14 DAY TRIAL // The Human Rights Law Foundation claims to have obtained new evidence against the networking hardware company in the case of the jailed and tortured Chinese people who were captured using technology provided by Cisco.
This case is not the only one built against the technology giant, as another lawsuit is underway in which political prisoners accuse the company of supplying the necessary resources for the Chinese Communist Party to monitor, censor and suppress citizens who dared to express themselves.
The Sydney Morning Herald reveals that the claimed proof is based on the statements made by a Cisco engineer who is quoted in the evidence brought forward by the human rights group.
“Cisco provided a secure connection to provincial security databases allowing for thorough cross-checking and movement-tracing … [such that] policemen could remotely access the suspect's work unit, access reports on the individual's political behaviour … family history … fingerprints, photographs and other imaging information,” the engineer is quoted as stating.
“The Chinese police could even check remotely whether the suspect had built or contributed to a website in the last three months, access the suspect's surfing history and read his email,” he revealed.
Internet users in China are going through a rough period, with websites like Facebook and Twitter banned due to The Golden Shield Project, part of the now famous Great Firewall of China.
The complaints filed against the company state that CEO John Chambers knew all about the abuses made by the government, being said that he repeatedly had advisory meetings with the founder of the oppression campaign against Falun Gong believers.
Cisco allegedly developed software that allowed officials to identify and track suspected members of the spiritual discipline. The products supplied by them seem incredible, as they were able to provide means that made photographic recognition of most practice related materials possible.
The networking giant, on the other hand, claims that they simply provided the hardware, not getting involved in the training and the software customization of which they are accused.