Slashdot Mirror

I think that has been superseded.

Overall the Chinese design is way behind the times. I can't tell if they're just trying to be different or what.

I also like how China is dealing with its smog problem by keeping it indoors

I think that has been superseded.

Overall the Chinese design is way behind the times. I can't tell if they're just trying to be different or what.

I also like how China is dealing with its smog problem by keeping it indoors

Has our society become so timid and fearful that we are willing to sacrifice long cherished rights to freedom, liberty and privacy to the state in return for a dubious promise of security?

I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings.

In all the gruesome examples you cited, note that the acts of terrorism took place despite all the surveillance already taking place then. The effort has failed. How much more freedom and privacy will you demand the public sacrifice in order to achieve greater efficacy?

I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public. If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper , including the following gem :-

China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.

What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
   

Sorry to reply to my own post.

On a closer look I think there are two misunderstandings here:

#1 the "misunderstanding" that the Chinese government is pushing for censorship through GreenDam

and

#2 the "misunderstanding" that manufacturers are required to preinstall the software on computers they ship

I really didn't think much of #1 when I wrote the above post because (this must be a gross oversight here on slashdot ;-p), As I've said, I never considered it much of a censorship issue. So as a faithful slashdot reader I simply skimmed through their comment and started typing. A valid point I missed was that users are supposed to be able to uninstall the software.

What I was mocking was the second "misunderstanding" -- it is obvious that Green Dam was supposed to be required to be preinstalled -- until they suddenly announced in June 30 that the plans will be on hold, the day before the new rules were to be in effect.

Of course the more I read it the more I am confused :)

The official news source is at http://english.gov.cn/2009-08/13/content_1391004.htm

"China's computer users would not face a compulsory mass installation of Green Dam Internet filtering software, China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology Li Yizhong said Thursday."

Emphasis mine. So, now we have a mandatory installation of Green Dam for *manufacturers*, but the plans are on hold (IIRC there is no specified date for resumption). And *users* are not required to install it.

So I might actually have "misunderstood" this most recent announcement -- it seems that it is still possible that manufacturers will still have to ship their computers with Green Dam preloaded in some way, *IF* the stay announced on 30 June is lifted.

Will the stay be lifted? Looks like it's still up for bets! Issues preventing the Chinese government to resume its plans is, as I mentioned, legal issues, technical issues, and additionally the issue of alleged backroom politics in choosing the filtering software developer. But then the idea of "protecting the children" must have originated from some higher up policy, or at least approved by higher authorities, and I doubt they will "give up" so easily, particularly that they have lost so much "face" after this incident.

I hope this clears things up a bit. Took me a bit of mental work to really figure this whole mess out.

I'm betting the Chinese aren't doing an environmental impact study.

You'd lose your bet: See: http://english.gov.cn/special/2006-07/02/content_325285.htm

About a billion people in China watched their governments extensive efforts try to improve the air quality and environment in Bejing for the Olympics. Based on what CCTV9 news is reporting, there's a huge increase in the public's awareness of and interest in environmental issues within China.

You seem to think you have a point. You already gave the proof. Official recognition by a government and media. I see no reason to exert myself further,

In other words, if China were to follow its constitution, then you might have a point. But the Presidency is not selected this way in practice. And last I checked, I didn't call Chinese government "illegitimate" merely because it was different from mine, which is the US. Instead, I did so because it is a non-democratic government.

Regarding your point 1, I was asking for a proof, not simply saying you note "one of many". Which one, exactly? and please give a source to the official document. Also, I said recognition by the "international community", not by a single government. Since you are so believing in democracy, you should know what the majority law is.

Regarding your point 2, Chinese have the power to elect the representatives, who will elect the president. (Source: http://english.gov.cn//2005-09/02/content_28476.htm). The system is not simply the same as in U.S., where every person will vote for the president directly. You cannot call Chinese government "non-legitimate" because it is different from yours.

The Legend Holdings Limited (which itself is owned by the Chinese Academy of Science and Employee's Shareholding Society of Legend Holdings Limited) owns about 42.5% of Lenovo.

The Chinese Academy of Science was setup and under control by the State Council, which basically means the Chinese government.

http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/lenovo/shares_info.html
http://www.legendholdings.com.cn/intro_en.asp
http://english.cas.cn/Eng2003/page/home.asp
http://english.gov.cn/