Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

American Security Firms Collaborate on Chinese Olympics

Posted by Zonk on from the helping-hands-across-the-world dept.

A New York Times story at News.com notes the efforts of American security organizations to help the Chinese government prepare for the coming Olympic games. Critics argue this assistance violates the spirit of Congressional sanctions, and that the technology left behind after the games are over could be used to track dissident elements. "'I don't know of an intelligence-gathering operation in the world that, when given a new toy, doesn't use it,' said Steve Vickers, a former head of criminal intelligence for the Hong Kong police who now leads a consulting firm. Indeed, the autumn issue of the magazine of China's public security ministry prominently listed places of religious worship and Internet cafes as locations to install new cameras. "

55 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Simple reasons ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

    – funneling money into security organizations, thus ensuring that there is a proper infrastructure to be put in place once too many US-citizens should decide to be fed up with the feds
    – providing a testbed for said organizations
    – ensuring that the US will not come under (economic) pressure from a democratic China

    Business as usual.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  2. So I guess now it is... by sokoban · · Score: 3, Funny

    Me American. Me play joke. Me put listening device in your Coke.

    And the new one for the Chinese:

    Me Chinese. Me play joke. Me put lead paint in your Coke.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
  3. Doesn't make a difference. by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... and that the technology left behind after the games are over could be used to track dissident elements ... I don't think the Chinese government necessarily needs outside assistance with implementing technologies to track political dissidents. They might be pretty backward with their approach to human rights, but technologically impaired they are not. Their "Great Internet Wall of Censorship" is designed to filter the exposure of the populace to other cultures, for example. I don't think they're going to have any difficulty implementing more severe monitoring programs, with or without Western assistance.

    This is not to say that it's ethical for Western security firms to help their government, but business isn't always ethical.

    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    1. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the "great firewall of China" was pretty much built by US companies with approval from Congress years ago. Many Congressmen have financial ties to these companies and when they cry "think of the children" they really want their favorite censorship company to get a cushy federal law passed so their products can be forced on US companies all over.

      Sorry, but the cat's out of the bag already. It's been that way for years.

    2. Re:Doesn't make a difference. by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      You may not believe this, but I'm in complete agreement with you. My main point isn't whether or not the U.S. is actually a shining example of free thinking, it's the fact that (as you so correctly put it) the cat is indeed already out of the bag, and all of this was inevitable. China's populace will have to be the driving force in deciding what is or isn't acceptable under their regime... my hope is that sweeping change won't have to involve a lot of bloodshed, but I'm fairly certain it will at some point.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  4. Am I paranoid? by drspliff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or would this be a great trial run before deployment in "the homeland". :)

    1. Re:Am I paranoid? by base3 · · Score: 1

      That trial run is happening in Iraq. Suspected fighters (i.e. anyone with brown skin) are retina scanned with portable units into a biometric database.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:Am I paranoid? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering anyone in Iraq has brown skin, I don't see why it was necessary to put that in. Are you insinuating that it is being done for racist reasons? I mean if it was because of racism, why not just kill them and skip the suspected parts and claim they had a gun or something and shot at them.

      Indeed, I am having trouble understanding your comment.

    3. Re:Am I paranoid? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      The government is not out to get you. They may implement more cameras in the interest of security, but they are not trying to silence your dissidence, or intimidate you, or even track you. Ushering cameras in may make it slightly more possible for a government who will do all those things to come into power, but right now, you really are paranoid.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    4. Re:Am I paranoid? by drspliff · · Score: 1

      Not trying to track me...

      Just like the congestion charging cameras in London, UK don't track you or where you go. Or how some cameras on the motorways don't track you either to judge your average speed and fine you if you go over...

      You know one of the main reasons their introducing more cameras in the UK - to get rid of street crime.. by intimidating you (the randomly violent thug) into being really cautious about what you do because you're almost always on CCTV. See what I'm getting at...

      Ofcourse there are two sides to the argument - you might feel safer by knowing that if a drug pushing terrorist paedophile were to assault you in the street, atleast there'll be easier to convict them if their ever caught...

      My point is: with a current trend of power hungry politions, leveraging whatever they have now to ensure their political ideals are on-top in future; are you sure you're happy with that?

      All it takes is a little bit of c*****ship, a touch of fascism and dictatorial policy before it starts sliding - ever seen that movie V for Vendetta? :)

    5. Re:Am I paranoid? by base3 · · Score: 1

      Is this your first encounter with rhetoric? Or do you really actually understand the post and are making an attempt at sarcasm?

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    6. Re:Am I paranoid? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      "but they are not trying to silence your dissidence"

      So what about my dissidence?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    7. Re:Am I paranoid? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My point is: with a current trend of power hungry politions, leveraging whatever they have now to ensure their political ideals are on-top in future; are you sure you're happy with that?
      Yup, I'm pretty much fine with that. Whatever repulsive-sounding thing they have to do to make the people happy, I'm fine with. So long as they don't actively hide harmful activities from the public, they can do as much bending over backwards, ass-licking, baby-kissing, mud-slinging, etc, as they like, so long as democracy works. That's all I require.

      I think the whole paranoia about politicians is a bit of a strawman. The best, most reliable way to stay in power as long as possible is to just give people what they want. It's not rocket-science. A few polls here, a few focus groups there, what they ask for (especially in swinging seats), do it. All you need is the perspective to draft up policies that please the most number of people. That's what most successful politicians do. Their alleged thirst for power can be satisfied rather easily. There's no reason to go to the trouble and risk of instituting a totalitarian state. There'd be so much opposition, so few in favour of it. It would take far too much time to boil the frog slowly, because terms are short, and political layering is complex and completely against such actions. I often find that the premises for films/books like V for Vendetta are often a little too difficult to swallow.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    8. Re:Am I paranoid? by drspliff · · Score: 1

      So long as they don't actively hide harmful activities from the public, they can do as much bending over backwards, ass-licking, baby-kissing, mud-slinging, etc, as they like, so long as democracy works. I'm just worried that democracy isn't working that well, for example in the 2003 stop the war protest in London, ~5% of the voting population turned up - in person, outside parlaimant to object to the governments actions regarding Iraq.

      In this example, their actions were actively harmful and as we all later found out there was much deception going on.

      If the greed of those in power (industry lobbyists via the Bush administration etc.) brings them to commit crime on an international level with no rebuttal, what happens when they start doing things that affect you?
    9. Re:Am I paranoid? by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      If the greed of those in power (industry lobbyists via the Bush administration etc.) brings them to commit crime on an international level with no rebuttal, what happens when they start doing things that affect you?
      Then I act. I vote, I donate to the appropriate organisations, I soap-box locally, I write a letter to my local newspaper, etc, etc. I think you'll see this from kind of response from the apathetic masses when the government does something to seriously threaten their lifestyle.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  5. Congressional sanctions? by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would these be the same kind of sanctions that are still being applied to Cuba, decades after they stopped being a Russian pawn?

    Honestly, the whole thing about congressional sanctions seems to be a low point on the moral landscape to me when I consider that case. Ok, perhaps relevant three or four decades ago, but still?

    The idea that you can pass rules in Washington, and somehow bring about magical barriers to the kind of nastiness that can be done with technology at any levelis absurd. After all, the US (and many other countries), spent untold billions preparing high tech weapons for an expected large conventional/nuclear war, and restricted the sale of, or passing of information about, much of this technology. Then what do we find? It's actually nutbars with explosive belts and cheap guns that are the problem.

    I recommend we sanction sanctions, that'll fox em..

    1. Re:Congressional sanctions? by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      But don't sanctions prevent the spread of technologies to countries we don't like? There's an impenetrable anti-technology force field emitted by Congress, transmitted via satellite uplink to unfriendly nations. All the members of Congress hold hands in a big circle, and hum the theme from Star Wars backward to activate the super-wamodyne technology impairment field.

      --
      512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
    2. Re:Congressional sanctions? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is the way the US stops people who are supposedly our friends from helping them get the tech. The main benefit is, it shows us who is really friendly and who isn't. So if war breaks out, we know who to protect and who to help.

      If you think that is meaningless, then you should think again.

    3. Re:Congressional sanctions? by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      friends like, ooh, let me see, who was that guy you trained, funded, and supplied with high tech weapons again? Ossama something, wasn't it....

    4. Re:Congressional sanctions? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Why don't you come right out and say it. I mean being partly wrong by insinuating something is the same as being completely wrong by saying it outright.

      The US never funded or trained Osama Bin Laden. He and his band of followers had their own funding and operated separately from the CIA supported works in the area. High tech weapons might have funneled over from joint operations but they were primarily supplied by Egyptian and Pakistani supported works.

      I won't comment out how your spelling of the name is a sign of the accuracy of your post, but unless your talking about another Osama I'm not aware of, you should check this out.

      But I don't see how that would be remotely close to anything my comment was over. Osama never violated a trade sanction and was never in a position to of leadership over a country we could support in a war. And to note, supporting something or someone in the past in no way represents how the support would be in the future. Supporting the lesser of the understood evils in an attempt to conquer an evil doesn't not suggest perpetual support. So I guess your just wrong on all accounts.

    5. Re:Congressional sanctions? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is the way the US stops people who are supposedly our friends from helping them get the tech. The main benefit is, it shows us who is really friendly and who isn't. So if war breaks out, we know who to protect and who to help.

      I think that you're confusing friends and thralls. Thralls obey your every command. Friends don't, altought they might obey a request if they judge it reasonable.

      The inability to understand this difference seems to be a recurring theme in US foreign policy, and is exemplified by things like Freedom Fries.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Congressional sanctions? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I see what your getting at and somewhat agree. However a lot of the inability to understand this difference is an illusion created out of ignorance.

      I'm glad you brought up freedom fries because this illustrates this problem perfectly. You see, France has secrete oil deals with Iraq that went against UN sanctions and were a part of a prime reasons that sanctions didn't have the effect it was supposed to have and war was an eventual outcome. And this isn't just a US sanction, it was a world wide sanction that had the support of the UN which means that even France allowed them to happen.

      At a time when the US and some other countries were growing tired of Iraq's non-compliances and shenanigans, something I personally believe allowed Al Qeada to get the impression that we wouldn't do anything in retaliation to an attack against us (there is more but this is part of it). Anyways, threatening an all out war and removal from power seemed to be the only thing Saddam payed attention to. And with this threat, Iraq began complying with their disarmorment obligations and allowing inspectors unrestricted access to facilities and records. Then all the sudden we shouted too loudly and France thought they were going to lose out on their billions in secrete oil contracts but they couldn't come right out and say "don't invade, we will lose out on these deals we weren't supposed to make that were causing the UN sanctions to be ineffective". So they took this holier then now stand along with Russia who had similar deals and Germany who was ridding the wave. France said, Hey, we will veto any resolution of war. Then magically, Iraq went back to their old games thinking they were protected from action because of the leverage they had over France.

      If it wasn't for France, we wouldn't have had the war. We couldn't have justified it when Iraq was working double time to get into compliance. IT wasn't until we used the threat of violence and it didn't work that we thought we needed to put some ass behind our words.

      Now, we probably would stick up for France if a war ever broke out. Not because of their corruption and the messes created by it. But because of their location and closeness to friends. But that would only extend to a point were another friend might be involved. If england were to invade France of vice versa, we would go in under England's side. If china attempted to invade it, we would support France. If France wouldn't have put us in this position (I know we had a lot to do with it ourselves, but we didn't count on France being dirty and a good part of the reasons existing efforts weren't effective) in the first place, we might become neutral between them and england.

      Either way, it doesn't really matter because what happened happened and we are living with it today. But you can't take their disobedience as a sign of some nobility or honor. If anything, the only thing connecting the Iraq war with oil is Frances connections in the first place and their attempts to conceal and maintain that advantage. I think Freedom fries is an appropriate action.

      So yea, it might seem as if Freedom fries exemplifies the situation. And that would be true if you ignore everything else about it. Of course there are situations where you are correct and we over react to countries not supporting our causes for whatever reasons. But there are also situations where we don't care all that much anymore. Look at Cuba, I cannot but Cuban cigars in the US, I can goto Canada and bring 2 or 3 back across the border and possess them legally. We don't allow US companies to participate in trade but we don't punish Mexican companies for doing the same. You can get Coke in Cuba because of Mexico. There are all sorts of things like that. Freedom fries, I think was worth it though. Not because of Frances lack of support necessarily, but because of the reasons why they didn't support us and what that caused afterwards.

  6. no you're not paranoid .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "Or would this be a great trial run before deployment in "the homeland". :)"

    It's already deployed here, in the interests of defending us from the 'terrorist threat'. Of course none of this is going to affect terrorism, what it is directed at is stifling dissent at home, from their own citizens, a watched people is a wary one ..

    was: Re:Am I paranoid?

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  7. Look out for your own home first by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    At least things in China are fairly obvious.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
  8. Congress has spirit? by redelm · · Score: 1
    ... only 80 proof!

    AFAICS, the concern is military and dual-use technology, and that can adequately be covered by ITAR and EAR regs.

  9. New Olympic event by xs650 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have been hired as technical advisers for a new Olympic event. Water boarding.

    1. Re:New Olympic event by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't deride their culture just because it's different. We should cherish foreign cultures, and be thankful that having an international event like the Olympics is being held in a non-Western country, so that we can be exposed to these fascinating local customs!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    2. Re:New Olympic event by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      And also the new demonstration event, the 10,000km rendition.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    3. Re:New Olympic event by SquirrelsUnite · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't deride their culture just because it's different.
      Different? You wish.
  10. Re:perhaps the radical nut cases would stop attack by palegray.net · · Score: 1

    That has got to be one of the most breathtaking troll posts I've seen in a long, long time. Who's got mod points?

    --
    512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
  11. IPv6 by H3g3m0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to Wikipedia china is going to be using the olympics to show off their new internet systems such as IPv6 based security cameras etc...

    "China plans to showcase their new CNGI and their new IPv6 networking at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Everything from the security cameras to the taxis to the cameras filming the Olympic events will be networked via IPv6; the events will be streamed live over the Internet while the networked cars will be able to grasp the traffic situation more readily."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Next_Generation_Internet

    --
    cat /dev/urandom > .sig
  12. What this means... by gillbates · · Score: 1

    Is that just like IBM, etc... who sold Hollerith machines to the Nazis to assist them with their "final solution"...

    The purveyors of this system are going to have to hire some smart PR folks to manage the public impression. Nothing more.

    And the people who speak out against this sort of thing will be vilified as crackpots and crazies.

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:What this means... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      you do realise everyone did business with the nazi's at some point right? the nazi's WERE a legitimate government afterall and just because they turned out to be evil bastards it doesn't mean anyone who sold them anything was helping them do that shit, so why don't you try applying logic to your arguments instead of this kind of worthless rubbish?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:What this means... by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I was wrong. They won't have to hire PR departments when posters like you are willing to excuse a corporation's culpability because, "Everyone else was doing it..."

      You know, the interesting thing about global warming is that everybody is doing it. So why not just burn more coal, pollute the environment, etc..? Why bother holding companies responsible for their actions at all?

      At some point, you have to realize that the torch has been passed to us. Our world is the way it is because we don't demand any better. If we let our rights be trampled on, we have only ourselves to blame. We have a right to demand that companies behave in ethical and responsible ways.

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    3. Re:What this means... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting one party should be responsible for another parties actions?

      because that's what you are dangerously close to proposing. under your logic if you handed me a stick and i poked someones eye out with it, YOU would be responsible as well.

      If you want to know what's wrong with the world it's people like you that see a problem then proceed to try ram through solutions that are more dangerous then the problem to begin with.

      lastly i suggest you burn your collection of Al Gore and Micheal Moore video's and go out there in such of real facts.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:What this means... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      "the nazi's WERE a legitimate government afterall and just because they turned out to be evil bastards it doesn't mean anyone who sold them anything was helping them do that shit"

      While that is probably true, what a lot of people don't know is that Prescott Bush (George W's grandfather) continued to deal with the Nazi's even after it was declared illegal by the US government. Charges were even brought against him but through power and influence, he got everything to conveniently go away.

      Don't believe me and think it's just a troll? Please take a moment using your favorite search engine and look up "Prescott Nazi WWII". You might be surprised at the results.

    5. Re:What this means... by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      While i don't doubt there are people in the world that would deal with the devil to make a buck, this blanket attack on anyone who ever sold anything to the nazi's is just nonsense. and for fucks sake it was 60 years ago, they aren't the same people calling the shots, so it's bloody unfair to go tagging them with the mistakes of past generations. As with the GP's example of IBM, i'm sure if the IBM board could go back and not deal with the nazi's they would.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:What this means... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Is that just like IBM, etc... who sold Hollerith machines to the Nazis to assist them with their "final solution"...
      So the Chinese are Nazis? But...I though George Bush was the Nazi?

      I'm so confused :( This new-age logic makes my head hurt.
    7. Re:What this means... by c6gunner · · Score: 1
      I don't really agree with the GPP either, but I couldn't resist responding to this part:

      Are you suggesting one party should be responsible for another parties actions?
      Are we talking legally or morally? Legally speaking, it depends on where you live. Here in Canada, for instance, a bartender (or just a host at a party) who allows someone else to get hammered and then drive home is considered responsible if that person causes an accident. Similarly, if you sell a gun to someone who has made it clear that he wants to go murder his wife, you're going to be held partially responsible for his crime.

      Do I think such laws are just? For the most part, no, but there certainly are exceptions. If you sell nuclear weapons to Osama Bin Laden, you bet your ass I'm going to want you held responsible for what he does with them.
    8. Re:What this means... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Don't believe me and think it's just a troll? Please take a moment using your favorite search engine and look up "Prescott Nazi WWII". You might be surprised at the results.
      Well if Alex Jones and Webster Tarpley said it, then it MUST be true!

      BTW, a bit off topic here, but I think slashdot could be greatly improved with the addition of an eye-rolling emoticon....
    9. Re:What this means... by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      i agree 100%.

      if it's clear the item you are selling someone is going to hurt them or others, you should be held liable.

      however, this has to be decided case by case, which the GP isn't doing. Did IBM know the nazi's would try exterminate the jews? I doubt it very much.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    10. Re:What this means... by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      (RollsEyes)

    11. Re:What this means... by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
      George Santayana

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    12. Re:What this means... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "lastly i suggest you burn your collection of Al Gore and Micheal Moore video's and go out there in such of real facts."

      You know, to the rest of the fucking planet AG is simply presenting the IPCC reports to a laymen audience. His nobel prize was for communicating the "real facts" as understood by science at the time. I would have thought that such geek like behaviour in a politician would be considered a GoodThingTM, but I'm probably wasting my breath since you have already shot the messenger for party political reasons.

      Your problem is you belive easy answers are enough to support the status-quo, except under your logic OBL has done nothing wrong because all he did was provide a "stick".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:What this means... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Did IBM know the nazi's would try exterminate the jews? I doubt it very much."

      Einstein was smart enough to work out what was going on in 1932, cheap labour capitalists from the US were a tad slow to catch on, almost 10yrs too slow in some cases.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  13. religious worship and Internet cafes as locations by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    The chinese do that because they aren't stupid and know that's where terrorists will go/try use as a shield.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  14. Re:perhaps the radical nut cases would stop attack by timmarhy · · Score: 1
    I only rate it about a 4/10.

    he loses for it being just a little too long, i couldn't be fucked reading it all. a good troll needs only a paragraph or so to fuel the flames, this one was amature hour

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  15. This Should Not Be Allowed by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    Too much information/innovation has already been stolen by the Chinese. They commit computer crime to infiltrate computer systems and exfiltrate data. They use students and employees to steal proprietary information from companies. They reverse engineer products manufactured in China and/or run production lines long.

    Have people forgotten about the long string of Chinese engineers busted transferring information to the homeland? How about when their pilot Wang Wei crashed into and crippled a US recon airplane forcing it to land in China, how they imprisoned the crew, basically took the plane apart, and refused to let the US repair it and fly it out?

    They use the technology against us and against their own people. There is nothing wrong with helping a country but handing them valuable technology is wrong.

    1. Re:This Should Not Be Allowed by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      There is no denying that the current administration especially, and I'm sure others as well, have committed international crimes, that doesn't mean we should hand China everything they want/need to bury this country and oppress their own people.

    2. Re:This Should Not Be Allowed by kaynaan · · Score: 1

      That is Funny.

      "Wang Wei crashed into and crippled a US recon airplane forcing it to land in China"

      And what do you think the U.S would have done to a chinese recon plane ???

      Reminder: you do not own the world, that is a valid response of any government that has the capability, the only reason it is not done more often, is that other governments don't have the power to do it.

  16. Re:Selling protection by timmarhy · · Score: 1
    So the london and bali bombings were all in my head, as was the anthrax letters, 9/11 and the lastest attempt in london?

    The terrorist threat is very real in the context of oylmpic games, it's highly likely various organisations would love to attack it.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  17. blackwater by PipoDeClown · · Score: 1

    What is "Blackwater" in Chinese?

  18. No, my pants don't fall off on a regular basis. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > "'I don't know of an intelligence-gathering operation in the world that, when given
    > a new toy, doesn't use it,' said Steve Vickers, a former head of criminal intelligence
    > for the Hong Kong police who now leads a consulting firm. Indeed, the autumn issue of
    > the magazine of China's public security ministry prominently listed places of religious
    > worship and Internet cafes as locations to install new cameras."

    With all due respect, we will earn lots of money, and we won't have to look at those oppressed people thanks to the curvature of the earth, except safely on CNN. And we won't have to deal with a runaway China for several decades, minimum.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  19. IBM already is... by Pieisexaclty3 · · Score: 1

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/09/1522236/

  20. Not just china by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Informative
    In Australia a whole package of laws that undermined the average aussie's freedom were passed just before the Olympics. It used to be legal to own semi-automatic rifles and it wasn't legal for our own army to point and fire at our own citizens and more without any sunset clauses.

    I just wonder if it has happened anywhere else, china was repressive enough, who knows what else they will enact.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.