Slashdot Mirror
China Blocks Typepad, Prompts Weblog Blackout
dcm writes "As U.S. Ambassador Richard Williamson prepares to introduce a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Commission to censure the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) government for increasing 'repression of its people using the Internet, democratic dialogue, religious expression,' the regime continues to block discourse.On Friday, China began blocking access to Typepad, a paid weblog hosting service in San Mateo, California. The communist regime previously blocked access to BlogSpot, Blogger's free hosting site. Yan Sham-Shackleton filed a report on the Glutter weblog, mentioning China is '...now using blocking software to stop information from leaking into the county via personal sites, an increasingly vibrant China Internet community, and a place where users are slipping in banned information. Some sites in the blogging community are turning black in protest of this event while others are reporting the incident.'"
This is just the latest front in China's attempt to try to stamp out any form of anti-government speech. Say what you want about the present US Governemnt, the fact that you're allowed to say it here is something that makes us very different from them...
This is the other side of the blade for China. They want an educated, technologically savvy population. People with such skillz and of an attitude will find a way and always be one step ahead. They should just call it a game and let the people have their way. At the very least, it could generate some goodwill toward the government. Holding the people back won't work forever.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I think it was on BBC I was reading about goverments blocking their citizens from content, I know Iraq did it at first. All I can see it doing is makeing them mad and giveing them more of a reason to find a way around the block. They might just have to come to the relization that if people want to see if they will find a way to see it
GeekLeak.com - Silly name, serious geeks
How about combine blogging with snail mail?
Q: Why are the chinese communists so afraid of free exchange of ideas and criticism?
A: They're afraid they'll have to give up power and find real jobs.
OK, so they have not decided to offer full democracy to everyone and are maintaining control on the strings of power.
Good. The last thing we need is a nuclear nation of 1.2bn (last UN estimate) plunged into democracy.
Why?
Because, as Plato pointed out over 2000 years ago, democracy is a dangerous thing. The populace can be taken advantage of - note the cultural revolution was supported by the majority when millions were killed, so was the Russian revolution which supported Lenin's oppression and later Stalin's. China's population are unversed in the hypocrasy and 2-faced-ness democracy brings... there will be popularists who will only be too eager to take power. A tyranny is never good, but a tyranny that sees its failures and is moving on is better.
Personally, I'd prefer a China which was promoting a market economy, promoting (and a#enacting) political reform (MASSIVE progress since Den Xiao Ping) and moving steadily towards democracy, rather than jumping in the deep end. Saying that, I am concerned about the overtures of beijing regarding HK's basic law in recent weeks.
I thoroughly recommend you read Plato's 'The Republic' - not a hard read but a concise critic of democracy and its pitfalls.
Remember, China blocked Google for a time out of fears that they could find anti-government info there...
So, it seems any site that lets somebody post infomation without has got to go. It won't be long until they decide Slashdot is not something they should let their people see.
Do they only block the http ports?
Or do the block by IP or what?
Yea, Gopher is dead, but don't be insensitive.
Gopher was pretty cool, especially considering some of the terrible backgrounds and colors you sometimes get in http.
Or is this just like suggesting lynx?
Maybe it is a good thing that Apache 2 supports Gopher.
Stop laughing, I'm serious.
It wouldn't suprise me that the communist bastard politicians wouldn't know to block stuff outside http.
p2p is another possibility, but that's been discussed before I'm sure.
Promote Sensitivity on Slashdot, make me your friend.
If the WTO can force the U.S to admit offshore online casinos, perhaps the WTO can force China to admit offshore information services. The Chinese consumers should be able to access any commercial internet site (including a paid weblog service like Typepad) as a free trade issue.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Do these rules apply to Hong Kong. I'm vague as to how seperatly they are treated since 1997 when ownship reverted back to China. I know for example a Hong Kong resident no longer needs a visa to travel to the mainland, and they still retain certain comercial freedoms.
Chinese government policies that favor Chinese companies over foreign firms are driving some U.S. tech companies from the booming market.
This month, chipmakers Intel and Broadcom said they'll stop selling wireless Internet, or Wi-Fi, chips in China. A new law requires that the chips include a security technology licensed by Chinese companies.
The technology can hurt chips' performance and compatibility with other devices, says Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy. And implementing it requires U.S. chipmakers to share valuable intellectual property with Chinese companies, says Semiconductor Industry Association President George Scalise.
The Wi-Fi dispute is one of several being waged between the U.S. and Chinese tech industries.
Semiconductor taxes. China slaps a 17% value-added tax on computer chips sold there. But it gives rebates of up to 14% to domestic chip plants. That makes it almost impossible for foreign chipmakers to compete, the SIA says.
This month, the U.S. trade office filed a case against China's semiconductor tax with the World Trade Organization (news - web sites), which China joined in 2001. China must abide by the WTO's decision or risk censure. Friday, China said it would enter talks with the United States.
Proprietary standards and practices. China is developing its own standards for 3G cell phone networks and DVD players. (The Chinese version is called EVD, or extended versatile disk.) If the standards are widely adopted, they will allow Chinese manufacturers to avoid paying some licensing fees to foreign companies and force tech firms to make special products only for China. Officials also have taken steps to keep government agencies from using non-Chinese software.
U.S. companies urgently want to do business in China because it's a huge, growing market. China has a $1.4 trillion economy and gross domestic product growth near 10%, according to the U.S. State Department. Political changes in recent years have increasingly opened the once-isolated country to foreign companies. U.S. tech firms are eager to sell PCs, DVD players and other products to China's 1.3 billion citizens.
Chinese officials talk about fair trade, yet "behave like a protective dictatorship when it serves their best interests," says Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, a trade group. Chinese officials deny that and say they're working to understand U.S. concerns.
Nearly every country has some policies to boost and protect domestic industries. The U.S. gives tech companies a tax break for research and development, for example. But trade groups such as the ITAA say China's policies are so extreme, they infringe on free trade. In 2003, the USA exported $28 billion worth of goods to China and imported $152 billion.
--00--00--00--
Philippe Lacoste, director of French retail giant Lacoste and grandson of founder Rene Lacoste (L), gives a brief history of the company during a news conference in Shanghai March 29, 2004. French retailer Lacoste, frustrated over what it calls widespread piracy in China, may pull out of the market if it fails to stop a Singapore-based rival from also using a crocodile logo. REUTERS/Claro Cortes IV
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
It's a cat-and-mouse game. The Chinese will block any server being used to coordinate anti-government activities of any type. They're always a step behind, but this leads those who oppose the government to constantly be looking for new ways to communicate. Then, once they start communicating over a government honeypot site, they send the spooks and that person is never heard from again.
It's totally understandable that China's gov't will be overthrown if people are given free access to information
Why do you say this? Have you been to China, asked anyone there what they think? Of course China is oppressive, and of course its views don't fall in line with those of the US. But that doesn't necessarily mean people would instantly overthrow it given the chance.
As an architect, I've been keeping a very close eye on growth in China. Quite simply, China is where it's at. The growth rate there is just insane, and with the Olympics coming up there is now intense international pressure on very accellerated modernization. Remember the dot com boom? China is like that right now, except their economy is based on tangible things.
I'm not saying that giving up freedom is worth some prosperity, but I am saying that if China were to all of a sudden take down its Great Firewall there is no guarantee that its people would want to risk destroying one of the largest economic expansions in history just because they can read the whiny ramblings of a 13 year old girl on Blogspot.
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
exactly how much off a @#$# China cares about what anybody thinks of them. I mean, gee whiz, if they're willing to shoot their citizens in the street (Tianneman Sq (sp?)) do you really think some UN resolution is going to matter?
BC
when was communism ever tried in reality? i believe you're referring to a system called state capitalism that has often been mistaken as "communism" in the west.
if you want to discuss communism, i'd suggest you first investigate catalonia from '36 to '38.
2 1337 4 u!
Stern's complaint is that he's being forced into moving his show onto a subscription-based satellite radio service. However, if he moves there the FCC won't have any abilty to complain about what he says anymore.
I'm not a big fan of Stern my self... I don't watch or listen to his program because I find it uninteresting. I appricate his need to protest our cencorships laws, and support him to that end. If he must move to a satellite radio service, that would be fine too, as he can protest all he wants nation wide.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are filtering out any negative-to-the-government information of any kind from all forms of media. That's much more serious.
I would agree... but just like Howard Stern being forced to move to satellite radio, wouldn't it be reasonable that a population who wants free access to information switch to a standard that can't be blocked by boarders... like radio perhaps?
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
It definitely is. A democracy is, simply stated, a majority-dictatorship. The framers and founders of the USA created a Democratic Republic, that is not a democracy but rather a Republic with liberty and choice. Our republic made up of the populus, voted democratically by the populus.
Many people misinterpret the US government as a democracy when in fact it is a democratic republic. One of the strenghts is that people are believed to have unalienable rights, rights given to them by their creator that cannot be taken away by any law. The point of this is not religious, but rather that no one can take away unalienable rights. Thus the formation of a body (the US goverment) to protect these rights, versus in the case of many systems (ie a democracy), a government that grants rights.
This is truly power in the peoples hands, rights that one cannot give nor take away, rights that we are created with. Thus the freedom we have is innate, not a privledge or amenity.
Just include a few nukes in some shipping containers and take out most of our ports. That would 'impact severly' the US economy for 5-7 years.
That's the part I don't get.
Why not let the packet go through, and simply log the session?
Chen Sixpack: Goes to www.freetibet.org, is disgusted by what he sees, and the only thing in his logfile is index.html
Jiang Sixpack: Goes to www.freetibet.org/index.html and spends six hours reading 20-30 pages of material.
If I block both of them at the router, I don't know who's the greater threat to domestic security - because I can't target everyone. If I let the packets through and log session information (particularly if I can aggregate Jiang's web traffic with his IM traffic, for instance -- thereby exposing Jiang's entire social network. Great data mining opportunities :), I can use that data to have a better idea of who's worth targeting.
By blocking at the firewall, the Chinese government is missing the point. A properly-configured Internet is like a self-registration system for domestic security threats.
... how the same people tend to curse at US for being oppressive, aggressive, and otherwise evil, and yet completely ignore China's record on the same issues.
For example, the French -- among the noisiest critics of US nowadays lit/painted the Eiffel tower red to greet the Chinese leader and to comfort him with support for his hostility towards Taiwan.
Italians, protesting every one of the executions in US, seem to completely ignore the public executions in China, which sometimes take place in stadiums and are often caused merely by alleged economic crimes.
Now this (as if we did not know about the Great Chinese Firewall before)... Where are the condemnations from the people, accusing the US for "suffocating the independent media" -- because Howard Stern was kicked off by his employer?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Chinese have such firewalls installed at every ISP that leaves the country.
That's why it's so important to develope real wireless solutions. If the net is ever going to be truly free, we must cut out corporate control of the "wire". Under the current set up, the multinationals are saying, "All your ISP are belong to us". Same goes for the data going through those ISP's. Truly mobile and wireless access will be the only way to bring about absolute anonymity and privacy to the users. Rapidly changing IP addresses during a session (like a spread spectrum kind of thing) would be cool also.
What?
You can't damn an entire political system because of a few bad eggs in history. If that were the case you'd also have to damn democracy ( The first French Revolution, Nazi germany, both examples of extremely violent ( even genocidal ) rulers elected to power through democratic states.
To expand, wealth is produced only by voluntary trade. Wealth cannot be produced by force. (Wealth may be transferred by force, but never created.) This is a basic principle of economics which not many people seem to understand.
For example, in the case of robbery, wealth is not created but simply transferred from one party to the other. The aggressor gains, but the victim loses. The net result is that zero wealth is created by the transaction (loss + gain = no more wealth existing after the transaction than before).
Socialism follows the same principle. Socialism cannot work by voluntary association -- the members of a socialist society must be forced to provide revenue for the state. (If members of the socialist society could voluntarily choose for themselves whether to provide revenue for the state, the "state" wouldn't be a state at all -- it would be free enterprise.) Under socialism, wealth is not created but simply transferred by force from one party (the individual) to another (the state). What the state does after confiscating the wealth is irrelevant.
Conversely, when two parties engage in voluntary trade, they do so precisely because each party determines that the trade will benefit them. Provided no foul play, each party gains by the transaction. The net result is that wealth is created, because the trade has served the purpose of increasing -- not decreasing -- each individual's respective wealth (gain + gain = more wealth existing after the transaction than before).
To illustrate this concept, when you go to the supermarket and voluntarily purchase a gallon of milk for $3, you do so because you'd rather have the milk than $3. You've determined that the milk is more valuable to you at this time. The supermarket voluntarily sells you the milk because they'd rather have $3 than the milk. They've determined that $3 is more valuable to them. The net result is that each parties' respective wealth is increased by the transaction. (If either parties' wealth was percieved to decrease by the transaction, they wouldn't have engaged in the transaction in the first place.)
This is why communism ("pure" socialism) is economically impossible over the long run: Without a means to produce wealth, the state can last only as long as the wealth it confiscates. When the wealth finally runs out, the state turns to forced production (slavery). Still no wealth is created -- force is used to simply transfer the wealth of the slaves (their labor) to the the state.