Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating Human Rights Abuses

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @06:16PM (#11530926)

> 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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by tptacek on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @06:19PM (#11530947)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by vacri on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @10:25PM (#11531876)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by where_you_from on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @11:33PM (#11532079)

  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...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cisco’s Attempt to Dodge Responsibility for Facilitating ... by peterwwillis on Tuesday April 19, 2016 @09:15PM (#11531668)

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

FWIW tptacek INAL, AFAIK

[ Parent | on HN ]