More on Cisco in China

I have recently been in communication with Ethan Gutmann, author of Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire and Betrayal. A chapter in his book deals with Cisco's business in China and the extent to which they actively supply Chinese law enforcement with censorship and surveillance technology. Cisco has responded to Gutmann's allegations (excerpted in the continuation section of this post below) by saying that he "doesn't have a shred of evidence" to support his claims.  In response, Gutmann is offering up

this Cisco brochure from the China Information Infrastucture Expo 2002, Dec. 3-6, 2002. The first two pages of the brochure show a Cisco exhibition booth full of products clearly aimed for use by police and other public security forces.  It is pictured here (and blows up to full size when you click on it, WARNING: IT'S A VERY BIG FILE) - both in the original Chinese and in English translation.

Gutmann describes what you see here as: "the first two pages of a much larger brochure that I picked up at the Cisco display at the Shanghai Gold Shield trade show. The image depicts the actual Cisco booth where I had my extended conversation with the Cisco rep, Mr. Zhou Li. I’ve included the Chinese original and a translated version provided by Harry Wu. Harry and I will share everything with anyone who is working on a serious investigation. Cisco may continue to lie about China. But we might stop them from peddling this vile technology here."  (An assortment of similar material has been published in the Chinese version of his book, coming out in Taiwan and some Chinese-language U.S. bookstores this summer.)

In his book Gutmann describes a conversation with a Cisco salesman whose sales pitch included how Cisco's products help police conduct internet surveillance: "the Cisco salesman confirmed that the Chinese police could even remotely check if the suspect had built or contributed to a website in the last three months, access the suspect’s surfing history, and read his email."

I have not seen the original brochures at this point, just the photos. But they are significant because the original brochures and other evidence have been submitted in a shareholder resolution against Cisco filed on May 31, 2005 by Boston Common Asset Management, LLC.  [CORRECTION ADDED ON JULY 7, 2005. STATEMENT FROM BOSTON COMMON: "Brochures and documents pertaining to Cisco Systems that are owned by Mr. Ethan Gutmann and referenced in his book were not included in the shareholder resolution filed by Boston Common Asset Management with Cisco on May 27, 2005. Mr. Gutmann's documents were not transmitted with the resolution filing in any form and Boston Common Asset Management has not presented these documents to Cisco to date."  APOLOGIES TO BOSTON COMMON FOR THE ERROR.]

In a recent speech Gutmann explains why this matters.

The real problem is that the next Tiananmen - in whatever incarnation - is much more likely to fail if Chinese citizens have to fight not only the PLA, but Cisco and Motorola, Microsoft and Intel. And this time, Americans will bear a special responsibility for that failure.

And I predict that the excuses that we hear from Cisco and Microsoft today (“Microsoft abides by the laws and regulations of each country in which it operates…" - as if the Chinese constitution forbid the word “democracy”) will be remembered as a shameful moment in U.S. corporate history.

So it’s up to us, activists, journalists, watchdogs, Congress, anyone who’s involved with China, to put pressure on American corporations; shareholder proposals; divestment from university contracts. Make a copy of this brochure and send letters, faxes, emails demanding an explanation. Tell them if the Chinese Communist Party wants to use our technology, it must pay the democracy tax. 

After my recent posts on corporate responsibility, including Cisco, Gutman emailed me with the brochures, an excerpt of his book, and the following note:

I should tell you that I increasingly view the “original sin” argument – that is, Cisco routers censoring the Internet starting back in 1998 – as just an interesting historical footnote. It happens to be true, but it’s also a red herring: Cisco’s lawyers love to attack the “special firewall box” argument because, as you pointed out, it’s practically very hard to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The bottom line is that it’s like arguing about whether Cisco was carrying a switchblade back in 1998, when they are currently carrying an AK-47.

As you know, the Chinese authorities don’t want to block the web. They want Chinese users to practice self-censorship. Surveillance, and the awareness of surveillance leads to self-censorship and that’s where Cisco comes in. Cisco has built the structure for the national PSB [Public Security Bureau] database, and as of June 2003, it is already resident in every province of China, except Sichuan. Police can access a suspect’s political history, imaging information, the lot, and read

their email at will. Cisco calls it “Policenet.”

I have enclosed the relevant excerpt from my book (although the punctuation may be slightly different). It is also germane that the physical evidence that I brought back from China – Cisco brochures and PowerPoint presentations (subsequently translated by [human rights activist] Harry Wu) not only back up the specific points that a Cisco representative made to me but constitute irrefutable proof that Cisco is cooperating with Chinese state security. Which is why, among other more serious investigations in Washington DC, a shareholder resolution against Cisco was recently filed.

As I said, these documents are irrefutable. So I could have avoided the “Gutmann has never produced a single shred of evidence” slander by publishing them in my book in 2004. I won’t make that tactical blunder again. Six months ago I authorized the publication of a selection of the materials in the Chinese edition of “Losing the New China,” (Broad Press) which has just become available in Taiwan and will be available in Chinese language shops throughout the United States before the end of July. But the materials are also currently being used by Boston Common Asset (and their associates) in a shareholder resolution against Cisco filed on May 31, 2005. That’s public record. I gave a second copy of the originals to Boston Common, so Cisco’s lawyers can examine them, translate them, study the fonts, have the paper analyzed, and figure out how they are going to handle the indisputable fact that these are Cisco sales materials.

[CORRECTION ADDED ON JULY 7, 2005. STATEMENT FROM BOSTON COMMON: "Brochures and documents pertaining to Cisco Systems that are owned by Mr. Ethan Gutmann and referenced in his book were not included in the shareholder resolution filed by Boston Common Asset Management with Cisco on May 27, 2005. Mr. Gutmann's documents were not transmitted with the resolution filing in any form and Boston Common Asset Management has not presented these documents to Cisco to date."]

As you might imagine, I’m conflicted about posting the materials on the Internet at this time because I don’t want to interfere with the unfolding of evidence. But OK, here are the first two pages of a much larger brochure that I picked up at the Cisco display at the Shanghai Gold Shield trade show. The image depicts the actual Cisco booth where I had my extended conversation with the Cisco rep, Mr. Zhou Li. (I’ve included the Chinese original and Harry Wu’s translated version). Harry and I will continue to share everything with anyone who is working on a serious investigation. Cisco may continue to lie about China, but we might stop them from peddling this vile technology here.

Best,

Ethan Gutmann

EXCERPT FROM “LOSING THE NEW CHINA”
PAGES 167-170

“…I flew down to Shanghai to attend the latest trade show, innocuously titled the “China Information Infrastructure Expo.” It was officially blessed by Li Runsen, who heads up the Science and Technology Commission for the PSB -suggesting China’s security apparatus would comprise the majority of the customers.

Entering the convention center, the first thing I saw was the word “Cisco.” Their booth dwarfed the others, and the handout indicated that Cisco had also scored the top billing for their Chinese language presentation, “The CISCO Network Solution for the ‘Gold Shield Project.’” It was an interesting series of slides: First it identified the Chinese public security agencies’ problems: insufficient police forces, a large undocumented migrant labor population, social instability as a result of WTO, and “high tech criminals” (an umbrella term which includes Internet dissident activity). Then it touted Cisco’s “low-cost” solutions: “Combining voice video and data into one accessible resource,” and the ability to integrate judicial networks, border security, and “Vertical police networks” (“individual departments dealing with secret/confidential business, phonetics, and video frequency”).

The Cisco booth entrance itself was ringed by video screens showing burly cops from Seal Beach, California, pulling over and frisking American citizens, the police whipping out Cisco mobile handsets that linked directly to databases containing surveillance footage from stores, waiting rooms, and other public places - interspersed with soundbites from Cisco’s broadly smiling CEO, John Chambers. Chambers enjoys a kind of celebrity status in China, as does Microsoft’s Bill Gates, but the juxtaposition of a slick Chinese presentation of America as an efficient police state (with no pesky legal impediments or search warrants required to access confidential databases or private surveillance) and Chamber’s optimistic new economy spiel struck me as a revolutionary PR approach.

The other screens were devoted to crisp high quality surveillance of the booth, which was divided into specific areas of Chinese security interest: “the IP telephone solution for Police Routine Community Surveillance,” “the Executive Mobile Solution for Traffic, Patrol, and Criminal Case Police,” and “the Video Surveillance Solution For Preventative Control and the Increase of Social Stability.” In case you somehow missed the point of all this, Cisco’s Chinese brochure featured a prominent schematic depicting an American State trooper (pot belly, shades and all) connecting remotely to nationwide databases and the Internet. 

As Cisco’s cameras recorded our conversation, Zhou Li, a systems engineer from Cisco’s Shanghai Branch, gave me an enthusiastic sales pitch for Cisco’s “policenet” technology, which had just been launched in China. He explained that Cisco’s diagram of the policeman linked back to information nodes is technically accurate, but it didn’t capture the full scope of what Cisco had accomplished. We are not just talking about accessing a suspect’s driving record here, he pointed out; Cisco provides a secure connection to provincial security databases, allowing for thorough cross-checking and movement tracing.

A Chinese policeman or PSB agent using Cisco equipment can remotely access the suspect’s danwei or work unit, thereby accessing reports on the individual’s political behavior and family history. Even fingerprints, photographs and other imaging information would be available with a tap on the screen. (This wasn’t just a sales pitch: according to Chinese sources, Cisco has built a structure for a national PSB database, with real-time updating and mobile-ready capabilities, and as of June 2003, it was already resident in every province of China, excepting Sichuan). As I questioned Zhou further, the Cisco salesman confirmed that the Chinese police could even remotely check if the suspect had built or contributed to a website in the last three months, access the suspect’s surfing history, and read his email. It was just a question of bandwidth.   

Another Cisco brochure caught my eye. This one touted Cisco’s new mobile router, with a schematic layout of vehicles demonstrating the router’s potential uses: in a car (traffic control), a train (to make them run on time), an ambulance (emergency and police response) and a main battle tank (presumably to help China win its wars). The Chinese caption next to the tank stated that this was the same technology used by the Department of Defense, NATO, and the United Kingdom. Prices for the 3200 range from about $5,000 to $10,000. The Cisco salesman pointed out that the 3200 Series Mobile Access Router was specifically designed to be sturdy enough to be installed in a tank.
…
Leaving the show, brochures in hand, I realized that Cisco’s defense against Ann Lau’s shareholder’s proposal was correct. Creating a special firewall box which could be used to censor the Chinese web may have been the “original sin,” a significant cornerstone in constructing the big brother Internet, but it was not illegal per se. Yet the products that Cisco (and Sun Microsystems) were now selling to China appeared to be directly flaunting the Foreign Relations Authorization Act (Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991), which suspended “The issuance of any license… for the export to the People’s Republic of China of any crime control or detection instruments or equipment” until the President chooses to try to reverse the suspension.”
END SELECTED EXCERPT

Comments

[Jon Garfunkel]

I would draw a line between censorship and surveillance.

A question about Microsoft-- had they not put in the democracy filter, they most surely would have been blocked. So for the moment, you can tunnel in some freedom guise through the MSN Spaces. If they were cut off, what other major blogging platform would have been accessible in the PRC?

As for Cisco: indeed, their flaunting of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act is disconcerting. But, technically speaking, surveillance (aka data mining) is the natural progression of software and databases. If not Cisco, then *anybody* can build software to tie together data. Certainly the direction we want to take it in this country is to also develop digital warrants, compliance checks, to prevent against the natural progression of data mining. But if they were building surveillance at the router level, maybe that's crossing the line we don't want crossed.

Hmm. I'm in over my head now. Let me summon Seth. Happy Independence Day.

[Travis]

This is funny--the people who really got screwed in this are the Chinese government. Yes, Cisco can do filtering, but they're not very good at it and the Chinese are, no doubt, discovering that they paid a *LOT* of money for shoddy systems.

To think that pressuring American companies to stop selling filtering products to China will help anything is, well, a waste of a thought.

Does anyone seriously think that the Chinese government will allow unfettered access to the Internet? Does anyone out there also think that the US has a monopoly on products that can produce Internet filtering and monitoring products? Has anyone heard of freely available applications--developed around around the world--that can do the same thing? A short list:

Squid
Squidguard
Middleman
Snort
IPF
IPFW
PF
IPchains
Tcpdump
Shadow
Ssl sniffer
Sniffit

All of the above tools could be used to accomplish the same thing (actually, with much better results given adequate resources, which I trust the Chinese government has), and no legislation could possibly deal with them.

I appreciate, respect, and even support the motivation, but this is a waste of time. Who cares if Cisco duped the Chinese government into buying their crap in trying to build the Great Firewall of China? What matters is that the Chinese government is trying to build it. What matters more (for us non-Chinese) is that governments around the world are remarkably consistent in saying and doing nothing about it.

Why not push for tools and applications that can help anonymize and protect people in China? To report on how China filters Internet access (no matter the vendor) is yawn-inspiring.

[Christopher Fotos]

You're doing awesome work, Rebecca, and of course Ethan Gutman.

And Travis, from where I sit, "China would screw its people anyway, possibly with products from other companies" is not a very appealing argument for complacency on this issue.

[china foolish]

As an ex-hi-tech-corporate manager, I'm wary of the call for corporations to rise up and do what the US government cannot do. Capitalism, by its very own nature, is profit-driving. My personal opinion is for the government to regulate what the capitalistic entities behave. It's hard to fathom what a Cisco field manager does in China represent Cisco's corporate view. It's also hard-pressed to ask the Cisco sales office to do value judgement between profit and human rights before making a sales pitch.

When dealing with the impossible Chinese government, compromise and manuveuring are necessary.

Of course, if Cisco's actions break any US law, that's a different matter.

[Evil Pundit]

Perhaps the US Government should pass an appropriate law.

After all, anything that strengthens the hold of the Chinese government over democratic people's movements is contrary to the long-term interests of the US.

[iowamf]

So what should Cisco & the US do - back out and give the business to Huawei?

Huawei is the largest vendor in the Chinese telco market who makes Cisco knock-offs - complete with the same command lines, help screens, user manuals, etc ... Huawei is taking "Cisco Certified" to the next level.

I don't get the "blame America first" mindset here ... shouldn't we be more concerned with China breaking Int'l Laws and China's own human rights violations before we start bashing Cisco and asking for more US gov't laws?

[iowamf]

IMHO, the Chinese didn't learn a damn thing after building their first "wall" - walls don't work.

B+ for Travis (would get an A+ - but too geeky). The best way the US can help is not with more laws upon US companies - it's helping people (like the Chinese) to protect themself from big guv'ment.

[Used to rhyme with "disco"]

I was a Cisco employee for the better part of a decade. Our building was pretty much right next to the corporate HQ building.

One of the things they used to do was put out the national flags for foreign visitors, and fly them alongside the US and Cisco flags. The first time I saw the PRC flag flying there, in '96, was rather a jaw-dropping experience. I and a co-worker (we were both veterans) were rather dismayed that Cisco would be doing business with a regime that had been responsible, not too many years previously, for Tiananmen Square.

Over the years, they have been doing more and more business with China; it's as if Cisco has forgotten they are an American company.

Now, I'm a hard-core capitalist, but I'm a patriot and freedom-lover first. Dealing with China -- enabling the oppressors -- struck me as wrong then and wrong now. I was not a high-level insider, just a "geek in the trenches," so I couldn't say what the higher-ups were thinking, but I know many of my former co-workers would agree with me that there is something not quite right with what was happening.

Of course, the message then as now was, "we're enabling free expression." Sorry, I don't buy it any more. Back then, a router was an idiot-box: packet in, packet out. But today, the theoretical (and actual) on-board capabilities of routers and switches (and their ability to work with other networking devices) are sufficient to be the stuff of nightmares.

[Anonymous]

Profiteering off of the horrors of tyranny are unacceptable, not even for a slightly higher stock price. Cisco has joined the forces of EVIL.

[Cisco Forum and News CiscoHQ]

Kinda torn on the issue. I can see the good points and the bad.