Users Rage Against China's 'Great Firewall'

slugo writes with a CNN article about young professionals increasingly aware of the small part of the internet they're allowed to play in. Intelligent and internet-savvy, these users are frustrated by China's overactive concern for internet health. "Yang Zhou is no cyberdissident, but recent curbs on his Web surfing habits by China's censors have him fomenting discontent ... Yang's fury erupted a few days ago when he found he could not browse his friend's holiday snaps on Flickr.com, due to access restrictions by censors after images of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were posted on the photo-sharing Web site. "Once you've complained all you can to your friends, what more can you do? What else is there but anger and disillusionment?" Yang said after venting his anger with friends at a hot-pot restaurant in Beijing. The blocking of Flickr is the latest casualty of China's ongoing battle to control its sprawling Internet. Wikipedia and a raft of other popular Web sites, discussion boards and blogs have already fallen victim to the country's censors."

Comments

Counterproductive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't people in China going to ask the question "Why is Flickr not working for me?" and then discover it is due to "controversial imagery of the Tiananmen Square massacre". Hence interest and discussion of this topic the Chinese government is trying to censor is exponentially increased.

If they really wanted to censor what went on at Tiananmen Square, they shouldn't draw attention to it by blocking half the internet. Instead they'd just have to spread disinformation within their own country, while still allowing people to read the "outrageous remarks of terrorist conspiracy theorists on the other side of the world". Little attention would be drawn to the issue: it'd get forgotten about. Blocking half the internet in the name of erasing history is DEFINITELY counterproductive to the cause.

Re:Counterproductive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. A Chinese censor was recently investigated for allowing a newspaper ad dedicated to the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre (just using the date). When questioned, the censor didn't know about the massacre so he didn't realize that the ad was a problem. He was cleared and the advertiser was arrested. Chinese censorship works better than they even intended.

Re:lesson for those that bash USA

[Enderandrew]

Let me be clear to avoid an argument. I agree that we should fight to protect the Constitution and civil liberties.

However, I feel the need to make some clarifications.

First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Ammended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.

Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.

One such minor example was the Telecommunications Decency Act of (94 or 96?) that clearly trampled on free speech. The then Speaker of the House even publicly said it violated the Constitution, yet the House passed it.

Thirdly, the Constitution could use a good Amendment clarifying our rights to privacy. Currently, they aren't really defined. The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from. But there have always been exceptions. For instance, if you have reason to suggest that evidence is time sensitive, or will be destroyed, you can search without a warrant. If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant. Warrant-less searches have occurred for ages, and should not be made to be appear as a recent or partisan issue. Again, this is an issue that should be more clearly defined in legislation and hasn't been.

Fourthly, the second our security is in question, people panic and demand that the government know everything that is going on, and be omniscient in their ability to defend us. This conflicts with our personal desires to not have the government look over our shoulder. Again, this line should be more clearly defined, but it is not.

Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process. There was a controversial provision about detaining immigrants deemed terrorists basically without due process, but it made several clear provisions against applying to American citizens. If you have clear factual evidence that any government official intends to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges or legal due process, that would be very clear grounds for impeachment.