-
"t's easy to speechify about morality. But actually writing legislation that makes sense--and complies with the demands of the U.S. Constitution, which does not seem to give Congress the authority to legislation in this area--is far more difficult."
-
"A proposed federal law that would slap extensive regulations on technology companies doing business in China and other nations deemed to be unreasonably "Internet-restricting" is facing an uncertain future due to opposition from the Bush administration a
-
"A proposed federal law that would slap extensive regulations on technology companies doing business in China and other nations deemed to be unreasonably "Internet-restricting" is facing an uncertain future due to opposition from the Bush administration a
-
"The U.S. Congress may soon vote on a new "compromise" spy law that would still likely derail pending suits against AT&T and other companies accused of opening their networks to the government in violation of wiretap law."
-
"Larry Dignan: Chinese hackers may have been behind power blackouts in Florida and the Northeast, according to a report in the National Journal."
-
"China and the U.S. lead the world as the two biggest sources of Internet attack traffic, according to a report published by the content distribution company Akamai."
-
"The glass is certainly not full, but it’s certainly a lot more full than it was 5, 10, or 20 years ago… and much more full than the Western media gives it credit for."
-
"growing mountain of evidence demonstrating that corporate executives forced their news reporters to propagandize in favor of the Bush administration and the war, and censored stories that were critical of the Government."
« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »
May 31, 2008
May 30, 2008
May 29, 2008
May 28, 2008
May 27, 2008
May 26, 2008
May 25, 2008
May 24, 2008
May 23, 2008
May 22, 2008
Cisco saw opportunity in "Golden Shield" to help fight criminals...and dissidents
WIRED magazine's "Threat Level" blog has published a Cisco internal presentation from 2002 that makes the company's intentions look pretty darn bad. Leaked to reporters right before Wednesday's Senate hearing on the Internet and human rights (which I will write more about in the next few days), the 90-page presentation outlines all the sales opportunities to be found in China's "Golden Shield" project, a collection of plans to upgrade police communications, surveillance, and censorship networks nationwide. The most damning slide is this one:
That slide claims to be quoting a speech by Chinese government official Li Runsen, who was stating Chinese government goals. Since this presentation was leaked, Cisco has denied that the company shared those goals. Still, it makes them look pretty bad, as this slide clearly implies that the anti-FLG crackdown is an opportunity for Cisco.
Now, it's important to note that contrary to what WIRED says, Golden Shield does not actually equal China's Internet censorship system known as the "Great Firewall" - the Golden Shield is actually a much broader program that includes many other things like law enforcement's internal communications and data managements systems. Mechanisms to censor and monitor the public Internet are just one part of it. From reading through the whole presentation, it seems to me that the presentation is more about assisting law enforcement communications and operations than about censorship of the public Internet in China; while one can certainly infer that such activities would be included, they are not explicitly stated.
I also have some more background about the Cisco case which may be useful: The leaked powerpoint presentation was made in 2002, the same year that businessman Ethan Gutmann, author of Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire, and Betrayal, visited a public security technology trade fair and picked up a Cisco pamphlet in which it specifically marketed its communication technologies with the aim to sell more equipment to provincial and municipal public security bureaus. (Note: the focus was on devices for police communications, not routers for public Internet networks). Gutmann also wrote in his book about a conversation he had with a Cisco employee who boasted about a router custom-made for Chinese Internet censorship. In 2005 at the time of the first shareholder resolution by Boston Common Asset Management and Domini Social Investments against Cisco, I republished the relevant book excerpt by Gutmann as well as images of the Cisco pamphlet obtained by Gutmann. You can read that post here.
That post sufficiently rattled Cisco that I was contacted by Cisco spokesman Terry Alberstein (who is also quoted in the Wired article). Alberstein insisted Cisco had done nothing against U.S. law, that it had done nothing more than what it does when marketing its products to police forces all around the world, and that Cisco had never customized any router specifically for Chinese internet censorship. He was evasive on the question of whether Cisco employees had ever provided installation/configuration/follow-up service specifically intended to help customers configure their routers for censorship purposes. My blog post summarizing that conversation is here.
At the end of the day, though, Cisco has done a lousy job at explaining itself. We are left with many question marks. Their behavior and statements to date have given us little reason to believe that they care in any meaningful way about human rights.
That slide claims to be quoting a speech by Chinese government official Li Runsen, who was stating Chinese government goals. Since this presentation was leaked, Cisco has denied that the company shared those goals. Still, it makes them look pretty bad, as this slide clearly implies that the anti-FLG crackdown is an opportunity for Cisco.
Now, it's important to note that contrary to what WIRED says, Golden Shield does not actually equal China's Internet censorship system known as the "Great Firewall" - the Golden Shield is actually a much broader program that includes many other things like law enforcement's internal communications and data managements systems. Mechanisms to censor and monitor the public Internet are just one part of it. From reading through the whole presentation, it seems to me that the presentation is more about assisting law enforcement communications and operations than about censorship of the public Internet in China; while one can certainly infer that such activities would be included, they are not explicitly stated.
I also have some more background about the Cisco case which may be useful: The leaked powerpoint presentation was made in 2002, the same year that businessman Ethan Gutmann, author of Losing the New China: A Story of American Commerce, Desire, and Betrayal, visited a public security technology trade fair and picked up a Cisco pamphlet in which it specifically marketed its communication technologies with the aim to sell more equipment to provincial and municipal public security bureaus. (Note: the focus was on devices for police communications, not routers for public Internet networks). Gutmann also wrote in his book about a conversation he had with a Cisco employee who boasted about a router custom-made for Chinese Internet censorship. In 2005 at the time of the first shareholder resolution by Boston Common Asset Management and Domini Social Investments against Cisco, I republished the relevant book excerpt by Gutmann as well as images of the Cisco pamphlet obtained by Gutmann. You can read that post here.
That post sufficiently rattled Cisco that I was contacted by Cisco spokesman Terry Alberstein (who is also quoted in the Wired article). Alberstein insisted Cisco had done nothing against U.S. law, that it had done nothing more than what it does when marketing its products to police forces all around the world, and that Cisco had never customized any router specifically for Chinese internet censorship. He was evasive on the question of whether Cisco employees had ever provided installation/configuration/follow-up service specifically intended to help customers configure their routers for censorship purposes. My blog post summarizing that conversation is here.
The
story got some press, but didn't ever get big traction in the mainstream media, though I
personally know a couple China-based reporters for major news organizations who
sniffed around to try and confirm Gutman's story. But they never found enough of a "smoking gun" to
convince their editors that they had something to nail Cisco with.
To many reporters who cover China, this debate is reminiscent of the debate in the 90s about dual-use export controls on computers that could be used either to save lives in hospitals or to launch ICBM's... eventually the free-traders won out (with heavy lobbying by the American Chamber of Commerce) because they argued that if IBM didn't sell the computers, then the Japanese or Germans or somebody else would anyway, China's behavior or capabilities would be no different but Americans would have lost the business.
I find the Cisco case much tougher to argue than the Yahoo case or even Google or Microsoft: At least in those cases the facts of what employees of these companies did and didn't do, under what circumstances, and with what direct consequences for whom, were either clear from the beginning or could be sleuthed out. With Cisco, cold hard proof of exactly what Cisco employees did or didn't do - and what their intentions were - remains elusive. We know that their routers have been used for censorship. Nobody has yet come up with "smoking gun" evidence to back up Gutmann's account that Cisco was selling a special censorship router. Cisco has done a great job at preventing anybody from obtaining any evidence that can't be denied or discounted in some way. This new powerpoint adds a strong data point that makes Cisco's intentions look really bad. It takes us closer but it doesn't take us all the way there.
Whatever the truth is, Cisco has not been transparent and forthcoming with the public about their activities in China. And they've failed to engage in the ongoing effort to set human rights standards for Internet and telecoms companies - as Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo among others have done.
WIRED quotes Arvind Ganesan of Human Rights Watch calling for Cisco to conduct a human rights review of all its activities globally. Others have pointed out that the Cisco situation highlights why Internet and telecoms companies need formal, transparent, and verifiable systems to guide their behavior so that they don't end up being complicit in human rights abuses even if that's not what they intended. The problem is, of course, that if Cisco and other companies cited in Naomi Klein's recent Rolling Stone article stopped selling to all police forces in all countries where Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have cited repeated, serious police violations of human rights, they wouldn't have much business. 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? Other than the fact that they operate in a country led by a regime that runs economic policies more capitalist than most EU member nations, but which still calls itself Communist?
To many reporters who cover China, this debate is reminiscent of the debate in the 90s about dual-use export controls on computers that could be used either to save lives in hospitals or to launch ICBM's... eventually the free-traders won out (with heavy lobbying by the American Chamber of Commerce) because they argued that if IBM didn't sell the computers, then the Japanese or Germans or somebody else would anyway, China's behavior or capabilities would be no different but Americans would have lost the business.
I find the Cisco case much tougher to argue than the Yahoo case or even Google or Microsoft: At least in those cases the facts of what employees of these companies did and didn't do, under what circumstances, and with what direct consequences for whom, were either clear from the beginning or could be sleuthed out. With Cisco, cold hard proof of exactly what Cisco employees did or didn't do - and what their intentions were - remains elusive. We know that their routers have been used for censorship. Nobody has yet come up with "smoking gun" evidence to back up Gutmann's account that Cisco was selling a special censorship router. Cisco has done a great job at preventing anybody from obtaining any evidence that can't be denied or discounted in some way. This new powerpoint adds a strong data point that makes Cisco's intentions look really bad. It takes us closer but it doesn't take us all the way there.
Whatever the truth is, Cisco has not been transparent and forthcoming with the public about their activities in China. And they've failed to engage in the ongoing effort to set human rights standards for Internet and telecoms companies - as Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo among others have done.
WIRED quotes Arvind Ganesan of Human Rights Watch calling for Cisco to conduct a human rights review of all its activities globally. Others have pointed out that the Cisco situation highlights why Internet and telecoms companies need formal, transparent, and verifiable systems to guide their behavior so that they don't end up being complicit in human rights abuses even if that's not what they intended. The problem is, of course, that if Cisco and other companies cited in Naomi Klein's recent Rolling Stone article stopped selling to all police forces in all countries where Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and others have cited repeated, serious police violations of human rights, they wouldn't have much business. 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? Other than the fact that they operate in a country led by a regime that runs economic policies more capitalist than most EU member nations, but which still calls itself Communist?
At the end of the day, though, Cisco has done a lousy job at explaining itself. We are left with many question marks. Their behavior and statements to date have given us little reason to believe that they care in any meaningful way about human rights.
Recent Posts
- Now blogging on my book blog at Consentofthenetworked.com
- Netizen Report: Fight for the Future Edition
- An open thank you letter to Global Voices, on International Volunteer Day
- The Great Firewall of America
- Surveillance and Censorship in India
- Surveillance technologies and "apolitical" corporations
- Kudos and Concerns for Google
- Tunisia and the Internet: A chance to get things right?
- Global netizens respond to Steve Jobs' death
- The Netizen Report on Global Voices Advocacy
Categories
- Africa
- Asia
- Asian tech
- Blog Day 2005
- BlogDay2006
- Bloggercon
- Bloggercorps
- Blognashville
- Books
- BrainstormTech
- Censorship
- China
- CIRC
- Citizen Media
- CNBloggercon
- Copyright
- Corporate Responsibility
- Corporate Thuggery
- Creative Commons
- Current Affairs
- Cyber-activism
- Cyber-spooks
- Cybertarianism
- Daily Links
- Dalian
- Davos
- Democracy
- Diplomacy
- Easongate
- Education
- Events
- Film
- FON
- Fortune Brainstorm
- Free Burma
- Free Culture
- Freedom of Speech
- Freehaowu
- Future of journalism
- Future of media
- Global bloggers
- Global Voices
- GVsummit2008
- Hong Kong
- Human Rights
- Hurricane Katrina
- I&S conference
- Internet Governance
- Iran
- Iraq
- iSummit
- Japan
- JMSC
- Journalism
- Katrina05
- Law
- Les Blogs
- Media mentions
- Microsoft
- Natural disasters
- Netizenship
- Non-profits
- North Korea
- Not Serious
- Oiwan
- OPML
- Personal
- Podcasting
- Politics
- Pop!Tech
- Propaganda
- Scandal-of-the-day
- Second Life
- Social Networking
- State-sponsored Thuggery
- Taiwan
- Television
- Travel
- Tunisia
- U.S. Policy
- Videoblogging
- Vietnam
- We Media
- Web/Tech
- Web2.0
- Webcred
- Weblogs
- WEF
- Weird
- Wikipedia
- WJEC
- WSIS
- Yahoo