Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cisco Helps China Keep an Eye On Its Citizens

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the every-step-you-take dept.

China 121

doperative writes "Western companies including Cisco Systems Inc. are poised to help build an ambitious new surveillance project in China — a citywide network of as many as 500,000 cameras that officials say will prevent crime but that human-rights advocates warn could target political dissent. An examination of the Peaceful Chongqing project by The Wall Street Journal shows Cisco is expected to supply networking equipment that is essential to operating large and complicated surveillance systems, according to people familiar with the deal."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So who are the British government's suppliers? (3, Interesting)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663120)

n/t

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663250)

??? non sequitor I fancy ???

Doh (0)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663270)

sp: sequitur

Re:Doh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663418)

Is that really that important that you needed to post it. I guess if people refrained from posting trollish pedantry here there'd be like 5 posts.

Re:Doh (1)

biodata (1981610) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664182)

Trollish pedantry is the woman in the red dress. It reminds us we're human.

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663634)

One of the things that amazes me about the US is that there is blanket CCTV coverage, and people refuse to believe it's there.

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663824)

[citation needed]
Seriously, not sure why or how you can make that claim. It's definitely not blanket, and even in major cities it tends to be rather spotty. Traffic cams, sure, but most other coverage is from private security footage that the police have to ask for if they want to even investigate a major crime. Only place there is blanket coverage by the government is in/ near government buildings. Also, possibly Washington DC.

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663938)

So, pretty much the same as the UK, then?

You do *know* that the ridiculous figures of something like 1500 cameras per person in the UK was entirely made up by a tabloid journalist, don't you? What they did was count up the number of cameras in a short stretch of a busy street in a rough part of London - all the bookies, off-licences, and even more unsavoury places - and multiplied by the total distance of all the roads in the UK. If the figure was even remotely accurate, it would mean that on every single bit of road in the UK right down to a farm track, you'd pass a camera every 50' or so.

If you don't think that *every* major city in the US isn't bristling with cameras, I don't know what you must think the things on top of poles must be. Some sort of funny glass bird feeder, possibly.

Re:So who are the British government's suppliers? (1)

GigG (887839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663870)

I guess that depends on your idea of blanket and US for that matter.

at least they are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663164)

selling them firearms.

Re:at least they are... (1)

MichaelKristopeit502 (2018076) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663216)

at least you are... an idiot.

Re:at least they are... (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664038)

No, AC is just a troll.... successful one based on your response.

Re:at least they are... (1)

MichaelKristopeit502 (2018076) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664162)

an idiot is an idiot.

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

Same Old Cisco (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663166)

In 2008 it was revealed that The Great Firewall of China was just a huge opportunity to them [wired.com] to sell more routers. In May, Falun Gong sued them [slashdot.org] . Even shareholders have been uneasy with Cisco's fervent complacency [slashdot.org] and complete lack of human rights doctrine. I think as far back as 2004 we've discussed the Amnesty report naming Cisco [slashdot.org] .

I think this is just more of the same. They sold China the equipment for the great firewall and you are surprised that Cisco is chomping at the bit for the next big project? The only headline newsworthy enough would be if Cisco refused to make a buck on the grounds that their product will obviously be used to repress peaceful foreign citizens or keep 1/6 of the world's population censored.

Re:Same Old Cisco (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663214)

Champing at the bit, not chomping. English, learn it.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663258)

Cock yourself. You're really extraordinarily gay.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663262)

Chomp is a variant of champ, which makes both forms valid...

English, learn it.

Quite so.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663360)

Oxford Dictionary:
chomp:
see champ
:)

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663448)

It's "chomping at the bit" in America, not "champing at the bit." In fact "champ" in that context isn't a word that anybody over here recognizes in that context.

(I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663518)

I see what you did there -- you forgot to close the parenthesis :)

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

danlock4 (1026420) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666030)

(and you forgot to open them ;) just teasing! {

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664744)

I'm sure that you're corrections will prove your superiority in the end.

I'm sure that your corrections will prove your superiority in the end.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

mnot (71203) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665770)

You *do* realise that the Intertubes go further than the US border, don't you?

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664072)

I'm pretty sure the only proper use of the word champ is in reference to the champ hamburger. All other uses are just not as tasty.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663530)

While you are technically correct, the majority of people use chomping [googlefight.com] . I know that doesn't make it right, but just because you are right, doesn't mean people won't look at you like you have 3 head when you say "champing at the bit".

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663714)

The majority of people are always idiots. Does not mean I have to be one too.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663954)

Oops, to late.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663972)

The meaning of words is determined by usage, and usage naturally changes over time. This has been recognized for over a century now, ever since Saussure discovered l'arbitraire du signe. If the majority of people are saying "chomping at the bit", that doesn't mean that they are idiots, it just means that the English language is changing like all languages do.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664538)

^This.

The majority of people have a rather sad IQ. Why would I follow them off of the cliff?

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664976)

Why would I follow them off of the cliff?

Off of? WTF?
Why would I follow them off the cliff?
is sufficient, surely?

Re:Same Old Cisco (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663230)

In the spirit of idle curiousity, I have to wonder if Cisco is purely an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck, or whether their higher-ups actually get the warm and fuzzies from the fact that they are on the leading edge of Benthamite dystopia technology?

They could, certainly, just be swallowing their doubts and keeping an eye on the bottom line; but nothing says that the people within the corporation are having to battle pangs of conscience in order to do what is profitable.

Re:Same Old Cisco (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663392)

... is purely an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck,

Well, that's the sociological description of a corporation: legally, a sociopathic person.

Which then brings up another question - if one has to conform to the norms of said corporation, does that make one a sociopath?

For example, if you're working for a large corporation that makes a product that harms the public and you are the one who denies that there is anything wrong or you are a scientist that has to come up with "data" that refutes others findings of said harm, doesn't that make you a sociopath too?

Or just to "fit in" with said sociopathic corporation makes you a sociopath?

Which makes all of Cisco's employees sociopaths?

Re:Same Old Cisco (2)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663484)

And in the end, it really doesn't matter, publicly traded corporations are by definition amoral, sociopathic, profit-only-seeking entities. Because, of course, if they WEREN'T, they "could be" sued by their shareholders for not being amorally sociopathic enough. So the greedy assholes at the top of the corporation have all the moral cover they need to do anything they want which isn't demonstrably illegal - because if they don't do it, someone else (another amoral sociopathic corporation) will. The only place the kind of managerial hand-wringing you're suggesting comes into play is in puff-piece business interview journalism, one step removed from a press release. Here in the States, we've created a society where the only first-class citizens (the corporations and the very wealthy) are by definition sociopaths.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663578)

Thats not exactly true. Maybe in some idealized abstracted world it would be, but we live in a real world where corporations are made of and work with and for real, feeling people. Hence, corporations that DO act like amoral sociopaths get boycotts, government legislation, etc. Perhaps not as much as one would wish, but still. Because of this, many companies do try to be genuinely good corporate citizens and treat their customers well. And of course, some companies even go so far as to do so just because they want to be good. (Google: "Don't be Evil". May not succeed, but at least their stated motto is to try.)

Re:Same Old Cisco (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664378)

And, of course, corporations, being abstractions, don't do anything. Their directors, officers, and employees do.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664940)

The corporations have a fiduciary duty to maximize profits. Look at Wal*Mart, people boycott them all the time, but it still makes economic sense for them to not care since complying with the demands of the boycott would be less profitable than just ignoring them.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664886)

I think it is mostly that they are doing exactly what their shareholders want and fulfilling their fiduciary duty. So the short answer is option 1:

an amoral, sociopathic, profit-seeking entity, and just doesn't give a fuck

.

Share Price (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666286)

Cisco's share price is currently very low--significantly undervalued, and with several markets at risk. If they want to attract shareholders, big new business opportunities go a long way toward doing that. It would take a really remarkable company to turn down this kind of business opportunity for ethical reasons.

Re:Same Old Cisco (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666448)

Cisco sells communications hardware. What's wrong with selling more?

ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663186)

there is an add for CCtv security on this page... just saying

Money! (3, Insightful)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663188)

Stuff the ideals, stuff the responsibility, stuff the "doing the right thing", we want money & we don't care how we get it.
Bah!

Re:Money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665622)

This is the inherent problem with capitalism, the right thing and the profitable thing are, more often than not, opposite things. Of course the other end of the spectrum, communism, introduces a whole other set of problems.

One of the worst things to ever happen was for companies to become publicly traded. Their priorities shifted from being beholden to their customers and (gasp) their employees to the share holder being the absolute bottom line. Hence, we have crap like this going on. Screw morals, screw ethics, screw our employees, screw 1/6 of the world, we've got share holders to answer to.

I dont see the story (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663210)

So what? Cisco has a good track record on these type of things in US cities, just go ask your mayor about his traffic cams and security around city hall

this crap doesnt run on bubble gum and wishes ya know

Re:I dont see the story (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663328)

And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders. So unless it is illegal to export these products to China, they would be in the wrong to not sell their products to China, since they probably make quite a bit of money from them. The only reason they wouldn't sell their products to China would be if it caused customers to leave based on the fact that they were selling to China. I don't think most of their major customers care in the least about them selling to China. Some might even see it as a good thing. "If it's good enough for the Chinese government, it's good enough for me" could be one outlook I could see from many customers..

Re:I dont see the story (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663528)

And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an (unofficial) obligation to operate abroad as it would at home. US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US, so why should we allow companies to do the same?

Re:I dont see the story (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663616)

Cisco has an (unofficial) obligation to operate abroad as it would at home.

Sounds like that could be paraphrased as "Cisco has a moral obligation to..."

But Cisco you see, is a company. And companies have no moral obligations, other than greed, on behalf of their shareholders.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663732)

They aren't doing anything illegal. All their doing is selling tools. What people choose to do with those tools is up to them. Cisco has no control over what the end user does with the items they sell. And as others have mentioned, the US, UK, and others are using the exact same devices to do the exact same thing to their own citizens. Why is it all right for the some countries to do this but not other

Re:I dont see the story (1)

lbgator (1208974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664138)

... US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US...

Really? The US should put warnings on planes bound for Amsterdam then.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665014)

They do. I believe it's stated in your passport. More specifically, it's in the US Code. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, 7, which states that the US has jurisdiction "(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States."

Re:I dont see the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665888)

So US law really does trump EU law and the laws of other countries as well?

Re:I dont see the story (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666524)

For US citizens. I'm not sure if pot laws count, but it is certainly illegal for US citizens to go outside the country to violate laws they would be subject to inside the country. Like sex tourism, slavery, money laundering. I don't know where the legal line is, however.

Re:I dont see the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36664276)

It is legal in the US to shout ethnic slurs due to the first amendment. It is illegal to do so in Canada and in most of the rest of the world and can get you in jail.

Here's a newsflash for you - you cannot operate violating the law of the land you operate in. It is not up to the companies to dictate what law they operate under. It is up to the government of the land to dictate these laws to the companies. Companies that don't like it can get the fuck out. That's all.

US Citizens cannot go abroad and commit crimes legal in one country that are illegal in the US, so why should we allow companies to do the same?

The opposite is true as well. But then you either want free trade or you want import duties.

And here's another newsflash - the Great Firewall of China is not illegal in the US. On the contrary, what do you think Echelon is?? China is at least in the open about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON [wikipedia.org]

In 2001 the Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System recommended to the European Parliament that citizens of member states routinely use cryptography in their communications to protect their privacy, because economic espionage with ECHELON has been conducted by the US intelligence.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666502)

Not even a little bit. They have an obligation to comply with the laws of jurisdictions that have jurisdiction over them. Unless the US says "you can't sell to China", they can sell to China.

Would you expect a company to sell 110v60hz equipment in Europe, just because that's how they do it at home? Should they not sell cars that don't meet US safety regulations abroad? Etc.?

Re:I dont see the story (2)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664694)

"And as a publicly traded company, Cisco has an obligation to make as much money as they can for their shareholders."

Oh...give it a rest already, David Brooks clown clone. That's the same exact argument members of Hitler's Third Reich gave for their humans-into-ovens mandate. No corporation is obligated to support dictators and totalitarian governments, whether in th USA or in China, etc.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666584)

Nor are they obligated NOT to, unless they specifically are. Would it be unsavory? Sure. But I think the spin here is that communications is the great equalizer, and even if the Commies try to stop everything, some stuff will get through.

Anyway, if the Commies were really intent on maintaining the purity of the minds of their subjects, they'd just get the bolt cutters and snip the cables leading out of the country. No, they simply want to smack down dissidents. And the chinese can do that any number of ways. Not selling them routers won't stop that one whit. So why not repatriate some of the USD that we are sending over there? That's the goal, right? Sell more of our shit to them.

Re:I dont see the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665830)

So unless it is illegal to export these products to China, they would be in the wrong to not sell their products to China, since they probably make quite a bit of money from them.
Many of these products are already made in China.

Re:I dont see the story (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663476)

That's perfectly legal and not at all dodgy, however providing the technology for an oppressive regime to spy on its citizens is definitely dodgy by any reasonable standard.

Re:I dont see the story (0)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663574)

technology tends to be agnostic. P2P and photocopiers aren't illegal, but using them to spread classified material is.

Cameras are just that, cameras. They can be used to oppress dissent, help catch criminals, manage traffic, create an atmosphere of fear, monitor air quality and any number of other things. Some of that is good, some of that bad.

If technology is going to be used for something illegal, unethical or the like it should fall to governments to ban its import and export. China has a perfectly legitimate market for millions of home routers. Cisco should not be put in a position of saying 'well, we won't export this to you because we don't like you, but please have some home routers, we like you enough for that', especially if their competitors would not face the same restrictions.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665866)

Except that they were allegedly selling the equipment specifically for the purpose of spying on the citizens. I take it you haven't been following the lawsuit that was filed against them. This isn't a case of providing equipment that's later modified for nefarious purposes, this is a case where they've been sued for allegedly providing materials specifically too spy on political dissidents.

It remains to be seen how strong the case is and whether they'll be found liable, but it's hardly a matter of providing hardware that was repurposed.

Re:I dont see the story (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666610)

Well, duh. All commercial networking gear has that ability. It wouldn't be any good for anything if it didn't have that capability.

Re:I dont see the story (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664104)

so cameras that spy on US citizens is ok, but cameras that spy on china citizens is dodgy...

thanks for clearing that double standard up

Re:I dont see the story (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665824)

It's hardly a double standard considering the scale of the human rights abuses in China versus the US.

I know it's cool to hate the US, but seriously grow up, the comparison you're trying to make beggars belief. It's astonishing to me that you don't see the difference between a country that regularly locks up political dissidents and a country which by and large doesn't do so. As bad as things have been in the US lately we still aren't anywhere near the level of human rights violations of China.

cisco (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663218)

The human oppression network

You people are such hypocrites (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663330)

I love how people are bitching about Cisco on this deal all while using their Apple products assembled in China, wearing their name brand clothing made in China, and sitting comfortably in their chair made in China.

If you want Cisco to be so idealistic, why don't some of you people do the same and boycott products made in China too? Yeah, didn't think so.

I just pwned you all.

Re:You people are such hypocrites (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663506)

Probably because it's nearly impossible to find goods that are completely without ties to China. Thanks to the labeling requirements, you can think you're buying American and really be paying for most of the work to be done in some undisclosed nation.

Re:You people are such hypocrites (1)

rezalas (1227518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663884)

I agree on all points, except my chair, which is custom made by my brother who also built my desk. Other than that I'm really just being an asshole, so please continue.

Nothing to see here.... (2, Insightful)

compucomp2 (1776668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663378)

just more American/Western hypocrisy from Slashdot. Typical. The British have done the same thing in their cities, and it's not like America is totally averse to the idea (red light cameras, anyone?) Clearly, it's evil and oppressive just because China does it and China refuses to knuckle under to Western imperialism.

Re:Nothing to see here.... (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663492)

If you're laboring under the impression that the criticism is "China is doing it, BAAAAD... The West is doing, it, YAAAY!"... you haven't been paying attention.

China refuses to knuckle under to Western imperialism.

Oh. That's interesting. I didn't notice until just now that you were using the Troll Safeword of the Day. <wink> Right. Carry on.

Re:Nothing to see here.... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663694)

Correct. When china does it, we speak out and sigh, ultimately knowing we don't have the right to force China to respect its people and their rights. When our own country does it we speak out and anguish in despair, ultimately knowing that we don't have the force to right our nation to respect its people and our rights.

Re:Nothing to see here.... (2)

swb (14022) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665156)

So do you work for the Chinese Propaganda Ministry in its Countering Anti-Chinese Rhetoric in Western Blogs department, or do you just freelance for fun?

What part of the arrest and detention of Ai Weiwei was the result of Western Imperialism or the defense of China?

No, the subject is not off-topic, as the problem with Chinese use of surveillance technology isn't the surveillance per se (although it is a problem in the West and in China), it's the use of that technology to buttress a ONE PARTY STATE that actively runs a POLITICAL GULAG and ARRESTS, IMPRISONS AND EXECUTES its citizens for threatening the hegemony of the COMMUNIST PARTY.

About time... (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663430)

Sounds like they are catching up with the rest of the developed world. London is probably the most famous for its network of surveillance cameras but most major cities are installing these things as fast as they can fund them in spite of the lack of evidence that they do anything to deter crime or capture criminals. I think the desire to keep track of people is a universal government proclivity.

Re:About time... (1)

bjdevil66 (583941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663950)

That's the weirdest part is that there's clear proof that cameras do not deter crime [aclunc.org] or help solve it [singularityhub.com] . The only other reasons a governmental unit would put them up is control by fear or if there was a lot of dirty money changing hands - neither of which is a good thing.

Why do people tolerate it? Are they just uninformed? Willfully ignorant? Afraid of the boogeyman? What?

Re:About time... (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665002)

Why do people tolerate it? Are they just uninformed? Willfully ignorant? Afraid of the boogeyman? What?

I think the correct answer is all of the above. There are those who don't know, those who think it won't ever capture them, and those who want a be all end all security product. This is the same reasons we get crappy laws like the PATRIOT ACT and a nice TSA grope or irradiation when we want to fly.

Not a big deal (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663446)

Cisco IS a chinese company. Their top ppl are Americans, but all of the manufacturing is done in CHina. So, this is just China spying on Chinese.

Re:Not a big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663674)

Ha ha, you're funny. But it's still bullshit. Cisco is based out of America. Kick Cisco's office presence out of this country, then I might take you seriously.

Per Wiki below

Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO, SEHK: 4333) is an American-based multinational corporation that designs and sells consumer electronics, networking, voice, and communications technology and services.

Re:Not a big deal (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663682)

Cisco IS a chinese company. Their top ppl are Americans, but all of the manufacturing is done in CHina. So, this is just China spying on Chinese.

Like Apple and most other technology companies, Cisco's manufacturing is out-sourced. They don't own any manufacturing facilities of their own.

Your last sentence is correct despite that.

Identify the money source (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665004)

"They don't own any manufacturing facilities of their own."

And whose money do you think paid for all those foreign factories, production facilities, R&D labs, training centers, call centers, etc., which those jobs are either offshored to, or created anew at? That would be USAID, US foreign aid from various sources, presided over by the Wall Streeters who once bounced back and forth between the Street and government positions, but now USAID, like so much of the former US gov't, has been privatized (90% for USAID, BTW).

Cameras do not prevent crime (0)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663500)

In some cases they can help finding who was responsible, but that is it. Criminals are generally stupid and are not deterred by an increased risk of getting caught. Consequentially, cameras are not a crime prevention measure, even though vendors falsely like to claim this. It is just the usual marketing lies taking something that seems obvious (but is false) to promote a product.

On the other hand, cameras do serve to make people feel spied on, so they do serve the obvious goal of reducing political opposition. And Cisco is in this because they do not (as so many others) have any corporate ethics. They would probably also help in building concentration camps if enough money was in it.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663602)

This.

If cameras prevented crime, convenience store and bank robberies would have been eliminated years ago -- and installing red light and speed cameras would be a money loser.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663642)

They would probably also help in building concentration camps if enough money was in it.

IBM is always ahead of the competition...

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ [ibmandtheholocaust.com]

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (0)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666000)

Indeed.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664440)

Criminals are generally stupid and are not deterred by an increased risk of getting caught.

Right. That must be why so many robberies are committed right in front of policemen.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665052)

Doesn't it truly strike you as ludicrous, when so many Ameritards repeat that tiresome phrase about criminals being so stupid? Especially since the bank/oil cartel gets away with virtually everything? I mean, since when did anyone from JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BankofAmerica, Citigroup, Blackstone Group, Fortress, Citadel Management, AIG, Carlyle Group, etc., etc., go to jail? After the S&L meltdown, over 1,000 banksters were convicted and many went to jail. Criminals appear to get away with virtually everything today.

Re:Cameras do not prevent crime (0)

gweihir (88907) | more than 3 years ago | (#36666022)

Ah, my comment was limited to crime where cameras are believed to make a difference. Of course corporate crime is something else entirely. These people are amoral, greedy scum, but typically highly capable.

Obligatory Judas Prest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663606)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvEDAg6MWw

Up here in space
I'm looking down on you
My lasers trace
Everything you do

You think you've private lives
Think nothing of the kind
There is no true escape
I'm watching all the time

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Always in focus
You cant feel my stare
I zoom into you
You don't know I'm there

I take a pride in probing all your secret moves
My tearless retina takes pictures that can prove

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Electric eye, in the sky
Feel my stare, always there
Theres nothing you can do about it
Develop and expose
I feed upon your every thought
And so my power grows

I'm made of metal
My circuits gleam
I am perpetual
I keep the country clean

I'm elected electric spy
I'm protected electric eye

Protected. Detective. Electric eye

Boycott on Cisco and Cisco related products (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36663612)

Rather than ranting on about Champ vs Chomp, we should think of a boycott on Cisco and Cisco related products. like the boycott on SA products because of apartheid.

Open Surveillance, Anyone? (1)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663622)

I think surveillance isn't bad, so long as it is public and open.

http://www.brainonfire.net/blog/surveillance-for-the-public/ [brainonfire.net] - only result I could find quick google.

I like to think of open surveillance as "big family", as opposed to "big brother".

Can't find any studies or implementations at this moment, but I like to imagine it would work. Still, it feels like this idea is ripe for hole-shooting-into.

Re:Open Surveillance, Anyone? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36664462)

> Can't find any studies or implementations at this moment...

Of course not. Knowledge is not power. Secret knowledge is power.

Big thanks, Hasler (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665136)

Thank you. I always despise people who mindlessly repeat something without ever giving it some critical analysis first. If knowledge were power, then scientists and geniuses would be meeting at the Bilderberg, not just the bank/oil cartel boys (with their social information system lackey twits, of course).

Re:Big thanks, Hasler (1)

FrozenFOXX (1048276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665552)

Thank you. I always despise people who mindlessly repeat something without ever giving it some critical analysis first. If knowledge were power, then scientists and geniuses would be meeting at the Bilderberg, not just the bank/oil cartel boys (with their social information system lackey twits, of course).

I'm not really interested in hopping into a perfectly good argument here but I feel compelled to note that "knowledge is power" doesn't actually specify the KIND of knowledge. Knowing how to get two atoms to combine in a particularly useful fashion may, depending on your goals, not get you the kind of power you desire. If you're looking to control a country knowledge of political opposition's activities would be far more useful. If you're looking to cause massive amounts of devastation then the former would be quite a bit more useful in the form of a bomb.

Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? (4, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663702)

  Isn't Huawei up to the task of network surveillance or are the Chinese looking for more tech to steal?

Re:Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36664246)

Isn't Huawei up to the task of network surveillance or are the Chinese looking for more tech to steal?

Cisco probably has a deal where instead of getting paid in cash Cisco gets paid by China cracking down on companies making counterfeit Cisco routers.

Re:Why Cisco, when they have Huawei? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36664466)

Oh. Oh. Oh. I know this one...

Yes.

Aw, how cute (1)

davidbrit2 (775091) | more than 3 years ago | (#36663948)

They call them "citizens".

umm...so....? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36664064)

Is Cisco looking for some reward for making China the preeminent nation on earth?
I'm a little slow, so I'm confused by the tone of TFA.

fucken bastards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665110)

That's why I can't shoplift in peace.

Priorities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665354)

As a U.S. citizen, I care a lot more about Target getting away with scanning people's driver's licenses than I do about China spying on its citizens.

No problem. F5 switches are just fine for my needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665506)

Cisco is a dieing breed anyway. Their cost is not justified in most cased IMHO. Just say NO to Cisco...

As much as I hate to say it... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36665542)

Since the equipment is manufactured in China, it isn't as if the government couldn't just have the factories supply them with as many gray market units as they need.

Miscommunication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36665918)

"a citywide network ... cameras that officials say will prevent crime but that human-rights advocates warn could target political dissent."

These are actually the same thing in China.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?