KalNet Message Board

According to this article in The Guardian, 'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'.

Bad, but just about everyone in the tech industry over in Asia screws over the workers. That doesn't make it acceptable, however.

It seems that M$ is getting the shaft lately, no matter which part of the world their in. The EU ruled that they were in violation of the competition laws not too long ago, in one of the states they got busted for something and now this.

Brings a smile to my face.

This is total Bullshit!!

Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'.

So by stating this, Does this mean if i were to stab a fellow imployee with a "BIC Pen" in the trought and kill him, people could sue the company 'BIC" for violation of human rights? The pen is what killed the persion and he is no longer living. Should "BIC" be seaking out all the people that kill others with there product and making shure that they use a different brand of pen before they do it again? Erge other people not to use there product to kill.

Microsoft told The Observer: 'We are focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world. However, how that technology is used is with the individual and ultimately not in the company's control.'

This is totaly true. When any company sells a product, they cant limit the use of it, it is impossible to predict what the person is going to use if for. Did "BIC" make pens to kill people. NO!

If by this the Microsoft Corperation is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals, then so is the keyboard company, mouse company, mobo company, video card company, cpu company, monator company and the list goes on and on. this is retarded and totaly wrong.

Unless im reading this wrong, explain it to me that they are the ones to blame. Explain to me that Microsoft is at more blam then, well the persions the created the internet in the first place, or even the makers of the computer or hell why not even the hydro comany that powered the computers in the first place. Or even the desk that the computer is on. Must I go on.

Just Explain.

I think the reason Amnesty is making a rucus is something along the following. Let's use your BIC pen example.

A cult of people who use BIC pens to kill people contacts the BIC pen factory. This factory is fully aware that the cult has, in the past, used BIC pens to slaughter people (how, I'm not entirely sure, but hey.........it's an example). Amnesty would say that since you know that the pens have in the past been used for malpractice that you should be wary of selling the BIC pens to them.

It's almost exactly the same situation Bayer had when they sold rat poison to the Nazis in WWII. They ordered an outrageous amount in gaseous form. Bayer was also aware of "work camps" the Nazis were setting up. They were sued after WWII and just got that court order lifted 1 (2??? something like that) years ago. They had been paying $ for the past 40-odd years for that sale of rat poison.

Now, to tie this into this example. China has been well know for censuring its public to ideas other than their communist ones.

Technology sold by Microsoft to the Chinese government has been used by Beijing to censor the internet, and resulted in the jailing of its political opponents.

If the technology MS sold them is specially tailored to block certain websites and to track down those users, MS may want to reconsider their business practices.

However, if all they did was sell 'em a few copies of Windows, I can see your point.

If the technology MS sold them is specially tailored to block certain websites and to track down those users, MS may want to reconsider their business practices.

I totaly agree with you on this. If Microsoft sold them specially desined versions of softwhare then yes they are totaly in the wrong. If they are just selling them the same damn copy as everyone else gets then then its not there fault.

Smoke... (to much family guy)


This remineds me of the tobacco law suites, Bullshit. I don't think it matters if they build spcific software for that purpose. It is free buissness world, people should build what they wish and sell to those who will by it.




Smoke... (Someone has to suck new people in damn it ! )

[PX]Kal Bob wrote:It is free buissness world, people should build what they wish and sell to those who will by it.

Just because we live in a market economy does not mean that companies are outside the law (atleast it shouldn't). You can't commit human rights violations in the name of profit. We do not actually live in a "free buissness world".

I still don't see how producing a product can be a violation, or possestion for that matter. I think it becomes a violation when used. Oh well I guess the UN see it differently.

Just because we live in a market economy does not mean that companies are outside the law (atleast it shouldn't). You can't commit human rights violations in the name of profit. We do not actually live in a "free buissness world".

This is true to some exstent. I could see selling weapions or things that hert people to be in violation, but selling softwhere that is not intended to be used that way?

As i said before if there gona go after Microsoft then to be fair. they also have to go after all those othere companys that supulyed the parts for those computers.

[PX]Thanatos wrote:This is true to some exstent. I could see selling weapions or things that hert people to be in violation, but selling softwhere that is not intended to be used that way?

But then again--what's your definition of "weapons?" Some people say that a hammer is while others think that a M-60 SAW is a perfectly legit deer "rifle." Kinda ties into Homey B's possession or usage of argument.

I guess my opinion on the matter would rest on what the Chinese asked for in a product, if Microsoft knew what the product was going to be used for, and if they still then sold it to them.

Quite frankly, the article's vague enough that it's of little value.

ya, not a very good article. Too many holes, we want awnsers

I guess it doesn't matter any more:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... chnology//

Canadians make software to by-pass China's firewalls.

Just hack the damn firewall and be done with it lol

The Chinese don't care they're being censored:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... ities.html