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."

178 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Links.... by hotbutteredhtml · · Score: 5, Funny

    I keep trying, but all I get is "Nothing to see here please move along"

    --
    how 'bout I give you the finger....and you give me my phone call.
    1. Re:Links.... by GoodOmens · · Score: 4, Funny

      Knowing the chinese:

      Those responsible have been sacked.

      Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

    2. Re:Links.... by king-manic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Knowing the chinese:

      Those responsible have been sacked.

      Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.


      Those responsible for not sacking everyone who needed to be sacked before this happened have been shot.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    3. Re:Links.... by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Weird. It's working for me.

    4. Re:Links.... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Um.... Elected a born-again Christian president who can't see the applicability of Matthew 7:3 to the policies he promotes or condones?

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    5. Re:Links.... by F_Scentura · · Score: 1

      "Stereotyping is now modified Insightful?"

      Criticism of the government is not stereotyping the people.

      There's no reason to tolerate *any* human rights abuse, attempts to find equivalency are a shitty excuse to maintain the status quo.

    6. Re:Links.... by phlinn · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he does see applicability. It's just that we are ignoring specks in our eyes to help others deal with the beams in theirs, at least in the mind of G.W. Bush and many of his supporters. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

      I, on the other hand, feel that it is a good thing to help my brother with a speck in his eye, regardless of whether there is a beam in mine or not. It might be better to deal with my own problem first, but that does not make it bad to assist someone else.

      --
      "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
  2. Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by PetyrRahl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because that will probably give the everpresent "them" the tip the need to block it.
    Petyr Rahl

    1. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well Google could always modify the cache to return results that have some auto generated URL that would differ with every hit, thus their firewall would end having to block an impossible number of every changing URL's...

      Well, until they just decide to block everything from the google domain...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    2. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Every time I've looked at the URL on a Google cache result, it's been hosted on a raw IP address instead of a domain name. I don't know how the current blocking works -- whether it's got a list of IPs known to serve pages from the Google cache or whether it just looks for search=q?cache -- but it seems to me that the domain itself is already irrelevant.

      Of course, they could just block all requests to Google's IP space...

    3. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by josephdrivein · · Score: 1

      However, the filtering system can be bypassed - inserting an ampersand (&) into the HPPT GET request, such as "search?&q=cache", allowed access to Google's cache.
      [...]
      The filtering mechanism appears specifically designed to target Google's cache, since caches of other popular search engines, such as Yahoo!, worked properly.
      from http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/

      This is probably the way the extension works: it inserts a ampersand. As others said it will be probably fixed soon, sadly. As pointed out in the article, Chinese people should anyway try Yahoo cache, when that will be blocked too, some other new search engine or cache mirror, and so on.

      Freedom of information is a human right.

    4. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by Tiger4 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think Slashdot is allowed through the Great Firewall? The Chinese may never know that we know how to hack past it. I hope.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    5. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by fluppy88 · · Score: 1

      We are getting it! thank you customizegoogle people!

    6. Re:Too bad it's going to be slashdotted by luweiewul · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why Baidu.com exists. Unfortunately, western people know nothing about this and push the stock price of baidu so high. That's so funny.

  3. They will now ... by sho-gun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

    1. Re:They will now ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah...no shit. I've used this little trick to get to the google cache, and now that an automated tool is available, it's sure to stop working soon. They already blocked Wikipedia a week or two ago, which sucked.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:They will now ... by dwater · · Score: 1

      > They already blocked Wikipedia a week or two ago, which sucked.

      More like a *month* or two ago, and *majorly* sucks. ...but it's not the first time they've blocked it. The previous time, a group of interested Chinese did what it takes to get it unblocked. Hopefully, they can do it again. I wonder if they're trying - difficult to tell from this side of the wall.

      --
      Max.
  4. The cat's out of the bag now... by Atryn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I give this a few weeks before China figures out what Google is doing and either finds a way to block it or threatens to remove Google entirely from the Chinese web. Is Google willing to risk losing those eyeballs?

    --
    Come play Moral Decay!
    1. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Trevahaha · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not Google that is doing this.

    2. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Pinefresh · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm pretty sure its not google thats doing this. Its the Customize Google firefox extension

    3. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its not google doing this -- but it should be! Is the slogan:

      Do no evil.*

      *Not available in China.

    4. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whereas Microsoft's slogan is:

      Do evil.*

      *Except in Nebraska.

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    5. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by TrevorB · · Score: 1
    6. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by yfkar · · Score: 1
      But they do it through Google. This probably means that either Google has to make this impossible or Google is kicked out of China.

      Which one do you think Google will choose?

    7. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      It's merely that google allows access to the cache via some URLs that they do not give out.

      The firewall is blocking access to basically exactly what google gives out. Ergo, if you slightly modify the URL, you can still get to it.

      Whether this is a google bug that google doesn't care about, or a google 'bug' that google damn well knows about and did on purpose, it remains up to China to block it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    8. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by tektek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I tried google, but couldn't find any information about the Nebraska thing. I remember seeing the old Microsoft ad with that at the end, so can someone fill me in or give me a link to somewhere that explains it?

    9. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by DaoudaW · · Score: 1

      Is the slogan: Do no evil.*

      Actually no. The slogan is "Don't be evil". An organization can do something nasty to further a greater good without _being_ evil.

    10. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Bill is like Rockefeller, so let's make him more like Rockefeller by breaking up his monopolistic company (which is actually far more monopolistic than Standard Oil, which "only" had 64% market share).

    11. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by bst82551 · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the first few results in a google search for "microsoft nebraska": https://www.microsoftproductssettlement.com/nebras ka/home.htm Brian

      --
      "An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out." -Will Rogers
    12. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Breaking up the Microsoft monopoly will never happen under the regime currently in power -- these are the "corporate sock-puppets" that let Microsoft write their own punish^H^H^H^H^H^Hslap on the wrist as their DoJ settlement.

      The regime currently in power LIKES larger corporations and less competition -- just that many fewer CEOs to strong-arm for campaign contributions. Famous Dubya quote: "You are the haves, and the have mores. Some people call you the elite - I call you my base." (As spoken before a Washington DC GOP fundraiser in 2004.)

    13. Re:The cat's out of the bag now... by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that Bush didn't pull a bunch of strings to get MS off the hook. I do find it sad, however, that justice can be subverted by the political powers that be. Pardoning an individual in a controvertial case is one thing, pardoning a company that is obviously out to not just succeed, but to control, smacks to me of something that should raise the eyebrows of any reasonable American.

  5. Fighting against public knowledge by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how big China will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control information. I guess the people in power figure that as long as they maintain tight control for enough generations, the lack of information will just feel commonplace to the Chinese people. I don't think human biology will allow for that apathy about the world though. Although I could be wrong [ie. growing US apathy about non-domestic issues].

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    1. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could say that with just about anything:

      I wonder how big [INSERT COUNTRY NAME] will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control [INSERT ISSUE].

      I wonder how big the United States will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control marijuana.

      I wonder how big the United States will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control the world.

    2. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by thefirelane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "how big" ?
      China has the largest population on the planet. And always has had AFAIK.
      I don't think the size of the country has anything to do with repression of information.

    4. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're totally stoned. You end up on a totally different issue than when you started, and each of your sentences has nothing to do with the other. Ah, I remember those days...

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wonder how big the United States will get before they realize it's hopeless to control murder.

      I wonder how big the United States will get before they realize it's hopeless to control rape.

      Wow, this is fun!

      Hey, [insert country name] is a variable, right? So why didn't you use another country? It wouldn't be because you are a hopeless troll, is it?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is indeed unfortunate that some governments find it necessary to limit access to what amounts to free speech (Classified, Criminal, and other obviously dangerous information not withstanding) and that the same corporations that enable access to this speech are falling over themselves to assist those governments in their repression. The Chinese experience has shown that restricting access to information via technical measures is very effective against the significant majority of their Internet using population. There will always be some savvy people who are able to get through, but we must acknowledge the effectiveness of their filters even though most Slashdoters disagree vehemently with those governments' policies...know your enemy. As for apathy, that is probably the default state for human beings. Consider that even here in the United States people frequently do not exercise their right to vote because they are "too busy" or "it doesn't matter". Apathy does not exist because of repression, although repression probably reinforces it, but rather in spite of it. So would you regard a policy that is, for the most part, extremely effective as hopeless? If we want to discourage the Chinese from perusing a policy of technical repression then we will have find much better ways of degrading the effectiveness of their methods before they will even consider throwing in the towel.

    7. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by rdoger6424 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wonder how big stupid reversal jokes will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control Soviet Russia

      --
      "Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
    8. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by supabeast! · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "I wonder how big China will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control information."

      The Chinese government does a pretty good job controlling information, because they have no compunction about imprisoning and killing people who spread information that they don't like.

      "I don't think human biology will allow for that apathy about the world though."

      You apparently aren't living on planet earth, where nations around the world pitched in to help the United States preemptively attack Iraq based on Iraqi weapons that didn't exist. Or where recent genocide in the Sudan lead to hundreds of thousands of murders because other nations didn't want to deal with diplomatic flack from China, which supplies weapons to both sides in most African conflicts.

    9. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by jehnx · · Score: 1

      I met a girl recently here at school who grew up in China for most of her life. She saw nothing wrong with the Great Firewall of China, and actually didn't even realize it blocked as much as it does. She said that she and her family, at least, believe it's for the better, because it keeps bad thoughts out of young peoples' heads. I sighed, and fixed her computer. :-/

    10. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to one of my friends who visited China twice for 2-3 months, they REALLY think that Tibet has been well treated by their country, and that no war nor genocide really happened there. They even say that they have to treat 'Tibetans' (read, chinese people now living in Tibet) as special when they visit China...

      I think you're right, they're pretty efficient at controlling information :(

    11. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by Tiger4 · · Score: 1
      "the same corporations that enable access to this speech are falling over themselves to assist those governments in their repression."

      Corporations don't repress, people repress. Convince the people that make the rules, and configure the firewalls, and set up the switches that repressing information is wrong, and the corporations will magically fall in line. Greed and self-interest being what it is, I don't see that happening anytime soon, but that is the one unbeatable answer.

      It isn't that corporations are evil, it is that corporations are often run by evil people. And enabled by their apathetic, apolitical technical lackeys.

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    12. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Growing? Do you know how long we ignored various world wars before getting involved? Constant would be a better choice.

      Truth be told the US wasn't ignoring either war. I always thought it was odd that people don't really the acknowledge the US mobilization before Pearl Harbor...

      The draft had already been enacted in 1940.

      I think the better words would be "The US people would like to be apathetic to wars overseas, but the US Government tends to be keen on the idea."

      And no, I don't think FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking us, but we aren't entirley innocent when it comes to international war before that time.

      Remember, we used the explosion of USS Main to declare war on Spain in 1898 which was most likley a boiler malfunction.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    13. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Except when there is a smell of oil.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    14. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by wumingzi · · Score: 1

      I wonder how big China will have to get before they realize that it's hopeless to control information.

      It's not hopeless at all.

      The great firewall doesn't have to be perfect. It isn't, it never has been. It wasn't perfect before there was an Internet. I grew up in the United States. I lived in Taiwan. I traveled to China. Everyone wanted to know what was going on in Taiwan, and I told them. They wanted to know what the United States was like, and I told them that too.

      If it keeps most of the information from most of the people most of the time, it's good enough.

      Lots of information about a certain American Overseas Adventure never seems to reach network news in the United States. You can dig it up by listening to the BBC, the Guardian, etc. But most people don't. That is all that's needed.

    15. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by sydb · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? It was not the most articulate of posts but I understood it and saw a logical progression from one sentence to the next. I think it is *you* who are stoned.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    16. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      Somehow people only see the other's propaganda and somehow dismiss their own governments trying to hide "disturbing" information.

    17. Re:Fighting against public knowledge by starrsoft · · Score: 1

      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. And how the anti-Iraq war isolationists have been semi-popular?

      --
      Read my blog: HansMast.com
  6. Cool, but it will be blocked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A more useful solution would be one that kills the bastards who ordered and set up the censorship in the first place.

    1. Re:Cool, but it will be blocked. by kertong · · Score: 1

      perhaps with an exploding eggroll?

  7. Game of Catch-Up by OctoberSky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Game of Catch-Up by barik · · Score: 1

      Probably, but there are a lot of open source projects like WINE, who are effectively always playing Catch-Up with Windows, which is a similar analogy. That doesn't make trying any less important. In my opinion, the point is not to win straight out, but to chisel away bit by bit until the other side yields or gives up. Sure, China may block this, but with each technique that bypasses the firewall, just a few more people in China have the ability to learn just a little bit more about what's out there.

    2. Re:Game of Catch-Up by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      If the government can't find the loophole, they'll just drive tanks over it

    3. Re:Game of Catch-Up by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Welcome class, to Internet Security 101.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    4. Re:Game of Catch-Up by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1

      Create another extension to autoupdate the URL settings in the original extension. Sort of the same thang the filterset.G auto-updater does.

      Then, while one or two folks will be kept busy updating the extension itself, it will pretty much always work for the end-users.

    5. Re:Game of Catch-Up by MayorDefacto · · Score: 1
      ...And the great Anonymous defender of the CCP posts again!

      Seriously, it seems like every time there is a story about China on /. and someone posts something critical of the Central Party, some AC pops in to defend the censorship-happy, democracy-crushing socialist-cum-facsist regime. Spies, spies everywhere....

  8. You could also.. by Gamzarme · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...do the same thing with a proxy.
    Cache over proxy..very nice.

    --
    Pat
    1. Re:You could also.. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Proxies work for most blocked sites (Geocities, Tripod, etc), but there are some sites that are 'toxic' and going to them will get a RST sent down the line for all your active connections, and won't allow any new connections to your proxy for 5 minutes or so. BBC News and Google Cache being two of these.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:You could also.. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      do it too much and... well I do not really know but if you are caught in the tentacles of the chinese government, well fun is different.

    3. Re:You could also.. by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that the chinese firewall can parse proxied traffic and will let some blocked sites through via proxy and not others? That seems kind of inconsistant - if they can nuke you for proxying any one normally blocked site, they ought to nuke you for all normally blocked sites.

    4. Re:You could also.. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yeah, it's weird. I don't understand it either, but that's what happens. I theorize that the 'toxic' blocking is done by hostname, because I can go to www.bbc.co.uk but not news.bbc.co.uk. Voice of America and .mil sites are some others that will get RST. My simple unencrypted squid proxy in the USA will bypass all the other 'blocked' sites.

      The shittiest part of being behind the Great Wall is the horrible connection speeds. I usually get 5-10k/s to slashdot and other sites, with a 300ms ping and 3% PL that makes typing at a unix shell lots of fun. I cry on the rare occasion that I go to Chinese websites, then I get my typical broadband 400k/s.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:You could also.. by CyBlue · · Score: 1

      If this is true, maybe there's just too much overhead to read the packets and filter them against more than a few matching sites vs blocking them at the routers.

    6. Re:You could also.. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      It's not too big a deal for us foreigners, as long as we don't get into politics. It's not the English-language web that the Chinese gov't is really worried about. I used to think about such things when I first came here, but the government here is much like any other, with inefficient bureaucracy being the main problem. Sure, if you get out of line, they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks, but everyone knows what the rules are.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:You could also.. by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      I theorize that the 'toxic' blocking is done by hostname, because I can go to www.bbc.co.uk but not news.bbc.co.uk.

      Test it by IP address. They are:

      www.bbc.co.uk is an alias for www.bbc.net.uk.
      www.bbc.net.uk has address 212.58.240.110

      news.bbc.co.uk is an alias for newswww.bbc.net.uk.
      newswww.bbc.net.uk has address 212.58.240.43

    8. Re:You could also.. by csk_1975 · · Score: 1

      Thats strange. I was recently doing some work at a company in China, when I used their connection for web browsing none of the sites that I thought would be blocked were blocked - and I certainly didn't cause a RST on the public IP address that the connection was NATd through. I was a bit leary at first but using the connection at odd hours on the weekend - the only time I was able to schedule my work - it was really fast, faster than using VPN through a local gateway (in the same city) to my corporate network (which has min 2MB to my squid proxy in a different country). During normal weekday hours the performance was terrible - huge packet loss, lots of latency and very slow throughput, I just chalked this up to incompetence on the part of the local network admins not the great firewall.

      I can imagine that home broadband takes a different path than company connections, maybe next time I'll try tcptraceroute.

      Have you tried using SSL to your squid proxy? Or is that asking for trouble?

  9. Thanks, Slashdot, for helping China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Without the front-page attention, this might have slipped by unnoticed. The PRC would like to thank you for bringing this dangerous counter-revolutionary thinking to their attention.

  10. Link Mutation by jferris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this is a solid move by Google. As others have pointed out though, it is now only a matter of time before the current implementation will also be blocked. What I think is possible and feasible would be to have the URL that is used to bypass the block mutate over certain intervals of time. Since it is embedded in the toolbar, it is entirely resaonable to assume that this could be done. I wonder what the feasibility would be of Google being able to offer cached pages as Torrents and putting some sort of torrent support in the toolbar?

    --
    You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    1. Re:Link Mutation by Amouth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but this isn't google doing it.. it is someone else.. if google was doing it i am sure that they would be in very hot water right now over there.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    2. Re:Link Mutation by jferris · · Score: 2

      Gotcha. Apologies for the misinterpretation. However, the point I was trying to make remains valid. Just replace Google with "the developer". ;-)

      --
      You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
    3. Re:Link Mutation by Amouth · · Score: 1

      absolutly i a gree i was jsut noteing the first line.. other than that it would be cool.. i wish there was better and faster ways of automating torrent creation.. and ways of streaming a torrent.. making it so that if the file is being viewed it would load up the section being viewed..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  11. China won't take lightly. by CDPatten · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google should be careful. Even though they aren't responsible for this, it is going to appear that way. China is a HUGE market, and yahoo and msn have a strong start. Its not like it is here in the US, the playing field is far more level, and Google isn't the media darling it is in western media.

    If Google isn't careful, China will block them all together. That would be a huge problem for them. This firefox plugin seems pretty cool on the surface, but at the end of the day, it will only hurt firefox and google in the Chinese market. Not because of the people, but because its a communist nation that will squash what it doesn't approve of. This is something that it won't approve of. Don't be surprised if firefox.com gets blocked from their network all together.

    1. Re:China won't take lightly. by i23098 · · Score: 3, Informative
      because its a communist nation that will squash what it doesn't approve of


      Just plain wrong. In communist nation everything belongs to everyone, so does information... In a facism nation the dictador does the rules. There is a big difference betweem them (PS - All the so called communist regimes so far have nothing to do with communism)

      Check this page found in about 2 sec on google to learn the differences between regimes...

      PS - If you find any english error remember, I probably write english better than you write portuguese :p
    2. Re:China won't take lightly. by CommiePuddin · · Score: 1

      China may very well be communist.

      The problem is that the people in power believe that they are the only ones able to effectively and equally distribute the wealth.

      And, of course, those in power are certainly more equal than others.

      --
      x = x + ++x; //It's golden.
    3. Re:China won't take lightly. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      If China blocks Google, how will that impact their students, researchers, etc.? They are shooting themselves in the foot, like all totalitarian states do in the long run.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    4. Re:China won't take lightly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      As others have pointed out, it's not Google doing the unblocking, it's CustomizeGoogle, a Firefox plugin.

      If China wants to block Firefox, go ahead. "The more you tighten your grip..."

      On a totally unrelated topic, I think I'll start embedding hidden "Falun Gong" references in all my web pages. I'd like to get blocked, too.

    5. Re:China won't take lightly. by grcumb · · Score: 1

      "China is a HUGE market, and yahoo and msn have a strong start."

      I've posted about this before, but for some reason nobody seems to get it. So, once again:

      There is no China Market - not in the sense that the MBAs think, anyway.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    6. Re:China won't take lightly. by Zerathdune · · Score: 1
      Well yeah, that's the theory. but name one nation that is actually communist.

      the communist manifesto says there has to be a brief dictatorship to get things in order before the permanent, communist government can take over. Unfortuneately, no country has ever gotten past the dictator phase.

      Communism doesn't exist in the real world. therefor, we use the term "communist" to mean the type of dictatorship that claims to have communist ideals. I think it was perfectly understood what he meant.

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    7. Re:China won't take lightly. by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree with the original poster. It's not what Communism was supposed to be, for sure. But then no country has ever really been communist then, right? Honestly, communism or socialism or whatever seems good...in theorey. It's just impossible to implement.

  12. is this information available in China? by mah! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's an interesting idea... but is slashdot or information the feature itself blocked by their Cisco-backed filter?

  13. Shouldn't it read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the "Great Firewall of China" instead of "The Chinese Great Firewall"?

    1. Re:Shouldn't it read... by rmp · · Score: 1


      Or perhaps, "Great Walls of Fire"?
      </old SNL reference>

      --
      ~rmp
  14. Whack-a-mole... by brentyl2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...is exactly what this seems like. This is not a long-term solution - in fact I suspect its life will be measured in days if not hours before these links are recognized as belonging to Googleborg and blocked accordingly.

    These quick-fix workarounds are nifty and amusing, but are no substitute for a permanent end to the Great Firewall. I understand that is a bigger problem to solve. Ultimtely I hope the Chinese realize that they cannot block a thousand floods, and realize that as an (emerging?) first-world country, with global trade alliances, seat on the UN Security Council and so on, that worldviews and perspectives and ideas flow across the border as readily as cash and products.

    Until then, keep whacking.

    --
    Regards, John Hancock.
  15. But I thought Google built the firewall by doublem · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is nutty.

    Didn't Google build the "Great Firewall of China"???

    Did Mao not pay his filtering bill this month?

    Is Google blackmailing China?????

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:But I thought Google built the firewall by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Cisco.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  16. Great Firewall of China by The_Rippa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I missed this whole thing...are they trying to keep the Mongolians out of their network?

  17. Re:I love it! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Well, until Google knuckles under to the tyrants in Beijing and kisses some nice dictatorship of the proletariat ass.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  18. The Not So Great Wall by rueger · · Score: 5, Informative

    FWIW a journalist friend who lives in China assures me that anyone who needs it has already figured out one way or another of bypassing the so-called Great Wall. Usually via proxies from what I'm told.

  19. Go google?? by sundancekid503 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why are you people praising Google? Google is not bastion of free speech. Google is assisting the Chinese government in censoring it's content. Some third party found a simple "hack" workaround (which will soon be patched), Google will quickly patch it up. Google itself is not at all interested in bringing uncensored content to the Chinese people.

    1. Re:Go google?? by LParks · · Score: 1

      Google has no right to tell a sovereign country what to do. China is requesting a service, and Google is providing it. To the benefit of their shareholders, I might add. Forcing American ideals of free speech on foreign countries wouldn't deserve praise, either.

    2. Re:Go google?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Forcing American ideals of free speech on foreign countries"? Are you high? They're not "forcing American ideals" on anyone (as if free speech is somehow a product of the eeevil Amerikkka). What they are doing, is aiding and abetting an opressive nation in it's opression.

    3. Re:Go google?? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Forcing American ideals of free speech on foreign countries wouldn't deserve praise, either.

      Forcing free speech? That one is a chuckle. You can only force someone NOT to have free speech. In this case, it is China doing the forcing against its own population. Further, this isn't exactly an American ideal. Hell, a great American hero is Rosa Parks who just recently died. She is celebrated for breaking the law of a sovereign nation (namely the US). Sovereign nations have no great moral authority. People do. Supporting the people in another nation and utterly ignoring form of government they have is a-okay.

      If the sovereign is the highest moral authority, then you must be down right happy with how things turned out in Sudan and Rwanda. It seems everyone else agreed with you and sided with the idea that a sovereign nation is not to be interfered with. Of course, the tens of millions of people that died and tens of millions more that were raped and tortured might disagree with you.

      What happened in those nations brings shame to the entire world. That we would let sovereigns do such terrible things simply because in one hunk of land they had the most guns and claimed control is nothing short of horrific.

    4. Re:Go google?? by thealsir · · Score: 1

      The matter here is that google is an American company, with American ideals. Supporting a nation that runs counter to your belief system, profitable or not, is unethical and self-destructive.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    5. Re:Go google?? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      The matter here is that google is an American company, with American ideals. Supporting a nation that runs counter to your belief system, profitable or not, is unethical and self-destructive.

      Well, looking at the $162 BILLION deficit we had with China last year that would make everyone guilty, not only Google.

      Yes, that finger is pointing back at you.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    6. Re:Go google?? by LParks · · Score: 1

      I never claimed that "the sovereign is the highest moral authority," or anything like that. The original post that I replied to claimed that people were praising Google for doing business with China, specifically because of its outlook on free speech.

      Also, you can force the ideals of something on another country, even if you can't force their laws to reflect that. Cultures do change, and sometimes it is forcibly done.

    7. Re:Go google?? by 6*7 · · Score: 1

      Blocking chinese is bad and should be stopped, but what about all those other countries? Should we leave those poor saudis suffering in their medieval country?

    8. Re:Go google?? by davide+marney · · Score: 1

      From dictionary.com:

      "force":

      To compel through pressure or necessity.
      To gain by the use of force or coercion.
      To inflict or impose relentlessly.

      I hardly see how expressing an opinion that China should "tear down this (fire)wall" (with apologies to R. Reagan) entails compulsion, force, coercion, imposition, or infliction.

      Free speech is only words, after all.

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    9. Re:Go google?? by TomAnthony · · Score: 1

      Google was previously entirely blocked in China. I read this first in a Wired magazine article, and as I recall, they had to work hard to be unblocked. I believe they consented to a partial blocking, figuring some access was better than no access. Makes sense to me.

      --
      Tom Anthony
  20. Forget the plug-in for the Chinese... by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I need a plug-in to access the google cache links here at work! Any suggestions to get around my firewall in the States?

    1. Re:Forget the plug-in for the Chinese... by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Try CoDeeN, courtesy of your local PlanetLab node.

      If that doesn't work, run an SSH tunnel through it. Of course they'll know you're using SSH, but what you're doing is very securely encrypted.

  21. I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because I don't like encouraging people to break the law.

    1. Re:I have a problem with this by spongebue · · Score: 1

      It's funny you should say that, I have a problem with overcensorship, which is a large problem in China.

    2. Re:I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It's funny you should say that, I have a problem with overcensorship, which is a large problem in China"

      No, not really. "Overcensorship" inmplies that there is some correct amount of censorship, and while there might be an amount that satisfies you, that amount is purely subjective.

      Chinese law, however, is not.

    3. Re:I have a problem with this by Swamii · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    4. Re:I have a problem with this by bfree · · Score: 1

      I hope you equally as appalled by attempts to circumvent other laws ... http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ ... http://www.grandtimes.com/rosa.html

      --

      Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

    5. Re:I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Legal writ does not equate to morality."

      Never said it did.

      "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."

      Again, I never touched these points, because frankly, they're irrelevant.

      The only point I made is that I have a problem with actively encouraging someone to break a law. Whether that law is moral or not (which is totally subjective, and therefore, impossible to argue anyway) is not the issue.

    6. Re:I have a problem with this by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Which has absolutely nothing to do with this.

      She CHOSE to break that law. More power to her, but the consequences were hers, so she had every right to assume them.

      On the other hand, it would have been wrong to encourage her to break the law, just because I thought it was wrong.

      Doing something yourself is not the same as encouraging someone else to do it.

    8. Re:I have a problem with this by Swamii · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, but saying, "I have a problem with encouraging the breaking of a law" implies you have a moral or ethical objection to it. Do you? If one has a moral objection to breaking a law, it is foolish to ignore the morality of that law.

      --
      Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
    9. Re:I have a problem with this by m0nstr42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Doing something yourself is not the same as encouraging someone else to do it.

      By doing it herself, she encouraged others to do so.

      So, if she was not there, was not able to do it herself, but still encouraged other people to do so, you claim that would be wrong.

      Clearly the act had a positive impact, so it should not matter whether it was her or someone else who did it. So the act, in itself was positive.

      If her actions facilitate someone else to perform the action (and no other actions that could have a negative impact), then her facilitation of the action, combined with someone else performing the action, is equivalent to her performing the action.

      Her encouraging someone else to perform the action is a method of facilitating that person to perform the action.

      So, her encouraging someone else to perform the action is equivalent to her doing the action herself, and both were positive.

      So what is the basis for not encouraging someone else to do what you and that other person believe to be the right thing.

    10. Re:I have a problem with this by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Unless you're holding a gun to their head, I have no problem encouraging someone to break an unjust law. Ultimately, they can make their own choice whether or not to listen to my advice.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    11. Re:I have a problem with this by rpdillon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. =)

    12. Re:I have a problem with this by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 3, Interesting
      what about when the law breaks the constitution? Article 35 of the Chinese constitution states:
      Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

      and then theres article 41:
      (1) Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, any state organ or functionary for violation of the law or dereliction of duty; but fabrication or distortion of facts for the purpose of libel or frame-up is prohibited. (2) The state organ concerned must deal with complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposure, or retaliate against the citizens making them. (3) Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civic rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.
      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    13. Re:I have a problem with this by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      When speaking against a law, offering any hope of changing bad laws, is illegal then people don't have much choice do they?

      In a free society, where people have a means (even though it seems hopelessly overwhelming sometimes) to speak their minds and thus change unjust laws, I tend to agree with you. But if the fundamental method of evaluating a law and deciding after implantation that it was not such a good idea after all is illegal I say let the info arms race continue!

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    14. Re:I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Clearly the act had a positive impact, so it should not matter whether it was her or someone else who did it."

      So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?

      And, no don't try to backpedal, you said, now own up to it.

      "So what is the basis for not encouraging someone else to do what you and that other person believe to be the right thing"

      Because I don't believe breaking the law is "the right thing" and I don't believe the ends justify the means like you do.

      I also don't have to jump through a half-dozen convoluted philosophical hoops, in which I draw incorrect, inaccurate comparisons in order to justify my actions like you.

      You can slice it up any way you want, but the gist is you want to break the law in cases where you feel the law is unjust. That doesn't make you right, and it doesn;t make you morally superior, it just makes you a criminal.

      And if I really wanted to refute you (not that I need) I would list the studies that demonstrate EXACTLY the same line of thinking YOU subscribe to is rampant in prison populations.

      Thin about that while you bang the Rosa Parks drum.

    15. Re:I have a problem with this by m0nstr42 · · Score: 1

      What I mean to say is that I believe it is impossible to separate the act of civil disobedience from the act of encouraging others to be likewise disobedient. Being disobedient will encourage others to be disobedient, and encouraging others to be disobedient is a form of being disobedient.

      I'm now confused about your stance. At first it seemed that you would condone an individual being disobedient if it "was the right thing to do" in some (admittedly abstract) sense, and what you found wrong was encouraging others to be disobedient (while not being disobedient yourself). But now it seems you are saying that disobedience is wrong, period.

      You can replace "disobedience" with "breaking the law". This does not bother me. If, in doing what I believe to be the right thing, that makes me a criminal, then I am willing to accept that I am a criminal. And I would not be offended to be compared to others who were considered criminals under similar principles.

    16. Re:I have a problem with this by Cerv · · Score: 1

      So, the ends justify the means then? Are you really sure you want to take that stance?

      Not the OP, but IMHO the ends may justify the means depending on the situation and I'd prefer to decide on a case by case basis rather than making a blanket statement that the ends do (not) justify the means always.

      --
      sig
    17. Re:I have a problem with this by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Later in that document it says something to the effect of: "but the government can do whatever it wants to," I'm sure this falls under that part.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    18. Re:I have a problem with this by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      During WWII the Dutch underground was referred to as 'de Illigaliteit' meaning: 'The illegals', those that were not caught and killed by the Nazis still wear that badge with pride.

      --
      You never catch me alive
    19. Re:I have a problem with this by swillden · · Score: 1

      You can slice it up any way you want, but the gist is you want to break the law in cases where you feel the law is unjust. That doesn't make you right, and it doesn;t make you morally superior, it just makes you a criminal.

      Breaking the law makes you a criminal, by definition.

      Whether it makes you right, wrong or indifferent depends on the law.

      Assuming it makes you right, whether it makes you morally superior depends on the potential outcomes.

      In the abstract, legality and morality are completely unrelated. In practice, since our laws are mostly moral, legality is mostly a superset of morality and illegality is mostly a subset of immorality. In those cases where the law is immoral, though, breaking the law can be the right thing to do, and breaking it when doing so helps others and puts you at risk is a morally superior thing to do.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:I have a problem with this by cortana · · Score: 1
      Good grief. How can people (especially the politicians who have the unfortunate job of travelling to China, meeting the leaders and sticking their tongues up their arseholes) read this shit and keep a straight face?

      You appear to have missed the following part of the document:
      Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
      I think I would prefer an American-style constitution, which limits the powers of the government, rather than one that makes it all too clear that my "right" to free speech, etc, is granted to my by the grace of the state, and can be taken away at any time.

      Not that any of this matters... at this rate, in 20 years it will be hard to tell the difference between China and the UK. :(
    21. Re:I have a problem with this by Zerathdune · · Score: 1

      I firmly belive that a government should exist only by the consent of its people, and one can't give legitimate consent without proper knowledge. The Chinese government disgusts me. More power to anyone who defies it.

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    22. Re:I have a problem with this by ifwm · · Score: 1

      See, I firmly believe that if you have no background or understanding of a culture then you should avoid sticking your nose in their politics.

      It's a colossally bad idea to go to Ireland and spout off about the Catholic/Protestant troubles. Why? Because you are bringing YOUR values to a system that doesn't have anything to do with YOUR values.

      In doing the same with China, you've demonstrated arrogance beyond belief. It is exactly this insistence of "cultural superiority" that so many countries find distasteful about America.

      I think it's funny as hell that all of these slashbots are the first to jump on the "stay out of Iraq" train, while simultaneously advocating actions like these in China.

      The inconsistency, and hypocrisy, are as you put it, disgusting.

    23. Re:I have a problem with this by Zerathdune · · Score: 1
      no background or understanding of a culture

      no is a bit extreme. Sure, I don't live there, and I never have, but that doesn't mean I don't have any kind of knowledge. In fact, the very issue at hand is that in some ways, the people who live there are less informed because that is how their government wants it.

      I think it's funny as hell that all of these slashbots are the first to jump on the "stay out of Iraq" train, while simultaneously advocating actions like these in China.

      I'm not suggesting we invade china. I think that, all else being equal (including having a substitute stabel governmetn,) having Sadam out of power is a good thing. my objections to the war in Iraq are rooted in that not all else is even close to equal. I'm more concerned that we destabalized the country, that we broke international law, that far too many people have been killed, no end is in sight 4 years after the war was declared over, the reasons our government gave us were a load of crap (and anyone who cared to know, knew it, thanks to something a little closer to true freedom of speech/the press, though it's not perfect in any nation) and that even if one thought it was the right thing to do, we didn't have a fucking plan!
      I agree that it's not our business to overthrow the chinese government, and it sure as hell wouldn't be an easy task. But that doesn't mean we can't say what we really think of it. Of course, we all know what happens when a chinese citizen says what they think, and the government disagrees.

      It's a colossally bad idea to go to Ireland and spout off about the Catholic/Protestant troubles. Why? Because you are bringing YOUR values to a system that doesn't have anything to do with YOUR values.

      right, because no other culture has ever dealt with religous conflict of any kind. It's a colossally bad idea because you're likely to offend someone, and they may not nessicarily be kind about it, not because you don't have the right to an opinion. by this logic, people of the 1930's and 40's had no right to say what the nazis were doing was wrong, because they were "bringing their values to a system that doesn't have anything to do with their values." It's a pathetic arguement.
      Furthermore, someone else responded to your original post by pointing out that their constituition gaurantees freedom of speech, and all that that implies. If this is the case, then my values seem to agree with their values on this one. their society is theorized on equality and rule of the people. the real government has hoodwinked those who ernestly supported that theory when putting them in power, and THAT is what I am objecting to.

      It is exactly this insistence of "cultural superiority" that so many countries find distasteful about America.

      while I agree that my countrymen can be rediculously arrogant sometimes, it's one thing to still think of Germany as the home of the nazis, and nothing else, but forget about the century or so of slavery after this nation became "free," it's quite another to object to genocide and repression in the present, provided one doesn't excuse what has happend and is happening on one's own soil.

      --
      No single raindrop believes that it is responsible for the storm.
    24. Re:I have a problem with this by altstadt · · Score: 1

      Well if it makes you feel any better, I am one of the ground swell of meta moderators who are meta moderating ALL moderations as unfair/unfunny/unwhatever. It has been obvious for several years that letting random people moderate discussions just doesn't work, so guerillas like us are trying to stop all moderation. The only moderation worth a damn is the model that Usenet used 20 years ago, i.e. kill filing specific people. Please join us in this fight and meta moderate all mods as unfair/unfunny/unwhatever.

  22. A little update on the state of the great Firewall by kemikalzen · · Score: 5, Informative

    can be found on this site here:

    http://www.ichrdd.ca/english/commdoc/publications/ globalization/goldenShieldEng.html

    this is truly some 1984'esque reading

  23. Future of the great wall by BierGuzzl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The great wall of China will probably be around for a long time. While trying to filter all that content, the government is ensuring innovation in filtering and firewalling techologies. They won't ever succeed at stopping everything, but watching them try is fascinating. Regardless of your political views, the challenge faced by the engineers implementing the system is an inviting one. I mean, wouldn't it be kinda fun to filter all references to Al Gore and replace them with, for example, the Rocky Horror Picture Show?

    1. Re:Future of the great wall by rileyjt · · Score: 1

      They also ensure continous innovation and technical breakthroughs in *evading* firewalls and filters. If they were smart, they'd find the people that are effectively getting around the firewall and start hiring them. Maybe their real motives are to secretly breed the next great army of hackers that will dominate World War 3.

    2. Re:Future of the great wall by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've been expecting a movement that will offer countries in similar situation to China a network of free proxies all over the world, always available, always changing addresses.

      Not that it will help much. It's a catch-up effort, as a previous poster noted. In truth, repressive measures are probably more effective than blocking. It comes out much better for the government if instead of blocking the culprit they identify him, arrest him and throw him in jail for 20 years, assuring that everyone hears about it. Then who's the next wiseass who wants to risk it?

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    3. Re:Future of the great wall by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Regardless of your political views, the challenge faced by the engineers implementing the system is an inviting one.

      I don't find the challenge any more inviting than many other basically evil endervors one could get involved in. It sure would be impressive if I could make an H-bomb for some pissant country with an axe to grind, but I also think it would be unconscienable.

      I guess I think the whole violating humans rights thing is a bigger issue than "ensuring innovation in filtering and firewalling techologies". I would say a great man is made great not just by the skill with which he does his work, but by the benefit it has to society.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
  24. Obligatory StarWars quote by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" - Leia, Ep. IV

  25. Now let's just hope... by whamett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... that Google doesn't voluntarily identify users who do this, like Yahoo did.

    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.

  26. Get Firefox by Crouty · · Score: 1
    > Don't be surprised if firefox.com gets blocked from their network all together.

    ...which of course would not keep the Chinese from getting Firefox from one of the quazillion official or unofficial mirrors.

    Keep the faith, free China.

    --
    On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    1. Re:Get Firefox by chill · · Score: 1

      ..which of course would not keep the Chinese from getting Firefox from one of the quazillion official or unofficial mirrors.

      It is software, which has a distinct checksum/hash. A specific program is very easy to block, if everything goes thru a controlled proxy.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:Get Firefox by Crouty · · Score: 1

      How many different ways are there to pack the sources...
      Hmmmmm, must be a number with maaaany digits.

      --
      On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
    3. Re:Get Firefox by chill · · Score: 1

      How many different ways are there to pack the sources...
      Hmmmmm, must be a number with maaaany digits.


      All of which can be handled by caching the files and grepping for strings like "firefox". Souce is just as easy because it would be very easy to write AV-like signatures to watch for "forbidden" code.

      Yes, there is always a way around for the determined, but keep in mind most people are NOT determined. Most people are apathetic. China's larger population may work against them in this factor. While a larger population does mean more dissenters, it also means more of the apathetic masses and thus it is harder to reach "critical mass" for a revolution.

      Social mass and inertia are the best analogies I can think of. The current gov't just has to keep the bulk of the people apathetic and they win.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:Get Firefox by Crouty · · Score: 1
      I admit I don't have 1st hand experience how the electronic underground works in China. But I would think there are a few hackers there, that manage to get a chinese Version of Firefox and then spread it - not on the net but on CD. Like it used to be in the 80's with cracker groups.

      It may be illegal (there) but it is hard to control for the government and should work.

      --
      On se Internetz nobody noes your German.
  27. How long will it take? by portwojc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It probably now should read...

    therefore they were accessible for everyone

  28. I wonder how the Chinese ban stuff anyways... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I run a small webserver with a few peoples pages on it. I really don't care if the chinese block access, Actually I'd have no problem with that as most of my serious port scans tend to come from china.

    So... If I put up a Pro-Falun-Gong website, or some other material the chinese government finds offensive, will they ban my IP from their community?

    1. Re:I wonder how the Chinese ban stuff anyways... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    2. Re:I wonder how the Chinese ban stuff anyways... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If your ambition in life is to get banned, then just go search for some F-G stuff on the internet, mirror it on your server, and then contrive some way to start getting a huge number of hits from China.

      I don't think they ban by IP, it's by URL or by hostname. If you want to cut through the red tape, just burn a bunch of CDs with the mirror, fly to China, and start handing them out at internet cafes. The government might even be willing to pick up the cost of your stay.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  29. Do no evil? by pmike_bauer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ha! Have you seen their logo today? That looks evil to me.

    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    1. Re:Do no evil? by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a GIF, that's definitely evil in my mind. :P A PNG optimized with PNGOUT weighs in at 11,087 bytes vs. their 12,966 byte GIF (a savings of 1,879 bytes).

      Yes, I'm anal. :P

      --
      All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  30. It is called responsibility by Crouty · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  31. It's all about the management... by planckscale · · Score: 1
    It's really pretty trivial because although China does use blocking techniques for it's citizens, what it mostly tries to do is sway public opinions by inserting "pro-state" quotes and messages in forums and chat discussions. China knows it can't block everything so it tries to manage content as best as possible. I think they pay their "Pro-China" government posters something like 50 cents for every 10 posts. For that kind of money, I'd be stinking poor in my pro-slashdot fund.

    --
    Namaste
  32. Old news? by honeypotslash · · Score: 1

    It got to last atleast a week, as this has been out for a week already. But now that its on slashdot China will have an easier time finding about it.

  33. Will the Chinese Gov't turn it into a trap? by davidwr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Read /. to notice way around Great Firewall
    2. Redo firewall to detect everyone using workaround.
    3. Arrest and fine a few high-profile violators and send most of the rest nasty letters hand-delivered by the police saying "don't ever try this again." Make it clear that to conserve resources they didn't try to identify ALL the violators but they will next time. Those who didn't get a letter get the message.
    4. Next exploit appears and only real dissidents use it.
    5. PROFIT! Er, I mean arrest the dissidents.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  34. The not so obvious point about this by teutonic_leech · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I am sure that plenty of responses are going to be along the lines of 'this is going to get disabled very soon, so why bother?'. However, I feel compelled to point out that the worst thing we all can do is to simply roll over and accept censorship of any kind. It is important that we do whatever possible to allow Internet audiences in more restricted nations to get a glimpse at the full spectrum (bad and good) of all the information that's out there. Yes, it is an armsrace and yes this workaround will probably not stand for very long.

    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...

    1. Re:The not so obvious point about this by fani · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good comment. One thing stands out in your post - "If working towards freedom, prepare for war".
      This is the very reason why I support George Bush. Freedom for the Iraqis from tyrannical dictators ( need I mention his worthless sons and what their exploits were ) is so valuable. This very statement is the lifeblood of the Iraq war.
      Its not only freedom for the iraqis, but freedom from fear itself ( of terrorists and other fanatics )

    2. Re:The not so obvious point about this by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, I feel compelled to point out that the worst thing we all can do is to simply roll over and accept censorship of any kind.[snip] 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.

      Good for you; I do the same with US news funilly enough. However, the fundamental problem is that for most folk who's news is censored/filtered for whatever reasons, they just don't realise it. The most effective censorship is invisible; if it's not then it's next-to-worthless.

      Find out who owns your stations. Then ask yourself; when was the last time you heard anything remotely negative about them or their other industries? If you can't remember, switch station. This is one of the things I like about the BBC, it reports on itself third-person, which is kinda weird to listen to, but probably the most ethical media outlet available. I'm not saying it's 100% neutral, but it's lightyears ahead of the Murdoch owned news channels Fox & Sky News. Their coverage of anything done by the BBC is laughable.

      Remember the old expression: If working towards freedom, prepare for war.

      Ironic, you directly quote propaganda in a rant about censorship and totalitairian governments... ;-) look here more more similar propaganda. Interesting stuff. Whatever side of it you are, you're getting played either way...

    3. Re:The not so obvious point about this by teutonic_leech · · Score: 1

      I wished I lived in a world where 'preparing for war' was not a necessity. Actually, I'm NOT a GWB proponent (to say the least), but I also am not a pacifist. Just look at history - the sad truth is that the guys on the other side of the border are always on the lookout to get a leg up on you, and in many cases 'whipe you off the map' (paraphrasing Iran's leader's comment about Israel last week). There's another quote I could have finished my comment with: Speak softely and carry a big stick - Theodor Roosevelt ;-)

    4. Re:The not so obvious point about this by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Sending your 'repeated signals' just deprives the rest of us of a useful method of bypassing the Great Firewall. I don't usually use Google Cache, I consider it rather irritating, but when I do have to use it, it's usually a lifesaver. You live here for a while, you learn what you can and can't do on the internet. Now, it's going to stop working because someone let the cat out of the bag. The problem is trivial to "fix".

      And as for one-sided, myopic reporting...try Chinese news outlets. By contrast, the American press spends most of its time attacking the government.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  35. Breaking laws like... by m0nstr42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Because I don't like encouraging people to break the law.
    ... "You shall relenquish your personal property to the use of the military, should they need it"? ... "All Jews shall wear a badge to distinguish them clearly as such"?...

    Come on.
  36. It's just another obstructive competition tactic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Everybody whines that posting this loophole to /. means the end of the loophole. What ya'll don't seem to realize is that this is another tactic to make Chinese business less competitive; by forcing the closure of access to as much of the web as possible, western capitalist societies assure their own continued advantage by free access to information while tricking their Chinese competitors into wearing blindfolds.

  37. No they can do better by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Intentionnally leave the hole, but log everybody doing it. Wait 3 to 5 week then arrest them for anything else. It can't be that difficult to come up with something. So that way they can catch everybody using the loophole, punish them, *AND* make sure the probability of people searching for another loophole will stay low... Closing that loophole would be shortsighted since you might have more difficulty to find out about the next one.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  38. Philosophical Reference by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    St. Augustine - "An unjust law is no law at all".

    Therefore, I would feel no remorse "breaking" this "law".

  39. Re:It's just another obstructive competition tacti by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    We (the western world) aren't doing this. the Chinese are. They can't stand the idea of the world not agreeing with them, so they want to block anything that doesn't agree with them. And we aren't going to change the entire internet to pro-chinese stuff (and I'd like to see them try, because it'd be a pathetic failure).

  40. Point: PRC surfing out, Not you surfing in by cmholm · · Score: 1

    As you'll have figured out after reading the threads a bit more, the point is to help net users within the PRC to see content their government doesn't want them to, not for you to surf into China.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  41. Google+Firefox beats firewall - coincidence? by markdowling · · Score: 1

    Do we know for sure the Firefox devs working for google had nothing to do with this extension? It would be nice to think google is making the PRC heavies think they are doing their bidding while secretly helping each restriction be worked around...

  42. Re:I love it! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Bullets are cheap, and the CCP knows it. Their mantra is that life is expendable for the "greater good" of the party and it's power needed to control China. They might even nuke their own city if need be to keep democrocy from taking root.

    You have been reading on on the latest bolsters by the CCP lately, right?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  43. My bad. Ignore me by doublem · · Score: 1

    I got confused.

    Ignore my post about Google and China

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  44. Tomorrow's news by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    The google cache loophole in Great Firewall of China has been closed. Additionally, the entire .org TLD has been blocked for distributing misleading, unpatriotic propaganda on the subjects of freedom and democracy.

  45. Re:this is good news but, by doctorjay · · Score: 1

    Agreed

  46. So... by Cinder6 · · Score: 1

    Now the Chinese can look up Dallas!

    --
    If you can't convince them, convict them.
  47. filter all references to GW Bush and replace them with, for example, a video of a chimpanzee scrathcing it's ass and then tasting its fingers? /partisan balance achieved

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  48. Knowing the Chinese... by xquark · · Score: 1

    They have already figured out what this slight modification is and began blocking it too...
    come on people this is 1999 opps 2005 :D

    Arash

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  49. Re:I love it! by josephdrivein · · Score: 1

    Bullets are cheap, and the CCP knows it.

    This is just in the last years: in fact, before 1996, when a man was executed the family had to pay for the bullet. Nowadays it's probably not worth to have them pay, since burocracy costs are higher than the cost of the bullet. As reference, see http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1994/3/27_3.html .

  50. They could always move to a whitelist. by Errandboy+of+Doom · · Score: 1

    ...Google could always [use dynamic URLs to avoid blacklisting]."

    China could then use a whitelist, or some combo white/blacklist. Rest assured, 500 million Chinese are busy making information ever more secure. Of course, the other 500 million are busy making information ever more free. What an awesome fight!

    Anyone actually know what combinations of whitelisting and blacklisting the Great Firewall uses?

  51. I've already done it by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    I've already done it. But nobody seems to have noticed.

  52. Re:It's just another obstructive competition tacti by arrow014 · · Score: 1

    Indeed--I don't think anyone could honestly blame Western authorities for this sort of thing. The Chinese government is hurting no one but their own citizens by restricting access to materials hosted in other countries. The thought of an educated public scares a heavy-handed government, but they are biting their own tail with actions like these.

  53. Google is a genius... by clragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    wow.. having born and lived in China i know what this means for google.. profit.. you have to understand that it's not impossible for people to get books or other literature restricted by the goverment. before the internet, the CCP would put restriction on a book (a banned book in other words) and the next day there will be millions of people wanting to read that book, regardless of if it's good or not. when CCP put restrictions on the internet, there was no way around that for a normal person. another thing i have to mention is that the Chinese search engine is http://baidu.com/ everyone in China uses it like us using google. google is not popular there compared to BaiDu. so with this uncensor, there will be millions of chinese flowing to google in order to read uncensored information on the internet. and since google is not a Chinese businese (unlike BaiDu) the CCP can't do anything about it. so google's influence in China will finaly increase... all i can do is applaud google's business tactics... wow... /offtopic/rant as far as the "evil communists" goes, it's not all evil. the person over threw the Qing Dynasty, and made China democracy country, Sun yat-sen, was the leader of china when he wanted to have 2 kinds of goverment parties. one is democracy and one is communism. he believed that people should have freedom but not complete freedom because that would cause alot of problems. thats how the communist party came into power, before that they were a tiny little political party that had no power. when Sun yat-sun died he gave the position of president to Shiang Kai-shek (as you can see China wasn't completly democracy back then, probably because a voting would have caused too much trouble in a already poor country and some people doesn't even know who was their leader and stuff) and Shiang kai-shek hated the Communitst. he ordered secret assasination of communist party members which furthur worsen the relationship of the 2 parties. so the communist party members basicly said "why are we waiting to be assasinated? why dont we just rebel?" so thats how they started the war and then the japanese started attacking china and the rest is history. so as you can see, the communist struggle to power was hard and when they were finaly in power, there were still lots of pro-democracy people around and letting the democracy party people having a taste of their own medicine, they started torturing the democracy party people and murdered lots of innocent people, because they came to power because the KMT gave them power, they learned the lesson of the KMT and never gave any other part in China significant power, just to establish themselves as the official goverment in the people's eyes. Shiang Kai-shek escaped to Taiwan and established his own democracy goverment there (and i should metion that he purged all of his old KMT party members form mainland) , and later died and the presidency to his son (not as democracy as he say he is :P ). if Shiang Kai-shek didn't decide to assasinate the communist party members we might actualy see an example of a democracy goverment AND a communist goverment co-exist and govern on country together. where the people have freedom, but not too much that it endangers the country's existance. /end rant

  54. Re:I love it! by thealsir · · Score: 1

    Either way it's cheap. Additionally worrying is the covert tripling of defense spending this year. China is not as benign as a lot of people think...

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
  55. CustomizeGoogle != Google by feNIX77 · · Score: 1

    CustomizeGoogle (http://www.customizegoogle.com/) is a a GPL'd FireFox extension. It wasn't written by Google and Im pretty sure Google doesn't like it too much since it removes advertisements and adds links to competitors sites to name a few things...

  56. And now that you've released this info..... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The Chinese Government will move to block this, won't they?

    I'm trying to not troll here, but thanks for letting the cat out of the bag. Here comes one more restriction to their information.

    I'm willing to bet that eventually they will move to block our IP addresses and create their own network.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  57. Some of u are partly wrong. by activecode · · Score: 2, Interesting
    People's eyes is always open, although sometimes somewhere they cannot speak freely. Here's a comment of a Chinese guy in a forum:

    I didn't know wikipedia before it was blocked! How good it is! Thank CCP! Proxying...

  58. The Chinese Great Firewall... by Sr.+Pato · · Score: 1

    Why, that was very Asian of you.

    Hehe, bad joke.

    --
    Nobody's gay for Mole-Man. :-(
  59. silly by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 1

    As other posters have asked; if you have a problem with it, and you say the question about morality/law is irrelevant, then what problem could you have with it? Certainly not a moral one, because that would be irrelevant, dixit yourself.

    Apart from this obvious contradictio in terminis, even when one would follow you in this reasoning, then breaking the law poses a problem (presumably of moral origin), because it breaks the law *regardless* of the morality of that law. This is of course a silly notion, because that would imply that 'breaking' unmoral laws would be unmoral (or at least would pose a moral problem). Well, it is not: if you don't subscribe to unmoral laws, you are being ethical/moral, and thus, where is the problem (in a moral sense)?

    If you would follow your reasoning consistently, then the nazi laws (yeah, I know, I invoke the nazi's ;-) which dehumanised the jewish people should be obeyed, because 'they are law'. Would you claim, then, that you would have 'a problem' saving human lives, by breaking those unhuman and unjust laws?

    Well, heck, I would have a problem *not* breaking them, or supporting people in breaking them. I fail to see how you can have a problem with that, *unless* you deem the law to be just and moral. Yes, you are right; that is subjective. But the fact that you claim it gives you problems supporting the breaking of unmoral laws, says more about your own level of morality, IMHO.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
  60. Rosa Parks was encouraged by others by frankie · · Score: 1

    Rosa Parks absolutely has a great deal to do with this case. She is on record as saying that she would never have stood up to the bus driver without the activist training she received the previous summer at Highlander Folk School. She needed encouragement from many other people.

    Without their help, the entire civil rights movement would have been delayed by years. The bus boycott was the flash point that brought a certain preacher to national prominence, who of course was also encouraging MANY other people to break the law.