I've been involved in conversations with ISPs in different countries who are required by law to intercept their customers traffic. On one particular occasion I remember being told by an ISP in Germany that they wouldn't buy from us unless we developed a feature that allowed them to snoop on their users. It's called 'lawful interception'.

We developed this feature and sold them equipment. Am I a bad person? Where do you draw the line?

ISPs all over the world are looking at their users' traffic. Some of them are doing it nefariously while others are being required by law to do so against their will. It's shouldn't be the job of a vendor to determine right from wrong.

Before you go condemning networking vendors think about weapons manufacturers. American companies routinely sell guns to countries that use them against their own citizens. And nothing comes of it.

> Before you go condemning networking vendors think about weapons manufacturers. American companies routinely sell guns to countries that use them against their own citizens.

Yes, and that is something that ought to be illegal too.

Whether you're a bad person or not is not for me to say, you can make that judgment for yourself. Personally I would refuse to build such a feature and likely it would cost me my job. Then someone else, maybe you, would step in to do it anyway. So in the end my resistance would amount to 'nothing'. But I'd sleep a lot better because of that, as long as you don't lose sleep over it you're doing fine.

We all get to make these decisions on an individual basis.

> Whether you're a bad person or not is not for me to say, you can make that judgment for yourself.

If you're not saying that these people are "bad people" then what's your basis of demanding that their actions be illegal?

Laws aren't always based in morality, even when they align with morals. Even when a person commits a "bad" act, that does not necessarily make them a "bad person."

After all, only God can judge them, right? ;)

I think it doesn't make them a 'bad person' because people are always capable of changing (even if it only happens once in a while). And it doesn't make them a bad person because our actions are mostly a reaction to our environment, and we don't always have a correct/full view of it to begin with.

So, applying your judgments to a person who reacts to their environment based on limited information and experiences, and saying they are fundamentally good or bad may not be totally logical.

Then the saying "only God can judge" means that an omnipotent being, who perfectly understands everything, is the only being capable of perfect judgments and certain condemnation or praise.

What if the German people don't mind? Then in refusing to provide them with equipment you could otherwise provide, you are simply forcing your own beliefs on other people.

You will always find someone who minds (like me, in this case), and you will find people who don't mind. Whatever you do, you'll always influence the situation.

Right and wrong are often different from legal and illegal. I will pass no judgement (also because I still hold the believe that some communications technology is better than none) but using laws by the German government as a counter point is probably not the best idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders#Nuremberg_Trial...

I disagree with you on the point that it shouldn't be the job of the vendor to determine right from wrong. Only you can determine that, and it is your responsibility. If you let other people determine it for you, you will have no defense come judgement.

many backend voip products sold in the US have to have the ability to do "lawful interception" as required under CALEA:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Communication...

I'm not sure that comparing networking vendors to arms dealers to repressive regimes is the best way to defend them/yourself.

Yes, you are. Shame on you.

> Selling hardware with deep packet inspection capabilities to repressive regimes should be against the law.

Oppressive regimes? This is China we are talking about---the most favored trading nation to the US.

What you said makes me question: why not restrict all trade to an oppressive regime?

It's an interesting question, and not an easy one to answer policy-wise I assume.

My 2 cents are that opening up a country is more effective than isolating it. I've been to China several times, and there are a lot of people living good lives out there, even by America's standards. As oppressive as internet tech communities like to make it sound, it is still more than possible to do business, make friends and have interesting political debates (even on subjects like democracy) over there.

I am a vehement supporter and believer in free speech, and I do not like the practices they have implemented over there. I just do not believe that cutting China off completely would solve anything (China has cut them selves off a couple times, you can read about how it worked out for them).