"Gates's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents, says Amnesty
... Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'.
China is the world's most aggressive censor of the internet. Websites are banned for using words such as 'Taiwan', 'Tibet', 'democracy', 'dissident' and 'human rights'. Amnesty has recorded dozens of cases of political opponents jailed for circulating material offensive to the Chinese government.
Microsoft told The Observer: 'We are focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world. However, how that technology is used is with the individual and ultimately not in the company's control.' ..."
Of course not, as long as they pay. Ever wonder how the credit bureaus assist foreign governments?
Ever consider that the CRAs are monopolies?
They treat us exactly like MicroSoft. We have no choice but to buy their products, from each one of them, to do their quality control, without pay.
They have no ethics, no morals, and no respect for any laws. They do what they want. I think they have standing agreements with the major consumer law firms not to file class actions.
I am stunned that the CRAs can get away with so many violations. Of course it's real expensive to sue CRAs, so the smaller firms or individuals can't finance a long legal battle.
In individual actions, the consumer gets a few deletions of derogs, maybe a few hundred bucks, the "consumer advocate" attorney makes 10 or 20K in legal fees.
It's a nice arrangement. For them.
You can just replace "Microsoft" with "CRA":
The 'teenage' hard nut at the centre of Microsoft
He outwitted IBM to retain control of the PC operating system, and dumped them when they ceased to be useful. He missed the significance of the internet, but turned the company on a sixpence to face the challenge once he had seen the light, determined to ensure that Microsoft would dominate it the way it had come to dominate the market for operating systems and office software. This led to the campaign to exterminate Netscape and the ill-fated anti-trust action that was decided in 2001, with Microsoft being found guilty of violating the law but escaping the penalty of break-up on appeal.
What was most interesting about the anti-trust trial was not the obduracy of Microsoft's defence (which is only to be expected from corporate lawyers) but the incredulity of Gates and his colleagues about the fact that they were being prosecuted at all. Gates's videotaped testimony made riveting viewing: he looked exactly like a rebellious teenager being interrogated by teachers for possession of cannabis. He made it abundantly clear that he regarded his interrogators as dunces and ceded no authority to them or to the legal process that brought them to his office. The government, he gave them to understand, had no business intervening in the process of industrial innovation.
And even after Microsoft was found guilty of violating the Taft-Sherman Act, he and his colleagues showed no remorse. Instead there was haggling about the implementation of the piffling penalties imposed by the court, shrill defiance and a return to the old ways of intimidating competitors and 'leveraging' the Windows monopoly. And, of course, there were no resignations.
..."