Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id gB6I1JX06136; Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:01:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 13:01:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <E05A3001-0943-11D7-96CD-0030656A26C8@worlded.org> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Jeff Carter <jcarter@worlded.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:2685] Re: Article: Internet Censorship in China X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 3024 Lines: 71 On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 09:42 AM, Hacker, Emily wrote: > Following the theme of the recent discussion on Internet censorship, > here is > an article from today's New York Times describing the tight limits on > Internet access in China: > China has the World's Tightest Internet Censorship, Study Finds > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/04/international/asia/04CHIN.html An Amnesty International report was released last week that documents how Chinese authorities have clamped down on Internet use, closing Internet cafés etc. The reports says that 33 prisoners of conscience are known to have been detained/imprisoned for expressing their views or putting certain information on the Internet. <http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/gbr_china_internet> Now, here's maybe an interesting twist to this topic. In addition to the above, the Amnesty report alleges that certain companies -- Microsoft Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc., Cisco Systems Inc., Nortel Networks Corp. and Websense Inc. -- have "provided important technology which helps the Chinese authorities censor the Internet." Microsoft and Cisco's defense is basically that they just sell their stuff to China and can't be blamed for how the Chinese authorities use it. <http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/privacy/story/ 0,10801,76360,00.html> My twist is this: does anyone on this list who, say, is responsible for making decisions about hardware/software purchases feel like maybe they might take this information about these companies into account the next time they are making purchasing decisions? I haven't really researched this to any great extent, but it bothers me that these companies are making money off if this activity. Which prompts the question: does anyone on the list practice, for lack of a better term, socially conscious technology planning or purchasing? Does anyone look at the environmental track records of companies they purchase from? Treatment of workers overseas? Stuff like that? I'd really be interested in hearing from anyone who does. Finally, an article from Wired News on the Harvard report that Emily cited, notes that some free speech advocates here in the U.S argue that there is a "similar censorship effort" going on in the U.S. > "If we're going to pay attention to filtering in China, then we need > to look at filtering at home (in the United States), too," said Will > Doherty, executive director of the Online Policy Group, an Internet > civil liberties organization. > > In a study set to publish later this month, the Electronic Frontier > Foundation and Doherty's group will detail how America's public > schools are filtering websites on issues from firearms to slavery, > kiddie porn to pogo sticks. <http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,56699,00.html> Jeff Jeff Carter World Education Boston, MA (617) 482-9485 -------------- e-mail: jcarter@worlded.org <http://literacytech.worlded.org> <http://www.worlded.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 17 2003 - 14:44:50 EST