I think the term is "criminal".

It's not criminal. It could and should be outlawed, but hasn't been.

> It could and should be outlawed, but hasn't been.

I respect your opinion greatly. Why do you disagree with the EFF's assertion that Cisco's actions violate the Alien Tort Statue (the "ATS") [1]?

If Cisco knew, or should have reasonably known, that the technologies they were developing for the Chinese government would be used in contravention of the United Nations Convention Against Torture [2], which the U.S. ratified and would thus be covered under the ATS, then it would seem like this would fall under "aiding and abetting.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1350 28 U.S.C. § 1350

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_agai...

I agree with the EFF. The Alien Tort Statute recognizes civil claims. They should lose the civil trial.

Separately, we should pass a federal law outlawing the knowing sale of technology for the purpose of persecuting groups of people based on their race/ethnicity/religion. Once that law exists, it will be a crime to do what Cisco did, and I'll be happy about that.

Until then, discussing what Cisco did as "criminal" is dangerous. It should be harder to stretch our existing laws to make criminal cases, not easier.

> we should pass a federal law outlawing the knowing sale of technology for the purpose of persecuting groups of people based on their race/ethnicity/religion.

If it had any teeth, such a law would do serious damage to the US arms exports industry.

  Once that law exists, it will be a crime to do what Cisco did, and I'll be happy about that.
  Until then, discussing what Cisco did as "criminal" is dangerous. It should be harder to stretch our existing laws to make criminal cases, not easier.

Are you at all familiar with the current U.S. laws and how they are effectively applied? Does RICO ring any bells? Al Capone vs. IRS, perhaps?

This sort of thing has been illegal for a while, so long as you're not considered too powerful to prosecute...

  > > It's not criminal. It could and should be outlawed, but hasn't been.
  > 
  > I respect your opinion greatly.

FWIW tptacek INAL, AFAIK

Conspiracy to commit murder/torture is indeed illegal.

Words mean things. When you draw wild connections like these, you endorse the notion that society should be governed by the moral feelings of citizens and not by laws. That may feel good in the moment, but I guarantee you that in the long run, it's people like you and I who will suffer the most if that worldview prevails.

Conspiracy to assist the unethical law enforcement operations of another country is not, in fact, a crime in the US. I wish it were. But to be guilty of a crime, it has to be a crime when you commit it. It doesn't work retroactively --- that's one of the first safeguards against despotism the founders came up with.

It's not a wild connection; conspiracy in the US to aid murder/torture abroad is currently a violation of US law.

Couching it in "unethical law enforcement operations" doesn't really change the fact of the matter, does it?

I'm assuming you're trying to convince the rest of the thread, and not me. I think what Cisco did here was repellant and that they richly deserve to lose the civil suit against them, but I also thinking trying to twist criminal law to specifically target the villain of the moment is a terrible idea that will backfire, badly.

We have laws against paying bribes, even when they are lawyered into legal-ishness in a foreign country.

It is far from clear-cut that when US corporations assist regimes where the US officially has serious problems with their human rights record, that laws against torture and other human rights violations would not apply to those enabling and assisting those violations. Some law enforcement operations are not merely unethical, or "different" from those that are legal here.

What's your point? Selling surveillance equipment to China doesn't violate the FCPA.

Are you arguing that we should pass another act, like the FCPA, that criminalizes the knowing and deliberate sale of technologies that will be used to harm people in violation of the UDHR? I'm right there with you.

You are that sure there are no ITAR bad guys using the GFW to find dissindents.

What's an "ITAR bad guy"?

There is a list of individuals and organizations you can't sell to directly or indirectly.

Ah, that makes sense. But now we're talking about crimes that are more or less unrelated to what EFF is accusing them of.

The general accusation is that the GFW is part of China's security apparatus and that there are enough legal restrictions on selling the tools of oppression that Cisco should not have done it, even if they got away with it. Any cursory DD on who might use the GFW, and for what, would result in backing off selling it. They didn't want to look. It is very difficult to see Cisco being regulatorily and possibly criminally in the clear on building the GFW. It is directly analogous to selling the batons with which to beat protesters and being shocked, shocked! when it happens.