Reply to post: There must be an important distinction

When tyrants pull on their jackboots to stamp out free speech online, they reach for... er, a Canadian software biz?


There must be an important distinction

Between producing a piece of software, or technology, that has legitimate useful purpose but can be used to cause harm in the wrong hands, versus a company that develops software specifically for the purposes of bad actors. Encryption and Tor are obvious examples of the former, but anything can be misused- the North Korean government has its own Linux distribution, which presumably they are not using in a purpose consistent with human rights- and no one is calling for Torvald's head because of that.

I'm not actually sure which is the case here with Netsweeper. While in an ideal world we would accept that open access to information is a basic human right, there does seem to be a legitimate use for private parties supplying access to their employees or students to be able to limit content for productivity or safety, and perhaps Netsweeper is simply meeting that need.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019