Taking My Freedom With Me to China?

Solo Han asks: "I'm considering a move to China next year, and while I have just as many problems as y'all do with the government, I still like the freedoms afforded me, especially when it comes to access of information. Chinese citizens, however, do not have the same freedoms, as we are constantly reminded here on slash-o-dot. Pr0n, mp3z, and games aside, what are the things that those of you in the Celestial Kingdom know you cannot access, and specifically, what are the websites, search engines, news sites, and other sites that are classed as potentially 'dangerous' material? This brings me to my overall question: is the censorship that real, that hard to get around, and how do you do it? What methods and technologies are you aware of or use to circumvent the Great Firewall of China?"

Comments

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[fembots]

What methods and technologies are you aware of or use to circumvent the Great Firewall of China?

Somehow I don't think it's wise to do such circumvention if you want to stay there short-term/long-term/permanently.

What would US officials think if a foreigner, who is planning to move to USA, talks about how stupid the whole security thing is, and asks for advice to get around it?

If USA can attack another country "Just Like That"(tm), I would consider Chinese's censorship a godsend given it's only imposed within its own country. If you decided to move there, respect its laws; if you don't agree with its laws, go somewhere else. You always have a choice.

At home I have unlimited access to the internet, but at work I can only access port 80, and I would never try to get around company's security policy because it's restricting my freedom to surf, although others might still try that.

And remember, when you get caught, it's going to be ugly no matter where you are.

So in my opinion, if you want to go into other's territory, make sure you find out what can and cannot be done there, and stick to the rules.

Re:R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[Otter]

Inflammatory comments about the US aside, parent is absolutely correct.

Screwing around with the legal system of China isn't like wearing a deCSS t-shirt and thinking you're some sort of badass revolutionary. They have those restrictions because they intend them to be obeyed. If you're a citizen of a major country, probably nothing really bad will happen to you, but just getting deported will have dire effects on your future travel plans.

If you genuinely want to be a freedom fighter there, good luck. But judging from the frivolity of your post "here on slash-o-dot", you really seem to have no idea what you're getting into.

Re:R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[Naikrovek]

Killing people is killing people. Doesn't matter if they're gay, Jewish, whatever. Any leader that kills people because of any reason other than war (and even war is iffy in some cases) is .. well there is no word for that kind of evil, that i know of.

saying stalin was better than hitler is like saying "Being killed by falling into a giant puddle of lava is better than being killed by falling into a giant puddle of molten lead." they're both very, very, very bad and probably very very painful, even if just for a moment.

killing people is wrong no matter how you look at it. kill one person out of hatred and you are no different than someone that has killed millions out of hatred.

Re:R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[Frymaster]

I am having a hard time deciding if you are trolling or not....

actually, i'm having a hard time deciding whether the original poster, cliff, is a cop from china. posting a request for chinese citizens to publicly state:

1. that they are breaking the law
2. and explain how they are doing it

sounds a bit like a sting operation to me. if i were a citizen of china and i could get throught he great firewall, i sure as hell wouldn't be talking about it on slashdot.

now... where did i put that tinfoil hat?

Re:R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[bgog]

Obey, perhaps, respect? I don't think so. Your statment was well made but if I travel to some country that stones women for adulty you can't tell me that I MUST RESPECT them.

I agree that if you break the rules in another country you deserve what you get but in my opinion you certainly do not have to respect them.

There is a big difference between compliance and respect. Respect is earned.

If you're a foreigner...

[keesh]

...they don't care. Nearly all of this censorship is only aimed at chinese citizens, and then only those that happen to be a convenient PR target. Unless you start actively trying to overthrow the government or anything daft like that, they're not interested.

Have fun

[grub]

So basically your question is stating "I'm going to China and expect to be able to break their laws as I was fortunate enough to be born in a more free society."

Don't whine to the foreign media when you're jailed as a subversive influence.

Re:You watch too much TV

[LWATCDR]

So the Chinese Army did not send in tanks to stop students protesting?
So those executions I saw where they had the people kneel and put a bullet in their brain never happened?
So there really is freedom of religion and speech in China?
So the Chinese government does not make huge amounts of money from prison labor?
And the Chinese did not lob missiles over an island full of people to keep them in line?
Just asking if these are all myths that I have seen on TV?

What a sad way to define "freedom"

[Anonymous Coward]

He says nothing about the freedom to speak or offer others his opinions or views. Or freedom to express parody. He says nothing about freedom to practice a religion of his choice. Or about any freedoms that are actually real and important. How very sad, that his idea of "freedom" is simply being able to access web sites he chooses and download some music and porn. Yes, he would make the perfect American consumer for the future corporations have in mind here.

Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

"The United States and other western countries all have very incompatable world views when it comes countries like China."

Freedom is not an incompatable world view.

Democracy is not an incompatable world view.

Human rights are not an incompatable world view.

Equality under the law is not an incompatable world view.

All of these are basic rights for all human beings. The fact that the Communist government of China has refused to recognize them is not due to "an incompatable world view," its due to a small nomenklatura of Communist elites denying these rights to their people. The ideas themselves are no more alien to China than they were alien to Japan in 1945.

- Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[DrSkwid]

The only right you are born with is death.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[Bake]

Here's something I've been wondering for the past few years.

When on earth will people learn that no matter HOW GOOD your intensions are; the only thing that simply CAN NOT be stuffed down people's throat, is freedom and the concept of freedom.

You can not force people to be free, they can only be free if they really want to be free.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[SuperBigGulp]

The only right you are born with is death.

...and sometimes not even that. IIRC there have been mixed judicial opinions on "right to die" cases, although the most current SCOTUS seemed to side with this in the Florida case.

I believe there are cases either pending or on appeal that deal with "death with dignity" cases.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[Ioldanach]

In the US we take these as a given. I've encountered people where I work that are from other countries that truly do not comprehend the value of freedom and democracy. I'll grant the latter 2, human rights and equal application of the law.

However, while I may grant that everyone understands there are basic human rights, the definitions of those rights are cultural, and therefore the point there is moot. The mere existence of human rights cannot be the basis of an argument that another country doesn't have them. You can merely say they don't share our assumption of basic human rights.

As far as equal application of the law, I'll grant that pretty much every culture expects this, it just happens that there are always a few at high levels who can circumvent it, and it falls to the culture to police this. So I don't think the chinese people as a whole have this problem, though the government certainly does.

Now we get to freedom and democracy. You and I take as a given our freedom and the democracy. (ok, this country has an elected republic, not a democracy, but the word will do for now) However, in other cultures, the need for cultural and societal stability outweighs many personal freedoms. From everything I've seen, the culture of China rejects personal freedoms along these lines, though the government does indeed go too far in my opinion in enforcing this mindset.

Simply put, you're making assertions that require serious work to defend, and you have to understand the cultural background of the people you need to defend your assertions against.

Can you truly express why your first two assertions are accurate, and justify them to a culture not founded on them?

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[ThousandStars]

This may be a strange concept to you, but for many people in the world, freedom and democracy are not their top priorities. Often, security and prosperity trump it.

The problem with your implication is that, over the long term, security and prosperity are inextricably linked with freedom and democracy. Western Europe had to learn this the hard way, and it took centuries to implement democratic frameworks, which most scholars think began with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century. Those structures didn't become entrenched throughout Europe until after World War II, and only spread to eastern Europe following the end of the Cold War. The point is that the Western world has had a lot of practice and a lot of backsliding that led to lots of nasty wars, abuses of power and egotism.

Over the short term, some countries may experience a marginally better quality of life due to a government's unwillingness to to respect human rights. Over the long term, however, that kind of government inevitably creates more problems than it solves. See the Soviet Union for a large example. See places like the Balkans or Iraq for smaller ones.

If Peru had adopted and maintained democratic institutions a century ago, your friend would be much better off today. Instead, people opt or are forced into short term, "temporary" structures in which the government has more power than it should. Then that power is misused. It happened in ancient Rome -- a "tyrant" (before the word gained a pejorative connotation) would seize power during an emergency and then relinquish it. Until someone didn't want to. The point is that real benefits, materialistic and otherwise, come from a free people. It's only a fool's choice to offer security or freedom, because the two can't be fundamentally separated.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[gblues]

Don't get me wrong, I think the USA is a great country with many great people, But I'm afraid that a majority of those who voted there are under the misapprehension that what their government is doing and the way their country is run constitutes a free society.

(emphasis mine)

I'm assuming you are not a United States citizen based on your choice of words here. Civics 101: laws are drafted and then passed around the Senate and the House of Representatives. Only after both groups have approved the bill does it get sent to the President to be signed into law. This means that the PATRIOT act did not pass due to GWB. The PATRIOT act passed because a majority in the House and Senate thought it was a good idea, and the President agreed.

It would seem that I understand my freedoms and democracy better than you. Oh, and I voted for Bush, too. I guess I shouldn't exist according to your logic.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[Caseyscrib]

When on earth will people learn that no matter HOW GOOD your intensions are; the only thing that simply CAN NOT be stuffed down people's throat, is freedom and the concept of freedom.

Yup. One of the underlying conflicts in many of the wars (ancient Athens, WWI/WWII, Iraq, etc...) fought by civilizations was hubris. People become so patriotic that they think their country is superior to everyone else's. Some leaders have even used this arrogance to justify wars. They believe war is "good" because it tests the true strength of a civilization, and the best culture will overtake the weaker one (social darwinism). In their mind, you're doing the enemy a favor by giving them freedom, communism, or whatever. What these people fail to realize, however, is that the only reason you think you're way is better is because thats the way you were raised; to believe everything you were taught was correct and any other way is wrong or inferior. Americans like their freedom, Iraqis like their dictatorship, and Chinese like their Communism. I'm not saying they're thrilled to be told what to do, but they are complacent because they are ignorant of alternatives. If the people become oppressed enough, they will start their own revolution. If another country tries to impose their culture on them, they will become patriotic to their own government (free or not) because of propoganda their leaders tell them.

You can not force people to be free, they can only be free if they really want to be free.

While education and the decline of religious influence have helped dwarf rascism and taught tolerance, we're still in Iraq right now because of the same egotistical "we're the big bad fuckin USA" attitude ("Bring It On"). One day, I hope people will understand that it doesn't matter if your an American, Canadian, French, Iraqi, whatever - you're still a human being. What geographical area or political climate you were raised in will never change that.

Re:Freedom is not an "incompatable world view"

[Dire Bonobo]

> It would seem that I understand my freedoms and democracy better than you.
> Oh, and I voted for Bush, too. I guess I shouldn't exist according to your logic.

Not at all; he simply disagrees with you. You believe you understand your freedoms better than he does; he believes you don't have as many freedoms as you think.

Whether you understand the creation of a law doesn't really determine whether you understand its effect.

Let's get something straight here.

[LeiGong]

China is not 1984. Repeat after me, China is not 1984. China is not EastAsia.

It seems to me very few of you have actually been to China or even understand how the system there works. For the same reason why Europeans think we're a country of hicks driving around in a pickup with shotguns who elected a idiot to office is why you think the Chinese is some sort of omni-present superpower that oversees all of the minute details of its citizens' lives and takes sadistic pleasure in torture. You're taking in media hype and a fear of the unknown. China has its share of problems: freedom of speech and freedom of religion come to mind. These are serious issues that need to be addressed but that doesn't mean everytime you commit a crime in China you will be sent into "reeducation." That also doesn't mean if you use a proxy to surf the web that they're going to break your thumbs. The Chinese government are too busy with the same serious issues that the US is dealing with to be bothered by these minor offenses.

While it may sound like the Chinese police force operate a Gestapo-like regime but that's far from the truth. Believe or not, China has laws and 99% of the time, they are followed. They also have lawyers that will free an innocent man. Some people vision of a totalitarian society governed by "The Party" are just too far fetched. Do they honestly think that the police operate on whatever laws they please and the people live in constant fear? I'll tell you from actually lived in China that it is hardly the case. People are way too reoccupied w/ making money to give a shit. Just remember the same media that is telling you to be afraid of China is the same one that ran the special on 20/20 about the wide-spread dangers of drier lint fires and the world-wide SARS epedemic.

Re:addendum

[yuri benjamin]

How about helping those that want to break the yoke but can't.

Re:His next ask slashdot...

[rjh]

The difference is this: in the United States, prison labor may only be used to produce goods and services for the state. It is illegal for prison-produced goods to compete on the open market and it is illegal for prisons to profit off anyone but other governmental agencies.

For instance, if you're a government executive and the government gives you an allowance with which to outfit your office, you can buy desks for a song. Prisons who teach woodworking as a trade skill offer some beautifully-made things for under $100. They can do this because their labor costs are pretty much nothing. However, the prison can only sell it to other branches of the government--you won't find them for sale in the prison gift shop.

Prison labor is also used to clean up roadways; to dig firebreaks in areas where forest fires are a concern; to make license plates; etc.

I'm not offended by manual labor in the service of the state being a criminal punishment. I'm offended by the idea of convicts being used to make their wardens and jailers independently wealthy, which is precisely what happens in China.

Before you go about preaching there's no difference between what we do and what they do, you may wish to learn what the difference is.

Re:Knitpicking...

[LoveTruthBeauty]

I know its natural to think that your country reflects you and therefor generally behaves well, but unfortunately that is not the case, especially in the USA.

It is ironic that the lead article is about censorship in China. Chinese censorship is clumsy and ineffectual compared to the advanced spin and propaganda in the USA. This is why most US citizens think America is a positive force in the world, and are completely baffled when the rest of the world resents and distrusts them. Of course, nobody likes to be told they've been accepting lies. Most US citizens will be feeling very defensive and will vehemently deny that they could be influenced by propaganda. Everyone thinks its something that can only happen to someone else. That is one of the reasons it is so cuccessful.

Outside the USA, it is well known that the USA supplied Iraq with biological and chemical weapons. Its not even controversial. Its just one in a long list of disgusting behaviours the USA has done and is doing. It was based on the 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' logic. Hussein was supposed to use these weapons to win the war against Iran.

Funnily enough, the reason the Bush government was so confident that they'd find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is because they know he had them because they sold them to him!

> The CDC wouldn't have been involved if the request wasn't > made under the guise of medical research.

I'm not sure if that is your personal theory, or if that comes from some actual propaganda. Either way, it doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Medical research on Anthrax? At the request of a known dictatorship, currently at war? Gimme a break!