View Full Version : What to do with firms that aid and abet dictatorships?
In the wake of Iran's attempt to re-fashion itself into a dryer version of Burma, there's been quite a lot of huffing and puffing about teleco firms that helped design and implement the mullahs' censorship/monitoring system. What should be done with them? Should such firms face penalties (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/30/us-firms-aiding-censorship) or not? And if so, does this extend to companies like Yahoo and Google, who make concessions to China in order to enter the market?
Internet activists are urging Barack Obama to pass legislation that would make it illegal for technology companies to collaborate with authoritarian countries that censor the internet.
Leading companies earn hundreds of millions of pounds every year through their relationship with governments in repressive countries. Campaigners are agitating for the US president to put his weight behind the Global Online Freedom Act (Gofa), a law that would see US companies fined if they profit from involvement in online censorship.
The issue has taken on added resonance after recent events in Iran, where questions about western complicity have been raised after a post-election crackdown by the government that has included throttling internet access and blocking websites to prevent information from spreading.
The US bill, which would see fines of up to $2m (£1.2m) levied on US companies that provide information or technology that aids the restriction of internet services, has failed to make it on to the statute books in the past, but leading campaigners are now pleading with legislators to act.
"The events in Iran have been a reminder of the importance of alternative sources of media in closed societies," Lucie Morillon, Washington director of press freedom group Reporters Without Borders, told a congressional committee last week. "Congress should pass the act as soon as possible."
rory_20_uk
06-30-2009, 22:22
Like firms that support Saudi Arabia or China for example?
~:smoking:
I already raised the issue of China, but certainly Saudi Arabia needs to be considered as well. Should we penalize Google if they comply with Saudi demands?
If Saudi Arabia has a problem, they should set it the censoring themselves opposed to having companies like google do it. After-all, think of it like a child safety block on your computer, the block still blocks things that pop up on google.
rory_20_uk
06-30-2009, 22:29
I say no.
Who made us the "right" way in the world? A form of Neo-colonialism with our Western Morals being forced down the throats of the rest of the world.
Handicapping ourselves will only assure our own decline as other countries cheerfully take up the slack.
~:smoking:
Tristuskhan
06-30-2009, 22:30
Fine them dry or burn them to the ground I don't know, but penalize them, yes.
Only if the legislation includes companies that help US governments (federal, state, local) to censor the tubes. :yes:
Crazed Rabbit
06-30-2009, 23:17
Hmm. Devising a definition of dictatorships would prove hard. As would defining what's helping them oppress people, as opposed to organizing the postal service.
Legislation defining punishment strikes me as an easy way for people and businesses to launch harassment lawsuits against competitors.
I think the best way may simply be to publish info on the companies and organize boycotts and protests/letter campaigns.
CR
Did they break the law? If not, I don't see why we should be punishing them for doing business.
Looking forward, if we're talking about making it illegal to for companies to do business with certain regimes, we should bear in mind that that amounts to sanctions against those regimes and would certainly poison our relationships with them. Who cares? Obama does, or at least he claimed to. He has stated that he wants openness and dialogue with countries like Iran- I'm pretty sure this would not be a productive avenue to that end.
I think there's a place for targeted sanctions against enemy or rogue nations, but a blanket one against any country we view as not democratic or open enough smacks of the type of arrogance that people lamented during the Bush administration. (although, I'm not sure Bush ever supported anything this sweeping)
Personally, I say let's make sure companies are following our laws in our country and let the customers express their outrage and bring market consequences against those companies that we feel act badly internationally.
Well...personally I work for one of the companies that have been named in the Iran situation and I find the description that has been made of things abusive to say the least.
Yes we sold them Network Management Equipment....NEWSFLASH! The network manager has the hability to spy on it´s users...this is not surprising....the simple fact that Iranian government set up the network makes it so....it´s not like we sell some kind of 'spyotron 3000' special model or something...at least not to my knowledge.
this is like me going out running over a bunch of people with my car and people saying Nissan is to blame.
It was also curious to note that the company I work for is European and it was only the American media that picked up on the story....a chance to beat up on the competition?
Lord Winter
06-30-2009, 23:58
Will this bill give open internet to those living in dictatorships? No. Will it drive out the internet companies that already there and possibly leave them with marginlized connections or no internet at all? Yes.
At least some internet means some freedom. When it's a choice between limited freedom and no freedom sadly we have to chose the first.
Louis VI the Fat
07-01-2009, 00:19
this is like me going out running over a bunch of people with my car and people saying Nissan is to blame.That is not a good analogy. Nissan can safely presume you are a law-abiding citizen. The Iranian despots on the other hand are known to be scum.
A better analogy would be 'We only sell steel. Whether our customers use it for plows or tanks is beyond our control'. And then to discover that it is tanks indeed.
Are you personally not a wee bit...uneasy, uncomfortable about it all? You know - you can let management know you are unhappy about the course of events, about indiscriminately selling to any customer.
this is like me going out running over a bunch of people with my car and people saying Nissan is to blame.In US courts, you might have a case.... :sweatdrop:
HoreTore
07-01-2009, 00:26
Companies involved in such things, or corruption in general, should be dismantled after its been proven in court. Period. Perhaps with some jailtime for the people responsible too.
I see absolutely no reason why such companies should continue to exist. Corruption is the major threat to democracy, stability and peace. While we can't do much about their own companies, if our companies do it, they should face extermination. Everything from giving dictators surveillance equipment you should know is going to be used to oppress, giving a minister a bag full of cash or even giving a single dollar to some assistant - the penalty is the same, dismantle the company. Chop it up, sell it off to their competitors/investors/whatever, and give the money to the treasury.
I really think just the threat will do wonders, it certainly did so the last time our government gave that threat, but even if it doesn't, seeing a couple of major companies chopped up, sold off and with their executives in handcuffs certainly will.
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-01-2009, 00:27
Google tailors itself for the Saudi Market, my reaction? Meh. Their primary goal is to be competitive and earn profit, and thus, as long as they respect the law of whatever place they go, they should be free to do so.
Are you personally not a wee bit...uneasy, uncomfortable about it all? You know - you can let management know you are unhappy about the course of events, about indiscriminately selling to any customer.
no..not really...I write software code for one our network managing products.. I know there's no "start spying" command in there....if there WAS I wouldn´t want to work on something like that, no matter who it be sold to, even if it was a "good government".
The stuff I work on... I don´t have a problem with it being sold to anyone who wants to buy it...it´s just a network tool.
Sarmatian
07-01-2009, 00:52
Google tailors itself for the Saudi Market, my reaction? Meh. Their primary goal is to be competitive and earn profit, and thus, as long as they respect the law of whatever place they go, they should be free to do so.
Not gonna happen, too vague (defining authoritarian regime, censorship, what acceptable to censor and what not) and it wouldn't work anyway. What would happen, even if the law is perfectly written and executed, is that western companies would pull out and other companies would jump in. Everything remains the same...
ICantSpellDawg
07-01-2009, 01:28
I like the idea proposed by the CEO of Google; Authoritarian dictatorships do not understand the internet. Their ideas for regulating the web are as shortsighted and archaic as their plans for the future.
If companies like Google and Yahoo are not allowed to compete in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc - then companies from authoritarian nations will take the market share. I believe that Europeans and Americans should permeate everything and make it impossible for dictatorships to go anywhere but backwards. The US should (and probably does) have operatives and saboteurs in every major and upstart global IT firm - just like the Chinese do.
A Terribly Harmful Name
07-01-2009, 01:54
Not gonna happen, too vague (defining authoritarian regime, censorship, what acceptable to censor and what not) and it wouldn't work anyway. What would happen, even if the law is perfectly written and executed, is that western companies would pull out and other companies would jump in. Everything remains the same...
I meant the law of the host country, not of their HQ country.
Sarmatian
07-01-2009, 02:13
I meant the law of the host country, not of their HQ country.
Sorry, didn't mean you, I've hit "quote" instead of "reply". My mistake...
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-01-2009, 02:44
I like the idea proposed by the CEO of Google; Authoritarian dictatorships do not understand the internet. Their ideas for regulating the web are as shortsighted and archaic as their plans for the future.
If companies like Google and Yahoo are not allowed to compete in Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, etc - then companies from authoritarian nations will take the market share. I believe that Europeans and Americans should permeate everything and make it impossible for dictatorships to go anywhere but backwards. The US should (and probably does) have operatives and saboteurs in every major and upstart global IT firm - just like the Chinese do.
Right, authoritarian governments don't understand how to regulate the internet so Google will do it for them. :2thumbsup:
Personally, I say let's make sure companies are following our laws in our country and let the customers express their outrage and bring market consequences against those companies that we feel act badly internationally.
Knock me down with a feather, I find myself in complete and utter agreement with Xiahou.
If these countries have their sources of restriced internet cut off they aren't going to say "oh well, guess we'll have to give them complete access now", they will just get rid of internet access altogether. Surely limited internet access is better than no internet access. The people using the restricted access are going to get sick of having all these sites blocked off. Pretty soon just about all the people in the country will be calling for unrestricted internet. No matter how strict a regime is, if everyone wants something then there won't be much they can do to stop it. In my opinion, allowing restricted access is the best way to eventually acheive your goal of complete access.
Aemilius Paulus
07-01-2009, 04:42
Surely limited internet access is better than no internet access.
Precisely the quoted statement released by Google in response to the uproar over them censoring themselves to suit China. It was an excuse, of course, and they only care about money, and not people, but an excuse it was that held more than a mere grain of truth. Too many Internet users there in China, and no one is going to die because the cannot google dissident sites, porn, certain social networking sites as well as some aspects of China's history, including, but not limited to Tienanmen.
Not to mention Google is a private company built for profit. Pecunia non olet "money does not smell". So said Vespasian. Wise man he was. Commercial companies should not be governed by political and moral standards, as numerous people have noted this before in this thread. Not to mention the problems with definitions, and the creation of more red tape and bloated bureaucracies governing and being the watchdog over this process. Once again, as people have noted it here before me.
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-01-2009, 04:51
I don't mind Google dealing with China - or at least not enough to stop using many of their services. However, they should get off their high horse (or at least others should stop protraying them mounted on a unicorn spraying liberty rainbrows throughout the wired world).
(or at least others should stop protraying them mounted on a unicorn spraying liberty rainbrows throughout the wired world).
But ... but ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/unicorn_magic.jpg
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-01-2009, 04:57
Now stick a recently elected president on that bad boy and we're golden.
Don't get me started ...
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama_victory_unicorn1.jpg
... and there's a lot more where that came from.
Crazed Rabbit
07-01-2009, 05:08
I don't mind Google dealing with China - or at least not enough to stop using many of their services. However, they should get off their high horse (or at least others should stop protraying them mounted on a unicorn spraying liberty rainbrows throughout the wired world).
Really. I prefer MS to Google; at least they don't try and claim anything you upload using their browser as their property, or pretend to be some saintly company.
CR
AlexanderSextus
07-01-2009, 07:44
Do the words I.G. Farben and Standard Oil ring a bell here?
Tribesman
07-01-2009, 10:17
What to do with firms that aid and abet dictatorships?
Invest heavily but get your money out before the legal challenges come.
Furunculus
07-01-2009, 11:28
Like firms that support Saudi Arabia or China for example?
~:smoking:
not until after we've delivered every last eurofighter they are willing to buy from us.
I.G. Farben
I think they used jewish slave labour during WW2 and had/have to pay for that, I think they also produced the gas that was used to kill jews.
I do think it's somewhat different from censoring the internet though, it's not like google wouldn't pay it's chinese workers and hunt those who run away with death squads and exterminate their villages. Or at least I'd hope so. :sweatdrop:
Meneldil
07-01-2009, 12:48
It has been done by other companies in other places though.
I agree with Hore Tore. Such companies should be put down, leaders sent to jail/required to pay huge fines.
Defending human rights can't be done simply at home, it's a worldwide fight. Thinking otherwise is simply refusing to see the truth.
And I don't care about accusations of neocolonialism and what not, or about China filtering content by themselves. That's a lame excuse.
HoreTore
07-01-2009, 12:52
Defending human rights can't be done simply at home, it's a worldwide fight. Thinking otherwise is simply refusing to see the truth.
Indeed. The fight against corruption is global too.
Russia is now a complete and utter mess regarding corruption. And they've begun exporting it to their neighbors in eastern europe and the balkans. It'll come here too, if we don't start fighting it. We're not immune to such things.
rory_20_uk
07-01-2009, 16:07
It has been done by other companies in other places though.
I agree with Hore Tore. Such companies should be put down, leaders sent to jail/required to pay huge fines.
Defending human rights can't be done simply at home, it's a worldwide fight. Thinking otherwise is simply refusing to see the truth.
And I don't care about accusations of neocolonialism and what not, or about China filtering content by themselves. That's a lame excuse.
Lame excuse? I assume this is from your extremely blinkered perspective.
Almost religious phrasology - protelysing "truth" to the world, with severe penalties for those who see the world in a different way.
Happily, the world needs Western pomposity less and less, and increasingly can and will ignore busy-bodies who have the God-ordained knowledge of the way the world should be. Having a good business plan in one's own country is good long term, and maintaining Soverign independence is too, but enforcing it on everyone else is too much.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
07-01-2009, 16:31
Almost religious phrasology - protelysing "truth" to the world, with severe penalties for those who see the world in a different way.
Nonsense. If we are to protect our human rights, the ones we want for ourselves, it's not enough to just do it at home. We will have to try to spread those rights around, or other ways of seeing things will eventually influence our own country. That was the truth I believe meneldil was talking about, not "the truth about human rights".
This is basic politics. A person sees the world a certain way, and wants to live the way he wants. So, the person will argue for his version of "the truth" to everyone else, and try to convince them that he's right. If he's succesful, he will eventually gain the power needed to change his country the way he thinks is best.
Happily, the world needs Western pomposity less and less, and increasingly can and will ignore busy-bodies who have the God-ordained knowledge of the way the world should be. Having a good business plan in one's own country is good long term, and maintaining Soverign independence is too, but enforcing it on everyone else is too much.
Enforcing it on everyone else? You're in the wrong thread, mate. This thread is what to do about ourselves when we cross the line, ie. our own companies, not the Iranian, Chinese or Burmese companies.
LittleGrizzly
07-01-2009, 16:41
We could setup deals with friendly authoritarian states where the men who make these things get to live as citizens of these regimes... this way they can fully enjoy thier contributions to thier societys...
I would largely agree with CR and Xiahou's sentiments. That said, I can't help but think that there is something slightly wrong about knowingly supporting something horrible, like supplying software to manage a genocide or something like that. This is a very slippery slope IMO, and I don't have a good solid answer. If pressed, I'd fall back to the position indicated by CR/Xiahou.
What I'll do, or won't do, is ever buying a Siemens or Nokia product, wouldn't want it for free. That's really all I can, nothing.
LittleGrizzly
07-01-2009, 16:55
What I'll do, or won't do, is ever buying a Siemens or Nokia product, wouldn't want it for free. That's really all I can, nothing.
Then they must have done something really bad... please tell
Then they must have done something really bad... please tell
Nokia and Siemens built the beards in Iran a network that would make Orwell run away screaming. They can see everything.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/wsj-nokia-and-siemens-help-iran-spy-on-internet-users/
:daisy:
LittleGrizzly
07-01-2009, 17:07
My post about making them live with the technology they install in repressive regimes was semi serious but i wouldn't have a problem with Nokia and Siemens CEO's getting forced to live in Iran under this system permanently...
Impractical to enforce but a nice thought none the less...
My post about making them live with the technology they install in repressive regimes was semi serious but i wouldn't have a problem with Nokia and Siemens CEO's getting forced to live in Iran under this system permanently...
Impractical to enforce but a nice thought none the less...
Was more thinking about square, rotten eggs, you get it a good public shaming. But for some reason the usually so vocal anti-corporate folks are kinda shutting :daisy: excuse my french. Who in their right mind would give tech like this to a like regime that.
edit: oh damnit
Was more thinking about square, rotten eggs, you get it a good public shaming. But for some reason the usually so vocal anti-corporate folks are kinda shutting :daisy: excuse my french. Who in their right mind would give tech like this to a like regime that.
You do realize the equipment that was sold to Iran was standard network equipment right?, not some supped-up spying rig, and the very same technology exists in plenty of other countries telco networks, including yours and mine.
Technology can be used and it can be abused, no one other than the people that run the systems can decide which....in democratic countries there are checks in place to ensure nothing too crazy gets done.... in countries that are not democratic this does not happen unfortunately.
I understand the need to restrict some sales to countries that commit atrocities, like weapons, military equipment and the like, but telecommunications equipment? really?
So instead of Iran having a telecommunications network that the government can control, Iran would have NO communications network and no news would filter to the outside about what's going on....in any way what makes problems for the people is an oppressive government, not the technology.
They didn't just sell some hardware, they made them the stasi's ultimate sexual fantasy. Knowing, or at least should have crossed their mind, how it will be used, would you feel very comfortable? I am all for capitalism mind you but this is irresponsible.
This is basic politics. A person sees the world a certain way, and wants to live the way he wants. So, the person will argue for his version of "the truth" to everyone else, and try to convince them that he's right. If he's succesful, he will eventually gain the power needed to change his country the way he thinks is best.
Makes one wonder why some people are always upset about christians doing just that. ~;)
If it was just normal communications equipment as Ronin says, I don't think anything should be done.
HoreTore
07-01-2009, 19:54
Makes one wonder why some people are always upset about christians doing just that. ~;)
Hey, I have nothing against discussing religion with christians, fundamentalist or not. But forcing their will upon others is something else, Husar ~;)
Also remember that you're of course not entitled to spread your beliefs in peace, that would make things ridiculous, as other people will want to spread their beliefs too, resulting in, well, politics...
Louis VI the Fat
07-01-2009, 20:24
what makes problems for the people is an oppressive government, not the technology.'Zyklon B doesn't kill Jews, people do'.
[/Godwin]
They didn't just sell some hardware, they made them the stasi's ultimate sexual fantasy. Knowing, or at least should have crossed their mind, how it will be used, would you feel very comfortable? I am all for capitalism mind you but this is irresponsible.
I am more comfortable with Iran having a state controlled telecommunications network than with an Iran having no telecommunications network.....that´s what happens in north korea...because you hear no news coming from that place.
And just for clarity and if it wasn´t clear enough I should state that I work for Nokia Siemens Networks as a software engineer.
I am more comfortable with Iran having a state controlled telecommunications network
It is bloody Iran, won't get my aproval.
It is bloody Iran, won't get my aproval.
nor does it require it...so it´s kinda of a moot point.
just for a laugh you might want to look up how many such networks around the world are not under state control under one way or another....you might be surprised.
nor does it require it...so it´s kinda of a moot point.
just for a laugh you might want to look up how many such networks around the world are not under state control under one way or another....you might be surprised.
No I wouldn't. But you probably understand my point.
At least Im sure that my State does watch what I say, thats for granted, but they cant stop me from saying that. Else Id make them look like fools because they violated my civil rights. Which is not the same thing happening in Iran.
No I wouldn't. But you probably understand my point.
I honestly don´t....you seem to be taking an extreme moral position that in my opinion would not benefit the people of Iran if it was put into practice.
If the equipment had not been sold to Iran, even if Iran had no communications network whatsoever, what would happen?
the election would have taken place, the government would have stole it.... would the word have gotten out as fast and as readily as it did?
would the opposition have some capacity to organize themselves? maybe...maybe not...
In any case I find it hard to believe the people of Iran would be doing any better.....but we might had felt proud because we didn´t sell some communications technology to the country?
this is like saying that because the government has the power to turn off the water main in a city that the people would be better without water.
there´s a difference between a practical positive and a moral absolute.
At least Im sure that my State does watch what I say, thats for granted, but they cant stop me from saying that. Else Id make them look like fools because they violated my civil rights. Which is not the same thing happening in Iran.
So we agree that the difference is the behavior of your state and not the technology.
So we agree that the difference is the behavior of your state and not the technology.
Yes, we do. But remember that tecnologies give states an advantage.
Yes, we do. But remember that tecnologies give states an advantage.
in this case I´m not sure I agree....like I said before...if there was no mobile technology in iran would the story even had gotten out? would the rest of the world be involved to the degree it is? without seeing those videos on CNN?
in this case I´m not sure I agree....like I said before...if there was no mobile technology in iran would the story even had gotten out? would the rest of the world be involved to the degree it is? without seeing those videos on CNN?
Isn't a country or a people you are working for, you work for a regime, one that happens to enjoy hanging people, one after another.
Isn't a country or a people you are working for, you work for a regime, one that happens to enjoy hanging people, one after another.
actually neither....I work for a telecom suplier...and if you think you´re gonna get some sort of emotional rise out of me by going there I can tell you are barking up the wrong tree.
actually neither....I work for a telecom suplier...and if you think you´re gonna get some sort of emotional rise out of me by going there I can tell you are barking up the wrong tree.
why would I want to
Alexander the Pretty Good
07-01-2009, 22:58
Hey, I have nothing against discussing religion with christians, fundamentalist or not. But forcing their will upon others is something else, Husar ~;)
Also remember that you're of course not entitled to spread your beliefs in peace, that would make things ridiculous, as other people will want to spread their beliefs too, resulting in, well, politics...
Of course, targeting businesses you disagree with for legal action is indeed forcing your views on them.
I have yet to see a coherent argument here as to why having no internet is better than limited internet. That neda video was spread via the internet, the very same internet you wish to remove. Someone please tell me how they will benefit from having their internet removed. Sure the telco and internet companies are only doing it to make money, but the fact remains that they are giving these countries internet access.
HoreTore
07-02-2009, 01:10
Of course, targeting businesses you disagree with for legal action is indeed forcing your views on them.
When you live in a country, you follow their laws. If the legislature passes a law, you will (usually)be punished if you don't follow it. You can protest against it of course, but if you break it, you're going to face punishment.
Why is it so hard to understand such basic concepts of democracy?
When you live in a country, you follow their laws. If the legislature passes a law, you will (usually)be punished if you don't follow it. You can protest against it of course, but if you break it, you're going to face punishment.
Because not all laws can or should be passed, and civil disobedience is one of many methods available to the populace to resist/protest such things, provided one is willing to face the consequences. It can be done for a wide range of reasons. One of the most simple ones that I do every day about is break speed limit laws. Most of these I find ridiculously archaic and nothing more than ways to generate government revenue through fines. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have such noble causes as the civil rights marches in the 60's, with boycotting of buses and other segregated services, as well as ignoring "white only" signs and the such.
HoreTore
07-02-2009, 13:59
Because not all laws can or should be passed, and civil disobedience is one of many methods available to the populace to resist/protest such things, provided one is willing to face the consequences. It can be done for a wide range of reasons. One of the most simple ones that I do every day about is break speed limit laws. Most of these I find ridiculously archaic and nothing more than ways to generate government revenue through fines. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have such noble causes as the civil rights marches in the 60's, with boycotting of buses and other segregated services, as well as ignoring "white only" signs and the such.
Of course? But civil disobedience or not, if you break the law, you will be punished. You can't go around breaking the law thinking you won't get punished for it "because you're right", and then whine about it when you eventually get the whip.
But intentionally breaking a law you disagree with, and then accepting your punishment while voicing your concerns, that's something else, of course.
And people who break the speeding limits eventually end up in a coffin anyway, so, yeah...
Furunculus
07-02-2009, 15:51
And people who break the speeding limits eventually end up in a coffin anyway, so, yeah...
people who drive badly are prone to killing themselves, and others, regardless of whether they break speed limits or not.
HoreTore
07-02-2009, 16:36
people who drive badly are prone to killing themselves, and others, regardless of whether they break speed limits or not.
....Which is why we have speeding limits. You might be Michael Schumacher II, but that guy coming towards you in a sharp turn is an 18-year old who got his license yesterday. The faster you drive, the lower your chance of avoiding that obstacle, and even if you do hit him, your odds of surviving increases dramatically if you were driving at, for example, 80km/h instead of 100km/h, as the force of the impact is double at 100km/h.
Furunculus
07-02-2009, 16:49
....Which is why we have speeding limits. You might be Michael Schumacher II, but that guy coming towards you in a sharp turn is an 18-year old who got his license yesterday. The faster you drive, the lower your chance of avoiding that obstacle, and even if you do hit him, your odds of surviving increases dramatically if you were driving at, for example, 80km/h instead of 100km/h, as the force of the impact is double at 100km/h.
sorry, don't want to derail the very worthy discussion ongoing in this thread, just wanted to provide a British perspective on Gov'ts wrong-headed attempt to conflate all road-safety problems with speed:
http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129
HoreTore
07-02-2009, 19:01
sorry, don't want to derail the very worthy discussion ongoing in this thread, just wanted to provide a British perspective on Gov'ts wrong-headed attempt to conflate all road-safety problems with speed:
http://www.speedcameras.org/speed-camera-news-article.php?id=129
Oh dear heavens, what a nice example of doublespeech. And I thought only politicians had that fine ability! First, they state this:
The results show that 5% of all accidents are attributed to exceeding the speed limit.
And then, looking at the numbers, you find...
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Slippery road: 10%
Sudden braking: 7%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
....And suddenly, you have 46% of all accidents related to driving too fast. And you could add the 7% from "driving to close" to that statistic as well, really.
Lost control of the vehicle? You went too fast, idiot!
The road was slippery? You went too fast, idiot!
Someone were suddenly braking in front of you and you didn't have time to react? You went too fast, idiot!
Yes, very good source there, Furunculus, and of course I assume that you posted it to back up my point, not the other way around ~;)
By this article, it seems that aggressive behaviour is the number one cause of accidents, followed by inexperience. Aggressive drivers very often break the speed limit, and thus should be fined for being dangerous retards.
Also, I have another linky (http://www.kna.no/Default.asp?ItemID=2584) from the royal norwegian automotive association, unfortunately in Norwegian, but I'll translate the beginning, just for you:
An in-depth analysis of traffic accidents show that in almost 70% of all death accidents, the driver has been the dominant cause of the accident. In over 50% of all accidents resulting in deaths, the speed has been too high.
...
- The report is crystal clear. In 20% of the accidents, speeding has been the direct cause of the accident, while it's been an indirect factor in over 50% of the accidents, says road director Terje Moe Gustavsen.
Hate to disrail the thread, but there is a reason that those other categories were not included under speeding, and this is because while their speed was too fast for conditions, they weren't exceeding the legal speed limit. If conditions are bad, water on road, windy, fog etc, then going 20km/h in a 50km/h zone could be considered too fast. On a perfectly flat straight highway then a safe speed could easily be 150+.
The main cause for accidents are inexperience, the top 3 categories, I would list them under inexperience or bad driving habits, make up 75%. A licence should be harder to get.
HoreTore and Miotas pretty much hit the nail on the head. Too fast for conditions and too fast legally are two different things. To some people, they obviously see and know what is being said, to others, this fact needs to be spelled out for them.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 01:16
What a sad demonstation of western confusion this thread is. If there is one thing we should insist upon, export, propagate and force down the throat of dictatorial s regimes, it is freedom. There is nothing 'neocolonial' about freedom. The neocolonial attitude would be that we couldn't care less whether other people live in freedom, because hey, they're different, they don't value human life, and who are we to tell them they should?
I'm with HoreTore, Louis or Fragony. Hit them where it hurts most. Back in the days of the cold war we used to have pretty good system in the West to stop the sale of military, political or dual-use stuff to the eastern bloc states. It put them back light-years, forced them to develop stuff themsleves at great cost. We can do that again. Let's keep the world's dictatorships barefoot and pregnant of change, I say.
So you're a supporter of our Cuban embargo and would like to see it expanded to other governments?
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 08:00
So you're a supporter of our Cuban embargo and would like to see it expanded to other governments?
I would fully support an embargo of a lot of items to Cuba, and I would certainly want to see that expanded to other countries.
I don't support a complete blockade, though. Hit the dictators, not the common trader. Import and export cell phones, foodstuffs, computers, medical supplies, etc to Cuba. Stop any and all weaponry, surveillance equipment, luxury items for the leaders, etc.
But then again, why bother with an embargo when it's a lot more fun to dismantle naughty companies?
What a sad demonstation of western confusion this thread is. If there is one thing we should insist upon, export, propagate and force down the throat of dictatorial s regimes, it is freedom. There is nothing 'neocolonial' about freedom. The neocolonial attitude would be that we couldn't care less whether other people live in freedom, because hey, they're different, they don't value human life, and who are we to tell them they should?
:2thumbsup:
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 09:30
So you're a supporter of our Cuban embargo and would like to see it expanded to other governments?So you're a lover of non-sequiturs and want to see another one?
Import and export cell phones
Cell phone for Cuba but no internet for Iran? :inquisitive:
Hit them where it hurts most. Back in the days of the cold war we used to have pretty good system in the West to stop the sale of military, political or dual-use stuff to the eastern bloc states. It put them back light-years, forced them to develop stuff themsleves at great cost. We can do that again. Let's keep the world's dictatorships barefoot and pregnant of change, I say.
:2thumbsup:
There was another awesome system used in the Cold War too. It is where America overthrew democratic elected government to install dictators loyal and on America's payroll.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 11:58
That neda video was spread via the internet, the very same internet you wish to remove. Someone please tell me how they will benefit from having their internet removed.What's with the talk about 'removing their internet'? Nobody proposed to remove anybody's internet. But you don't sell the Iranian government a system that allows deep-packet inspection, sifting through data for keywords and searching all content of e-mail and voice transmissions.
If you don't care about the consequences and just want to make money, say so. Don't pose as the true liberator of Iran. All this talk about the internet 'liberating' and 'empowering' people is a lot of crap anyway. The story of the Iranian 'twitter revolution' has been debunked by correspondents since day one. It's a load of company propaganda and I'm amazed that someone like Ronin buys it.
"But Nokia allowed the world to see Neda being shot."
"Sure, and Nokia allowed all her friends to be arrested one after the other, you imbeciles."
If you remove the Iranian government's ability to censor the internet, do you really think that they will allow unrestricted internet access? If there was no way to monitor or restrict what the people were seeing then the Iranian government would simply cut off all internet access.
If you remove the Iranian government's ability to censor the internet, do you really think that they will allow unrestricted internet access? If there was no way to monitor or restrict what the people were seeing then the Iranian government would simply cut off all internet access.
What we mean is that you don't provide the likes of Iran with high-tech spying capabilities, how do you expect it will be used. Let them build their own, Iranian hackers are probably much more capable than anything the government can pray together. But thanks to Nokia they end up with a persian necklace and no ground to put their feet on, which isn't very fun.
What's with the talk about 'removing their internet'? Nobody proposed to remove anybody's internet. But you don't sell the Iranian government a system that allows deep-packet inspection, sifting through data for keywords and searching all content of e-mail and voice transmissions.
If you don't care about the consequences and just want to make money, say so. Don't pose as the true liberator of Iran. All this talk about the internet 'liberating' and 'empowering' people is a lot of crap anyway. The story of the Iranian 'twitter revolution' has been debunked by correspondents since day one. It's a load of company propaganda and I'm amazed that someone like Ronin buys it.
"But Nokia allowed the world to see Neda being shot."
"Sure, and Nokia allowed all her friends to be arrested one after the other, you imbeciles."
Currently any government who runs an Internet network in their territory has these capacities, given that they invest enough money in equipment. If they have the technological hability to set up the network they have the technical hability to control it...it´s not like there´s network technology with "training wheels" for sale out there that lets you do one thing but not the other.
So I do not understand exactly how you propose for the Iranian population to have internet access without the government having control over it...they are the de-fact power on the ground and they will have control of the country's infrastructure, that´s just the way it is.
Unless an outside power comes in to run the infrastructure in a more "fair" way, which the Iranian government would never allow obviously, or if you spend the money to give every Iranian capacity to access a foreign ISP directly somehow (give everyone satellite phones?) the population have the Internet that they will have while the current government is in charge....which is still better than no Internet in my opinion.
As for 'posing as the true liberator of Iran'....I believe I have never said any such thing, I am in this for the money as are my bosses I am very sure, I wish that Iran had a more democratic government, but I do admit that the situation does not 'keep me up nights'..so to speak.
But the fact is that I work for a company that makes a product that has a positive impact in the lives of the population.
This positive effect may be diminished by the use the product is given but cannot be canceled, unless the network is shut down, even in that case the population is no worse off because of me or my co-workers.
Just because you got a road, doesn't mean you have the technologically to accurately detect speeding or automatically suppress certain types of cars efficiently.
What's with the talk about 'removing their internet'? Nobody proposed to remove anybody's internet. But you don't sell the Iranian government a system that allows deep-packet inspection, sifting through data for keywords and searching all content of e-mail and voice transmissions.Yes, let's limit them to shallow packet inspection only. :dizzy2:
If they have a functioning network, they can monitor whatever they want- that's how these things work.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 16:58
Yes, let's limit them to shallow packet inspection only. :dizzy2:
If they have a functioning network, they can monitor whatever they want- that's how these things work.A network can function very well without a central hub where all content is checked.
A spokesman for Nokia Siemens Networks defended the sale of the equipment to Iran suggesting that the company provided the technology with the idea that it would be used for “lawful intercept,” such as combating terrorism, child pornography, drug trafficking and other criminal activity. Equipment installed for law enforcement purposes, however, can easily be used for spying as well.
Just because you got a road, doesn't mean you have the technologically to accurately detect speeding or automatically suppress certain types of cars efficiently.
Yes...because a road tar-laying machine and an advanced digital network manager are technologies that can be compared like that :dizzy2:
Did you not know? The internet is a tube of trucks carrying information.
However, the example is comparable, such as having a phone. You can have the network in place, such as the internet/phone/road but you might not have the technology to automatically prevent certain words in a phone conversation from being blocked automatically, such as you are proposing comes naturally with internet management. It is different technologies and systems.
Did you not know? The internet is a tube of trucks carrying information.
However, the example is comparable, such as having a phone. You can have the network in place, such as the internet/phone/road but you might not have the technology to automatically prevent certain words in a phone conversation from being blocked automatically, such as you are proposing comes naturally with internet management. It is different technologies and systems.
if we where talking about an old school analog the phone line you would have a point
but in a digital network like the ones we are talking about?...the manager has the capacity to find out what is traveling through the network in a fairly automatic way....the variables are how much time and energy one is prepared to put into doing this, and of course the amount of effort the end-users employ to dissimulating their communications (encryption..etc)..but the basic functionality for intercept is just a part of the system.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 17:40
[..] the manager has the capacity to find out what is traveling through the network in a fairly automatic way....Sorry, but this is claptrap. You are telling us that the system they sold in 2008 is part and parcel of every communications system.
Ergo, before 2008 Iran didn't have internet or mobile phone networks. Oh, but it did. So the system wasn't generic at all, was it? It was specifically created to allow authorities to intercept content.
Here's what the BBC makes of it:
Iran is well known for filtering the net, but the government has moved to do the same for mobile phones. Nokia Siemens Network has confirmed it supplied Iran with the technology needed to monitor, control, and read local telephone calls. It told the BBC that it sold a product called the Monitoring Centre to Iran Telecom in the second half of 2008.
Data inspection
Nokia Siemens, a joint venture between the Finnish and German companies, supplied the system to Iran through its Intelligent Solutions business, which was sold in March 2009 to Perusa Partners Fund 1LP, a German investment firm.
The product allows authorities to monitor any communications across a network, including voice calls, text messaging, instant messages, and web traffic. But Nokia Siemens says the product is only being used, in Iran, for the monitoring of local telephone calls on fixed and mobile lines.
Rather than just block traffic, it is understood that the monitoring system can also interrogate data to see what information is being passed back and forth. A spokesman described the system as "a standard architecture that the world's governments use for lawful intercept".
Sorry, but this is claptrap. You are telling us that the system they sold in 2008 is part and parcel of every communications system.
Ergo, before 2008 Iran didn't have internet or mobile phone networks. Oh, but it did.
Computers use LCT technology on their screens to display pictures to the users...
Ergo, before LCT technology became common computers had no screens and the users had to guess what was going on just from the noise the disk an other internal pieces made.... ohhh wait... :sweatdrop:
Lesson of the day:
Technology changes.....just because an improvement is standard now does not mean there weren´t other solutions before....
So the system wasn't generic at all, was it? It was specifically created to allow authorities to intercept content.
Here's what the BBC makes of it:
........
Rather than just block traffic, it is understood that the monitoring system can also interrogate data to see what information is being passed back and forth. A spokesman described the system as "a standard architecture that the world's governments use for lawful intercept".
Bolds mine....
I don´t know about you...but where I come from....Standard and Generic are pretty much close to synonymous in meaning...
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 18:05
I don´t know about you...but where I come from....Standard and Generic are pretty much close to synonymous in meaning...You come from the EU where this is standard, as it is in the US. It is not, or should not be, standard in dictatorships.
Internet and mobile phone networks in Iran worked quite well before they implemented this system. Of course Nokia tells us they sold the system to help Tehran fight child pornography.
Oh, the humanity!
Do they really think those beards, who sent over a million kids to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war armed with clubs and pitchforks, care about children one way or the other? Pullease. :wall:
You come from the EU where this is standard, as it is in the US. It is not, or should not be, standard in dictatorships.
Internet and mobile phone networks in Iran worked quite well before they implemented this system. Of course Nokia tells us they sold the system to help Tehran fight child pornography.
Oh, the humanity!
Do they really think those beards, who sent over a million kids to their deaths in the Iran-Iraq war armed with clubs and pitchforks, care about children one way or the other? Pullease. :wall:
you think NSN is gonna build a special custom-to-spec product for every costumer? they bought out of a standard product portfolio like all other customers.
unless you are telling me that without our equipment they would turn into nice guys all of a sudden I continue to not see the point really.
The situation is bad in the country yes...but this is not because of us selling to them, nor is the situation made worse by it.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 18:20
unless you are telling me that without our equipment they would turn into nice guys all of a sudden I continue to not see the point really.Without the equipment they would do less harm to the opposition. The fact that you don't 'see' that is typical. That's why we still need government action on such issues, in the form of standards for sales and deliveries of sensitive technology to dictatorships like we used to have.
The real pipe-dream here is the illusion that internet or mobile phones will turn all Iranians into nice people. I know you don't share that pipe-dream and that you're in this 'just for the money', like you said. What can I say? Enjoy your money.
Without the equipment they would do less harm to the opposition. The fact that you don't 'see' that is typical. That's why we still need government action on such issues, in the form of standards for sales and deliveries of sensitive technology to dictatorships like we used to have.
The real pipe-dream here is the illusion that internet or mobile phones will turn all Iranians into nice people. I know you don't share that pipe-dream and that you're in this 'just for the money', like you said. What can I say? Enjoy your money.
Like I said here before...no telecommunications -> less trade of ideas inside the country -> less opportunity for the opposition's ideas to spread.
And thanks, yes I will.
Louis VI the Fat
07-03-2009, 18:33
Nokia tells us they sold the system to help Tehran fight child pornography. No, Nokia told us they sold the technology to Iran to fight terrorism. Which in the climate of two years ago did not raise many Western eyebrows. Since fighting terrorism was what governments do.
And as the ayatollahs have made abundantly clear, Iran is currently waging a War on Terror. They face terrorists. Like Neda.
Which ties in nicely with the Iran thread, and the power of language.
'A spokesman for Nokia Siemens Networks defended the sale of the equipment to Iran suggesting that the company provided the technology with the idea that it would be used for “lawful intercept,” such as combating terrorism'
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 18:39
you think NSN is gonna build a special custom-to-spec product for every costumer?
Yes, of course they do. When big money is involved, everything is custom-made for each customer. Which company isn't doing that?
Prodigal
07-03-2009, 18:42
In such instances one can only hope they had the forethought to install the same chips the US used when selling photocopiers to the Iraqi government.
In such instances one can only hope they had the forethought to install the same chips the US used when selling photocopiers to the Iraqi government.
one could have just mentioned the case when the americans sold F-14s to Iran....now that´s a technology that might had a bit of a negative impact...but hey....it´s telecom tech that is EVIL :juggle2:
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 19:18
no telecommunications -> less trade of ideas inside the country -> less opportunity for the opposition's ideas to spread.That's not the point, is it? The point is whether government controlled and supervised telecommunications are okay.
Anyway, since you are now reverting to the pipe-dream after all - why don't you prove it? Can you name one (1) study proving that telecommunications stimulate the spread of oppositional thought in dictatorships? I haven't seen one. I think it's just a slogan. Industry propaganda. Guru chatter. Chit-chat for latte drinkers. The whole idea is just as hollow as any slogan about previous 'communications revolutions'.
Did the telegraph overthrow the Mexican govement in 1910? No, but it enabled Porfirio Díaz to throw Madero in jail the day after the election. And to start a seven-year civil war in which the military always had the upper hand because they controlled the freaking telegraph.
Did the radio stop Adolf Hitler? On the contrary, he made better use of it than any of his opponents both within and outside of Germany.
Did the Berlin Wall come down because the Russians had television? I don't think so. If anything, Soviet television hampered the development of oppositional thought. It was a tranquillizer and propaganda hub more than anything else.
So who says the Iranian government (or the Chinese govermment for that matter) isn't learning to control these new networks right now, with an eye to turning them into effective propaganda tools just like Hitler's radio and Brezhnev's tv? You don't think so? Prove it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: all thought of linear progress in history is nonsense and all thought of liberation through technological progress is dangerous nonsense.
Prodigal
07-03-2009, 19:20
one could have just mentioned the case when the americans sold F-14s to Iran....now that´s a technology that might had a bit of a negative impact...but hey....it´s telecom tech that is EVIL :juggle2:
Ahhhh but if you don't train people in how to fly them, or sell them the spare parts, (although you can pick those up on ebay in the UK now :P ), they're not much more than expensive toys.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 19:30
No, Nokia told us they sold the technology to Iran to fight terrorism.That's what your Nokia spokesman says. My Nokia spokesman says it was meant to fight child pornography. For all I care they sold it to fight swine flu. The hypocrisy flies in the face anyway.
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 19:34
one could have just mentioned the case when the americans sold F-14s to Iran....now that´s a technology that might had a bit of a negative impact...but hey....it´s telecom tech that is EVIL :juggle2:
I am sure that the people who oppose selling surveillance equipment to Iran are also against selling them weaponry.
As for your specific case, I wasn't born at the time those F-14 were sold, so it would be rather hard for me to protest against them... And the planes they buy now are from China, again nothing we can do anything about.
Louis VI the Fat
07-03-2009, 20:43
one could have just mentioned the case when the americans sold F-14s to Iran....now that´s a technology that might had a bit of a negative impact...but hey....it´s telecom tech that is EVIL :juggle2:We're not singling out telecom, Nokia-Siemens, or you personally out of spite or for want of knowledge of other companies and states selling Iran anti child molester equipment.
You're just here and debating with us, that's all. We're not on a crusade against you, it's nothing personal. ~:grouphug:
That's not the point, is it? The point is whether government controlled and supervised telecommunications are okay.
Anyway, since you are now reverting to the pipe-dream after all
All telecommunications are under governmental controled and supervision to some level.
and on a thread full of people basically saying that if Iran can´t have a completely free telecom network they shouldn´t be able to buy one at all saying I´m the one going after the pipe-dream is kinda ridiculous.....if anything at all I´m the one being the realist here.
HoreTore
07-03-2009, 20:57
All telecommunications are under governmental controled and supervision to some level.
and on a thread full of people basically saying that if Iran can´t have a completely free telecom network they shouldn´t be able to buy one at all saying I´m the one going after the pipe-dream is kinda ridiculous.....if anything at all I´m the one being the realist here.
If they want spying capabilities, they should be forced to make it themselves.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 21:04
...if anything at all I´m the one being the realist here.Then prove what you said. Prove that the following is real:
Like I said here before...no telecommunications -> less trade of ideas inside the country -> less opportunity for the opposition's ideas to spread.
Prodigal
07-03-2009, 21:07
Man; there's simply some stuff you can't/shouldn't try to make people feel secure in or around. One of them is jumping out of a plane, the other is the internet, (and if you're a liveleak fan heavy machinery). It's not the post, it's the interpretation at the time of reading.
Then prove what you said. Prove that the following is real:
You´re actually asking me to prove that information flows more freely in a society with a modern telecomunications grid (even if government controlled) than in one without? :shocked2:
you´re serious?
what next....you´re gonna ask me to prove that water is wet?
I have better things to do on a Friday night....we can pick this up tomorrow.
Adrian II
07-03-2009, 23:18
You´re actually asking me to prove that information flows more freely in a society with a modern telecomunications grid (even if government controlled) than in one without? :shocked2:Not just any information. But oppositional thought; information that runs counter to official propaganda. And not just that, but oppositional information that is more pervasive than the official propaganda.
Remember what I said about radio, tv and other 'communications revolutions'. The real issue is who benefits most from them in a dictatorship: the powers that be or the democratic opposition?
I know - that's a tough one. I'll be here all week, my friend.
Oh come on Adrian, I work at a fuel station, just a few hours a week, student job, that means I support the Ayatollahs and the Sauds, I'm in it for the money so I better quit and live under a bridge with a cancelled university education while one of the other guesstimated 500 people who are cringing for a job will take over my work, I'mm sure that will show those Ayatollahs and Sauds and bring freedom to the rest of the world... :rolleyes:
And then we get comparisons between a series of tubes and roads... :sweatdrop:
Some of the measures that governments may use to limit traffic are in your standardhome or office router, we can stop selling those to Iran, heck, you can use a computer to hack into other computers, maybe we should stop selling those to Iran so the government cannot use them to hack into opposition computers. :dizzy2:
I mean apart from what I just said, where would you draw the line?
Would you not want to sell anything to dictatorships?
What makes Iran a dictatorship? Their elections? I think we got those here as well, can you prove ours are not rigged?
Adrian II
07-04-2009, 01:54
What makes Iran a dictatorship?Everything you say has been answered or refuted earlier in this thread, except this one. It is brilliant in its simplicity.
Let me see, where did I leave my notes? Ah yes.
Well, Iran is a dictatorship because its government is built upon one religion only, because power is in the hands of a religious clique that coopts itself, because there is no freedom of movement, no freedom of organisation, no freedom of opinion of press, no equality before the law and no justice for women and political dissidents in particular. I think that about covers it.
Anything else?
Everything you say has been answered or refuted earlier in this thread
Well, I'm obviously not satisfied, just on this page you indirectly said Ronin should stop working for his company, or maybe you can explain what else an emotional appeal like this:
The real pipe-dream here is the illusion that internet or mobile phones will turn all Iranians into nice people. I know you don't share that pipe-dream and that you're in this 'just for the money', like you said. What can I say? Enjoy your money.
was supposed to mean?
This whole boycotting the jobs would only work if everybody did it and I bet you there are enough people who care more about their fun and games than anything else who would gladly take those jobs or otherwise companies could pull off a lot less in general than what they do now, same for governments, but there is already another thread on this topic.
Let me see, where did I leave my notes? Ah yes.
Well, Iran is a dictatorship because its government is built upon one religion only, because power is in the hands of a religious clique that coopts itself, because there is no freedom of movement, no freedom of organisation, no freedom of opinion of press, no equality before the law and no justice for women and political dissidents in particular. I think that about covers it.
Anything else?
Very nice, now you can make an emotional appeal to their government like you did to Ronin above and demand they quit their jobs, or maybe quit your own in protest.
On a whole though I'm still not convinced at all that the equipment sold to them was special equipment designed specifically to block internet access, as some random guy on the bus said...the world is not fair, shock, horror!
What's the next step? Fine ikea for selling the US chairs that can be used for torture?* I mean the US had working chairs before so it's not like that was necessary.
*I don't really know whether ikea chairs were used during torture, this is a purely hypothetical argument and no animals were hurt during it's creation, terms and conditions may apply
HoreTore
07-04-2009, 08:34
On a whole though I'm still not convinced at all that the equipment sold to them was special equipment designed specifically to block internet access, as some random guy on the bus said...the world is not fair, shock, horror!
What's the next step? Fine ikea for selling the US chairs that can be used for torture?* I mean the US had working chairs before so it's not like that was necessary.
You honestly believe a government(heck, anyone) buys expensive stuff without it being custom-made specifically to suit their requirements? You honestly believe that when the government is looking to blow 100 million(random number) on something, they go looking through catalogs?
You work at a gas station, Husar(as do I). Take a look at, for example, the register you have there. You won't find that exact system at any other gas station chain, that one has been customized specifically to cover the needs of your company. Your company spent quite a few millions on that system, why on earth would they blow it on generic systems when sellers were dying to fulfill their every need for to make the sale?
Same with Iran. Nokia isn't the only company willing to make a lot of money by selling stuff to Iran. So Iran didn't have to flick through a catalog, what they did was announce their requirements, and then pick the provider with the best system at the best price.
Prodigal
07-04-2009, 09:41
Everything you say has been answered or refuted earlier in this thread, except this one. It is brilliant in its simplicity.
Let me see, where did I leave my notes? Ah yes.
Well, Iran is a dictatorship because its government is built upon one religion only, because power is in the hands of a religious clique that coopts itself, because there is no freedom of movement, no freedom of organisation, no freedom of opinion of press, no equality before the law and no justice for women and political dissidents in particular. I think that about covers it.
Anything else?
Yup, aren't they an unelected clique that siezed power in a popular uprising, and that invests something like 40-50% of the GDP in an army they control...
Adrian II
07-04-2009, 09:50
Well, I'm obviously not satisfied [..]I can obviously live with that. Ronin and others all got my points.
You honestly believe a government(heck, anyone) buys expensive stuff without it being custom-made specifically to suit their requirements? You honestly believe that when the government is looking to blow 100 million(random number) on something, they go looking through catalogs?
To some extent, yes, if the available system already has all the functions they want for example.
We just introduced block lists for child porn sites here and I don't think our ISPs had to buy new censorship equipment for that, the functions are all in their standard equipment.
I can obviously live with that. Ronin and others all got my points.
That's not the point, is it? The point is whether government controlled and supervised telecommunications are okay.
You mean that point? I agree but in that case see my answer to HoreTore above, should we punish american companies which sell hardware to european countries that have laws regarding the blocking of childporn on the internet since obviously that is censorship? And yes, I'm against these blockades but it's a problem we(the people) have to solve with our own government, I don't want the whole world to stop selling us stuff just because we have some idiotic ministers.
Similarly I think what the iranian government does with the iranian internet is a problem of the iranian people and their government, they have to sort this out, not we.
Adrian II
07-04-2009, 12:49
And yes, I'm against these blockades but it's a problem we(the people) have to solve with our own government, I don't want the whole world to stop selling us stuff just because we have some idiotic ministers.I see, you didn't get the point of anything that went before. Maybe it is a bit much to ask. Sorry, Husar, for being so blunt with you. I really thought you were taking the urine out of me, particularly with that question about Iranian dictatorship.
Well, weren't you? :mellow:
My main point is this.
Ronin and others maintain that modern communications networks like internet and mobile phones are doing more good than bad in Iran, even if the government controls them. The 'free flow of information' as Ronin puts it will help the opposition and the advent of democracy. And since the surveillance capacity is integral to every system, you can't sell one without to other. Therefore, in the end, his company is helping Iran.
I beg to differ. Iran has no free flow of information. It has a heavily restricted flow whereby individual senders are checked by government agencies and channels are overflowing with official propaganda. As for the surveillance capacity sold by Nokia and Siemens: it wasn't there before they sold it to Tehran in 2008, yet Iran had both internet and mobile phone networks. Ergo this system is not integral to the networks, it was sold seperately with an eye to enabling the Iranian state to closely monitor communications.
Lingering in the background of all this is a main theme of modern superstition, namely that technological progress always benefits democracy.
My main point is this.
Ronin and others maintain that modern communications networks like internet and mobile phones are doing more good than bad in Iran, even if the government controls them. The 'free flow of information' as Ronin puts it will help the opposition and the advent of democracy. And since the surveillance capacity is integral to every system, you can't sell one without to other. Therefore, in the end, his company is helping Iran.
I beg to differ. Iran has no free flow of information. It has a heavily restricted flow whereby individual senders are checked by government agencies and channels are overflowing with official propaganda. As for the surveillance capacity sold by Nokia and Siemens: it wasn't there before they sold it to Tehran in 2008, yet Iran had both internet and mobile phone networks. Ergo this system is not integral to the networks, it was sold seperately with an eye to enabling the Iranian state to closely monitor communications.
I have already explained this through analogy before in this thread.
If you go and buy a brand new car right now it will have ABS systems and Air Bags by standard...
Now....I still drive a car from 1991 that has none of these things....this does not nullify the fact that these things are standard now. now does it?
The technology we have discussed regarding network control is standard in modern telecom networks, and have become more prevalent lately, specially after 9-11....as you correctly have stated the said equipment was sold by Nokia Siemens in 2008 and was state-of-the-art equipment at that time....does older equipment exist without these features or with less capability in these fields? yes it does, but like every other company in this market I would say that NSN is not in the business of selling outdated tech.
I would say that this thread is going in circles by now....
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 17:42
...as you correctly have stated the said equipment was sold by Nokia Siemens in 2008 and was state-of-the-art equipment at that time...So Nokia sold them state-of-the-art surveillance equipment that they didn't have before. QED.
Now, are you still of the opinion that Iran is better off with it? That increased surveillance by the Tehran government will increase the 'free flow of information' in Iran, as you put it?
Louis VI the Fat
07-06-2009, 18:51
Welcome to NedaNet
This is the resource page for NedaNet, a network of hackers formed to support the democratic revolution in Iran. Our mission is to help the Iranian people by setting up networks of proxy severs, anonymizers, and any other appropriate technologies that can enable them to communicate and organize — a network beyond the censorship or control of the Iranian regime.
NedaNet doesn't have leaders or a manifesto or even much in the way of organization. We're not affiliated with any nation or religion. We're just computer hackers and computer users from all over the planet doing what we can to help the Iranian people in their struggle for freedom.
NedaNet does have contacts on the ground in Iran. We are actively and directly cooperating with the revolutionaries (though for obvious security reasons most of us don't know who the contacts are). By helping us, you can help them.http://nedanet.org/
:daisy: Nokia-Siemens. Go NedaNet!!
So Nokia sold them state-of-the-art surveillance equipment that they didn't have before. QED.
Now, are you still of the opinion that Iran is better off with it? That increased surveillance by the Tehran government will increase the 'free flow of information' in Iran, as you put it?
NSN sold them state-of-the art Telecommunications Equipment yes....and you are assuming they did not have this capacity before...which has not been demonstrated.
I said before that even a controlled flow of information is better than no flow of information and I stand by this position....there is no practical way of checking every packet of information going through a network of that size without bringing the system to a halt.....some information will get through this is a given.....will it be heavily controlled? yes....it will be more than zero.
what I did not say is that there is complete 100% free flow of information in Iran, that would be a ridiculous statement giving the current government that controls the place.
What I also said is that Iran is no worse of because of me, my co-workers or the company I work for...and I will quote myself for effect.
But the fact is that I work for a company that makes a product that has a positive impact in the lives of the population.
This positive effect may be diminished by the use the product is given but cannot be canceled, unless the network is shut down, even in that case the population is no worse off because of me or my co-workers.
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 19:39
...some information will get through this is a given.....will it be heavily controlled? yes....it will be more than zero.Sure, some information will get through.
What a pity, then, that the opposition never knows what part will get through. And who will be arrested, tortured and shot this time round. And why is that? It's because they don't have sophisticated software of the kind that Nokia sold to their government.
I liked you better when you wrote that you were just in it for the money and didn't care. Go ahead, enjoy your money, but spare us the bogus liberation talk.
Louis VI the Fat
07-06-2009, 20:00
What I also said is that Iran is no worse of because of me, my co-workers or the company I work forYes it is. Iranians are monitored, arrested, tortured and killed because of your company.
Nokia/Siemens know this full well. They cashed their blood money from Iran, and when questions started being asked to Nokia Siemens, the companies quickly decided to wash off their hands of this spying technology. The technology was sold to an outside, anonymous investment firm.
Being both a visible consumer brand and a mercenary for murderous scum does not combine well, Nokia realised this march. :yes:
On March 31st, 2009 Nokia Siemens Networks and Perusa Partners Fund I L.P., a private investment firm advised by Munich based Perusa GmbH, successfully closed the sale of Nokia Siemens Networks’ Intelligence Solutions business to Perusa.# Nokia Siemens Networks made the decision to exit this business as it primarily addresses customer segments which differ from telecom service providers and is therefore not part of Nokia Siemens Networks core business.
In all countries where it operates the company does business strictly in accordance with the Nokia Siemens Networks Code of Conduct and in full compliance with UN and EU export control regulations and other applicable laws and regulations.#'Nokia Siemens Networks’ Intelligence Solutions business' is the spying technology.
This means either of two things, I am not sure and am not a reporter with the time to get to the bottom of this:
- Apparantly, since this technology was sold off, networks can be installed without this 'standard' Intelligence Solution.
- Or, networks will remain to be installed with 'Intelligence Solutions', and Perusa offered Nokia/Siemens a shield from meddlesome questions:
The fund we counsel is not listed on the stock exchange and is thus able to act independently from quarterly reports and analyses.
Our investments are always long-term. The fund has a maturity of up to 14 years. Thus our investments are of longer duration than others, but also more successful.
The fund stands for capital and substance.# No matter, if you need a new shareholder for a successful company, whether you are looking for growth capital or if you are planning a management-buy-out or a company succession is pending, together we will find the optimal solution for each situation.
Our circle of investors is diversified and is networked globally. Renowned international banks, pensions and insurers are part of it. With them we flexibly execute small investments and also arrange major transactions quickly and straightforward.
We think globally and act locally. Our partners and investors are based in the most important financial centers worldwide. Nevertheless, we decide independently.# Decisions are made efficiently and without the usual loop ways via investment committees in London or New York.
Our customer contact is intensive and very personal, since we consider both sides to be important for a successful cooperation.
We are different from others. We also like to deal with difficult situations, also invest in smaller companies, in companies with faint profitability or with operative problems. We are flexible and always prepared for various situations.Shall we classify the transfer of Nokia/Siemens's spying equipment, eh...'Intelligence Solutions', under 'difficult situations'? At least, difficult enough to hide it away from the public eye so that Nokia/Siemens can provide governments, employees and customers the non-information that Nokia/Siemens does not provide spying technology to murderous scum with deep pockets?
Crazed Rabbit
07-06-2009, 20:01
Sure, some information will get through.
What a pity, then, that the opposition never knows what part will get through. And who will be arrested, tortured and shot this time round. And why is that? It's because they don't have sophisticated software of the kind that Nokia sold to their government.
I liked you better when you wrote that you were just in it for the money and didn't care. Go ahead, enjoy your money, but spare us the bogus liberation talk.
I've got to agree. This is just expanding the state's control over communications.
It's a lot easier to monitor text with computers than it is to read a bunch of written letters.
Now, if the government had not control over communications systems and companies - if they were private - and the government had no spying software from friendly European companies - that'd be one thing. But even in the US the NSA engages in warrantless wiretapping, because they have the ability to. It seems it'd be quite difficult to prevent a government from spying in a authoritarian state like Iran, where the government can spy itself or force companies to.
CR
I liked you better when you wrote that you were just in it for the money and didn't care. Go ahead, enjoy your money, but spare us the bogus liberation talk.
I would appreciate it if you didn´t put words in my "mouth" so to speak.
It´s the second time in this topic you accused me of doing this when I have done no such thing.
Would I like for Iran to have a more free government? sure that would be great. But I don´t cry myself to sleep over the situation in Iran either, and I have no problem admitting as much.
The government in Iran will change when the people of Iran decide to change it and there is enough support in the country for this...
Now if people want to go charging off against windmills like they are giants go right ahead as if that solves anything....this discussion is not constructive in the least and I for one am done with it.
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 21:27
Now if people want to go charging off against windmills like they are giants go right ahead as if that solves anything....this discussion is not constructive in the least and I for one am done with it.I guess we're done with the personal side of things.
However, lurking behind all this is the typical modern ideology that says that education, technology and communications will set people free. I have serious doubts about it. And I have seen almost no studies into this issue, bar John Gray's books.
I think this debate is rather stupid. It's really about whether a company should have built network infrastructure for Iran, or not. If you put a handful of intelligent people in a room with the core network equipment, they'll have no trouble monitoring what's going where and from who. If you think otherwise, you lack a basic grasp of how networks function.
So, should Iran never have been able to get a network built? What would the Iranian election protests look like today without Iranians having Internet access? Nothing, that's what. No viral videos, no Twitter, nothing. Would that be better? You decide.
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 22:07
I think this debate is rather stupid. It's really about whether a company should have built network infrastructure for Iran, or not. If you put a handful of intelligent people in a room with the core network equipment, they'll have no trouble monitoring what's going where and from who. If you think otherwise, you lack a basic grasp of how networks function.If you google for 'NSA' for a while or read James Bamford's books, you will see how incredibly simplistic your own view is.
What would the Iranian election protests look like today without Iranians having Internet access?What did they look like in 1979? Very much the same. Your line of questioning reminds me of medieval ways. 'What, you don't believe the earth is flat? Well duh!'
Strike For The South
07-06-2009, 22:15
Don't worry Ronin, you're just making a living. Technology is simply a tool. Whoever utilizies it best wins, good guy or bad.
If you google for 'NSA' for a while or read James Bamford's books, you will see how incredibly simplistic your own view is.I got a Bachelor's degree in Data Communications. If I'd only known about that book I guess I could've saved a lot of money. :dizzy2:
If you want to draw a specific point from your sources, go ahead and do so. But don't just appeal to authority and expect that to get you off the hook. It really is simple in a sense. If I setup a network and let users access it, I could sit linked into my router and monitor the source and destination of every packet going thru it. I could grab copies of any of them and pull them apart. I could do this with free downloadable software and a PC- obviously, the required processing power to do that on a national scale increases exponentially. But, if you intend to have a large-scale network you need the ability to monitor traffic for performance tuning and troubleshooting. There's no way to run a network without it.
Companies that run vast segments of the Internet backbone in the US do the same thing. The big difference is that in Iran, the government runs the network and has no respect for the rights of it's people. ISPs also want to keep customers. They'd have a hard time doing that if the narc'd on their users everytime they visited the Pirate Bay or some other shady site.
What did they look like in 1979? Very much the same. Your line of questioning reminds me of medieval ways. 'What, you don't believe the earth is flat? Well duh!'Uh-oh. Guilt by association? Guess you got me beat.
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 22:43
It really is simple in a sense. [..] obviously, the required processing power to do that on a national scale increases exponentially.Obviously. And that's where the Nokias of this world come in. If it were as simple as you suggest, Tehran wouldn't have bought their system in the first place. The sifting of signals in particular is an artform and the NSA appear to be past masters at it. They use the most powerful computers in the world for it.
The big difference is that in Iran, the government runs the network and has no respect for the rights of it's people.Right. Take it from there.
Add in the fact that Microsoft can't so much as operate MSN Messenger in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Sudan without facing sanctions in the US and you get the picture. Nokia would have never sold that sort of stuff to Pyongyang.
As for the illusion that technology = progress, all answers I have got to my question boil down to a 'well, duh'. Well duh, isn't that self-evident? Well duh, everybody says so, so it must be true. Well duh, do I need to spell it out for you?
Well yes, it would be nice if someone spelled it out for me some day. Prove that in a dictatorships modern communications networks create more benefits than damage.
I think we're nearing convergence here. My main point is that by implementing a large-scale network you are also giving the ability to monitor it.
If I might risk an analogy. It's like saying that we can give Iran nuclear technology without thinking that they'll use it for weapons. Once they have the technology you can't control what they do with it. The real question is should they have gotten it at all? (Or rather should western companies have been allowed to sell network technology to them)
Adrian II
07-06-2009, 23:13
I think we're nearing convergence here. My main point is that by implementing a large-scale network you are also giving the ability to monitor it.
If I might risk an analogy. It's like saying that we can give Iran nuclear technology without thinking that they'll use it for weapons. Once they have the technology you can't control what they do with it. The real question is should they have gotten it at all? (Or rather should western companies have been allowed to sell network technology to them)By all means, analogize. I am grateful that you address my point.
Allow me to counter with another analogy. What brought down communism in eastern Europe? New (communications) technologies? Or a mixture of old-fashioned power politics (military and strategic competition), containment and internal troubles otherwise known as the 'structurally induced stupidity' of communist society?
Methinks the latter. If anything, communism was brought own despite all the new technologies it introduced. It managed to harnass them for its own regime, including communications technologies such as mass printing and distribution, telephone, radio and tv.
By all means, analogize. I am grateful that you address my point.
Allow me to counter with another analogy. What brought down communism in eastern Europe? New (communications) technologies? Or a mixture of old-fashioned power politics (military and strategic competition), containment and internal troubles otherwise known as the 'structurally induced stupidity' of communist society?
Methinks the latter. If anything, communism was brought own despite all the new technologies it introduced. It managed to harnass them for its own regime, including communications technologies such as mass printing and distribution, telephone, radio and tv.
I would agree. Most authoritarian regimes collapse under the weight of their own stupidity. I'm definitely not signing onto the argument that monitored, controlled communication will bring down the Iranian regime. I think it has let us get a little more info than we would have otherwise, but that's not bringing the mullahs down any quicker. On the other hand though, I'm not sure that letting Iran get a network particularly empowers them either. As you point out, the USSR had and effectively controlled the available forms of communication at the time- but that didn't save them.
Should western companies have helped build Iran's network? I don't really have a strong opinion. I dont think there were real big national security concerns that should have made our governments step in to prevent it. On a personal level, I have slightly more a problem with Google, Yahoo ect who are bowing down and doing the censoring for these regimes. I still don't think that should be a matter of national policy though.
I see, you didn't get the point of anything that went before. Maybe it is a bit much to ask. Sorry, Husar, for being so blunt with you. I really thought you were taking the urine out of me, particularly with that question about Iranian dictatorship.
Well, weren't you? :mellow:
Sometimes half my post is serious and the rest is about monkey traps. I'm not going to tell you which is which. I'm not sure you got what I meant with monkey traps but it was another topic.
My main point is this.
Ronin and others maintain that modern communications networks like internet and mobile phones are doing more good than bad in Iran, even if the government controls them. The 'free flow of information' as Ronin puts it will help the opposition and the advent of democracy. And since the surveillance capacity is integral to every system, you can't sell one without to other. Therefore, in the end, his company is helping Iran.
I beg to differ. Iran has no free flow of information. It has a heavily restricted flow whereby individual senders are checked by government agencies and channels are overflowing with official propaganda. As for the surveillance capacity sold by Nokia and Siemens: it wasn't there before they sold it to Tehran in 2008, yet Iran had both internet and mobile phone networks. Ergo this system is not integral to the networks, it was sold seperately with an eye to enabling the Iranian state to closely monitor communications.
Lingering in the background of all this is a main theme of modern superstition, namely that technological progress always benefits democracy.
I see. I pretty much got your points very well, yet you don't seem to get mine, could be that I'm not expressing myself well.
I think internet companies all over the world update their internet infrastructure almost constantly with new hardware, people want more and more bandwidth, better ping times, the flow of data in general is becoming bigger and bigger and if progress stops, there will be bottlenecks, iranians might still trot around with 56k or ISDN because their infrastructure would be completely outdated, are you sure the old equipment did not have the means to censor the internet, is that really a new thing that popped up since the equipment was sold?
And then, Ronin says these newer censorship and wiretapping things were introduced after 9-11, obviously on western demand, it would be a bit weird if our governments would want to to have it and then punish companies for selling it to Iran, yes, i know Iran has a different government but then the iranian population already doesn't like us a lot for trying to prevent them from having nuclear energy, which, to some people is also nonsense since we have it here as well. It's a bit like putting a gun to the heads of iranians and saying "you stay in the stoneage or go die in a revolution to become like us".
IMO they should decide that themselves, it's not like by refusing to give them anything we would actively help them fight the government, we'd just make their lives a bit more miserable in general.
Update: It appears that the center Siemens and Nokia helped set up in Iran was not just a networking hub, but rather a custom-made optimized surveillance system (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/siemens-risks-losses-due-to-iran-ties/). Puts a different light on things.
One of the world's largest engineering firms, Siemens, could lose hundreds of millions of dollars in sales to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) because it sold Iran equipment used to spy on dissidents.
[...] the German company participated in a joint venture with Nokia in 2008 to sell Iran's telecommunications company a monitoring center that, according to the joint venture's own promotional literature, can intercept and catalog e-mails, telephone calls and Internet data.
so we said, for some time
Why penalise private firms for doing things which governments have been doing for years?
Why penalise private firms for doing things which governments have been doing for years?
Cause people can make profit?
I think the confirmation that Siemens and Nokia built a center specifically for monitoring and spying is news, even if nobody else thinks so. To listen to Ronin and Xiahou, you would think that they did nothing more than install a router that could be used for good or ill, and who can be blamed if they're black-hatting a perfectly pure installation of Ubuntu?
But the reality appears to be rather darker. If their sales brochure is boasting about how much surveillance their purpose-built interception center can accomplish, they're walking into an ethical swamp, and they deserve a great deal of bad publicity and lost contracts.
Louis VI the Fat
07-21-2009, 03:46
I think the confirmation that Siemens and Nokia built a center specifically for monitoring and spying is news, even if nobody else thinks so. I think it is news, and a good find at that. It is just that I have exhausted my ammunition in this thread.
Nokia Siemens Networks admits itself that its 'Intelligence Solutions' business differs from its normal telecom service business:
On March 31st, 2009 Nokia Siemens Networks and Perusa Partners Fund I L.P., a private investment firm advised by Munich based Perusa GmbH, successfully closed the sale of Nokia Siemens Networks’ Intelligence Solutions business to Perusa. Nokia Siemens Networks made the decision to exit this business as it primarily addresses customer segments which differ from telecom service providers and is therefore not part of Nokia Siemens Networks core business.There is a world of blood money in the statement above.
I think there are two issues," he said. "What is best for L.A. on these trains [and] what is Siemens doing in Iran and can you trust what they say about this."
Mr. Sherman said that Siemens is "one of the major companies involved in Iran. They have failed to outline for the world what they would not sell the government of Iran and they are certainly undercutting our efforts to put economic pressure on Iran."
The companies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Siemens can not be trusted about what it says it does in Iran, because Siemens claims two mutually exclusive things:
Nokia Siemens claim that their technology is standard. And simultaneously they claim that it is apparantly not standard, since it differs from their normal telecom service providers, that their networks can function without this 'Intelligence Solution', and that it is not part of their core business to address this 'customer segment'.
One thing is true though: Siemens does not manage surveillance technology in Iran. It doesn't because it quickly sold off this business three months ago when political questions were being asked. The cynicism from Nokia Siemens is breathtaking.
I am still hoping for some political entity to dig to the core of all this, and see if some Siemens bigwigs can be hanged.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.