Comments on: Microsoft denies certain countries access to its messenger

By: joerg

joerg — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:50:27 +0000

“Did they try to fight for the people’s right and test this interpretation in court?
Microsoft is a company that exist to make a profit. They only have to defend their business interests.
“If offering communication services is still ok, why was Microsoft then blocking access to these same services?”
This is an interesting question. MIcrosoft doesn’t provide a more precise answer to this question. These sanctions aren’t new either. They have existed for several years. Maybe it’s part of creating diplomatic pressure on those countries. After Obama took over the presidency lots of positions were given to new people. So this might just be some ambitious guy in the foreign ministry showing he takes his job seriously. So he calls up the major companies. This is pure speculation of course.
Events like these are perfectly good examples that decentralized networks with open protocols have advantages. But with some caveats. Let’s assume I have an account at a Jabber server mycoolnickname@uberjabber.org. If uberjabber.org goes down or blocks my country, I have to get a new account from some other service. Now I have to rebuild my contact list from scratch again. The same is true if I switch from MSN to ICQ. So the difference in inconvenience is not that great. Don’t get me wrong. Jabber is pretty awesome. Especially if I want to build my own network.

By: Torsten

Torsten — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:48:40 +0000

I didn’t say that Microsoft is evil, although it is, but also for other reasons.

You are right in pointing out that Microsoft is somehow following one ominous interpretation of US law. I’m not sure if this is the only valid interpretation. Did they try to fight for the people’s right and test this interpretation in court? As far as I know, they didn’t and in the end it even strengthens my main point: We should not use technology that we do not control.

How can it be justified that people are being excluded from using modern technology, from using extremely useful tools such as communication services? Many people even depend on those tools in one way or another. Shutting them off, heavily disrupts their lives. If those people learn to use technology that they can freely use, study, share and improve as long as they wish, they no longer have to fear to be excluded from the digital age. Then their digital tools can not be taken away or shut off remotely. They would be able to regain control and to thrive independently.

—

Some remarks on the details:

Of course, the blockade can still be circumvented, but it is the intention and the attempt that counts. This attempt should be condemned. Who knows how big the impact of the next attempt will be. Just imagine how you would feel if only some of your precious internet tools would stop working for you. Do we really want to allow for digital outcasts?

The source you posted goes like this: “Under the trade embargo laws companies in the US can offer communications services to the affected countries but they may not allow the download of their software, even if it is free, as it is considered to be among exportable goods.” If offering communication services is still ok, why was Microsoft then blocking access to these same services?

By: joerg

joerg — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 17:49:46 +0000

From the article you linked to, it seems like Microsoft just follows US law. "Microsoft has discontinued providing Instant Messenger services in certain countries subject to United States sanctions. Details of these sanctions are available from the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control." Microsoft is not alone in this: Google, AOL Join Microsoft in Banning Users in US Embargoed Countries Other companies offering instant messaging services and clients have started blocking access of citizens in countries under trade embargo by the United States after Microsoft announced a similar move recently. Countries currently affected are Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea, all of which are under trade embargo regulated by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Seems like a political problem. It doesn't mean Microsoft is evil. [comment formatting was fixed by moderator]