This thread has been extremely interesting so far.

There seems to be a major misunderstanding about what exactly "political" is.

Some seem to reduce it to the discussion about controversial political points of view. That may indeed lead to discussions about as useful as fanatics of different (operating system)-religions bickering and end with the invocation of Godwins law a few postings down the road.

I think the discussion on subjects such as those in this thread is extremely important inside a community with lots of people who have a deeper understanding than Joe Sixpack about technology.

And I think that keeping it civil and respecting diverging standpoints is about the only thing it needs to continue to be interesting.

anyone want a Newcastle ? i've got 8 left ...

Re: Patriot Act
 

I mentioned the Patriot Act because of the technological provisions it contains -- aspects which are relevant for this forum, and which are not in and of themselves political. It is a rather voluminous act!

If the very mention of this Act is politically questionable, then I apologise. I really am trying my best to tread a fine and narrow path. :)

With best regards,
ArcticStones

That's horrible, and to think the Chinese people let themselves suffer under such circumstances :(

...but they do make great food :p :D

Microsoft like many others, want a piece of the big China pie.
Now that's not going to happen if 90% of the population uses
a pirated copy of windows xp and office.

What better way to enforce a crackdown on software piracy
then to enlist the help of the Chinese government who
has a "superb" human rights record.

Besides, doing busines in a foreign country require that you
ahere to the local rules & regulation as well as the local customs.
The government is a potential customer, you don't really want to
get on their "b" list.

I'm not taking anyone's side, just an observation ;)

Mmm... China pie

They’ll do anything for that Chinese pie!
 

Hayne, an innocent digression:

A few years ago, one of my clients called me at 11 pm on a Friday night. Meekly they asked if I could do an urgent translation.

"When do you need it by?"
"9 am tomorrow morning," was the hoarse, almost whispered, reply.
Long silence (mine). "Well, send it over and I’ll have a look at it."
Sent. Received. Looked at. Cursing myself for even considering giving up Friday night’s well-deserved sleep. Five minutes later:
"But what you’re asking for on such short notice is more than three days work! It cannot be done."
Long silence (theirs). "But, you see, we told the Chinese lady that we had already written the document in English as well. And we’ve promised to deliver it to her hotel by the time she eats breakfast. You see, we’re hoping for a joint venture with her company. She’s one of the wealthiest expatriates investing in her home country -- where we need a strong partner with local knowledge to advance our software."

It was a long night, trying to do as much of Mission Impossible as possible, with irresponsibly close to zero time for QA. With more coffee than I usually drink in a week (as close as I get to that longed-for amphetamine on occasions like this), I pulled it off -- and delivered at least some semblance of a full-fledged document just in time for my client’s CEO to print it out.

All because my client imagined that, sometime in the future, they would be eating Chinese pie. With a Chinese billionaire.

...who in the end decided that she didn’t want any Norwegian pie. :o Not knowing the culture, my customer somehow managed, a few weeks later, to step on their would-be breakfast partner’s well-pedicured Chinese toes.


It’s all about the pie, isn’t it? ;) :D

It sounds like we would want to encourage a holy-cow-chainsaw-massacre in Bombay or something.

Respecting cultural differences is all fine and well, but I believe that firmly encouraging some respect for fundamentals such as
La Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (1789), or the UN-version from 1948
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
will take us a long way towards a better tomorrow.

I'm quite sure that not many in this thread would oppose that text adopted by an overwhelming majority (including China) shortly after the end of the war.

That doesn't follow the point you were responding to, voldenuit; actually, it's a straw man fallacy.

I think the bottom line is that making human rights the basis of business arrangements is indeed a two-edged sword, and for a variety of reasons. I'm all for it, if possible, but the consequence is sometimes shooting oneself in the foot and opening the door to something worse. It's quite possible that if MS gets their foot in the door, here, they can eventually become an influence for an overall better situation. That's good! OTOH, they risk becoming part of the problem through dynamics of enabling injustice.

It's a complicated world, folks, and relationships between governments and large businesses don't always track along the same principles as we cherish for our personal ethics. Values like "greater good" and "progress" do sometimes call for certain compromises that we would find detestable in our individual dealings. That's the way it goes, I'm afraid.

Technology, corporate ethics and Human Rights
 

Phil,
I think you have some very valid points. It is, indeed, a complicated world and human rights / business arrangements can be a two-edged sword.

The crux of the matter here is a company’s actual intentions and their corporate morality. Certainly any questions/discussions of Human Rights (capitalization intended) must be approached with humility -- not least of all cultural humility. All too often we see an insistance on human rights coupled with a woeful degree of cultural chauvinism and insensitivity.

It is vital, on the other hand, to avoid a misguided relativism that absolves individuals and corporations of moral responsibility. We all make choices every day. And so did the individuals who did the actual programming for Microsoft.

I pray you’re right about Microsoft; but I fear that you are not. Time will tell.

Again, not to be political (and forgive me if you believe I am), but from the view of some other countries, the "right to work" is a basic human right. In this perspective the USA and much of Europe would be in gross violation. We Westerners don’t necessarily see it that way. Generally we do not include the "right to work" as a basic human right.
Quite the contrary. from "our" perspective, of course, it would be argued that a certain degree of unemployment is almost essential to well-functioning capitalism. However, some might say that it is a question of degree... (At least that’s the consensus Norwegian viewpoint; our unemployment level is approx. 3 %.)

And that’s only one example of valid differences in cultural perceptions of human rights.

In regards to the Chinese Internet users, the way that I understand it is this: It is not so much civil libertarians of the West "imposing" their understanding of human rights upon the Chinese. It is a question of individuals and corporations not choosing to actively hinder the aspirations and desires of the Chinese themselves.

For whatever reasons, we can agree that Microsoft made a different choice. And they are not the only ones. Carlos brought to our attention the seemingly far worse transgression of Symantec. But as CAlvarez has also pointed out, there are alarming things happening far closer to home (re: the Utah legislation).


With best regards,
ArcticStones


PS. I would like to get back to some other technical questions in a later post. :)

I am not naive enough to believe that neither business nor politics go without a fair amount of not-so-pretty horse-trading behind closed doors. And in some cases the overall result may indeed be positive.

We should probably not debate how optimistic we are about Microsofts ethical standards, I think a fair amount of their business practice is to be read in court briefings and everybody is free to form his own opinion on the issue.

I am not naive enough neither to ignore that the principles of the UN-declaration are being trodden upon on a daily basis all over in the civilised world.

But the fact that it has been nearly universally adopted (China interestingly was part of the original set of countries to ratify it) tells me that there is no such thing as a cultural excection that could reasonably be claimed to justify a governement to keep its people from informing themselves freely.

And whatever corporation helps to take fundamental rights away from people will have to live with the PR-damage it does to them.
It will take a fair amount of spin-doctoring to explain why exactly putting up error messages when someone tries to blog about democracy is indeed a Good Thing.

This is a great discussion of things that are political, but from such a high viewpoint that there are no real arguments.

Back to the technology, the Patriot Act is another great example of legislation that forces technology to be put into place which could be dangerous, and isn't yet tested, proven, thought through, or in many cases, doesn't yet exist. Allowing legislation or executive fiat (in the case of rules the FBI and others can now make without review or oversight, pursuant to the Patriot Act) to dictate the progress of technology is a major problem, I think. For one, the people doing the legislating/ruling are clueless on technology. Secondly, technology generally follows a natural flow where the overall impact, pitfalls, and issues are accounted for. This is the reason for open source in particular. When legislation mandates accelerating the technology, it gets put into place before any of the checks and balances can be done. It's worse when the Patriot Act makes it illegal to even discuss much of it. The PA makes it illegal to discuss the PA, by the way, and at least one person has already gone to jail because of criticism of the PA. So how long until someone discovers weaknesses in PA-mandated technology, talks about them, and is arrested as a terrorist?

Right now, three airlines are collecting birthdates as part of the flight process in order to carry out a more thorough background check. I know, because it happened to me on a recent flight. Ironically, I read about it on the plane just after it happened. Nobody can answer or even discuss what checks are in place to assure this data is not misused (I argue that having it at all is misuse, but that's another subject), lost/stolen, etc. This is an example of an unreviewed, unchecked mandate by Homeland Security pursuant to the PA, which is driving technology ahead of any checks and balances.

Re. "right to work," unemployement in the U.S. is around 5.5%, and that includes a number of people who are between jobs. That's pretty low, actually. I don't see the relevance to "What MS is up to," however, except that it expands the topic into areas far beyond the focus of this thread.

Let's turn the question around, here. What do you guys think MS should do? Insist that the Chinese government lift all restrictions on human rights--at least re the Internet--before MS provides services to them? Make it a contingency to the agreement? Suppose MS does so, but the Chinese then tell them to get lost. MS gets no business, no chance to influence change, and the human rights violations continue. Who wins that one?

- Let's stay off the Patriot Act. I don't see the relevance to this topic unless you all are wanting to discuss how technology and politics interact. That's waaay too broad for this thread, however. Focusing on it in this narrower sense can probably help to clarify some things.

Well, Patriot Act *could* be a loaded gun, but I think it can be discussed rationally as it applies to technology. I see it no differently from the Chinese/MS situation. PA tells companies they must employ technology to achieve government goals, many of which are controversial, secret, and offensive to some people. Many people agree with it, but many people also agree with the Chinese government position.

I like your question of what MS should do here. If they tell the Chinese government to pound sand, they simply won't be able to do business there.

Without mentioning why, then, to follow on CAlvarez's comment:
I might add that right now, the US is "strongly suggesting" that all data for Canadians on domestic flights that cross the US Border be sent in to Home Security before the flight takes off. It turns out that that's a lot of flights since about 90% of all Canadians live within 80 miles of the border with the US and much of eastern Canada is south of all of western Canada.

The Airlines are not happy - remaining on the Canadian side of the border would increase distances and fares - and Canadians in general are not happy that the US should be collecting personal info on them simply because they will pass over a few northern states 6 miles up.

But, if the US insists, then those are the rules of engagement. Canadians will consider it a gross violation of their privacy that a foreign country knows who they are, their curriculum vitae, and their travel agenda. If MS wants to do business in China, it plays by China's rules or says no to a huge market. If Canadian Airlines want to avoid a rush to the train service, they'll have to figure out how to deal with the border, as a minimum announcing that a particular flight is crossing the US border so customers that object can hop across the country on regionals that don't cross the border.

It's a mad world, but we do have to obey each other's sovereignty.

The choice of one man -- and one company
 

The original question I raised was:

The issue of Microsoft in China is one (of many) interesting examples of this. Phil’s point of asking what each of us would choose for Microsoft in China, is well taken. Indeed, what would you and I do?

I would strive for a path which was neither acquiescence to Chinese government requests, nor an outright defiance of them. This requires a masterful balancing act, but it is not impossible.

As an individual programmer given the task, I would let my choice be dictated by conscience. A company’s ethics and morality cannot be better than that of its employes; they mercilessly reflect each other!

One person can make a difference. A news image comes to mind: The single Chinese man with the shopping bag who refused to budge before the onward moving tanks. That is one of the most potent images I have ever seen!

There are highly elegant, yet perhaps less direct ways, to be an obstacle to injustice...


With best regards,
ArcticStones

As an individual programmer given the task, I would let my choice be dictated by conscience. A company’s ethics and morality cannot be better than that of its employes; they mercilessly reflect each other!

I admire this kind of idealism and spunk, Arctic, but MS would simply replace you if you bucked the system. So would Apple. ;)

In a way, you have a kind of "censorship" going on even in countries we consider open to freedom of speech. Lots of companies block certain web sites, for example, and even hire tech people to monitor what their employees are doing on the net. If you consider China something of a giant company, then what MS is doing for them something analagous to what tech people do every day in companies all over the U.S. and other "free" countries. If you as an employee of such a company disagree with its policy and relax the restrictions, you'll be a goner. That's the way it goes. Companies have a right to decide what information they'll make available to their employees, and "China, Inc." is doing this.

There are highly elegant, yet perhaps less direct ways, to be an obstacle to injustice...

Injustice implies denying or abusing certain rights. Is it an injustice if a company restricts access to certain web sites? I don't think so, as there is no real "right" to look at web sites unrestrictedly during company time.

Apparently, the Chinese government believes much the same about the rights of its citizenry. I don't like it, for sure, but you can see that the "right" to view web sites without restriction isn't exactly the same as the right to life, or medical care, or a fair trial, etc.

You could reflect on the Patriot Act in much the same way. Given the new kind of threat that terrorism presents, how does this affect our understanding of "rights to privacy?" If giving up some of these rights helps to prevent terrorist attacks without violating more core civil liberties, then why not? I'm willing to allow the government to know more about me if it helps to bust Al Qaeda cells. The Patriot Act has, in fact, been helpful unto that end.

Defining the kinds of "rights" people have in a culture involves much more than reading some kind of document or charter and screaming "foul" when the reality doesn't match up. There are practical contexts to be considered, and possible consequences to be weighed.

Well, had it not been you posting, I'd have expected the author of that contribution to be found guilty of "heating the debate".

1
Would you seriously want to affirm that "they'll have someone do it anyway" is a moral standpoint to be encouraged ?
There may be cases where it is more efficient to resist from the inside.
Even soldiers get condemned for crimes of war for obeying orders if those orders were illegal.

2
To compare countries and companies doesn't fly.
Not only is getting out of dictatorships generally a lot more difficult than to pick a company you feel comfortable to work in.
And you are indeed not paid to surf the web in general. You are however entirely free to do so in your own free time.

3
The really scary thing is, that I think you honestly believe what you write.
A lot of governments are doing a lot of extremely Bad Things on a regular basis.
No longer seeing this as a menace to our freedom is just one more step towards a police state even you will not like.

4
The PA, how it was sneaked through congress, how Ashcroft went way beyond what was authorised and how a lot of its provisions are not only inefficient but counterproductive is a large field for discussion indeed.

http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/unconstitutional/

could be an interesting starting point for a debate.

5
Even though last time I quoted Benjamin Franklin, that got the thread closed, I will do so again anyway, because it's a perfect fit:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Giving up the liberty people have been fighting for for centuries because of terrorism is just declaring the terrorists the winners.

The PA, how it was sneaked through congress, how Ashcroft went way beyond what was authorised and how a lot of its provisions are not only inefficient but counterproductive is a large field for discussion indeed.

http://www.publicinterestpictures.org/unconstitutional/

could be an interesting starting point for a debate.

Congress can change or even repeal the Act, so deciding what appropriate rights are within the present context of terrorism-prevention is an ongoing discernment.

Well, had it not been you posting, I'd have expected the author of that contribution to be found guilty of "heating the debate".

ArcticStone and I had a couple of PM exchanges and I agreed that it seemed appropriate to expand the original topic to explore the interfacings between politics and technology, provided the discussion doesn't deteriorate into an excuse for bashing countries or politicians. Careful, voldenuit . . . ;)

To compare countries and companies doesn't fly.

It was an analogy, and not a bad one, I don't believe, though not a totally precise one. The analogy pertained to "rights" to unrestricted web access, and I was saying that in this regard, China is like a company.

The really scary thing is, that I think you honestly believe what you write.
A lot of governments are doing a lot of extremely Bad Things on a regular basis.
No longer seeing this as a menace to our freedom is just one more step towards a police state even you will not like.

"Even" me? Which means . . . ? :rolleyes: And what's with the straw man fallacies? Who's denying menaces to freedom?

Giving up the liberty people have been fighting for for centuries because of terrorism is just declaring the terrorists the winners.

Of course, if your cities get bombed and your economic system thrown into chaos, that's not a loss of liberty?

There have always been sacrifices made by a country's citizenry during times of war, and that's how many regard the PA. You don't, but that's just your opinion. It can be changed, if needed, and will be to some extent, I'm sure. And technology will have to adjust.

- - -

Edit: The problem with discussing the interfacing between politics and technology is that you can't really address the technology part without considering the political. Arctic's point about conscience above seems to be the most individuals can do. If one doesn't like MS's policy, then one can choose to work elsewhere. One can also choose to buy MS or not and let them know why. That could make a difference.

The best analogy to the interface between politics and technology is a very shoddy, RS232 made out of bent paperclips, and house bricks.

By this I mean it barely works. Politicians understand little technology, and almost always cannot see past the next election, so either:-

they legislate laws that cannot be enforced (or at least not without enormous cost to the taxpayer), or

they legislate to solve a short term need, and to hell with the consequences for the future.

The Utah laws that Carlos linked to earlier in this thread would be an example of the former, and is an issue because politicians won't back down (looks bad), and something even more muddled laws are the result. In other words sometimes privacy, freedoms, rights get trappled on simply because politicians didn't understand what they were doing to begin with, and now have to save face.

I feel that the latter situation is also a problem because of what I call "legislative creep." In other words, legislation that is intended to be enacted on a short term basis or to address a specific issue by one adminstration is often assigned a permanent status, or applied to issues for which it was not intended by a later adminstration. Misused, in this way, the digital age can have very serious impacts on privacy, freedoms, rights. End result (if common sense doesn't prevail) is a police state by encroachment.

On the other hand I don't think that technologists are too hot on politics, and don't see beyond the next gadget, or what the consequences of its misuse will be.

With neither side 'policing' the interface, there's no parity checking, no error correction, and this can only be bad news at some point.

====
EDIT:
Kind of what I was trying to say but less long windedly :) My additional argument is that at the level where decisions are made this is not always appreciated.