Slashdot Mirror
Unblock Google Cache in China
An anonymous reader writes "A new feature in CustomizeGoogle (Firefox extension) modifies the Google Cache urls so that they are no longer blocked by the Chinese firewall. This feature is only available in CustomizeGoogle zh-CN, found here.
This is how it works: All links to Google Cache, from the Google search result, are slightly modified. The Chinese Great Firewall doesn't recognize the new links as Google Cache links, and therefore they are accessible for everyone."
because that will probably give the everpresent "them" the tip the need to block it.
Petyr Rahl
"The Chinese Great Firewall doesn't recognize the new links as Google Cache links"
After this article, I bet the firewall WILL recognize the
new links.
Isn't this just an elaborate game of Catch-Up? Meaning, now that there is a way around the firewall, the Chinese Government will just find the loophole and block it? And then there will be another loophole, and the same pattern of catch-up will continue?
Also, reporting about this kind of ruins the whole Cloak & Dagger feel.
It's an interesting idea... but is slashdot or information the feature itself blocked by their Cisco-backed filter?
Unfortunately, many high-tech companies are all to eager to do business with a regime that has killed 80 million people. Western companies' equipment, software, and expertise are what allow China's 30,000+ full-time internet censors to block this kind of breakthrough soon after they're discovered. They couldn't have built such a system without our help.
It is called responsibility. I know it can be confusing, but the fact that I can buy baseball bats does not mean I walk around crushing everybodie's head. No need for government nannies.
On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
BUT we need to send repeating signals that information should not be restricted. The reason for that is the unfortunate ability of homo sapiens sapiens to adapt to almost any environment. May this be extreme climate, sparse resources, or supressive political regimes. I bet you that a great majority of Internet surfers in China were probably upset when they first learned about those restrictions - but over time they probably accepted this as 'normal' and happily made due with the information that is presented to them. In some ways we are doing the same here in the U.S. and I make it a point to watch news shows from Europe to counter-balance the often one-sided and myopic reporting I mostly witness on most U.S. news stations/channels.
So, if this can shake up some complacency and re-instill the hunger for freedom to all information, then this is a great little work-around. We all need to get a kick in the keester to sometimes not simply seek a position of maximum comfort and non-conflict. Remember the old expression: If working towards freedom, prepare for war. I'm not quoting this expression to be taken literal here - I'm saying that it's always dangerous to accept the status quo.
Sorry for the rant - I'm getting off the soap box now...
growing US apathy about non-domestic issues
Growing? Do you know how long we ignored various world wars before getting involved? Constant would be a better choice.
Because I don't like encouraging people to break the law.
Legal writ does not equate to morality.
That's a problem for people who ascribe morality to legality. Just because something is legal does not make it moral. Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral. Morality exist apart from law.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
A lot of Americans are glad that Rosa Parks was willing to break the law.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Well, you said you had a "problem" with it - what kind of problem would that be? Usually, when someone says they have a problem with something philosophical, they are referring to a problem that has to do with right and wrong (i.e. I interpretted what you said to be "I have a moral problem with helping others break the law."). Even assigning a judgement to the action (i.e "I have a problem with helping others break the law because I think it is wrong.") ties it in with morals since a moral system is the only system under which you can determine right and wrong.
In short, I don't think GP was off-base in addressing the disambiguation of morality and legality. Which brings me to the next question:
If the connection between legality and morality is "irrelevant", under what reasoning do you have a problem with helping someone break the law? It can't be moral, because you said the connection was irrelevant, and it can't be legal, since Chinese laws don't apply here (in the United States). If they did, then it might be a practical problem, because you don't want to be arrested. =)