Editing Cisco (section)

=== China ===
Cisco has been criticized for its involvement in [[censorship in the People's Republic of China]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/internet/ |title=The tank man: the struggle to control information |work=pbs.org |access-date=November 13, 2008}}</ref> According to author [[Ethan Gutmann]], Cisco and other telecommunications equipment providers supplied the [[People's Republic of China|Chinese government]] with surveillance and Internet infrastructure equipment that is used to block Internet websites and track online activities in China.<ref>Ethan Gutmann (May/June 2010) {{usurped|[https://web.archive.org/web/20161224055812/http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/hacker-nation-chinas-cyber-assault "Hacker Nation: China's Cyber Assault"]}}, World Affairs Journal</ref> Cisco has stated that it does not customize or develop specialized or unique filtering capabilities to enable governments to block access to information and that it sells the same equipment in China as it sells worldwide.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2006/02/cisco_testimony_before_house_i.html | title=Cisco Testimony Before House International Relations Subcommittee | first=John | last=Earnhardt | publisher=Cisco Systems, Inc. | date=February 15, 2006 | access-date=January 25, 2007 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061206095153/http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/2006/02/cisco_testimony_before_house_i.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = December 6, 2006}}</ref>

[[Wired News]] had uncovered a purported leaked, confidential PowerPoint presentation from Cisco that detailed the commercial opportunities of the [[Golden Shield Project]] of Internet control.<ref name="Stirland">{{cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/leaked-cisco-do/ |title= Cisco Leak: 'Great Firewall' of China Was a Chance to Sell More Routers |first= Sarah |last=Stirland |date=May 20, 2008 |access-date=June 27, 2009 |magazine=Wired}}</ref> In May 2011, a group of [[Falun Gong]] practitioners filed a lawsuit under the [[Alien Tort Statute]] alleging that Cisco knowingly developed and customized its product to assist the Chinese government in prosecution and abuse of [[Falun Gong]] practitioners.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2011cv02449/240845|title=Doe I et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al|work=Justia Dockets & Filings}}</ref> The lawsuit was dismissed in September 2014<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020140908824.xml/DOE%20v.%20CISCO%20SYSTEMS,%20INC.|title=DOE I v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.|author=EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge}}</ref> by the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]], which decision was appealed to [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2ows95zql/court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit/doe-i-et-al-v-cisco-systems-inc-et-al/|title=Doe I, et al v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al :: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit :: Case No. 15-16909}}</ref> in September 2015. On July 7, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and ruled the lawsuit may proceed to trial.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |date=2023-07-07 |title=Lawsuit alleging California tech giant aided Chinese torture may proceed, 9th Circuit says |url=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-07/9th-circuit-revives-case-alleging-california-tech-titan-aided-torture-by-china |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 7, 2023 |title=DOE I, ET AL V. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL, No. 15-16909 (9th Cir. 2023) |url=https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/07/07/15-16909.pdf |access-date=August 9, 2023 |website=United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit}}</ref> Cisco filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dodge |first=William S. |date=2025-02-04 |title=Cisco's Cert Petition |url=https://tlblog.org/ciscos-cert-petition/ |access-date=2025-03-09 |website=Transnational Litigation Blog |language=en-US}}</ref>

In 2020, the [[Australian Strategic Policy Institute]] accused at least 82 major brands, including Cisco, of being connected to forced [[Persecution of Uyghurs in China|Uyghur labor in Xinjiang]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Xu |first1=Vicky Xiuzhong |last2=Cave |first2=Danielle |last3=Leibold |first3=James |last4=Munro |first4=Kelsey |last5=Ruser |first5=Nathan |date=1 March 2020 |title=Uyghurs for sale |url=https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale |access-date=7 July 2022 |publisher=Australian Strategic Policy Institute}}</ref>