« links for 2008-05-21 | Main | links for 2008-05-23 »

May 22, 2008


Charles Liu

R, perhaps you can compare this with the oil opportunity Bush saw in invading Iraq:



We'll be able to fix this when either we, or they themselves, hold each individual Cisco employee responsible, not some abstract corporate policy.

"Cisco" didn't perform any acts - "Cisco" is an idea, and a legal construct. Actual human beings with identities and legal responsibilities spoke the words, wrote the documents, signed the contracts, programmed the firmware.

If they represented official company policy, then EVERY Cisco employee must be held responsible for helping to execute that policy.

If they were diverging from official policy, A. it is probably criminal malfeasance and B. the corporation was itself rather negligent in not investigating, etc...

but I don't think anyone is going to believe this was a couple of rogue bad apples, even though this is the most likely outcome should it ever get to court.

If the word "freedom" has any meaning worth preserving, it is the right to make one's living without being compelled to do or support evil. This - like everything about freedom - requires constant defending.

Or is it perhaps "free dumb" that Americans are so enamored of?

re: This is an argument some people in that industry have made to me privately. Are the Chinese police, they ask, really so different from a lot of other police forces?

umm, I think the correct answer is SO WHAT? Are you really suggesting that is a valid moral criteria to make that decision with? Or just that it should override ones, or one's countrys, morals?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Global Voices

  • Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?

  • Donate to Global Voices - Help us spread the word
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2004


My book:

Consent of the Networked
Coming January 31st, 2012, from Basic Books. To pre-order click here.
AddThis Feed Button