38 ms·

this case is about selling an internet filter. It would not be wrong, as in illegal or subject to any civil penalty, if Cisco sold that internet filter to the

this case is about selling an internet filter. It would not be wrong, as in illegal or subject to any civil penalty, if Cisco sold that internet filter to the United States' agencies. so that highlights the delicious irony in your retort

jonathankoren 10y ago
First, they built special hardware to target a specific group that is internationally known to be a frequent target of oppression. So that's going beyond what they normally provide. Second, if you're selling something to a known person, and you have a good reason to know what they're going to do with it. And let's be clear, Cisco totally knew what they were going to be used for in this case. Then you're an accessory.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  and they also would not be subject to any civil remedy if they sold such thing to a US agency. the only thing I responded to.
- Swannie 10y ago
  | First, they built special hardware to target a specific group Is that stated as a fact in the case? I didn't find anything that makes that suggestion.
  - jonathankoren 10y ago
    The article explicitly says, "Cisco built a special Falun Gong module into the Golden Shield". Reading the abstract of brief, it looks like "built" is being used to me "specifically sold and configured hardware." So it's not necessarily some special asic, but rather machines configured specifically to target and identify Falun Gong members. Anyway, in the 21st century, the line between hardware and software that runs on dedicated hardware is pretty ill defined.
    - Swannie 10y ago
      I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas. Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually. Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.

jonathankoren 10y ago

First, they built special hardware to target a specific group that is internationally known to be a frequent target of oppression. So that's going beyond what they normally provide. Second, if you're selling something to a known person, and you have a good reason to know what they're going to do with it. And let's be clear, Cisco totally knew what they were going to be used for in this case. Then you're an accessory.

cloudjacker 10y ago
and they also would not be subject to any civil remedy if they sold such thing to a US agency. the only thing I responded to.
Swannie 10y ago
| First, they built special hardware to target a specific group Is that stated as a fact in the case? I didn't find anything that makes that suggestion.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  The article explicitly says, "Cisco built a special Falun Gong module into the Golden Shield". Reading the abstract of brief, it looks like "built" is being used to me "specifically sold and configured hardware." So it's not necessarily some special asic, but rather machines configured specifically to target and identify Falun Gong members. Anyway, in the 21st century, the line between hardware and software that runs on dedicated hardware is pretty ill defined.
  - Swannie 10y ago
    I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas. Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually. Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.