Slashdot Mirror
Defeating China's National Firewall
Bruce Schneier is reporting on his blog that a recent paper is discussing how to defeat China's national firewall. From the article: "However, because the original packets are passed through the firewall unscathed, if both of the endpoints were to completely ignore the firewall's reset packets, then the connection will proceed unhindered! We've done some real experiments on this -- and it works just fine!! Think of it as the Harry Potter approach to the Great Firewall -- just shut your eyes and walk onto Platform 9¾."
that most of the Chinese people don't know/care about the firewall?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
I see the parallel, but I don't see what you think it proves. There are a lot of people who think that censorship and prohibition are equally immoral.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
The chinese internet doesn't belong to the chinese government, it belongs to the chinese people. When they have a real democracy then "they" (the people) can decide how to run it. Until then we shouldn't respect how "they" (the government) want to run the internet any more than we would if some bank robbers were holding hostages and "they" (the robbers) wanted to decide how to run the bank.
Your post should be modded as Funny or Stupid (not Insightful) because 1) Chinese don't have elections with several parties, they are all from the Communist party and are approved office holders regardless of who wins, there is ONLY 1 party 2) Militia? WTF? The Chinese can't own firearms, and the last organized oppisition protest in Tiannimen (sp?) Square they squashed the opposition (with tanks) 3) It's NOT irresponsible for showing ways around Chinese Internet Security because the restrictions of the "immoral" Government don't ALLOW people access to information that they could USE to make China a better place. We are not showing them how to Exist comfortably within restrictions we are showing them how to get around the restrictions so they can share information and learn things that WILL allow them to have a free China one day. I'd rather we were called "irresponsible" and did something than be called moral and responsible but did nothing to advance the cause of Freedom.
Do you recall that little American Revolution way back in the mid 1770's? You know, the one the then-English colonies were LOSING? The U.S. would have been in quite a pickle without the French providing financial and military aid. Sure, it was in their own self-interest, but that makes their aid no less valuable.
Just because a Revolution receives assisstance from the outside makes it no more or less legitimate.
SirWired
> You cannot tell if a remote host is responding to reset packets from your firewall, at least not directly.
If you had to send multiple resets for the same port pair, they're ignoring you.
Why do you think that the only legitimate way to deal with a bad government is to overthrow it, by election or force? What's wrong with getting a bad government to change its ways?
Do you think that any time a government is doing something bad, that the government should be overthrown (or voted out)? What if a government is doing some really wrong things, but it's also doing some good things? Suppose you think that a President has done one thing that's very wrong, but that aside from that one thing, he's done a fantastic job. Are you morally obliged to vote that President out? Imagine it's 1948. You think Truman did a terrible thing when he used nuclear weapons in Japan, but you approve of everything else he's done, and you don't like Dewey. Are you morally required to vote for Dewey anyway?
Do you think that armed rebellion is the only way for a non-democratic government to become democratic? If so, why do you think this? There are examples in recent history of non-democratic governments becoming democratic without a shot being fired (e.g., most of Eastern Europe). Or think about the way the U.K. changed from a non-democratic monarchy to a parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch.
Have you thought about what would be involved in overthrowing China's government by force? For some period of time, China would be without any government at all. Think how wonderful it would be for a country with a population of over a billion and a large supply of nuclear weapons to find itself suddenly without a government.
One way to get a government to stop trying to regulate something is to make its efforts to regulate it spectacularly ineffective. This happened in the United States with Prohibition. Why can't it happen in China?
Yes, we can mock the Great Firewall implementors for incompetence, but let's remember that the technical means are really only a reminder of the underlying law. Many laws don't have any built-in means of enforcement at all. My car has no speed governor to keep it under 65 mph, does that mean the government is just stupid? Or that I can't get busted for speeding? Almost all laws are easy to break; the real problem is getting away with it, especially if the government decides to target you for whatever reason.
More people die from the narco traffic violence than from the war in Iraq in the same time period. All of these deaths are caused by US policy but nobody cares about people dying who are not in our country. (One of) the reasons we invaded Iraq was to spread democracy. If we really wanted to spread democracy we could first start by legalizing and taxing drugs in the USA. This would nearly shut down many of the large violent drug cartels that keep dictators in power.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
There is no parallel. The prohibitions on freedom of speech on and information about the different forms of government are uniquely self-perpetuating. Prohibitions on alcohol, drugs, and almost anything else are not like that and can be abolished by the popular will within a reasonably democratic society because discussing them remains legal, even if using is not.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.