Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Official Vows to "Purify" the Net

Sleeping Kirby writes to tell us China's Communist party leader, Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

62 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. Bolshevism vs. Fascism by P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. “Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration,” he concluded.

    It's still why I think Bolshevism* and its sequelae are more insidious than fascism: sure, the fascists will shoot you if you agitate against them; but the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world.

    Reminds me a great deal, actually, of that old Semitic myth about a certain garden and tree of knowledge; whose premise was: fragile and jealous power depends upon the ignorance of its subjugates.

    The ignorance of subjugates will always be a Bolshevik, and not a fascist, end.

    _____________
    * Or Marxism, etc.

    1. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By that notion I guess we are living under and Bolshevik revolution in the US right now. . . .

      Exactly; I think the case for Bolshevism is stronger than the case for fascism; but “fascism” has been, since WWII, a rhetorically charged word to drum up cheap interest.

    2. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to put it this way, but that's nowhere near true. If you look at the wikipedia entry on Nazi Propaganda, it will be a great enlightenment to you. Fascism always included extensive information management. Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.

      Bolshevism and Fascism are both comparatively bad forms of government by certain standards. Government rooted in non-militia military power generally is.

    3. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by Oh+the+Huge+Manatee · · Score: 3, Funny
      I bet you can't even provide a proper definition of "Facism".

      Facism = Discrimination against ugly faces, or government by the pretty ones.

    4. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2, Informative
      Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.
      The last fifty years of what? If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements. Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

      In a US-style republic, those being governed have the option to have their say (not equal representation) in electing (and recalling) people to govern for them. This method of governance has obvious and non-obvious flaws, as we've seen in the US implementation since its inception.

    5. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All that Commmie ignorance and the Russians still managed to put a man into space before anyone else.

      People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

      If the system was that good, obviously it should have easily managed to hang on -- obviously that would have been the prime national priority. And yet it did not. Perhaps the take-away lesson is that while the system worked admirably on concentrating a lot of resources on a few key problems, it was unable to manage the delegation of a lot of resources, to a lot of smaller problems. (This isn't particularly astute or surprising; control centralization allows for concentration, but at the expense of flexibility.)

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    6. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by DuChamp+Fitz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you talking about the Soviet Union and Communism? Or Athens and Democracy?

    7. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

      Every civilization falls, eventually.

    8. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why do people always recite this "the USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic" nonsense, as if the two are mutually exclusive, it would be like me saying, the UK's not a democracy, it's a constitutional monarchy, which would be wrong. The UK is both a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. Dictionary.com defines democracy as

      government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. (emphasis mine) The USA and the UK both fit this definition. Most of the world uses the word democracy as shorthand for democratic republics such as the USA, constitutional monarchies like the UK or direct democracies like the Swiss. It's obvious that the GP was using the term in this way.
      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    9. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by paeanblack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The last fifty years of what? If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements. Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

      A pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. As a form of governance, it is only effective for highly homogenous societies.

    10. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 2

      Dictionaries define terms based upon what the public commonly believes they mean. The dictionary definition cited for democracy is silly: the democratic method has little or nothing to do with the scope of power exercised by the individuals, nor does it ensure that the supreme power is vested with anyone in particular. Democratically elected politicians still owe allegiances first to those who are financially supporting them. Who, then, is the supreme power truly vested in?

      That's why I often present the following:

      Communism: A government concerned primarily with the economic aspects of the people (commune)
      Socialism: A government concerned primarily with the social behaviors of the people
      Fascism: A government based upon face value, regulating anything which those in power find convenient to suit their goals and supported by whatever propaganda they decide to publish
      Republic: A government which derives power from a written document
      Democracy: A system of making a decision by casting votes

      At least these definitions are, lingually, more self-explanatory than the convoluted crap which one finds in dictionaries.

      Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is (was) much more honestly descriptive than United States of America. Supposedly we're a democratically elected republic but the complete disregard for the empowering document (specifically the ninth and tenth amendments) puts the USA much closer to a democratically elected fascist state. Often this is the same as a plutocracy.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    11. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by VJ42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how would you define the UK, in your system? I define it as a democracy, as we vote for MPs to represent us, and parliment is soverign. Most people would call that form of decision making representative democracy. Our form of government however is that of a constitutional monarchy, as the head of state is not elected but born into the role. I repeat, being a democracy does not exclude you from being a republic or a constitunial mornarchy.

      However it's perfectly possible to have republics or monarchies that are undemocratic, see current day China or WWII Japan. What you have to remember is that a democracy is a form of decision making, not a form of government in itself; unless you are takling about direct democracy, and the nearest we have to that are the Swiss.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    12. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You are quite right, the link comes very close to 'flamebait' and is meant to provoke thoughts and discussions. What I get is a reference to Wiki (not a very reliable source of info when talking about controversial topics that put the US in a not-so-bright light) and some anon shithead calling me a "lazy, credulous bastard". So what, I don't care about karma and gladly burn some more:


      I came across an interesting article about the M3 series, the broadest measure of money supply, which is no longer published by the Federal Reserve. Wondering why that is I found this interview with Ron Paul, a Republican who represents the 14th Congressional district of Texas. Very interesting read, indeed. Knowing that Iran has plans to move international oil trade away from the dollar, it seems like:

      - the Fed tries to disguise inflation and its sources and to play down the deficit

      - the almost inevitable conflict with Iran is an attempt to keep the dollar and US economy from collapsing, which is what would eventually happen if oil business was to be based on the euro as Iran intends to do

      - a system of deception, propaganda and "fascist" control (by revoking civil rights and establishing "homeland security legislation") is being put in place (or already is), and the goal is to disguise the facts that the US currency and economy are crumbling, the deficit exploding, inflation pauperizing the low-to-middle-income people, the reputation of the country going down the drain and the people being sacrificed in order to maximize corporate winnings and protect those in power (those are corporations, as well, and as many of you know "corporation" comprises the political powers - Halliburton etc...).

      And while this happens, I read "Go USA! U.S.A! We rule! Best country in the world!" posts here on /. This country is so seriously screwed, it almost makes you cry. I really do feel sorry for the people, cause they will one day wake up. Hopefully - you said: probably - not in a fascist country, but I have my doubts.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
  2. They're going to what? by MECC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't they mean purify humanity?

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:They're going to what? by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't know, but it's ironic that they want to "purify the internet environment", while their actual environment goes to complete shit.

      --
      The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    2. Re:They're going to what? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > They're going to what?
      >Don't they mean purify humanity?

      Abbot: "Not they, Hu."
      Costello: "Who's going to what?"
      Abbot: "Hu's going to purify the Internet. What's going to purify humanity."
      Costello: "I don't know who or what's gonna purify humanity! Or how!"
      Abbot: "Hao? Who's Hao?"
      Costello: "I don't know!"
      Both: "All your base!"

    3. Re:They're going to what? by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The funny thing is (funny, that is, to us thinking people, User 956) that they have all the money they need to do this.

      After all, the Bush Administration continuously borrows extraordinary sums from the Chinese government to buy war materiel from the Chinese Red Army-owned factories (along with Wall Mart and Sam's Club, and various other retailers [Nordstrom, The Gap, etc.]) for the occupation of Iraq (and no doubt, the soon-to-be nuclear strike on Iran!). Perhaps not coincidentally, the newest foreign affairs advisor to Bush/Cheney is Henry Kissinger, a paid registered foreign agent to the government of China for many, many years (along with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).

      Now...I suppose all those "coincidence theorists" out there would have a logical answer for this.......

  3. Multi talented by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hu Jintao is a very talented man.

    from the article:

    Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

    On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied. Its no wonder he is keeping a tight grip.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  4. Purify this! by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well with the unix epoch hitting 1169696969 in 7 hours and thus a dip in the 65% of people spending time with their SO, it should be harder for him to purify the net.

  5. From the good-luck-with-that dept. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You might think that the average person wouldn't stand for it. But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

    While China may only house 15-20% of the world's population, that's still a huge fraction. That would be one hell of an astroturf.

    1. Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.


      Is she single?
    2. Re:From the good-luck-with-that dept. by apt142 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering how few females there are in china, I'd say he's better off leaving the internet full of porn.

  6. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!! by teutonic_leech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, just what we needed - officials of a country with a long track record in crimes against humanity bent on 'cleaning up the Internet'.

  7. Well done by grub · · Score: 5, Informative


    Every time you buy some "MADE IN CHINA" shit from WalMart, etc. you help bankroll this type of crap.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  8. I think what he means is... by KeithH · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...that he is going to ban Internet Explorer (tight grip) and force a replacement for SMTP (innovate).

    Well, he's nearly got the clout for it. Good luck Hu. You've got my vote! oh wait...

    1. Re:I think what he means is... by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your post advocates a (x) legislative ...

    2. Re:I think what he means is... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful
      just look at that mess of spam emails, phishing attempts, viruses

      And coming from China. Think of that.... Maybe he's on to something.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. The Register isn't qualified to report on this. by It's+a+thing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who confuses the Web and the Internet isn't qualified to report about either.

    And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

    --
    Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
  10. And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world...


    And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day. You need to hit the books if you think fascists (or democrats - small "d") don't practice this too...
    1. Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day.

      Though, to be sure, one cannot assume that just because governments sometimes manipulate the press, any negative information about a government that eventually comes to light is true. During the reign of Justinian, he had Procopius produce a history of his times which was, of course, laden with remarks to sooth the emperor and avoid ascribing anything negative to the empire's administration. After his death, Procopius' Secret History appeared, purporting to give the "real story" of things, calling the general Belisarius an imcompetent fool and the Empress Theodora an outright whore. Yet, almost no historians believe anything in the secret history, which seems to be a kind of saucy genre of fiction that flourished at the time, and the reliable account is actually in the official production.

      What I find at Slashdot is often groupthink that anything from the government is automatically wrong and any gossipy rumours that come from "underground sources" (who are more appreciated the more they try to look victimized) are automatically true. The world isn't that simple.

    2. Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ``What I find at Slashdot is often groupthink that anything from the government is automatically wrong and any gossipy rumours that come from "underground sources" (who are more appreciated the more they try to look victimized) are automatically true. The world isn't that simple.''

      No, but it's good to be skeptical. In my corner of Europe, many people seem to have a blind faith in the government, and will reject anything that resembles a conspiracy theory. I don't have any reason to believe my government seeks to harm me, but even if they mean the best, they can do harm. They have certainly been wrong, uninformed, and naive on some issues. And even the wildest conspiracy theories are sometimes true. So the right approach is to treat everything with a healthy dose of skepticism, and _always_ think for yourself. The problem is, of course, that nobody has time to become an expert and think about everything government decides about.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  11. Small problem for Mr. Hu by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Informative

    A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers. I suspect, that even given the large number of people at his beck and call, that is a task beyond his capacity. At some point, every person is possession of sole authority in some organization gets delusions of grandeur.

    In plain English: he's FOS.

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    1. Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers.

      Or, he tries harder to make the 'great firewall of China' even more efficient so that the stuff that he can't directly control, he can supress. If his little corner of the world seems to have been purified, and his own citizens can't see anything to refute it, his plan must have worked.

      I suspect that's a more likely strategy.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  12. Doug in a Dress by Ace905 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think it's obvious the entire slashdot community is going to be 'against' this initiative. We all have experience using 'more than average' time on the internet and particularly the world wide web ; it is completely impossible to 'guide' people on the internet.

    China would have to have a ginormous amount of 'censors' constantly surfing and updating their own database of acceptable internet sites to have anything close to a 'guidance initiative'. This is just a media spin on what china has been doing all along, blocking major portions of the internet off completely from it's own citizens.

    You can see the ridiculous tracert douginadress.com takes to reach chinese citizens right now ; another comment on China's inability to even provide standard censorship

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:Doug in a Dress by hackingbear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ``This is just a media spin on what china has been doing all along, blocking major portions of the internet off completely from it's own citizens.'' Not sure if you have been to China personally and surfed there at all. While it is true that many sites have been blocked, mostly oversea Chinese sites, majority of the rest are not, including your comments on slashdot.org

  13. Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by amstrad · · Score: 5, Funny
    From CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

    Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

    Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.

    Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

    Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

    Article 41. 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, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

    1. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, the Founding Fathers of the US thought of this and wrote up the Constitution to say "This is what the Government CAN do" (Articles) and "This is what they CANNOT do" (Amendments). The last amendment states that any other rights are left to the states to decide, and then reserved by the people.

      All of your bolded words (especially "unlawful", used multiple times) can be interpreted by Chinese courts to mean anything, because the Chinese Constitution purposefully spells out rights (grants them) as opposed to saying they are self-evident.

    2. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You missed Article 51:
      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.
      And guess who decides what interests the state?

      For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back. The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in. Technically, we have the exact opposite, whatever our dear Attorney General may think. (The closest thing to an all-purpose escape hatch is the Commerce Clause, and that's not without controversy, nor is it total; the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly than I'd like but they have rejected some uses of it.)

    3. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm thankfull for countries like China. Every time I get disgusted with how the US is run I can look at China and gain some perspective. It could be better but it could also be a lot worse.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    4. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by bigpat · · Score: 4, Informative
      You can drive a truck through the exceptions, and so they have.

      How many times have you heard some politician in America accuse someone of "distorting the facts"? In China, Article 41, which at first says that people have a right to criticize the government, then goes on to say "but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited." This is a much higher bar to political speech than the US has. Can you imagine being practical to criticize an elected official if you had to verify all your facts even to the point of not being allowed any "distortions". Seems reasonable, until you are thrown into Jail because you rounded up the amount and said the national Debt was 9 trillion when really it was just 8.6 trillion, or you get thrown in jail because you are found to exaggerate the amount of corruption or mismanagement in government.

      You want a world without negative political campaigns, you go ahead and find it in China. You want a world where people are afraid to speak their minds about their government, go to China.

      Just read the whole thing, there is a little something for the authoritarian in everyone.

      Look at Article 54, for instance:

      Article 54

      It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honor and interests of the motherland. Even look at the parts you quoted from, such as Article 40 (with the important part bolded):

      Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offenses, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law. So basically, in the guise of devising a legal protection on privacy, the government is given explicit authority to open people's mail "to meet the needs of state security" and to "censor correspondence". The only restriction on censorship is that they follow some sort of standard procedure as defined by a law.

      A familiar pattern should emerge, eventually, as you read through the CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA. First it talks about the rights of the people and then it gives the state broad authority to take away those rights to pursue some government interest such as "security" or "public order". In some cases taking away that right must be merely "lawful", so as long as they use some standard form or procedure then just about every so called right is subject to the whims of lawmakers, with no real grounds for judicial review.

      Yes, there are some similar exceptions in the US Constitution, which US lawmakers regularly try to take advantage of, just as they do in China. But I do think that the exceptions in the Chinese Constitution are far broader in scope and more powers are explicitly delegated to the government which give it broader authority over people's lives.

    5. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where have you been? Here in the good ole US of A we have hundreds perhaps thousands of laws that are blatantly unConstitutional. Virtually all the forfeiture laws related to drug possession and sale are illegal. Many parts of the Homeland Security Act were obviously unConstitutional. The Supreme Court excuses them as being for our own good but the founding fathers made no such exceptions. Rationalizing exceptions to Constitutional Law are very scary in any society. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to change the Constitution through interpretation only the States have the power to change the Constitution.

    6. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by pangur · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What one hand gives, the other takes away. From the same link:

      Article 1. The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Sabotage of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

      Article 28. The state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter- revolutionary activities; it penalizes actions that endanger public security and disrupt the socialist economy and other criminal activities, and punishes and reforms criminals.

      Article 53. Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

      I'll leave it to you to decide what constitutes "sabotage of the socialist system", "other counter-revolutionary activities", and observing "labour discipline and public order" means.

    7. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by The_Rook · · Score: 2, Insightful
      compare
      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.


      with the united states constitution tenth amendment.

      Amendment X

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      perhaps the best way to compare the two constitutions is to say that according to the united states constitution, all rights and powers belong to the people except those specifically reserved for the state while the chinese constitution says that all rights and powers belong to the state except those that are extended to the people.
      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    8. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ``For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back.''

      But only terrorists fight the US government!

      ``The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in.''

      But the President does have "constitutional powers" which put him above the law. Well, at least he thinks so and acts like it. Wholesale surveillance of US citizens, while prohibited by the constitution, is ok, because it's in the interest of the state.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    9. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by lxt518052 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Indeed, the real problem in Chinese legal system is not fixing some sentences in the constitution or making more laws to protect the people. It's far more complex than that. In the past two thousand years before the 1911 revolution, no rule-of-law in the modern sense existed in China. The social order was maintained by categorical monarchy power on top, a complex system of beaucrats in the middle and grass-root family ties at the bottom. Although the ROC established in 1911 and the PRC taking its place in 1949 both have had a few versions of constitutions, the spirit of constitution has never managed to get itself cross to the mass and as a result, governments have never really seriously enforced it.

      Aware of the situation, generations of ocial elite have been struggling to build up such rule-of-law tradition in China since the late 19th century. But revolutions, civil wars backed by foreign powers, Japanese invasion sanctions during the cold war and communist blunders of pre-Deng Xiaoping era meant the seed had never got a fair chance to grow. Most part of the 20th century saw China in upheaval. If the same situation had happened in 19-century US for comparably long period, what the founding fathers of America envisioned in the US constitution would not have been realized either.

      Now it has been almost 30 years since China has had a chance to focus on improving its people's lives. Dreams of generations are gradually coming true, albeit slowly. Everything complex enough takes time to mature, democracy, rule-of-law tradition, etc... they don't just happen.

      --
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
  14. Re:1984 by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude, spoiler warning!

    /tosses book

  15. China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba? by us7892 · · Score: 3, Informative

    From wikipedia, In December 2004, the Hong Kong magazine Open quoted an alleged instruction by Hu to propaganda officials in September in which he wrote that, when managing ideology, China had to learn from Cuba and North Korea. Although North Korea had encountered "temporary economic problems", its political policies were "consistently correct". Open also quoted Hu as calling Mikhail Gorbachev, "a betrayer of socialism".

    Well, that doesn't sound too good. And he wants to "purify" the internet.

    Another interesting summary on wiki of his "Eight Do's and Dont's", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_rong_ba_chi

    Number Eight is interesting, "Regard plain living and hard struggle as an honour, regard living in luxury as a shame."

    Perhaps he needs a number nine, which reads something like "Regard the internet as a backward Western evil, filled with filthy images and make-believe."

  16. Sounds like a Marketing guy by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2, Funny

    He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

    Straight outta pre-bubble 2000 sales hype for some dot-com. Yup, China is advancing far faster than we could have ever believed.

  17. Purifying the Net by HunahpuMonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank God! We need less memory leaks.

  18. Re:Purify the internet...? by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

    So, ThighNet then?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  19. TFA said nothing by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    TFA has absolutely no context and everybody just can't wait to pitch in their brilliant 2 cents on 'purification', state control, philosophy in life...etc. Anybody bother to check what is he referring to? TFA is atypical Chinese government bashing rhetoric. I have no problem bashing them, but FFS in what context does he meant by purifying? What if the context is 'kiddie porn', 'online crack sale', WTF is it??? Network virus? Zombie bots?? DOS attack????


    Every time there's this knee-jerk, robotic reaction I totally don't get. Believe in what you WANT TO believe in. In this case, there's no FA to read.

  20. Re:Actually no by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).
    Ah yes... 1950's optimism... with the advent of the automatic dishwasher, laundry machines, improved automobiles, etc. people will no longer have to work 8 hour days! What's that? 50 years have passed and you work an 8.5 hour day now? You can't work an 8 hour day because then you won't be competitive with the people working 8.5 hour days, and you won't be able to keep a job to support yourself? How is that possible, when you live in a country with such a massive food surplus?
  21. It's surely not unique in Chinese history by DuBois · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first Chin Emperor (Qin in modern romanization), ZHENG Ying (259-210BC), gave his Dynasty's name to the entire country of China. He burned all the books in the country and banned scholarly discussion of history. Sounds a lot like the current Emperor is just doing what a Chinese Emperor normally does. And that might explain why the Chinese people, whose sense of history extends far further back than most Westerners', tolerate his continued rule. A sense of "unity" for all of China comes from the Emperor. See the modern movie "Hero" for one take on this facet of Chinese culture.

    He also changed his name to Shi Huangdi, meaning "First August God". This is certainly nothing that the current Emperor would ever deign to do.

    --
    The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
    1. Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history by lxt518052 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't think the undertone in Hero could represent the main stream. In fact, the director Zhang Yimou has been widely criticized for whitewashing for a tyrant. The film actually has become a laugh stalk for its ridiculous plot.

      As for Qin Shihuang (another name for Shi Huangdi), most of your comment are correct, except that Zheng was his given name and YING was the surname. He certainly was an influential figure and events related to him did change the course of history. But mind you it was two thousand years ago. A lot of equally important (if not more important) events happened afterwards. Simply attributing everything today to a man died more than 2000 years ago is very much over-simplification, if not totally wrong.

      --
      People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
    2. Re:It's surely not unique in Chinese history by jandersen · · Score: 2, Informative

      He also changed his name to Shi Huangdi, meaning "First August God"

      To quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Huangdi:

      he created a new title, huangdi, combining the word huang from the legendary Three Huang (Three August Ones) who ruled at the dawn of Chinese history, and the word di from the legendary Five Di (Five Sovereigns) who ruled immediately after the Three Huang

      His original name was Qin Shihuang, and it is a simple, but clever trick when he invents the title 'Huangdi' (~'emperor') and changes his name to Shi Huangdi, which was almost hist name before. If you want to look it up yourself, try this online dictionary: http://www.zhongwen.com/noads.htm.

      Apart from that, I find you opinion absurd. The Chinese don't 'tolerate' Hu Jintao and the Communist Party because they are 'culturally conditioned' or whatever. The simply like what they see around them, in general: increased wealth, increased status in the world etc etc. They want more of it - wouldn't you? Don't tell me that Americans would choose freedom over wealth and progress any time. And calling the Chinese president an 'emperor' is simply childish name-calling and just goes to show that you don't have anything else to have your opinion in.

  22. Business Opportunity by mudshark · · Score: 4, Funny

    From: Chmn Hu Jintao
    Date: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:53 PM
    Subject: PURIFICATION CAMPAIGN

    Chmn Hu Jintao

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am fine today and how are you? I hope this letter will find you in the best of health. I am Chmn Hu Jintao, the Chairman of the "Communist Party" and the "Fifth Civilization Marching Forward Into the Millenium (FCMFIM)", a subsidiary of the "PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC)".

    The Fifth Civilization Marching Forward Into the Millenium (FCMFIM) was set up by the late Head of State, Chmn Mao Zedong who died on 9 September 1976, to manage the excess revenue accruing from the electronic commerce and its allied products as a domestic increase in the campaign to purify the internet environment. The estimated annual revenue for 2005 was $45 Billion US Dollars Ref. FMF A26 Unit 3B Paragraph "D" of the Auditor General of the People's Republic of China Report of Nov. 2006 on estimated revenue.

    I am the Chairman of the Contract Award Committee, and my committee is solely responsible for awaiting and paying of contracts on behalf of the People's Republic of China. My Committee awarded Contracts to foreign contractors for Vigorous Purification By One Hand Grasping Matters in the cheap plastic consumer goods producing areas of Sichuan. We overshot the contract sum by US$25,000,000.00. We have paid the contractors and withholding the balance of US$25,000,000.00. But, because of the existence of some of the domestic laws forbidding civil servants in PR from opening, operating and maintaining foreign accounts, we do not have the expertise to transfer this balance of fund to a foreign account.

    However, this balance of US$25,000,000.00 has been secured in form of Credit/Payment to a foreign contractor, hence we wish to transfer into your bank account as the beneficiary of the fund. We have also arrived at a conclusion that you will be given 20% of the total sum transferred as our foreign partner, while 5% will be reserved for incidental expenses that both parties will incur in the course of actualizing this transaction, and the balance of 75% will be kept for the committee members.

    If you know that you will be capable of helping us actualize this transaction, you should send to me immediately the details of your bank particulars or open a new bank account where we can transfer the money US$25,000, 000.00, which you will be holding in trust for us until we come to your country for our share. Your nature of business does not matter in this transaction. The required details includes your company's name, address, your private personal telephone/fax numbers, your full name and address, including your complete bank details where the transferred fund will be routed by the Shengdong Bank.

    Note that this transaction is expected to be actualized within 21 working days from the day the required details are forwarded to the People's Ministry of Finance who will approve the needed foreign exchange control allocation for the release of this money to your account. Please, treat this as top secret. You should contact me urgently.

    Thanks for your cooperation.

    Yours RESPECTFULLY,

    Chmn Hu Jintao

    --
    In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  23. First Amendment by akaina · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Hu is on the First?

    --
    Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
  24. Politicians full of shit. News at 11. by gsn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow there is a lot of anti-China rhetoric out here. Sure I hate the great firewall as much as the next /.ter but...

    How is this any different than local efforts to purify the internet like segregating the dirty pics into .xxx domains, Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), DOPA, banning online gambling...

    You can find out all about international efforts to purify the net here. And its already outdated.

    Every politician will talk about purifying the internet, making it safe for you and your children because most people have a knee jerk reaction, and it distracts from real issues.

    --
    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
  25. From all of us here at Slashdot by KingKiki217 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Good luck with that.

  26. In other so far unreported comments he said by Budenny · · Score: 2, Informative

    From TA: "Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded."

    In other unreported comments he went on to explain China's new computer initiative involving Linux and the new Chinese made and developed hardware. He said that his remarks applied equally to the new smart phone due to be released at the Beijing summer IT fair.

    "It is exactly the same", he said "ensure also that one hand grasps hardware while the other grasps the OS. This way all users are given full integrated experience and can exploit potential of modern computer science to maximum without distraction from driver problem.

    "Ensure one hand grasps phone network while other hand grasps mobile appliance. Only so can stability of both be assured and West China networks kept immune from crashes.

    "Ensure also one hand around throat of developers and other around phone application environment. So can help users avoid distraction by non optimally working applications not authorized by Party.

    "In coming weeks will be propounding further on four principles of making happy users and clean and healthy computing and phoning environment: protect OS, protect hardware, protect applications, protect networks. Trust in Party."

    I am very surprised these inspiring comments, which will alas strike a chord with only one or two Western computing and mobile phone companies, and which are a devastating if tactful correction to the whole Open Source movement, failed to find their way into the press.

  27. And what about the Olympic Games? by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Shouldn't the Olympics of 2008 be boycotted just like the Olympics of 1980? China has done far worse things to the people and environment than Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

  28. That's nothing by o'reor · · Score: 2
    because every time you fill up your gas tank, you put more money into Saudi and Iranian pockets, and you end up subsidizing Al Qaeda, Hizb'Allah and Hamas. And the more you go gas-guzzling, the higher the Brent goes, and the more money they have to pursue their criminal projects.

    Of course, it would probably be easier if your politicians were not so tightly related to the big oil companies, but that's another story. Or is it ?

    And mod me down all you like, I have plenty of karma to burn. Burning karma does not produce greenhouse gases :-)

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.