Slashdot Mirror
China Orders E-Mail Screening
Greyfox writes: "According to this CNN article, China has ordered Internet providers to screen users' E-mails for subversive statements. See how fascist governments control the flow of information? Aren't you glad our government doesn't do this? Oh... Wait..."
Well, at worst it is only consistent with their general policy of internet filtering/censorship. If they have their "Great firewall of China" this is a logical extension of that firewall.
China is a *communist* country, not fascist. Please, try to get it right. The left you love and adore is equally capable of crushing human rights. Numerous examples abound - look at the media's darling Castro - Cubans die of old age and malnutrition in jail for having dared to speak against the socialist regime in place there. Political extremes, right or left, are indistinguishable to the man in the street, both crush all liberty.
Your extremist views pretty much negate any thoughful comment you had in that post, and that's a shame. There is a big difference that I pointed out in my original post. Email sent here in the USA does not have limitations on pornography (look at all the porn email now, although a lot of it constitutes spam), violence (unless it's a threat toward someone specific), or any idealogical/religous/cult thoughts. That isn't so in China. Sending a lot of emails we send here in the states would be illegal in China. Putting China's screening techniques on the same level as the USA's once again shows your liberal bias. Remember, it's easy coming up with complex conspiracy theories. Backing them up isn't so easy when they aren't true. That's the easy way out.
You know what, I'm really getting sick of the bigotry that I see here on Slashdot. Anytime a story is posted based on our rights, department of justice, business, etc... there always has to be a flame aimed towards the United States of America. I'm assuming most of the readers here have mostly a leftist view on most political issues, and that's absolutely fine.
But what about the conservatives who read Slashdot? What about us? How do the people who read Slashdot with a right winged attitude feel about biased comments that contain negativity, and to some of us, a fallacy (sp?) towards our government, economy, policies, etc...
Comments as well (I'm posting this anonymously for a reason). Whenever I post a comment that will go against something I read in an article that will have a conservative view to it, maybe 75-80% of time time it will get modded down to -1 (52 posts, no flames, Karma 2, you do the math). Whatever happened to getting 2, 3, 4, everyone's side of the story?
The moderation system on slashdot is awful and wrong. Using an analogy of a hostile government. If I say anything remotely conservative, I will get modded down. Hmm... seems fair enough.
I know the editors will not read this comment, nor will anyone who read this care, but I hope that anyone who does read this post will maybe understand that sometimes you should take into consideration other people's ideas and thoughts and not just have a one track mind and think that whatever Slashdot rights is legitimacy
--Anon
I can't believe the comment about our opressive government! Obviously you people have not studied oppression in history!
Clearly we must be vigilant in our maintenance of our freedoms, but to compare China with the US in terms of controlling information is simply demonstrating a lack of education.
Have you looked into what China did to US reporters during the Tiananmen square uprising? Contrast that with the US media in President Clinton's face demanding to know what exactly he had or had not done with "That woman, Miss Lewinsky."
The government having the capacity to screen emails at ISPs may be unpleasant to you. If so, encrypt your email. Carnivore _may_ be something that we need to stop, but it is NOTHING like the opression suffered by the people of the PRC.
Get off your self-righteous horse, and live under martial law at the hands of a despotic dictator for a while. Then come whining to me about "oppression" in the US.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
This is a common misconception, often reinforced by conservatives themselves. Conservatives are "pro small government" if you, bizarrely, redefine government not to include law enforcement or national defense. Those two areas are considered perfectly legitimate and, indeed, generally expand considerably under conservative administrations.
It's disingenuous to say that conservatives are "freedom lovers" and liberals advocate state control. As far as I can see, the issue is where a person calls for state intervention. Liberals tend to believe that the economy should be regulated by the government and steered toward (what they see as) public goods. Conservatives of course feel that the government should stay out of the economy as far as possible and thus maximize the individual's economic liberty.
On the other hand, convservatives also tend to call for government oversight of behavior -- morally, sexually, legally, culturally -- and rely on the state to make sure people stay in line with "the norm". Liberals, in counterpoint, want to keep government out of the personal lives of its citizens and evidence a much lower drive to regulate the private actions of the people. In that sense, liberals are trying to maximize personal (or civil) liberty.
Of course both of these characterizations is overbroad. Virtually no one fits perfectly either label, and in recent years there's been a lot of diffusion back and forth across that divide. But I think it's a useful categorization scheme.
Also, in a typically American manner, the true way probably lies somewhere in between. The fount of personal liberty is economic liberty -- too much of our lives revolve around earning a living to disentangle choices made in business from choices made at home. Yet economic liberty without a corresponding freedom of conscience is empty and meaningless... such a system is pointless in the extreme. Further, as the Chinese are learning to their dismay -- following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union, which learned this lesson the hard way in the late 1980s -- you cannot have economic liberty (or its attendant efficiency) without creating overwhelming pressure for personal liberty.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I really believe that states cannot be reasonably or usefully characterized as "rightist" or "leftist". At a minimum, two axes -- regulation of economic life and of personal life -- is needed.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Because if I sent an email saying "I think President Bush is doing a bad job." to someone, the secret police are going to bust in and put me in a labor camp.
Threre is a HUGE difference between censoring people's emails (what china will do) and simply reading people's emails. In my opinion, anything sent in plain text over the internet should be considered public anyway!
I can't believe you got a +5 for say reading email and censoring an entire population are the same thing. My God!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
(You vote Libertarian, right?) What if all of the candidates are corrupt? How is that better than the one party system in China? And at least in China they count all the votes, even though they're meaningless.
Examples of criminals under US law (in various states): breaking the speed limit by 1mph. Having sex with a married person to whom you are not married. Same sex sex. Watching a bought DVD on a Linux system.
The problem with "it's OK, they're only interested in criminals" is that in practical terms everyone is a criminal. What you mean is: chances are they're only interested in other criminals.
This presumption - or creation - of guilt is the same as at the heart of Chinese censoring. There is a ruling overclass (heridatary and incumbent in both nations). The populace aren't fit to be trusted, and need to be monitored and controlled. But it's all for our own good, so what are we complaining about?
Sorry, that's not an attitude that I can easily stomach.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thus far it's true that for the most part the government doesn't kill its citizens. Well, unless they're black and pulled over by a jumpy cop doing racial profiling or something. Or they live a lifestyle the government doesn't like. But apart from that, the government doesn't kill its own citizens! Truly!
And it's true that the media will keep them honest! Nevermind that the media is mostly owned by the same corporations which have been steadily lobbying for the removal of your rights for the past several decades.
But true, we're nothing like the Chinese and we don't really have anything to worry about!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You know what, I'm really getting sick of the bigotry that I see here on Slashdot. Anytime a story is posted based on our rights, department of justice, business, etc... there always has to be a flame aimed towards the United States of America. I'm assuming most of the readers here have mostly a leftist view on most political issues, and that's absolutely fine.
/. share your opinions on things, it might reflect on us Slashdotters as a whole, but it's statistically more likely to just reflect on you personally. Either find a forum with people who agree with your opinions already or stop whining in this one.
/. is very democratic. Moderators are chosen at random from people that visit the site.
:)
But what about the conservatives who read Slashdot? What about us? How do the people who read Slashdot with a right winged attitude feel about biased comments that contain negativity, and to some of us, a fallacy (sp?) towards our government, economy, policies, etc...
Am I the only one who finds the irony in this post? The story is about how the Chinese government doesn't allow dissent and is telling ISPs to police emails for subversive statements. You then complain that Americans shouldn't dissent so much and should stop criticizing the American government so you don't get offended by people disagreeing with you. It would therefore seem that you would be in favor of the Great Firewall of China, right? I doubt you are, of course, but that's only because your thinking is confused and logically inconsistent.
Criticism of the country in general (as opposed to the government) is certainly different. Your post draws no distinction. I don't see why you think conservatives should be more offended by that than anyone else- unless you somehow think that conservatism and patriotism are the same thing.
As far as criticism of the government is concerned- democracy only works when citizens constantly criticize and question those in power. Perhaps you'd rather live in a country where there is no criticism of the government.
Comments as well (I'm posting this anonymously for a reason). Whenever I post a comment that will go against something I read in an article that will have a conservative view to it, maybe 75-80% of time time it will get modded down to -1 (52 posts, no flames, Karma 2, you do the math). Whatever happened to getting 2, 3, 4, everyone's side of the story?
Oh please. You sound like the people who write in to talkorigins.org complaining that the creationist side of the issue isn't getting equal treatment on the site. Nobody is obligated to rate your posts up merely so that both sides of every story are presented. Sometimes it's obvious which side is wrong. If fewer than half of the participants in a public forum like
The moderation system on slashdot is awful and wrong. Using an analogy of a hostile government. If I say anything remotely conservative, I will get modded down. Hmm... seems fair enough.
A "hostile government" is modding your posts down?!? I know you're just making a bad analogy, but seems like another case of politically correct whining. You couldn't ask for fairer treatment than you're getting.
What would you replace the current system with? One where YOU or "remotely conservative" minded people like you are the sole moderators? Your definition of "remotely conservative" might be reasonable, but it might very well fit my or other people's definition of "kookily conservative". How are we supposed to know? You posted as an AC so we can only guess.
As long as we're making questionable analogies between websites and governments, there are many online forums where the people in charge simply delete posts they don't like. Any dissent on those boards is quickly met by people saying creepy things like "soon you and your posts will go away, heh heh." Wouldn't that make a better analogy with a "hostile government"?
Sucks that you posted anonymously and lost all that karma. Bet you wish you weren't such an anonymous coward now, eh?