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.
Considering the number of relays in orbz and ordb that are out of the 210 and 211 sub-class A blocks i would think that perhaps this might be a good thing, in so far as the mail relays getting closed up
;)
Since a majority of that "subversive" text being bounced off of them are for "american get rich way of life" propaganda
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Here, we get things like Carnivore and promises that they'll only be used with warrants. Or to catch mobsters. Or terrorists. Honest.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Now thanks to Red Flag Linux, filtering the thoughts of your citizens is cheaper and more reliable than ever!
Back in the day, you'd have to pay Microsoft big bucks to squelch dissenting opinions and always had to worry that radicals spreading Western ideals would be able to exploit OS vulnerabilities and cause trouble. Not any more!
I wonder if China will GPL their filtering software?
(By the way, I'm not being down on Linux. I'm just dismayed at the irony of a government using one of the most free [as in liberty] operating systems to actually reduce freedom.)
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.
Do any readers here actually believe that snail mail to and from China is any less scrutinized than email will be? My sister lived and taught in China for a couple of years (we are Americans). Letters and packages I sent to her were routinely opened and inspected before they were delivered to her. I can safely assume that if she and I had access to email at the time, those correspondences would have been equally intercepted and reviewed as well.
I get loads of spam from China, or advertising Chinese websites.
Looks like sending the postmaster a note congratulating him on joining the Falun Gong might work well.
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
Like it or not, privacy is not a fundamental provision of the Consititution. If you place your messages in the public domain (which is what you do whenever you send an E-mail over the Internet), don't be surprised when it is screened, read, etc., by either the government or anyone who happens to own the router that your message passes through.
If you wish to have privacy, then you must send your communications over a private, secure channel, which the Internet is not. For example, the U.S. Postal Service is an entity that sends information securely; you can rest assured that your letters will never pass through the hands of a third party. But if you transmit information by posting a postcard on a bulletic board, it is free to be read by anyone who passes by, including government law enforcement officials.
You can attempt to make your messages sent through the public Internet "private" by encrypting the messages (which is perfectly legal and will continue to remain legal as long as our government is a free government). But that does not GUARANTEE privacy.
There is a general mistrust of government in general in this forum, which is sad. While I agree that the size and scope of government should be kept to a minimum, we should be able to trust the elected officials in a republican system, since we choose who our representatives will be. And we should certainly trust the executive branch (the ones actually screening the public E-mails) to do what they need to enforce the laws our elected representatives pass. If they aren't, then the people should vote accordingly for representatives that will fix the problem.
And despite what most people think, law enforcement officials are WAY to busy to concern themselves with the details of your private life. They are only concerned for the information that will help them protect the public from criminals.
An unjust law is no law at all. - St. Augustine
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.
USA Busted Trying to Bug China's Presidential 767
China Orders E-Mail Screening
The USA tries to snoop China. China snoops its own people. What's the difference?
(At least China tells its own people that it's going to be snooping their e-mails. The USA just does it without warning.)
Zodiac Survey
Such things that are outlawed include "Outlawed writings include any that reveal state secrets, feature pornography and violence or advocate cults."
Well there goes 90% of the SPAM coming into my mailbox. It's nice that China is finally making a national SPAM filter for its people.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
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.
Example message: "Death to the facist regime" .com on
in it . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this
! We will help you use credit cards on your website
& deliver goods right to the customer's doorstep !
You can begin at absolutely no cost to you ! But don't
believe us ! Mr Jones of Alabama tried us and says
"I was skeptical but it worked for me" ! We are licensed
to operate in all states ! If not for you then for
your loved ones - act now . Sign up a friend and you
get half off . Thank-you for your serious consideration
of our offer ! Dear Colleague , This letter was specially
selected to be sent to you . This is a one time mailing
there is no need to request removal if you won't want
any more . This mail is being sent in compliance with
Senate bill 1627 ; Title 4 ; Section 307 . This is
not a get rich scheme ! Why work for somebody else
when you can become rich within 58 MONTHS ! Have you
ever noticed nobody is getting any younger & more people
than ever are surfing the web ! Well, now is your chance
to capitalize on this ! WE will help YOU increase customer
response by 200% and deliver goods right to the customer's
doorstep . You can begin at absolutely no cost to you
. But don't believe us ! Prof Anderson who resides
in Wyoming tried us and says "I was skeptical but it
worked for me" . We are licensed to operate in all
states ! We urge you to contact us today for your own
future financial well-being ! Sign up a friend and
your friend will be rich too . Cheers !
Encrypted to read (paste the below in at their website and it will translate it for you):
Dear Friend , Thank-you for your interest in our publication . We will comply with all removal requests . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1623 ; Title 7 , Section 302 ! This is not a get rich scheme ! Why work for somebody else when you can become rich within 58 MONTHS . Have you ever noticed people will do almost anything to avoid mailing their bills plus nearly every commercial on television has a
Kind thoughts do not change the world
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?
Very accurate and insightful summary of US political parties - leaving aside that most of what they do doesn't have much of an ideological bias at all, and is mostly aimed at courting voters ("pork-barrel" programs) or investors (er, I mean "campaign contributions"). But that's really neither here-nor-there.
One thing I've been thinking, lately though, is that the Republicans are more the party of "Freedom" than the Democrats are. Not because of ideology, as you noted in your post. But because of practical effects. See, the Democrats long ago got most of the economic powers they wish to weild legitimized by constitutional scholars. Either by interpretation in court decisions stretching the commerce regulation clause beyond any rational interpretation, or by passing ammendments (like the 16th ammendment). So, the primary check on the Democrat's excercise of their ideology in a place where I disagree with it (I'm a libertarian) is themselves. Usually their laws stand up to constitutional challenge: income tax raises; social programs; environmental programs, whatever. They generally don't get challenged to begin with, and, if they do get challenged, the Democrats win a lot of em.
On the other hand, the Republicans have been totally unable to win constitutional support for their most extreme positions. Thus, the vast majority of ludicrous Republican laws get struck down.
So, the final calculation is that, while ideologically I disagree with about half of what Democrats want to do, and I disagree with about half of what Republicans want to do, in the actuall effect of their governing, the Republicans piss me off a lot less.
Also, one last thing - has anyone else noticed that "bipartisan" means "you vote for my pork-barrel programs and I'll vote for yours?" Man I hold on to my wallet when I hear that one...
PS: I know this is redundant, but this is the only post I'm gonna make on this thread, and I've got to get it out of my system. Is that original new poster an idiot, or an asshole? What kind of moron can't see the difference between mandatory drag-net filtering for "subversive" ideas and Carnivore's (comparatively) targeted use against specified individuals? I realize that Carnivore has some problems, and we should be complaining loudly about those, but to try to even imply that throwing little old ladies in prison for putting up web pages about their religion is somehow morally equivilant to a system which is designed to go after specific people who have warrants and are suspected of engaging in criminal activity is myopic in the extreme. In China, you could've gone to JAIL for making that news post with that wise-ass remark. Here, you just get flamed for being an idiot.
he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So what's the difference between our guarantee and theirs now that we have let "terrorism" be an excuse to search without warrant? You see, when you get outside the strict limitations of the fourth ammendment for any reason you are left with nothing but an empty prommise. With Carnivore and other wiretaping, I am NOT secure in my papers and personal effects. With the Patriot Act giving the govenment access to any electronic database, I am NOT secure in papers and personal effects. With the new wire tapping devices approved for use, I am NOT secure in my house.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Now, when you're hit with the flood of SPAM coming from an APNIC IP address, you can just respond to the system administrator of the open relay, like this:
"Greetings fellow Falun Gong brother. Your idea to encrypt message as commercial email is brilliant! I definitely agree that we need to move our geurilla forces into Tibet immediately, so that we may work against the tyranical Chinese regime."
Now *that* would likely get those open relays closed!
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
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?