressive purposes? Cisco argues that by helping China to modernize they are pushing China towards a free market society which will eventually open up as free market of ideas. The argument is that economic and technological modernization will lead (eventually) towards the greater civil liberties required by a liberal free market society. What do you think?
Recently there has been a campaign waged by human rights activists to point out that the transnational corporations that provide both the hardware and the software for networking are at least indirectly aiding governments that wish to monitor and control information flows and dissent. The information infrastructure of the digital revolution is designed primarily to speed and facilitate the flow of data across the net, however, there are real security concerns that need to be addressed in the design and creation of a national and international network. When these security features are used for legitimate purposes by governments to protect their national security there is no problem. On the other hand, authoritarian governments can use these same monitoring, filtering and control functions to run a police state, stifle dissent, and arrest cyber-dissidents.
Cisco systems, a major provider of networking technology has come under fire for helping to build a network infrastructure in China that the state uses to control and arrest political dissidents. At a recent share holder meeting a proposal was put forward by a minority group of stock holders proposing a company "human rights policy."
Cisco's executives oppose the proposal, contending that the company already has a human rights policy, and that the equipment it sells to China is no different from that sold to any other customer.
Lu Kun, the wife of a software engineer in China who has been in prison since 2003 for posting pro-democracy musings on the Web, joined the petitioners yesterday with harsh words for Western technology businesses operating in China.
"If a police officer presents them with a search warrant and demands to look at customer information," she said through a translator, "the companies always comply. They do not dare disobey the order."
Yahoo, like many other companies, has maintained that the issues are complicated, that it must abide by local laws to continue doing business in China, and that doing business there will slowly force change.
Mary Osako, a Yahoo spokeswoman, said yesterday that the company took these issues seriously. "We balance legal requirements," she said, "against our strong belief that our long-term involvement in China contributes to the continued modernization of the country." Even so, Mr. Kanzer said, a trade-off is being made between "making money and a person going to prison for expressing their viewpoint."
Cisco's position is that they are selling China the same technology that they sell to other customers around the world and that they cannot held responsible for what is done with that technology. Cisco works with governments and police forces around the world to set up networking systems that coordinate security efforts. Just what kind of law enforcement they are facilitating is not Cisco's responsibility. What responsibility do software and technology companies have when it comes to preventing their powerful tools from being used for repressive purposes? Cisco argues that by helping China to modernize they are pushing China towards a free market society which will eventually open up as free market of ideas. The argument is that economic and technological modernization will lead (eventually) towards the greater civil liberties required by a liberal free market society. What do you think?
