🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Apr14.011636.628@sdg.dra.com>,  <sean@sdg.dra.com> wrote:
>In article <Co7Du3.Dx0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, nishri@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Alex Nishri) writes:
>> Americans are forbidden from phoning Cuba directly themselves.  I think we
>> can all agree that this limits free speech between those in the USA and
>> those in Cuba.  Of course, most Canadians respect the right of the USA to
>> enact its own laws.  But say, hypothetically, that a Canadian company
>> offered the following service: Americans could phone a number in Canada,
>> get a second dial tone, and then dial direct to Cuba.  (Without going into
>> details, this is not fiction.)
>
>Too bad you got your facts wrong.  Its an economic embargo.  Lots of people
>telephone Cuba from the U.S. everyday (especially from south Florida).
>However, AT&T (and soon Sprint, yes Sprint got approval to provide telephone
>service to Cuba) is forbidden from sending money to Cuba.  So the money
>is deposited in an escrow account.
>
>Of course, the Cuban government doesn't like not getting the money.  So
>Cuba encourages people to route the calls through other countries (such
>as Canada) which will pay Cuba.  The U.S. Government had no problem with
>a Canadian company offering a service where people in the U.S. could dial
>a number in Canada and then direct dial to Cuba.  They had a problem with
>the transfer of money to Cuba.  The Canadian company was blocked from
>collecting money from people in the U.S. and sending part of it to Cuba,
>not from making telephone calls to Cuba.  
>-- 
>Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>Domain: sean@dra.com, Voice: (Work) +1 314-432-1100

You are right--your government has told you that the reason for certain
restrictions and procedures when dealing with Cuba is "economic embargo".
And you are right--a company operating on Canadian soil, where this
restriction does not exist, was stopped from offering a service using the
telephone network because it violated the spirit of the American restriction.

Now on the other hand we have a restriction in Canada-we have been told
there is a court order asking for certain information not to be published
until a certain trail has begun.  And we have a company operating on
American soil, where this restriction does not exist, offering a way around
the spirit of the Canadian restriction by publishing the information to
Canadians via a computer network.  (I conclude it is being published to
Canadians because this company released a statement saying it was putting
the information up on a gopher/WWW server early only because of the court
order.)

So the example stands.  Note, that one should not confuse the merits of the
economic embargo or merits of the order to delay publication of information
with the issues that arise when telephone and computer network technology
are used outside a country to get around its national laws.  In both cases
above, a company outside a country circumvents the intention of that
country's laws.  If you believe that this is a valid form of dissent, then
is any non-citizen of your country, living anywhere in the world free to
come up with ways to circumvent the laws of your country they disagree
with? Only certain laws?

So, I am curious, what area code do you use when direct dialing (ie without
operator assistance) Cuba?