Electronic Frontier Foundation: Selling survellience to China

[SealLion]

The real title of this article from EFF is titled: Seven "Corporations of Interest" in Selling Surveillance Tools to China
It's just that I don't believe that it would have fit into the Subject Title.
So there it is in all it's glory.


So we're on the 'Frontier' again, folks and we're gonna see what's up along the border.
Let's check it out and see what Western based corporations are selling surveillance to China.

Big-name corporations behave exactly as expected: In the drive for money.

That is in essence what makes the world turn on it's axis now-a-days, isn't it??

In the drive for making profit, regardless of who the customer is, big internationally recognized corporations aren't really concerned over any kind of nation-allegiances nor any kind of laws forbidding them to sell to the 'enemy'.

I am of the opinion that if you ever hear of any kind of news like that where-by some government is forbidding home-based corporations in selling or doing any kind of business, there's always something hidden underneath the table.

Let's see what EFF has got to say about the latest scoop:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement of a new U.S. policy on global Internet Freedom included a bold new statement about the responsibilities of American technology companies:

...We are urging U.S. media companies to take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance. The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit.

Well, that's what she said. Here's what the EFF says:

.....there are plenty of other companies deserving scrutiny. Specfically, many U.S. (and multinational) technology companies may be knowingly selling Chinese authorities the surveillance equipment used to commit or facilitate human rights abuses. ..........news articles alone are not absolute evidence that these companies are indeed fostering repression in China. But it's clear that China uses technology to employ rampant censorship, invasive data collection and intimidation. ........... But news reports, especially those that include admissions of some level of involvement from company officials, are a sufficient basis to begin asking further questions....

And here's a short list of companies that the EFF lists:

Motorola...Oracle...Nortel....Cisco:

There's a few more listed on the link provided below.

.......The question of which companies have assisted in Chinese surveillance is just a small piece of a very large puzzle and we're quite confident that there are more than just these seven. And obviously many countries other than China are engaged in Internet surveillance — from Iran's infamous repression of political dissent, to censorship efforts across the globe, to the USA's own domestic surveillance

That's for sure. Those countries listed above are just a very small fraction of countries that do survelience. In this day in age of invented terrorists ( they do exist, just invented. That's all. )planning invented terror plots, it shouldn't be any surprise you'd see this sort of thing. Making money off survelience is only a small portion of the existence of survelience equitpment and activity procuring throughout the world.

Indonesia has survelience, Germany has survelience, Australia has survelience, Jordan has survelience, Israel has surveillance, Saudi Arabia has surveillance. Canada has surveillance....and so on and so on...

It's also worth keeping in mind that surveillance is only part of the equation. Other technologies created or sold by companies may also be misused by the Chinese authorities. For instance, Internet censorship systems curtail civil liberties almost as severely as Internet surveillance systems. Research by the OpenNet Initiative has shown that censorship systems in many repressive countries have been outsourced to U.S. corporations.

Profit is the name of the game. What other incentive is there for big corporations.

Here's the link:

Seven "Corporations of Interest" in Selling Surveillance Tools to China | Electronic Frontier Foundation

enjoy

[slikrapid]

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement of a new U.S. policy on global Internet Freedom included a bold new statement about the responsibilities of American technology companies...

warning flags popping out all over the place!

freedom lamentations coming from this kind of people are suspicious to say the least, a hidden agenda may be expected

if you wanna check out her speech (an hour long, anyone up for it? ):

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1705667530?bctid=62730021001

i'll just comment on parts of the speech:

instrumental in supporting the work on internet freedom that the Aspen Institute has been doing.

this institute has a reputation of mind control activity & nwo connections

we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights....modern information networks and the technologies they support can be harnessed for good or for ill. The same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to spew hatred and incite violence against the innocent.

meaning they need to be controlled to prevent the abuse, but who is going to be the wise freedom keeper & justice dealer online?

On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress, but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas.

sound familiar? one internet, one...one world order

In the demonstrations that followed Iran’s presidential elections, grainy cell phone footage of a young woman’s bloody murder provided a digital indictment of the government’s brutality

was posted here before, was probably a fake

all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, using the internet to promote the mass murder of innocent people across the world. And hate speech that targets individuals on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation is reprehensible. ...And we must also grapple with the issue of anonymous speech. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property

here we go, limits to our freedom, but who will be the wise judge to justly select the guilty ones? and no more anonymity?

waiting for the near future when (not anymore) anonymous users become labeled as crime syndicate members that endanger internet freedom by writing non politically correct posts on some blogs etc.

Over the last year, I’ve seen this firsthand in Kenya, where farmers have seen their income grow by as much as 30 percent since they started using mobile banking technology; in Bangladesh, where more than 300,000 people have signed up to learn English on their mobile phones

now some promotion of the mobile technology: 30% growth, huh, by using mobile banking - what nonsense

learning english with mobile phones, wow, can you believe this cr*p?

You can now generate significant yields from very modest inputs. And one World Bank study found that in a typical developing country, a 10 percent increase in the penetration rate for mobile phones led to an almost 1 percent increase in per capita GDP. To just put this into context, for India, that would translate into almost $10 billion a year.

ah of course, puts you in your place, keep on developing till hell freezes over

Violent extremists, criminal cartels, sexual predators, and authoritarian governments all seek to exploit these global networks. Just as terrorists have taken advantage of the openness of our societies to carry out their plots, violent extremists use the internet to radicalize and intimidate. As we work to advance freedoms, we must also work against those who use communication networks as tools of disruption and fear.

help us, save us, lol
sounds kinda serious, doesn't it, its like this thing is more dangerous than the real world, maybe we should stop thinking about real life and start solving virtual problems

The largest public response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai was launched by a 13-year-old boy. He used social networks to organize blood drives and a massive interfaith book of condolence

here we go, another heart wrenching story backing up globalist politics

We are a nation made up of immigrants from every country and every interest that spans the globe. Our foreign policy is premised on the idea that no country more than America stands to benefit when there is cooperation among peoples and states. And no country shoulders a heavier burden when conflict and misunderstanding drive nations apart. So we are well placed to seize the opportunities that come with interconnectivity. And as the birthplace for so many of these technologies, including the internet itself, we have a responsibility to see them used for good.

so that's why the usa has to intervene wherever you might imagine (and more): like toys'r'us - usa'r'us

And I’m proud that the State Department is already working in more than 40 countries to help individuals silenced by oppressive governments...We are providing funds to groups around the world to make sure that those tools get to the people who need them in local languages, and with the training they need to access the internet safely. The United States has been assisting in these efforts for some time

now admitting criminal activity in foreign countries, for they'r'us and they know whats best for everybody

Now, ultimately, this issue isn’t just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It’s about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors.

a bit more about globalization, one world...(insert_anything_you_like) and who is we? used to be usa or is it someone else now

When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it’s critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions.

the question is who will be the one defining what are the proper/true facts and then serving them to everyone around

----

so what you get is a story about wanting to control the internet in order to give those using it their prescribed amount of freedom, while providing protection (sounds like a 'racket') from the internet's behemoths, all available if you sign up now, for one world net, one world community, one world knowledge, one world control & law enforcement over all of the above - those of you in developing countries will keep developing until further notice (roughly a few percent increase in per capita GDP per generation of mobile technology) & everyone will automatically be charged (with savings up to 30%) on their mobile non-anonymous accounts to further develop your freedoms

yours friendly,

toys usa'r'us
new world order, all your rights reserved

ps.
now calmly return to your couch & take your hourly dosage of prescribed medicine that will ensure your freedom from want & fear, then watch the newest aspen program material that will guide your freedom of expression & worship - should be enough to transcend the troubles of this day

according to this same speech:

But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day.

[SealLion]

sound familiar? one internet, one...one world order

Yup. '
That's what it is.

and at the forefront of this NWO movement are the one's who back the good 'ol US of A riding high on saddles ordered from the NWO internet.

What a joke her speech was.

I didn't go and read the speech, but reading your excerpts of her "made to put to sleep", speech was enough for me.

This Grade 'A' garbage about learning English via mobile phones was the biggest nonsense she made up. Most likely made it up to seduce the crowd.

When I read this:

......U.S. policy on global Internet Freedom.......

I can't but help but shake my head at US policy for Global internet freedom. Because that is exactly what it says. US policy for global internet freedom.
LIke you say.
It's not internet freedom, it's the freedom that is given to the user based upon the allowed freedoms.