Great Firewall Becomes Greater

Jay writes "This article on Yahoo! mentions China's new restrictions on websites as of September 1st. Apparently it's more advanced and doesn't censor the entire webpage, just portions. It also forwards requests for search engines, like google, to less effective search engines. They also mention that this might just be temporary during a Communist Party Congress. Anyone have a mirror?" A different AP article spins things slightly differently, emphasizing that Google is apparently no longer blocked in China and mentioning the selective blocking of web content only in passing.

Comments

So?

[mekkab]

The wiley will find ways around it.
The rest won't miss it.

At least its stepping up the challenge for those who are wiley!

(I think it's pretty devious that they aren't blocking google searches, just sending them to a less efficient search engine! ha!)

Re:So?

[JMan1]

Must be you really be (technically) wiley to miss it? I don't think so.

Re:So?

[brandorf]

errr... http://www.search.msn.com/ ?

Re:So?

[aberson]

maybe "the wiley" will use HTThost to tunnel to an external proxy via http on port 80. works ok [where 'ok' is defined as 'ass slow'] through my great firewall.

Though, it would help if everyone in china had a computer on broadband "at home" (outside china) to be their proxy.

-a

This won't last.

[big_oaf]

As any parent can tell you, telling your child not to look in the "forbidden closet of mystery" undoubtedly ends in your child doing the opposite. I think it's only a matter of time before the people of China put an end to the censorship.

Re:This won't last.

[doublem]

I think it's only a matter of time before the people of China put an end to the censorship.

Yep, and it's only a matter of time before they have a nice republic set up too. This communism thing will never last.

It's not the lack of freedom that will change things, but block a man's google.com and you're begging for revolution!

Re:This won't last.

[operagost]

If they didn't rise up after the students were run over by tanks in Tianamen Square, I fear they never will.

Re:This won't last.

[mtrupe]

I hope so, but somehow I get the feeling their gov't will prevent that from happening...
Tiananmen, April-June 1989

Re:This won't last.

[NineNine]

No they won't. That's part of what Tianemen Square was all about. That's life under a Communist regime. Consider yourself lucky not to be living there.

Re:This won't last.

[FooBarWidget]

Then please explain to me: how come my life in China wasn't so bad? I've lived there for 8 years.

Re:This won't last.

[laserjet]

Just go back to work. He never said that. Things are fine. Just go back to work. That never happened. You never read that.

Re:This won't last.

[FooBarWidget]

It happened. I read it. :p

chinese proxy?

[eecue]

anyone know of an open chinese proxy server so i can see for myself?

Re:chinese proxy?

[The Turd Report]

I am sure there is one in here somewhere.

Re:chinese proxy?

[wsapplegate]

No problem, dude : just set your browser with 203.93.218.65, port 80 as proxy. I just tried it : Google isn't blocked, and it returns the same pages as here (I made a search for censorship , hope I won't cause problems to the poor fellows that own that proxy =)

Re:chinese proxy?

[8BitWimp]

Take a look at the PeekaBooty site... http://www.dutchmountains.net/~fedde/pab/

Re:chinese proxy?

[wsapplegate]

Oh, and by the way, if there are others who want to see for themselves , here is the list of all chinese IP ranges and a list of proxies to cross-reference with the former. Have fun :-)

Censorship in a world of forwards

[intermodal]

All it takes is one box being set up to mirror, or finding an unblocked box to route through...they're shooting themselves in the foot. For every major page they want to censor, there's a thousand more that aren't as prominent that will have the same political gist...

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

Whether or not censorship is wrong is completely independent of whether it is legal. Values such as liberty and free speech are universal -- they don't depend on what laws happen to have been passed at the moment.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

Your argument is essentially racist.

You are arguing that because `those people' were brought up in `that culture over there', they don't deserve the same freedoms as people brought up over here.

No, some values are, in fact, universal -- for example, slavery is objectively wrong despite the fact that every culture on earth has practiced it at some point in history, and despite the fact that some still do.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

The other AC's reply gives a good example of what's wrong with your thinking, but more generally, your argument is basically flawed.

You argue that government is the source of all values, but if that were the case, we would never have grounds to object to anything that government does, no? So I guess we'll never hear you complain about DMCA, or any other law you don't like -- since in your weird world-view where government is the source of values, it is you who are wrong if you don't like something the government does.

More generally, your argument falls into a maze of self-contradiction. Was slavery `right' until the civil war, and then it magically became `wrong'? What about all those people who fought to outlaw slavery? Were they misguided lunatics before the civil war who magically became visionaries afterward? What a line of bull...

No, your arguement here is one of those ideas that is, to paraphrase George Orwell, so dumb that only an intellectual could believe it.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

More pointedly, if government were the source of values, then no one government could be any better or worse than any other, as dictatorship would be `right' if that's what was now in power, and democracy would be `right' when it was in power. There would be no point in voting in any election, as whichever candidate won would magically become `right'.

I think everyone else reading this thread can see what a load of nonsense that idea is...

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[woogieoogieboogie]

How is the average Chinese person not free? Because they cannot speak out against the government! Because someone may overhear them saying something and the police will harrass them. Of course that would never happen in America. If America is free, why did 3 muslim men who were American citizens get detained because someone accused them of laughing at the events of 9/11. Ever hear of TIPS, the turn in your neighbor program here in the US? You are not free in America. Try organizing a revolt in the US and the government will run you over with tanks also. Israel is a democracy and they are running over palestinian children with tanks because the palestinians revolted.

Censorship, you do not think the US censors!!! The whole war on terrorism is beign censored. The truth about 9/11 is being censored. Speak out too loudly against the US government and you will also be censored, possibly detained forever under the new patriot act.

Communism works in china because the Chinese culture has always been about China coming first. Read up on Chinese history, to the chinese, China is the center of the universe. They used to call the white man barbarians.

If you had a clue about political systems, you would realize that all democratic governments will evolve into socialist and then communist governments. Even communist governments derive their power from the people. In industrialized democracies, the government may seem to derive their power from t he people, but in reality, their power is derived from the corporations.

Given the direction the world is heading in, I would prefer to live in a world in the vision of "A Brave new World," than in "1984."

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[woogieoogieboogie]

"You are arguing that because `those people' were brought up in `that culture over there', they don't deserve the same freedoms as people brought up over here. "

Should we share our unemployment, life indebtedness for education and unaffordable healthcare with the Chinese also. Who cares if they all die, as long as they are free to speak things the vast majority do not even think about.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[woogieoogieboogie]

I am a 801 pound Gorilla and I say fsck off. Eveolution will always win.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

Umm, hello?

Are you honestly suggesting that any of these categories (employment, standard of living for the poor, health care) are better in China than in the US? If you are, you're pretty dumb.

Vast portions of China's population live at standards that would not have been out of place one thousand years ago, while even the poor in the US have cars, televisions, refrigerators, and what have you.

Vast portions of the Chinese population never see a doctor in their life unless they have the misfortune to be picked for mandatory sterilization to meet some quota.

And as for employment, when even the employed in China barely survive in many regions, what, pray tell, is your point?

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

What a load of nonsense. While most of this is incoherent enough to be meaningless, I'd like to respond to a few points:

If America is free, why did 3 muslim men who were American citizens get detained because someone accused them of laughing at the events of 9/11.

Oh yes, the Florida police investigating (and releasing) someone accused of planning a bombing attack is just like the Chinese police investigating (and torturing, and killing) people accused of saying something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not.

Ever hear of TIPS, the turn in your neighbor program here in the US?

Oh yes, asking citizens who may have information about upcoming terrorist attacks to contact the police so that this information can be investigated under the framework of due process is just like spying on people so that they can be hauled away if they say something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not.

Try organizing a revolt in the US and the government will run you over with tanks also.

Oh yes, arresting people who plan terrorist attacks (I welcome you to point to anyone being `run over with tanks') is just like slaughtering unarmed protesters with tanks because they dare to ask for elections to be held. Oh wait, no its not.

Censorship, you do not think the US censors!!! The whole war on terrorism is beign censored. The truth about 9/11 is being censored. Speak out too loudly against the US government and you will also be censored

This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored.

And I'm just dying to hear what you think the `truth about 9/11' is.

possibly detained forever under the new patriot act.

More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort.

Communism works in china because the Chinese culture has always been about China coming first.

Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai (prison camps for political dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world.

The rest of your post is simply hilarious in the post-1989 world. I didn't know there were still people dumb enough to buy that shit. Oh well...

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[woogieoogieboogie]

I hate to break your white collar vision of America, but homelessness is increasing and already is at an alarming rate http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/progsys/homeless/

Those who aren't homeless are in jail http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1584/a11.html? 104

13.3% 35 million Americans live in poverty and half of those live on what amounbts to half of the poverty limit. http://www.itvs.org/outriders/poverty.html

Add it up, 13 percent in poverty, 6% in jail and 1% homeless. 1/5 of Americans are fscked in life and have no way out. The government doesn't care how bright or ambitious you are, you pay for school, you pay for medical and when you do struggle past it all, the government comes in and takes 1/3 of what you make putting you close to where you were. It is a losing proposition in America for many and the cycle will continue to expand as the American middle class shrinks to nothing and the divide between the rich and the poor becomes greater. Your govenment is legislating you into jail and if you manage to escape that, they are taxing you into poverty.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[woogieoogieboogie]

"Oh yes, the Florida police investigating (and releasing) someone accused of planning a bombing attack is just like the Chinese police investigating (and torturing, and killing) people accused of saying something the government doesn't like. Oh wait, no it's not. "

We have a jail in cuba to do that out of the public eye.

"This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored. "

Why won't the Bush administration allow an independant commission into the events of 9/11?

"And I'm just dying to hear what you think the `truth about 9/11' is. "

The truth involves $43 million in aid given to the Taliban by the Bush Administration while Bush they were harboring Bin Laden. Holy fucking shit, Bush is a traitor. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.ai d/ . Iraqis are starving, Palestinians are starving and are being killed by US money, why don't we help there?

"More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort. "

Have you read the patriot act? obviosuly not if you do not already know this.

"Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai [laogai.org] (prison camps for political dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world. "

Why don't you factor the US population to that of china and then make a fair comparisan. Given that 1 in 5 Americans is either living in extreme poverty or in jail or homeless, scaling that to china's population would mean that hundreds of millions of Americans would also be suffering. probably more because our infrastructure could not handle it. What is that prison camp in Cuba called again. How many people are in their but have never fired a shot against America?

But don't bother learning, be a good citizen, consume, buy new things and be happy. Don't ask questions because the truth might just surprise you.

What is truly amazing is that you know more about China than you do about America. How do you knwo all this about china which censors everything, but not about america which doesn't censor.

Post 89 world. Was their some significant event in 89 that changed America? or was that when you were born so you assuem that America has changed since you were born?

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

We have a jail in cuba to do that out of the public eye.

Umm, sure, as long as `out of the public eye' means `under close supervision of the press and the international Red Cross, in a resort-like setting, with an average of one physician per prisoner, and extra care taken to respect the religion and special needs of the inmates'.

"This is simply a lie. I welcome you to point to a single example of anyone in the US being censored. "
Why won't the Bush administration allow an independant commission into the events of 9/11?

I understand that you're not actually very familiar with the US or with freedom, but hello, it's a free country. Bush doesn't need to `allow' an independent investigation because anyone who wants can investigate anything they want and say anything they want. Of course, for someone like you, who just described the protesters in Tianenmen Square as `rebels' and `terrorists', perhaps the workings of free speech seem a little strange.

The truth involves $43 million in aid given to the Taliban by the Bush Administration while Bush they were harboring Bin Laden. Holy fucking shit, Bush is a traitor. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/ us.afghanistan.ai d/ . Iraqis are starving, Palestinians are starving and are being killed by US money, why don't we help there?

Black-helicopter nonsense and incoherent ranting. The alleged money to the Taliban has already been retracted by CNN and every other responsible news agency, the people who die in Iraq are dying not because of sanctions but because the billions of dollars in food money we send are being spent by Mr. Hussein to buy weapons of mass destruction and summer palaces, and even Arafat now admits that those Palestinians who were killed in the fighting this year were almost all civilians.

"More nonsense. Show me anything in USA PATRIOT that allows anything of the sort. "
Have you read the patriot act? obviosuly not if you do not already know this.

I have read USA PATRIOT, and it says nothing of the sort. So again, show us the text which you claim says this.

"Sure, as long as your definition of `works' is `starves hundreds of millions of people, murders millions more, and locks tens of millions more in the Laogai [laogai.org] (prison camps for political dissidents) while providing a lower standard of living than any democracy in the world. "
Why don't you factor the US population to that of china and then make a fair comparisan. Given that 1 in 5 Americans is either living in extreme poverty or in jail or homeless, scaling that to china's population would mean that hundreds of millions of Americans would also be suffering. probably more because our infrastructure could not handle it. What is that prison camp in Cuba called again. How many people are in their but have never fired a shot against America?

No one is in Guantanamo who didn't take up arms against the US, whether they got the chance to fire a shot or not, and for that matter, no one is in there who is a US citizen or who was apprehended in the US. And as for poverty, the `poor' in America have cars, cell phones, refrigerators, air conditioned homes, and all of the other things which even the tiny middle class in China dream of. Do not assume that because `poverty' in China means starvation and squalor that that is what it means in the US.

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[neocon]

Even the `poor' in the US have televisions, refrigerators, a car or two, and often a computer. These are things that even the middle classes in China often can only dream of, while the poor of China live in a state of squalor completely unknown in the US (and they make up much more than twenty percent of the population there).

As for the homeless, not only has the actual number of homeless persons not increased substantially in over a decade, the larger picture here is that 80%-90% of those who are homeless in the US are homeless due to mental illness or drug abuse -- any who are willing to work here can get themselves off the streets in pretty short order.

The same cannot be said for the homeless of China, never mind the inmates of the vast prison camps of the Laogai.

Anyway, I strongly suspect that anyone who, like you, defends the crushing of unarmed protesters at Tianenmen is a troll. Are you?

Re:Censorship in a world of forwards

[Snootch]

No one is in Guantanamo who didn't take up arms against the US, whether they got the chance to fire a shot or not, and for that matter, no one is in there who is a US citizen or who was apprehended in the US.

Erm, while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, just because no US citizen was put in there doesn't make it more humane, indeed it makes it less fair - there are still a couple of Britons in there that the US government is point-blank refusing to give the same treatment it gave to its own citizens.

The censorship your parent has referred to is mostly self-censorship, which. while I regard it as a bit of a problem, is nothing on what happens in China.

BTW - 1989, if I remember rightly, was when the Soviet bloc collapsed, and we got a proper view of what life under the USSR was actually like. Most people who had previously contended that the regime wasn't that much worse than western democracies realised how bad it was, and therefore changed their minds when that happened.

google help me!

[edrugtrader]

i live in china... i just tried this search here:

link

and it gave me this list of links:

link 1
link 2
link 3

man, they are good. guess i'll stay.

Re:google help me!

[doublem]

How insidious.

"Why would you want to view these sites? They're all crap! Where's the content?"

"Go back to your homes, read the newspapers we print for you and for Mao's Sake Don't get knocked up! We have enough people as it is. I repeat, DO NOT SCREW!"

Re:google help me!

[Krellan]

Wow, you've been censored!

I viewed the same link as you, and got these top 3 results:

antiw*r.com "leave china alone"
english.peopledaily.com.cn "foreign f***n g**g activists asked to leave"
hyperm*rt.net "yankees leave china alone"
And then some news articles about the North K*reans seeking asylum in China then moving to South K*rea.

I starred out things above so hopefully the Great Firewall of China won't block this post and you can read it.

I have a friend in China and we often ICQ each other to test the firewall and verify things he's researching, and we've ran into several surprising differences....

Re:google help me!

[micromoog]

In case anyone thinks this poster really lives in China (moderators, I'm looking in your direction), note that our beloved Slashdot is on the blocklist.

Re:google help me!

[edrugtrader]

yeah, seriously people, i'm trolling for +1 funny, and getting +1 interesting.

stupid moderators.

A good Communist...

[jmu1]

doesn't need information from any sort of "Internet". A good Communist can get his information from the nearest "People's Knowledge Station". Come on, get with the times man! Communism provides for all the needs of it's people.

LOL, sorry, I just had to say that.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

China is only communist by name. In reality, their economy is a mix between communism and capitalism, and they're on their way to convert even more things to capitalism. If you walk around in China, you'll be flooded by ads everywhere. Lots of people own small shops or companies.
They might be even "more capitalist" than us. The shops and restaurants there don't hesitate to stay open all night if there are enough customers (so they can ear more money). I don't see West-European shops or restaurants do that, they close after 10 PM no matter how many customers.

Re:A good Communist...

[mtrupe]

"China is only communist by name. "

I love it. Every time the Commie argument comes up on Slashdot you get some bozo saying "China is bad, but they are not communist, real communism has never been tried, blah blah blah, Capitalism is evil, blah blah blah, I hate corporations, blah blah blah.

It gets old.
Tiananmen, April-June 1989

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

Communism and capitalism are *economical* systems, not political systems.

> Capitalism assumes private ownership

Lots of Chinese *own* shops and companies. Yes, you read that right. *Own*.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

OK quote the word in my post that might mean "capitalism is evil" or "I hate corporations" and I'll give you a cookie.

This is not a joke, China really is partially capitalist. People can *own* companies, and *make profit*.

> It gets old.

So does that story from 1989.

Re:A good Communist...

[mtrupe]

"That story" from 1989 better not get old. It represents all that China (and, arguably, Communism) stands for- oppression and dumbing down of its society so that they do not question the authority.

See:
Cuba
Russia
[Insert name of African country Here]

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

Read this:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/column ists/wi ckham/wick045.htm
Yup, that's a US news site.

Re:A good Communist...

[ArsSineArtificio]

The shops and restaurants there don't hesitate to stay open all night if there are enough customers (so they can ear more money). I don't see West-European shops or restaurants do that, they close after 10 PM no matter how many customers.

24-hour businesses are quite common in America.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

But not in the capitalist Europe.

Re:A good Communist...

[ArsSineArtificio]

But not in the capitalist Europe.

Didn't know there was one, these days. Maybe Hungary or someplace.

Re:A good Communist...

[aussersterne]

"That story" from 1989 better not get old. It represents all that China (and, arguably, Communism) stands for- oppression and dumbing down of its society so that they do not question the authority.


This is where Americans begin to sound very arrogant and ignorant indeed. As a person from a Chinese family myself, allow me to say this:

1. China is not a "communist" country any more than Hitler was a good Christian. Just because you claim to be something does not make it true. China is a corrupt political state, but that has little in the end to do with abstract economic theory. "Communism" is just a word used by the powerful to justify keeping all of the cash and power for themselves!

2. China does not "stand for" oppression and dumbing down of society. China is not a symbol, China is home to more than a billion people like you and me who are living everyday lives full of the human things: love, work, sleep, family, and so on. China's citizens and even China's dissidents do not exist to make political points for you; they are trying to live life and to make the world a better place. And let me also tell you this: they are not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. You seem to imagine a land full of little uneducated, unskilled sheep who have been fattened on a diet of propaganda. Not so!

Yes, you're trying to score one for "freedom" I understand, but you're doing it in such a disrespectful way that one wonders whether you really care about those involved, or you're simply another American jingoist trying to feel superior to everyone else.

Re:A good Communist...

[mtrupe]

How is what I said disrespectful to the people of China? I think its wrong that their government censors what they can see and hear, as if they are children and government is their father.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

The Netherlands, Germany and France are 100% capitalist in case you didn't know...

Re:A good Communist...

[ArsSineArtificio]

The Netherlands, Germany and France are 100% capitalist in case you didn't know...

Ha. 100%? Aside from mandated short work weeks and the inability to fire workers, I suppose.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

What's wrong with protecting the workers? Exploitation of workers is *the* reason why socialism and communism exists in the first place.

Re:A good Communist...

[joggle]

He wasn't saying there was anything wrong with that. It just isn't a capitalist philosophy, rather it is more socialist. In reality, there aren't any governments on earth that are 100% capitalist--they all have socialistic elements (including the US). If your have pure capitalism, you end up with Enrons, railway barons, runs on the stock market, etc. whereas if you strive for pure socialism, you end up with countries like communist Russia and China, where the great majority of the power resides with the top, corrupt politicians whom have control over all of the country's industries. In general, though, European countries such as France tend to be more socialistic than America.

Re:A good Communist...

[FooBarWidget]

> you end up with countries like communist Russia and China

I think you're confusing economical systems with political systems. There's nothing that stops somebody from creating a capitalist totalitarian state or a socialist democracy.

And as I've pointed out earlier, China is a blend between communism and capitalism. How else do you explain all the capitalist Chinese companies and all the ads for Chinese products on street (in China) and on TV (in China)? Or that lots of people own small shops?

Re:A good Communist...

[woogieoogieboogie]

Wrong, Communism is a political implementation of Socialism. Marx defined Socialism, not Communism. Furthermore, the existence of both Communist and Socialist political parties means that Communism and Socialism are also both political systems. If we invented the Capitilist party, then Capitilims would also be a political system.

1984

[TheBrotherhood]

This is becoming like 1984, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength....

Re:1984

[spydir31]

just wait till they implement newspeak

Re:1984

[oliverthered]

What is?

There are 8 camaras on my 1 mile jorney two work, and i live in the country side.

The UK governemnt is talking about killing people for the peace of the world.

I can be free from the bondage of work, but I will probably die or be arrested if I take up the freedom.

And look at the streangth gained by Ignorant voteing.

China fits the Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength bit i suppose.

But more in the
'Religion is unpure thinking therefore we ban Religion, and save your neck by doing so.'

'Greed is the greatest temptation so well stop you from knowing whats out there because you might just become tempted.'

Oh and were all a bunch of power mungers must fit in there somewhere, but then thats the case with most countries.

Blocking part of a webpage

[poincaraux]

Apparently it's more advanced and doesn't censor the entire webpage, just portions.

Actually, the Yahoo article says that it blocks portions of websites rather than whole websites. Blocking parts of individual webpages would be a bit tougher :).

Re:Blocking part of a webpage

[doublem]

Mao: "We have a population problem. Economic incentives to single child families and forced abortions to women carrying a second child are not enough."

Sung: "Well, we do have a monopoly on the world's Chinese women. Do you have any idea how many men world wide fantasize about them? They're HOT!"

Mao: "That's it! We'll get the men to fantasize about non Chinese women! We'll replace all the porn sites with sites advocating sex wit women most of our population will never meet! They'll lose interest in sex and spend their time working!"

Sung: "Brilliant! Get right on it!"

Mao: "You mean I have to implement it?"

Sung: "Or be hung for treason."

Mao: "Tech suppot!"

Re:Blocking part of a webpage

[Psx29]

Actually, the Yahoo article says that it blocks portions of websites rather than whole websites. Blocking parts of individual webpages would be a bit tougher :).

I don't think it would be all too difficult to block only parts of pages actually, unless you are using SSL encryption or the like in which case it is basically impossible

Re:Blocking part of a webpage

[neocon]

Bzzzt... thanks for playing.

See (free registration required) or here.

Re:Blocking part of a webpage

[neocon]

To quote, for those who don't wish to register for the Telegraph:

A CHINESE county has been ordered to conduct 20,000 abortions and sterilisations before the end of the year after communist family planning chiefs found that the official one-child policy was being routinely flouted.

The impoverished mountainous region of Huaiji has been set the draconian target by provincial authorities in Guangdong (formerly known as Canton).
...
Many of the terminations will have to be conducted forcibly on peasant women to meet the quota. As part of the campaign, county officials are buying expensive ultrasound equipment that can be carried to remote villages by car.

By detecting which women are pregnant, the machines will allow Government doctors to order terminations on the spot.

At the Huaiji county hospital, where most of the operations will take place, it is not only women with unauthorised pregnancies who are facing traumatic surgery in insanitary conditions.

Officials said that, as part of the drive to meet the quota, doctors had been ordered to sterilise women as soon as they gave birth after officially approved pregnancies.

"Is this valid text or government propaganda?"

[Scoria]

I suppose the Chinese government dedicated little effort to alerting users of a modification. This is an ideal method by which to distribute propaganda. ;)

Re:effective, not efficient!

[unicron]

Effective and efficient are easily interchangeable words, don't feel bad.

One for China. One for the Rest of the World.

[plasticquart]

"A different AP article spins things slightly differently, emphasizing that Google is apparently no longer blocked in China and mentioning the selective blocking of web content only in passing."

Those AP people aren't dumb. That first story is likely to be censored by The Great Firewall, whereas this second article might be aimed at actually reaching our Chinese friends.

--

Custom Computer Systems for Discerning Tastes

Re:Better them than me.

[unicron]

Yeah, it's off his latest album, entitled "My right to download all the music and software I want is constitutionally protected according to 1337-dude39 on slashdot.org"..really long title, the spine of the cd formats it really poorly.

Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall

[ghazban]

Except for use it without a flash plugin... Sheesh, it should at least have skip intro or an explanation of what the page does.

Common communist ploy

[SkipChaser]

The party loosens restrictions in order to draw out the people with "reactionary" tendencies.

Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall

[WestieDog]

The only limit is yourself, at ZOMBOCOM!

I love that site. When newbie 'net users ask me which sites I frequent I always point them to that one just to see their reaction.

censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[rjnagle]

Sites that link to controversial Chinese sites. don't necessarily promote these idealogies; they are merely acknowledging their controversial nature. It reminds me a little of the Monty Python sketch about the world's funniest joke , and anyone who heard or viewed the joke would die of laughter. The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship.

Test China's Firewall

Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[mtrupe]

"don't necessarily promote these idealogies; they are merely acknowledging their controversial nature."

Does that make it somehow less evil???

Tiananmen, April-June 1989

Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[broken_bones]

Hmm...A very interesting analysis. I've always taken a slightly differnt view on censorship. Censorship has always seemed to me to be used in the guise of the "learned/elite/politically powerful" protectecting the "unlearned/peasant/politically unsophisticated." However, taking your comments into account it would seem that there may acutally be two kinds of censor ship: anti corruption censorship and anti deception censorship.

Anti corruption would be the idea expressed by the original post that someone has to protect you from certain material so that you will not be corrupted. This would imply there is something inherrantly bad about the material itself. [see the orignal post for why this argument fails.] On the other hand anti deception censorship would say that people are trying to deceive you with bad information (after all how could *ism possibly be better than what we have?). The purpose of censoship under this scenario would be to sort out and censor the "bad" information. Many reasons can be presented for why quashing the views that you don't agree with is a bad idea and exhaustive listing of these is left as an excercise for the reader.

I will however say that determining what is good and bad can be very difficult. To often we as human beings, lack the wisdom to distinguish closely spaced lines of white and black. Instead we see gray. If one cannot distinguish between the good and the bad is it right to choose good and bad for someone else? Times also change. What was once good has now fallen out favor. Likewise activities and philosophies that were once thought to be bad are now accepted. Times change and the only way to change with the times is to have an open dialog and an open mind.

The preceding words are my ramblings...

Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[Hoo00]

The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship.

In making these statements, you assumed that all minds are equal and capable of judging content, which is not necessary true.

Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[BionicElf]

But who is qualified to determine which minds need protection? (Excluding children - that's a different argument)

Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke

[chris_mahan]

Define children.

Is somebody 17 11/12 not capable of reading Goethe or Jung? Should their feeble mind be protected from the writings of Lenin? Must their sensitivities be spared The Pearl?

Anyways, back to your barracks, you censors...

Times and reaction

[wytcld]

As soon as the NY Times covers it (on a day with half the heads of state in the world in NYC), China backs down.

Now if we can just get them to recognize that the legitimate government of China sits in Taipei....

what do they censor?

[Simon (S2)]

it would be nice to know what they censor.
is it pedoporn, or articles like "how to build an atomic bomb using a peace of wood and some salt" or is it *useful* information?

i think this matters.

Re:what do they censor?

[Squarewav]

its more like articles on how comunism doesnt work or, how great democracy is, also ways to leave china, anything that doesnt agree with the relegion of the goverment, anything bad about china, ect. the great wall was ment to not only keep out the mongules(?spelling) but to keep in the chinese and keep out any outside influance that may couse cival uprest, china has become a little more open over the years, such as allowing people from the outside to enter china (as long as you dont do anything that makes china look bad) and setting up an internet to the outside world (as long as they do not look at anything that makes china look bad)

Re:what do they censor?

[FooBarWidget]

> its more like articles on how comunism doesnt work or

This is hilarious. They've switched half of their economy to capitalism and is still continueing to do so!

Re:what do they censor?

[sczimme]

"how to build an atomic bomb using a peace of wood and some salt"

Quite the Freudian slip. :-)

(Not a spelling flame, btw.)

Re:effective, not efficient!

[mekkab]

Oh but I do, unicron, I do!
[winces towards the sky in anguish, followed by howling and the gnashing of teeth]

What's the big deal?

[nomel]

Are you tellin me there is NO way for them to connect to an external (out of china) proxy that they could use for browsing? Or does it filter content as it comes in (jsut ssl)?

job at the firewall

[krystar]

wouldn't it be great to be the sys admin in charge of that firewall? u could smuggle in packets of data for a price. hehehe btw, i saw a mirror that just took google and reversed everything. you enter in reversed words to search and get back reversed results. anyone know that link?

They should sell it

[bitflip]

With all of the effort they're putting into building this, and all the effort being put into defeating it (which they should learn from), I can see the PRC becoming the world's leading firewall vendor.

1984? Not really...

[goldspider]

Is EVERYTHING "becoming like 1984"?? I know I speak for more people than just myself when I say that we are tired of everything being compared to 1984.

I know that I'm going to be modded as a troll for not conforming to the masses yet again, but comon, at least be more imaginative than comparing every to 1984.

Still blocked according to Real-Time Testing

[pato perez]

The Real-Time Testing of Internet Filtering in China site: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/test/ go.asp?URL=http://www.google.com reports that it's still blocked. A glitch in the Great Wall? A glitch in the real-time tester? =P

I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China...

[toupsie]

Now, if only the Chinese Government would prevent e-mail from escaping their country, about 75% of the SPAM I receive every day would disapear.

Re:I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China...

[laserjet]

I'll drink to that. China generates a freaking lot of spam.

Re:I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China...

[Yuan-Lung]

Maybe what you can do is sending a horde of politically sensitive e-mails to the source of these spam, maybe then the Chinese government will help making them disappear? =)

Re:I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China...

[Yuan-Lung]

"Sure, they'll end up in jail or executed..."


You sound as if it's a bad thing.

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[mtrupe]

I seem to recall when Chinese students tried to revolt, and their oppresive Communist/Dictatorshop government ran them over with tanks. Yeah, a revolt will work very well.

Tiananmen, April-June 1989

And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

This article is a sickening insight into how corporate greed in the U.S. made it possible for China to filter the network and even catch and arrest dissidents.

To force compliance with government objectives--to ensure that all pipes lead back to Rome--they needed the networking superpower, Cisco, to standardize the Chinese Internet and equip it with firewalls on a national scale. According to the Chinese engineer, Cisco came through, developing a router device, integrator, and firewall box specially designed for the government's telecom monopoly. At approximately $20,000 a box, China Telecom "bought many thousands" and IBM arranged for the "high-end" financing. Michael confirms: "Cisco made a killing. They are everywhere."

And Cisco is not the only U.S. company in Beijing's pocket. Let's not forget our friends at Yahoo!

Chinese xenophobia has led many other U.S. companies to play similar games, but Yahoo! was particularly eager to please. All Chinese chat rooms or discussion groups have a "big mama," a supervisor for a team of censors who wipe out politically incorrect comments in real time. Yahoo! handles things differently. If in the midst of a discussion you type, "We should have nationwide multiparty elections in China!!" no one else will react to your comment. How could they? It appears on your screen, but only you and Yahoo!'s big mama actually see your thought crime. After intercepting it and preventing its transmission, Mother Yahoo! then solicitously generates a friendly e-mail suggesting that you cool your rhetoric--censorship, but with a New Age nod to self-esteem.

This is a sad reminder of how large American companies have abandoned the idea of corporate ethics. The Chinese government is probably arresting, and maybe executing, pro-democracy advocates based on the work of companies like Cisco and Yahoo!. The U.S. government should prosecute the bastards at Cisco and Yahoo! responsible for providing these tools to the Chinese government.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[swb]

That's because fucking capitalists have only commerce as a value. They don't really care about freedom or democracy except as defined by the ability to buy elected officials.

Boeing sold missle technology to the Chinese, too. If the AK-47 wasn't such a great rifle, I'd bet that Colt would sell them M-16s too.

Wasn't it Kruschev who said that the capitalists would sell the communists the rope they'd hang them with?

It's all true.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[NineNine]

That's a huge load of horse shit.

1. "Greed" made the rest of the world what it is, thank you. You wouldn't be typing away on a dirt cheap computer on a cheap Net connection if not for "greed", so quit your mindless kneejerking.

2. So then, every gun manufacturer should be sued for the people who use 'em to kill people? Car manufacturers should be sued for people who drive drunk? Baseball bat companies should be sued for people who buy their bats to bludgeon somebody to death? You're a fucking clueless moron. China's not the problem, here, not Cisco.

Ass.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[Jeremi]

"Greed" made the rest of the world what it is, thank you

Indeed. And that's a pretty damning indictment, given the current state of the rest of the world.

So then, every gun manufacturer should be sued for the people who use 'em to kill people?

If Mister Bad Guy goes up to Mister Gun Dealer and says "I need a gun with special poison-tipped bullets, so that I'll be sure to kill the President when I do my assassination attempt tomorrow", and Mister Gun Dealer designs, manufactures, and sells such a gun to Mister Bad Guy, then YES, Mister Gun Dealer is a knowing accomplice to the misdeed and should be punished.

Cisco designed, manufactured, and sold a custom firewall for the Chinese government, and cannot plausibley deny that they knew what the Chinese government was going to use it for. If mass censorship is a crime, then Cisco is just as guilty as the Chinese government is.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[gl4ss]

if it's ok to pimp stingers(yay cia) to potential fundamentalist crackheads why wouldn't it be ok to pimp some good ol tech to china.. besides, this is a great playground to test some new stuff before pimping laws through that these are needed for drm or similar everywhere.. after that we must all hang out in the 'gentleman loser' to get mp3 links and dis riaa(oh yeah and buy icebreakers from 'Finn').

and many usa based companies products are used in process of executing people anyways... in usa(oh yeah but that legal system doesn't make mistakes, well, guess what, chinese gov. is mistake free too!).

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[jgalun]

Right, and where is the country that Kruschev led now?

The fact is that in the Cisco case, it's quite the opposite - the American capitalists are selling China rope to hang itself. Open societies are, in the long run, more successful than closed societies. If China wants to send money to America so that it can buy American products to prevent Chinese citizens from having freedom of information, believe me, it's China that's worse off for it long run, not America.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

You're a fucking clueless moron.

If you could find someone willing to fuck you, you would be a "fucking, clueless moron." Unless you've found a woman of incredibly low standards, you're only batting two out of three.

China's not the problem, here, not Cisco.

Bullshit. It's assholes like you that are the problem. Anything for a buck. If Al Qaeda wants to buy guns, ammo, and the components to make chemical and biological weapons, some greedy dick like you will sell the items to them and then disclaim all responsibility. If you thought that there was a market among pedophiles for crotchless panties in children's sizes, you'd be selling them. In fact, you probably just read that and thought it sounded like a great business plan.

Some of us have ethics. Don't get pissed off at us just because we have something you don't.

Ass

Well at least you signed your posting.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[swb]

That's all well and good in a philosophical perspective, but there's a here-and-now, why would you sell tools that help limit freedom to people that are willing to drive tanks over their own citizens?

Why would you be willing to sell them ANYTHING? A lot of stink has been made over buying "blood" diamonds from Sierra Leone and Angola -- why shouldn't the money Cisco made from China be seen as "blood money"?

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

Cisco knows that if they didn't supply the hardware, someone else would. On a bigger scale, if no American company would supply the hardware, some business in another country would.

That kind of rationalization makes me sick. What happened to the concept of ethics? The fact that some bottom-feeder is willing to sell arms to Al Qaeda does not mean that Colt, Ruger, and Smith & Wesson should send sales reps over there to try to win the business.

I believe that your line of reasoning drove the businesses that built the Nazi death camps: "If we don't sell them gas chambers, some other business will..."

Something can be legal and unethical all at the same time.

Maybe it would be better if I responded to this troll with an analogy that Slashdot liberals can understand.

Troll? Slashdot liberals? The article I cited and quoted was from The Weekly Standard, which is a magazine aimed squarely at a VERY conservative audience. You don't read much, do you?

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[sielwolf]

The U.S. government should prosecute the bastards at Cisco and Yahoo! responsible for providing these tools to the Chinese government.

Jesus. I'm glad you would like to live in a world where you have to do what the government considers right in addition to not doing what it thinks is wrong.

So where is this government? The one that is purely good and righteous? And unfallable?

And how paranoid do you have to be? If you had supplied sandwiches to the vending companies that filled Enron's stomachs, should you too be arrested? Or should a housewife be arrested for enabling her husband's drinking? How far does the blame go? Those that you see as at fault?

In law the blame falls squarely on those who perpetrate the act. It is only rare laws that blame accessories and enablers. To institute a web of blame and guilt is foolish... unless you are trying to build some sort of fascist thought state.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

If you had supplied sandwiches to the vending companies that filled Enron's stomachs, should you too be arrested?

To use an example by another poster, this is much more like someone coming into a gun store and asking for a gun and ammo to be used to assasinate the President -- and the gun store supplying the items. Cisco was not some innocent party. They knew full well that their customer wanted the equipment to help them suppress, hunt-down, jail, and maybe even execute pro-democracy advocates.

unless you are trying to build some sort of fascist thought state.

That's exactly what the Chinese government is doing -- with the help of Cisco, Yahoo!, and other U.S. firms.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[sielwolf]

help them suppress, hunt-down, jail, and maybe even execute pro-democracy advocates

Are these crimes in China?

Yes.

Are they morally and ethically wrong? ...

You seem to think that ethics is a cut and dry matter. Simple binary. Democracy: 1. Communist-Dictatorship: 0.

But it is not. Even something that seems so "obvious"... such as democracy or the death penalty. Ethics is (surprise) subjective.

So why do we have governments? To think about these things and to create a world we like.

The problem? Not all people think the same. And neither do their governments.

Corporations, OTOH, are not here to act as an ethical mouthpiece. They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules.

But which governments? For a multinational: the one on which its current building is sitting. The Cisco offices in Beijing are not a diplomatic embassy.

If the Krupp offices in the US started going out and executing Jews in America during 1939 they couldn't just say "Hey, we do this in Germany all the time!"

By your viewpoint, this would be perfectly logical.

Re:And all thanks to American companies.

[fmaxwell]

Corporations, OTOH, are not here to act as an ethical mouthpiece. They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules.

Your arguments are just a thinly veiled excuse for why corporations should feel free to do anything they like to make a buck. Don't think about what you are doing. If it's not explicitly illegal, just do it.

Ethics is (surprise) subjective.

Ethics is not nearly so subjective as you claim. If it was, colleges could not teach courses in "business ethics." The courses would all be over in one day with the summary "do whatever you can to make money because ethics is subjective."

I don't need my government to tell me that it is morally wrong to help foreign governments track down, arrest, and kill people for expressing their beliefs. I have a moral compass. I know right from wrong. So do the people running Cisco and Yahoo!. They simply choose to let their corporate greed outweigh their sense of decency.

If the Krupp offices in the US started going out and executing Jews in America during 1939 they couldn't just say "Hey, we do this in Germany all the time!"

By your "logic", Krupp in Germany did nothing wrong when they used Jews as slave labor, starving them and working them to exhaustion, and finally sending them off to be killed in the gas chambers when they could work no longer. After all, this was legal and "ethics is (surprise) subjective." Krupp certainly followed your definition of what a business should do: "They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules."

What's it like going through life with no sense of right or wrong?

Everyone in China uses a proxy

[Psx29]

It's true really...

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[FooBarWidget]

In what year do we live again? Right, 2002. 2002 - 1989 = 13. Any big revolts since 1989?

Oh, about "ran them over with tanks": where do you see people getting run over? I see tanks, but I never see anybody getting run over by tanks or flat dead bodies.

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[mtrupe]

Right here!!!

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[neocon]

You misunderstand what rights are. Rights aren't brought to you by government, they are intrinsic and universal. Banning free speech in China does not make censorship acceptable any more than legalizing slavery in the past (and present in states like the Sudan) makes slavery acceptable.

Can't Get Google

[aengblom]

Can't get Google?

Try the recently released Googlemail
http://www.capescience.com/google/index.shtml

send an e-mail to: google@capeclear.comwith your query in the subject line.

Of course, google cache is probably not accessible

Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall

[mosch]

I love zombocom!

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[NineNine]

Wow. You're ignorant.

1. The gov't would do their best to censor any news of any revolts from leaving the country.

2. People in China who even *think* about any such thing are summarily "disappeared".

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[FooBarWidget]

> Wow. You're ignorant.

Then enlighten me with your wisedom.

> 1. The gov't would do their best to censor any
> news of any revolts from leaving the country.

I left the country by... filling an emigration form to The Netherlands and then stepping in an airplane, 8 years ago?
Wow, my parents must have really searched through a lot of illegal sources! My god, we'll be killed if we visit China!
Oh wait, I've visited China 3 times already ever since I left! What the hell is going on? Enlighten me, oh wise NineNine!

> 2. People in China who even *think* about any
> such thing are summarily "disappeared".

You mean they invented mass-mind reading machines? I wanna get one!

Advanced

[t_allardyce]

You all might think that china is far behind civilization with their censorship of the internet/free speech, but in fact you couldn't be further from the truth. They are actually years ahead of us all!

Just remember, in a few years time when DRM is mandatory and free speech is crippled by 'national security' and the need for everyone to be protected from alternative ideas, china will be leading the way in firewalls, and filters, and they'll be teaching _Cisco_ how to do it :)

you know what?

[cr@ckwhore]

You know what? Fuck the Chinese.

If a populace is that complacent, where a couple of billion citizens can't manage to get together and overthrow their communist government, then they deserve every little bit of liberty they lose.

"Oh, but they like socialism" you say... ok, so then they probably don't have a problem with internet censorship. Fuck 'em.

Re:you know what?

[FooBarWidget]

Or maybe it's because they don't WANT a bloody revolution and war.

Hey, things improved in the last 10 years, I don't see a reason why things won't keep improving, especially now that they get a new government.

Re:you know what?

[be-fan]

It's not that easy. When the US seperated from Great Britain, this was the situation. A rich colony with tons of native resources and great leadership fighting a (compartively) upstart World Power who was an ocean away, busy fighting other wars, and didn't care all that much about keeping the colony anyway. In China, the situation is very different. You've got an entrenched government, supported by afformentioned rich colony, with a huge amount of millitary and intelligence resources, in a country with a thousands-year history of repressive governments, vs a billion relatively poor people with few natural resources (under their control), no leaders, and no communications network to speak of. The modern police state has made the conventional revolution very difficult. Without strong leaders, especially, no uprising can happen. And it is exactly this kind of thing (the firewall) that prevents strong leaders from rising. Take the SSR as an example. Did the people there overthrow their communist government? Hell no. It collapsed due to intense competition with the most powerful nation on earth, and even then it took internal forces in the government itself to finally open things up.

Re:you know what?

[Rich0]

Also to keep in mind is that in cases like the US and India the country being resisted was Great Britain. Generally speaking the British were reluctant to utilize wantonly barbaric tactics. The Chinese leadership have no qualm with such methods and so they put down rebellion far more effectively.

Back during the revolution a crowd of 1000 protestors would be dispersed by a bunch of police, who could do nothing but drive them off. With modern riot control gear it is now possible for a relatively small group of police to effectively detain entire crowds (use CS foam to block exit paths, push crowd into corner, pluck them out one by one). Also - it is common for the Chinese to photograph large demonstrations and use modern technology to form databases of suspected dissadents. Facial recognition has its shortcomings, but it probably works to identify a good chunk of those present at what otherwise would be an anonymous protest.

That isn't to say that the people of China need to fight for themselves. However, in reality most revolutions are led by a distinct set of leaders - and China is quite good at nipping anybody who could fulfill that role before anybody even hears about them.

Re:you know what?

[TheSync]

The sad thing is that China, a market socialist dictatorship, is doing fairly well compared to many African countries (such as Zimbawe, Ethiopia, or Angola) where people are starving or near starvation.

A market socialist dictatorship that keeps the peace is better than a market-destroying dictatorship that fights civil wars.

But at the same time, I think the people of China will eventually realize that political freedom is good once they run out of the ability to grow their economy under a market socialist dictatorship.

Hmmm...

[The Fanta Menace]

So, if we convince everyone in the world to have some sort of dissenting information on it, they'll have to block everything, which will soon become unworkable.

Now, onto some other matters... Iraq, a belligerent dictatorship with no regard for human rights, may have nuclear weapons and big George is threatening to knock his block off. China, on the other hand, is a belligerent dictatorship with no regard for human rights that definately has nuclear weapons. Why ain't big George waving his stick at them too?

Re:Hmmm...

[The Fanta Menace]

Maybe. But in the long term, I see China as being more dangerous than Iraq will ever be.

Re:Hmmm...

[The Fanta Menace]

Yeah, but if I said that, I'd be told I was trolling :)

Re:Hmmm...

[Stonehand]

Because it's considerably more dangerous to after somebody who /already/ has nuclear weapons, than it is to go after somebody who's merely working towards them?

That, plus GWB probably doesn't relish the thought of trying to collapse a regime governing over one billion people, and which is currently sufficiently pragmatic so as to most likely avoid radically destabilizing the region.

Let Me Get This Straight....

[Tsali]

You can do all this fancy blocking of portions of webpages and screen things out and we can't get rid of spam?

Schneikies!

Re:Let Me Get This Straight....

[FooBarWidget]

The spam is only *forwarded* from open SMTP servers. But the spam themselve are usually from America or Europe.

Quick, Mr Bush!

[nagora]

Over there, look: commies abusing human rights, they've got weapons of mass destruction, they've invaded their peaceful neighbour, Tibet, and they're in breach of UN resolutions. I guess we're going to have to send the troops in and kick their ass!

What's that you say, Mr Bush? No, I don't think Tibet has any oil. Why do you ask?

Hello? Hello? Mr Bush?

TWW

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

Your missing one ingredient of the Bush Doctrine: are they actively arming and financing or likely to actively arm and finance attacks on us or our allies?

We've long since said that we will go to war to defend Taiwan, if need be. If we have any reason to believe that China's nukes are likely to end up in the hands of al-Qaeda, that would be a cause for action as well.

Oil, as anyone who saw what I saw in downtown Manhattan a year and a day ago could tell you, has nothing to do with it.

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[Troed]

September 11 happened _because_ of the US oil-based middle-east policy.

China has indeed, according to your own CIA, supplied arms to "terrorist nations", as you like to call them.

Go get.

*sigh*

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

September 11 happened _because_ of the US oil-based middle-east policy.

Bzzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. This is not why Mr. bin Laden says he attacked us -- he states that his grievance is with the nature of our society and with a string of perceived grievances stretching back over five hundred years. But perhaps you know something about his motivations that he does not?

China has indeed, according to your own CIA, supplied arms to "terrorist nations", as you like to call them.

While it is true that China has served as an arsenal for some remarkably nasty states, it is not nearly the immediate threat that Iraq is. In contrast to China, Iraq has close ties to the specific groups which already murdered 3,000 of our citizens a year and two days ago (and more before that), and is working to provide them with some very nasty weapons of mass destruction.

Not that I disagree with your idea that we should be tougher on China, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.

I support the Palestinians. So would you if you cared to open your eyes [electronicintifada.net]

Of course, considering that your sig links to a site which calls Louis Farrakhan `wise' and `balanced', and which celebrates murder-suicide bombings, I suppose no one here expects a well-reasoned position from you.

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[nagora]

This is not why Mr. bin Laden says he attacked us -- he states that his grievance is with the nature of our society and with a string of perceived grievances stretching back over five hundred years.

Loony Bin's only real grievance is that he's not the ruler of the world, he says whatever he thinks will help recruit people to that, very personal, cause. His sort are a dim a dozen. What does make him different is that he's recruiting from a population who see their "brothers" being shot by Israeli troops in US made tanks with US made guns calling in US made aircraft for support. This makes his job much easier but it doesn't actually mean that he himself gives a shit about the Jewish/Arab issue one way or the other.

Iraq has close ties to the specific groups which already murdered 3,000 of our citizens

Well, New York has close ties with a specific group (the IRA) which killed 2000+ of our (UK) citizens. Should the Prime Minister send the troops into the Bronx?

Not that I disagree with your idea that we should be tougher on China, but right now we have bigger fish to fry.

Bigger than China!?

What proof is there that Iraq is a threat to the US? I can see the argument that Madman Who'ssane? might be a threat to Israel but what is he in danger of doing that he couldn't have done over the last ten years? A Nuke? I don't think so! You could have a competition to guess how much of Iraq would be left over after it fired a single nuke at the US and the winning entry would be measured in grammes.

TWW

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

What does make him different is that he's recruiting from a population who see their "brothers" being shot by Israeli troops in US made tanks with US made guns calling in US made aircraft for support.

This attempt to blame Israel for bin Laden is no different from those who attempt to blame the US -- the two basic flaws in this argument are as follows:

First off, the only thing Israel is doing which is infuriating to the Islamist radicals is existing at all. Time after time, Israel has met every demand made by the Palestinian leadership, only to be met with a fresh wave of murder-suicide bombings, and a fresh wave of demands. Time after time, the Palestinian leaders have told their own people that they will not be satisfied until all of Israel is theirs -- indeed the only difference between Arafat and the leadership of Hamas and Hizbollah is that Arafat occasionally says something different in English, while saying the same old things in Arabic.

Second, central to your argument here is the idea that we should be setting our foreign policy not based on what is right or just, but on what will appease the radical Islamists, what will (allegedly) placate madmen like Mr. bin Laden and his followers. Do you really believe this? If so, perhaps the mistakes at Munich have not been completely realized by your generation of Englishmen...

Well, New York has close ties with a specific group (the IRA) which killed 2000+ of our (UK) citizens. Should the Prime Minister send the troops into the Bronx?

If you had credible evidence of state sponsorship of terrorism here which posed an immediate threat to Great Britain, and there were no other means to solve the problem, that would indeed be an acceptable solution under international law. That isn't the case, though, and even the description you give, is at best extremely stretched.

What proof is there that Iraq is a threat to the US?

You can start with the testimony of David A. Kay and Richard Spertzel, both former heads of the UN weapons inspections program in Iraq, on the state of Mr. Hussein's weapons programs.

But you seem to think that it's okay if Mr. Hussein has a nuke, since you think he won't use it. What you miss is that he doesn't need to use it himself to be a danger to us -- he has demonstrated links to al Qaeda, and could arm them with such a weapon while maintaining enough deniability to make deterrence useless, and more importantly, you miss that this is not a man with a history of rational behavior. You may be content when all that stands between us and the nuking of one of our cities is Mr. Hussein's tenuous grip on sanity, but I will not, and thus am not willing to see it get to that point.

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[nagora]

This attempt to blame Israel for bin Laden

That's not what I said, I said that BL has an easy time recruiting by playing that card to the Muslims. The connection is bogus insofar as BL is not interested in the Palestinians.

First off, the only thing Israel is doing which is infuriating to the Islamist radicals is existing at all.

Quite right. If you moved into my house and kicked me out and then said that some mythical spirit told you it was okay I don't think I'd be too impressed either.

Time after time, Israel has met every demand made by the Palestinian leadership, only to be met with a fresh wave of murder-suicide bombings, and a fresh wave of demands.

And yet the Israelis manage to keep ahead on the death score.

Second, central to your argument here is the idea that we should be setting our foreign policy not based on what is right or just, but on what will appease the radical Islamists,

Hardly. Radical Muslims/Christian/Jews etc can all away and fuck themselves. Spending your life trying to act like characters in a badly-written fairy story is not going to get my sympathy any time soon. However, acting in such a way as to appease on such retarded group (Israelis) is bound to stir up trouble with their equally retarded foes (Palestinians). And for what? So that they can go on deluding themselves? Why bother?

If you had credible evidence of state sponsorship of terrorism here which posed an immediate threat to Great Britain

The US tolerated the activities of the IRA and allowed them to raise funding and train in the country for years. What difference is there between that and the Taliban's relationship to old BL? Taking the moral high ground is not so easy when the people you are taking to remember your past actions.

That isn't the case, though, and even the description you give, is at best extremely stretched.

It didn't seem stretched when my friend got blown up and New Yorkers were reported to have celebrated and had a whip round to buy more guns 'n ammo for the people that did it.

But you seem to think that it's okay if Mr. Hussein has a nuke, since you think he won't use it.

First of all, he doesn't have it. Second of all he's not going to get it. Thirdly, if he had it he would not use it. I agree that he is not rational but he is very keen on his own survival. He is no more likely to nuke the US, or help someone else do it, than he is to hang himself.

could arm them with such a weapon while maintaining enough deniability to make deterrence useless,

What, you mean like Mulla Omar did?

There are lots of more pressing, real threats to world peace - Pakistan/India, China's increased activity in Nepal (Mountain Nations, collect the set!), Mugabee's rampant demagogy in Africa, Chechnya/Russia, an increasingly desperate government in N. Korea.

We don't need to throw fuel on the fire when it's already too hot.

TWW

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

Quite right. If you moved into my house and kicked me out and then said that some mythical spirit told you it was okay I don't think I'd be too impressed either.

This is slander, pure and simple, for two reasons. First off, no one `moved into' the region at all -- at the time of the foundation of Israel in 1948, the area which became Israel was 85% Jewish, and had been for centuries. Second, no one was `kicked out', either -- those Palestinians who chose to become citizens of the new state of Israel have all of the rights of any other Israeli citizen, and indeed there were 17 Palestinian members of Israel's parliament (the Knesset) last I checked. This is a marked contrast to the Arab states, almost all of which expelled their entire Jewish populations when Israel was founded.

And yet the Israelis manage to keep ahead on the death score.

More slander. Even Arafat himself now admits that the lurid claims of massacres by the Israelis which he and the European press made earlier this year were simply not true. At Jenin, for example, only 53 died, by Arafat's own numbers, and almost all of those were combatants. Hamas' report of the fighting at Jenin, as told to the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram confirms that those who were killed by the Israelis were combatants who died in battle.

Hardly. Radical Muslims/Christian/Jews etc can all away and fuck themselves. Spending your life trying to act like characters in a badly-written fairy story is not going to get my sympathy any time soon. However, acting in such a way as to appease on such retarded group (Israelis) is bound to stir up trouble with their equally retarded foes (Palestinians). And for what? So that they can go on deluding themselves? Why bother?

What nonsense. Only one side is making claims based on religious or racial rights here, the Arabs, who teach (in the schools of the PA and all Arab nations) that Jews are subhuman and should be destroyed. In contrast, Israel is a modern democracy with equal rights for all races and religions, which is trying to defend itself against maniacal attackers who slaughter civilians to acheive their ends.

The rest of your post dissolves into even more incoherent claims. You'll have to forgive me if I don't take such slander too seriously.

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[nagora]

Only one side is making claims based on religious or racial rights here,

You've never heard of Jewish settlers, then? Some of them seem quite clear on the subject of religious "rights".

TWW

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

On the contrary, the settlements represent a small fraction of the number of Jews who were expelled from the West Bank when Jordan conquered it in 1948. Indeed, there's a bizarre doouble standard going on here. When the Nazis declared that no jews were allowed to live in the Reich, they called this judenrein, and everyone acknowledges that this was an atrocity. When the South Africans declared that no blacks were allowed to live in large parts of the country, they called this apartheid, and everyone acknowledges that this was an atrocity. But when Arafat declares that no Jews are to be allowed to live in the West Bank, you have no problem with this.

This is, of course, a marked contrast to the lives of those Palestinians who live within Israel -- they are first class citizens, with all the rights of any other citizen.

Re:Quick, Mr Bush!

[neocon]

Shall I take this to mean you don't actually have any rational argument to make?

That's what I thought.

A good day to you, sir.

How are they doing this?

[be-fan]

Obviously some geeks are helping the government out in implementing this, no? The selective blocking software is non-trivial. What are those guys thinking? How can you be part of the technology sector and still help limit people's access to it? Do these guys realize that they're going to Geek Hell?

Re:How are they doing this?

[PhxBlue]

Nah - it's just limiting the competition. Think of it. . . those Geeks are securing their position in the global economy by shutting down the internet to billions and billions of potential sysadmins, network technicians, computer programmers. . .

Or not. Hell, I just wanted to say billions and billions.

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[leereyno]

So that makes it right?

As for revolt, I seem to remember a little incident a few years back where chineese student protestors were gunned down in Tianamen(sp?) square.

Mao was no fool when he said that political power came from the barrel of a gun. Any significant attempt at revolt by those without guns (the chineese people) would quickly be put down by those with guns (the chineese government and its thugs).

This is ultimately the agenda behind the efforts by some to disarm the american public. George Washington called fireams "the people's liberty's teeth." To disarm is to disempower. Those without power are always at the mercy of those who have it. The fact that there are factions and groups in this country who fear the idea that free individuals would be empowered and collectively hold more power than the government says a lot about what these groups are about. It says that they have something to fear from free men and women, which is a pretty good indication that they are the enemy of free men and women. They have motives and agendas that are contrary to the wishes and well-being of the public. They know that the only way they'll ever be able to shove their agenda down our throats is if they have all the power and we have none. These types are present within any political party or group you care to mention, although there is a heavy concentration of them on the left. To disarm is to disempower and to disempower is to ultimately disenfranchise. Protect your freedom, it is the only thing more valuable than your life.

I see little reason for me to respect a government whose authority is not derived from the consent and endorsement of the governed. That is not what the chineese government is.

mirror

[emotioncafecom]

Here is a mirror http://www.emotioncafe.com/modules.php?name=News&f ile=article&sid=56

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[ramzak2k]

its nice that you brought the point up AC. Here are two wrong assumptions that you are making :

1. Human Rights dont apply to non-democratic nations.
This is by basically an extension of your argument that censorship is only part of a democratic society and that it is not applicable to communist states. Taliban government did not have any formal charter of rights that guaranteed freedom to their people and women so would that have meant that other nations shouldn't have been concerned about their state ?

2. Everyone in china are contented because they are not revolting
You never did see revolts when the communists where in power in Soviet russia until Gorbachev introduced prestroika and glasnot. Did that mean that every russian was contented with the soviet regime ?

and what is wrong with that?

[ramzak2k]

China had a need - cisco filled it !
Pay the money and we will work to provide the services. Its as simple. US companies should not and cannot be held responsible because they are out there to do their job not to promote democracy.Hey, if it was not Cisco it would have been some Zederheist from Germany doing the job. Be happy it was them and that they took up the job in this lousy market to get some money into the country.

If it was against US law for a company to support a goverment trying to take away rights of their people, thats a different story altogether!

Re:and what is wrong with that?

[fmaxwell]

China had a need - cisco filled it !

Nazi Germany had a need and the companies that built the gas chambers filled it. I suppose you view that as another example of capitalism at its finest.

If it was against US law for a company to support a goverment trying to take away rights of their people, thats a different story altogether!

There was a time when most U.S. companies had the moral fortitude to not only obey the letter of the law, but also to behave ethically.

This is probably going to sound like crazy talk to you, but there are more important things than making money. You might be able to make a fortune selling child-sized hancuffs to NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) members, but it would still be wrong -- even if it was legal. You might find Al Qaeda to be a willing buyer for fertilizer and diesel fuel, but that does not mean that you should sell it to them. You should be guided by higher principles than simply acquiring more money.

Re:and what is wrong with that?

[fmaxwell]

Jeezus Christ - more than once in the same thread? Is that the best you can come up with?

Yes. Can you come up with a better example of an infamous evil government than that? If so, tell me and I'll be glad to use that as an example.

Cisco gets half the blame

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind that this is Cisco's baby. Cisco built the technology specifically for censorship in China. The censorhip project is actually a Cisco enterprise. Cisco continues to innovate the censorship tools in order to sell more to China. It's big business and it would not have happened if Cisco hadn't stepped up to the plate.

So don't fool yourselves into thinking the Chinese government has been using ordinary Cisco equipment for evil purposes.

not just china

[ramzak2k]

Saudi Arabia (I used to live there) & Dubai have had the system for quite some time now.

Both these nations block pornographic content and even yahoogroups that ask for age verification.
They must be ahead in the censorship technology because the specific page block that this article talks about has existed in these countries for quite sometime.

Encrypted Tunneling SSH and Proxy

[sublimespot]

If I had a proxy over here in the states. Could a friend of mine in China SSH Tunnel to my proxy? Or does china proxy all requests, thus blocking all outgoing SSH traffic?

Im thinking encrypted tunneling is the key..

Re:Encrypted Tunneling SSH and Proxy

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get out on SSH tunnel no problem, but if thousands of people start using it, it becomes pretty blatant that its a proxy, then the government will ban it.

They go through phases where its really anal, and when its not.

See www.shanghaiguide.com/forum and have a look at some of the google topics for a better idea.

You don't like answering tough challenges, do you?

[fmaxwell]

I should write a guide to spotting a troll. Hitler / Nazi references, anyone?

Just cut the name-calling and address the question at hand. Nazi references are used because they are extreme and make a point.

When a government wants something, they'll find a supplier. If no suppliers exist, non-democratic governments will force someone to build what they are looking for.

I can see it now: Slave labor camps of thousands of workers being forced to make thousands of Cisco router clones. Programmers slaving away without sodas or coffee, copy the Cisco features while adding functionality to allow the filtering and spying features. The horror! The absurdity.

So let's take this back to my original point:

I believe that your line of reasoning drove the businesses that built the Nazi death camps: "If we don't sell them gas chambers, some other business will..."

Is that your point or not? Are you saying that the companies that designed and built the gas chambers in the Nazi death camps did nothing wrong because "when a government wants something, they'll find a supplier."

People like you in the U.S. government are partly responsible for a meddling foreign policy that has brought terrorists to our very doorstep. If the U.S. would mind its own business once in awhile (like Canada), we would have far less problems.

Yes. Let's ignore human rights violations, mass murders, Saddam gassing entire villages to death, China jailing people for expressing their beliefs, Palestinian suicide bombers killing women and children in marketplaces, etc. You're the type of person who hears someone screaming for help and then looks the other way. Criminals love your kind.

You've got a lot of nerve calling me a troll and then claiming that 'we asked for it' in regards to the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001.

Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts...

[elementmaster]

OMG!!! An image makes all the difference :\

Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall

[marko123]

Oh, thank you for reminding me! Whenever I need a quick pickmeup in the harsh post 9/11 world I live in, I can choose between going on a personal development course, or sitting in front of Zombocom on my exercise bike. Thanks again.

"The unattainable is unknown at Zombocom"
"The only limit is yourself"
"Anything is possible at Zombocom"
"The infinite is possible at Zombocom"

Re:You don't like answering tough challenges, do y

[woogieoogieboogie]

"Palestinian suicide bombers killing women and children in marketplaces, etc. "

Why does everyone forget that Israel is bombing Palestinian children with US made Apache helicopters? Why does everyone forget that the Palestinians are fighting for their freedom? Why does everyone forget that Israel is disobeying a direct UN mandate to leave the occupied territories (just as Iraq is violating a UN mandate).

Wake up people, Israel is a hostile invading army killing innocent civilians. Sharon's war crimes are rapidly meeting even those of Hitler. As Americans it is our reesponsibility to ensure that hostile Theocracies like Israel do not impose their will on defenseless people.

of course we aren't censored, we jsut get half the story.